Support NeoGAF

[mAcOdIn]

why didn't you just jailbreak?

still too many hoops needing jumped through for some things even after jailbreaking. I still think Apple's got android beat though.

 

[neojubei]

The iBook store is a failure. Over-priced (by more by 50% last time I checked) and a much smaller catalogue. But it looks pretty

Which books, I have mostly bought my books on ibooks. The James Rollins books on kindle and ibooks are the same price.

 

[ymmv]

Pretty interesting comment on engadget comment sections

Let me get this right... What people want is for any App to be able to end run around Apples charging model?

So instead of selling my app for $10 - I could put a free app on the app store - and then charge customers $10 to upgrade. And the $10 comes entirely to me. I don't have to share that $10 with Apple.

In other words, people calling Apple a dictator think that the access to the platform should be entirely free?

Perhaps we should ask Microsoft if we can put games on their XBox platform without paying them their 70%.
Or Perhaps Sony would let us have free access to their PS3 platform? Anyone want to ask Sony if they would let us put money making stuff on the PS3 - and not share revenue with them?

Yeah, thats the same Sony by the way.

The problem is Apple's marketshare and that there's no way around the appstore. This limits the choice for both consumers and publishers and generates huge profits for Apple since they get 30% of each and every sale.

Let's say MS would have done the same: everybody writing programs for a Windows platform (XP/Vista/7) were forced to publish their apps, tools and games on Microsoft's own appstore, with the same licensing deal as Apple currently has. This would be unthinkable. Every fair trade organisation on the planet would crucify MS and fine them to hell and back.

But Apple gets away with it.

 

[LCfiner]

The problem is Apple's marketshare and that there's no way around the appstore. This limits the choice for both consumers and publishers and generates huge profits for Apple since they get 30% of each and every sale.

Let's say MS would have done the same: everybody writing programs for a Windows platform (XP/Vista/7) were forced to publish their apps, tools and games on Microsoft's own appstore, with the same licensing deal as Apple currently has. This would be unthinkable. Every fair trade organisation on the planet would crucify MS and fine them to hell and back.

But Apple gets away with it.

Apple does not have 90%+ of the smartphone market. Windows does with the desktop.

that's the huge difference. customers who dislike the app store restrictions can get RIM, Android, Win phone 7, symbian, WinMo 6.5 (lol).

In no way does Apple have a monopoly on smartphones. it's marketshare is somewhere around 15% for all smartphones.

 

[Vyer]

The problem is Apple's marketshare and that there's no way around the appstore. This limits the choice for both consumers and publishers and generates huge profits for Apple since they get 30% of each and every sale.

Let's say MS would have done the same: everybody writing programs for a Windows platform (XP/Vista/7) were forced to publish their apps, tools and games on Microsoft's own appstore, with the same licensing deal as Apple currently has. This would be unthinkable. Every fair trade organisation on the planet would crucify MS and fine them to hell and back.

But Apple gets away with it.

1. What do you mean by 'get around it?'. I can go to amazon's website and buy a book for my kindle as I would on my desktop without using the app at all.

2. Comparing the OS to a smartphone isn't exactly apples to apples. OS X, on the other hand, has an app store now but you are free to buy/download software from third parties just as you would in the past.

3. Out if curiosity, what's the process now for Windows Phone 7? I'm not sure if most devs simply use it's own Marketplace.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Apple does not have 90%+ of the smartphone market. Windows does.

that's the huge difference. customers who dislike the app store restrictions can get RIM, Android, Win phone 7, symbian, WinMo 6.5 (lol).

In no way does Apple have a monopoly on smartphones. it's marketshare is somewhere around 15% for all smartphones.

It is just that people spend a hell of a lot more money on apps for iOS devices, so that is naturally where most developers will flock.

 

[numble]

The problem is Apple's marketshare and that there's no way around the appstore. This limits the choice for both consumers and publishers and generates huge profits for Apple since they get 30% of each and every sale.

Let's say MS would have done the same: everybody writing programs for a Windows platform (XP/Vista/7) were forced to publish their apps, tools and games on Microsoft's own appstore, with the same licensing deal as Apple currently has. This would be unthinkable. Every fair trade organisation on the planet would crucify MS and fine them to hell and back.

But Apple gets away with it.

What is Apple's marketshare?
How has Amazon on Playboy found different ways to get around the appstore?
MS is doing the same thing for Windows Phone 7.
I'm not sure you know what fair trade means.

 

[LCfiner]

It is just that people spend a hell of a lot more money on apps for iOS devices, so that is naturally where most developers will flock.

well, yes, but that's a different matter. But it's up to competitors to build a better store or a better platform to woo developers away.

I just can't help but laugh that, somehow, Apple is "getting away" with something that Microsoft would not be able to get away with if they had the exact same marketshare position that Apple has now. The implication that MS was dealt an unfair hand.

MS was put to the fire back in the day precisely because of their crazy marketshare and the specific way they exploited the dominance of Windows to push IE.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

well, yes, but that's a different matter. But it's up to competitors to build a better store or a better platform to woo developers away.

I just can't help but laugh that, somehow, Apple is "getting away" with something that Microsoft would not be able to get away with if they had the exact same marketshare position that Apple has now. The implication that MS was dealt an unfair hand.

MS was put to the fire back in the day precisely because of their crazy marketshare and the specific way they exploited the dominance of Windows to push IE.

I do agree. The simple fact is that people are willing to spend money on iOS apps, and if people want to put apps on there they have to play by Apple's rules. It is pretty simple. It is just like Sony and Nintendo with their handhelds.

Apple may not have the largest marketshare, but they do have the greatest mindshare.

 

[Blackhead]

This is just drivel from TechCrunch. How would Apple even block content purchased elsewhere without affecting all other sorts of apps that pull content from the web?

They don't have to stop all apps. They just have to stop the big players: Amazon, Sony and Google and other publisher/seller apps. Apple have done this type of specific banning before.

 

[ascii42]

What battle would there be? It's not like there's an iBooks app on the Kindle or the Sony Reader. If anything, Apple's been more open than the others, from a certain point of view.

 

[ymmv]

What is Apple's marketshare?
How has Amazon on Playboy found different ways to get around the appstore?
MS is doing the same thing for Windows Phone 7.
I'm not sure you know what fair trade means.

My point is that Apple makes it impossible for developers/publishers to sell apps outside Apple's appstore. So if you've bought an Apple phone, you're vendor locked to buy apps from Apple's own appstore.

This would be totally inacceptable on a computer OS, so why is this perfectly OK on a phone?

 

[Krauser Kat]

My point is that Apple makes it impossible for developers/publishers to sell apps outside Apple's appstore. So if you've bought an Apple phone, you're vendor locked to buy apps from Apple's own appstore.

This would be totally inacceptable on a computer OS, so why is this perfectly OK on a phone?

because the walled garden is super cozy.

 

[SmokyDave]

My point is that Apple makes it impossible for developers/publishers to sell apps outside Apple's appstore. So if you've bought an Apple phone, you're vendor locked to buy apps from Apple's own appstore.

This would be totally inacceptable on a computer OS, so why is this perfectly OK on a phone?

Why are you comparing a phone to an OS? Why not a games console?

Do Nokia allow you to purchase apps from outside the Ovi store? How about RIM and their store? I honestly don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if you can't.

 

[ascii42]

The problem is Apple's marketshare and that there's no way around the appstore. This limits the choice for both consumers and publishers and generates huge profits for Apple since they get 30% of each and every sale.

Let's say MS would have done the same: everybody writing programs for a Windows platform (XP/Vista/7) were forced to publish their apps, tools and games on Microsoft's own appstore, with the same licensing deal as Apple currently has. This would be unthinkable. Every fair trade organisation on the planet would crucify MS and fine them to hell and back.

But Apple gets away with it.

You are comparing a mobile platform to a computer OS. Why not compare OSX to Windows, or iOS to Windows Mobile?

 

[numble]

My point is that Apple makes it impossible for developers/publishers to sell apps outside Apple's appstore. So if you've bought an Apple phone, you're vendor locked to buy apps from Apple's own appstore.

This would be totally inacceptable on a computer OS, so why is this perfectly OK on a phone?

It would be perfectly acceptable on a computer OS if there were 6-7 major players, each holding between 5-30 percent of the market. If you don't like that computer OS, you can buy a different computer. 95% of people aren't forced to use the system if they want to use a computer.

Secondly, if you control both the hardware and the OS, you're given more controls. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can control whatever is allowed on Playstation, Xbox or Wii. The aspect of the MS anti-trust case involved Microsoft and the indirect restrictions they placed on what type of software hardware manufacturers could put on their systems.

 

[Dragon]

I really don't know why anyone would buy anything outside of Kindle in terms of ebooks.

Gee I don't know, because Kindle books have DRM and epubs don't? What a narrow-minded view of things...

 

[LCfiner]

My point is that Apple makes it impossible for developers/publishers to sell apps outside Apple's appstore. So if you've bought an Apple phone, you're vendor locked to buy apps from Apple's own appstore.

This would be totally inacceptable on a computer OS, so why is this perfectly OK on a phone?

who says it would be unacceptable on a computer OS?

it's unacceptable on a computer OS with a monopoly. but it's not unacceptable as a concept

it might be unpalatable for users, but it's not unacceptable.


imagine a scenario where there are 5 different desktop computer OSes and each one has 20% market share. One of the vendors decides to close off all app distribution except via an app store as they feel it will help users find and install apps.

if users enjoy this approach and developers make more money on this platform than on others, they can continue to operate this way as long as other viable platforms exist in the market.

But if users and devs don't like this model on the desktop and flee this OS and move to the other ones, then that vendor would flip around and change its policy to bring them back.

edit: beaten by numble!

 

[tino]

They don't have to stop all apps. They just have to stop the big players: Amazon, Sony and Google and other publisher/seller apps. Apple have done this type of specific banning before.

Apple blocked the google voice for as long as they could until they got too much heat from DOJ. They will do the same to the Sony and Amazon ebook apps.

Too bad nothing they can do can increase the sales of their ebooks and emagazines.

 

[LCfiner]

Apple blocked the google voice for as long as they could until they got too much heat from DOJ. They will do the same to the Sony and Amazon ebook apps.

Too bad nothing they can do can increase the sales of their ebooks and emagazines.

but they haven't actually done anything to the amazon app.

 

[ymmv]

You are comparing a mobile platform to a computer OS. Why not compare OSX to Windows, or iOS to Windows Mobile?

Why shouldn't I compare a mobile platform to a computer OS? For millions of people their phone or tablet is going to replace their desktop. We're entering an age where the distinction between those PCs and phones is going to vanish, because desktop apps will become available on phones and vice versa.

 

[hyp]

The iBook store is a failure. Over-priced (by more by 50% last time I checked) and a much smaller catalogue. But it looks pretty

kind of like apple hardware. don't think their stance will change anytime soon. I've avoided iBooks in favor of kindle. selection wins.

 

[ascii42]

Why shouldn't I compare a mobile platform to a computer OS? For millions of people their phone or tablet is going to replace their desktop. We're entering an age where the distinction between those PCs and phones is going to vanish, because desktop apps will become available on phones and vice versa.

Because OSX is open and Windows Mobile 7 is closed.

 

[Blackhead]

Apple blocked the google voice for as long as they could until they got too much heat from DOJ. They will do the same to the Sony and Amazon ebook apps.

Too bad nothing they can do can increase the sales of their ebooks and emagazines.

Rolling out the subscriptions payment option in iTunes will increase the sales of emagazines. The thing about the Sony Reader app was that you could also get the New York Times through it. Doesn't Murdoch/Apple have an event today? We'll find out soon how this shakes about but even before the Sony Reader rejection, Apple has been telling other publishers/agents for months that the model will be changing soon.

I honestly think Apple is gunning for Amazon. The newest iPad 2 rumors say that it has a better 'anti-reflection' screen specifically to compete with the Kindle.

Amazon might also release an Android tablet, or partner with HP on the webOS tablet.

 

[tino]

but they haven't actually done anything to the amazon app.

They are going to. They are going to put something in the iOS 4.5 term of service to block the kindle app. You just watch. :tinfoil:

 

[devildog820]

The iBook store is a failure. Over-priced (by more by 50% last time I checked) and a much smaller catalogue. But it looks pretty

It's not a failure, it's just not the rousing success the Kindle store is. And the prices are set by the publishers. The only way they let Apple sell these books is that they could charge what they wanted. Amazon has a much bigger stick in this fight.

I like iBooks better than the Kindle app (or real Kindle), but you can't beat the selection or prices on the Kindle.

 

[numble]

Rolling out the subscriptions payment option in iTunes will increase the sales of emagazines. The thing about the Sony Reader app was that you could also get the New York Times through it. Doesn't Murdoch/Apple have an event today? We'll find out soon how this shakes about but even before the Sony Reader rejection, Apple has been telling other publishers/agents for months that the model will be changing soon.

I honestly think Apple is gunning for Amazon. The newest iPad 2 rumors say that it has a better 'anti-reflection' screen specifically to compete with the Kindle.

Amazon might also release an Android tablet, or partner with HP on the webOS tablet.

The event is tomorrow.

I think the whole deal was that in-app purchases must use the iTunes payment scheme, if you want to get around it, kick them out to Safari to make their purchase through there.

 

[LCfiner]

Why shouldn't I compare a mobile platform to a computer OS? For millions of people their phone or tablet is going to replace their desktop. We're entering an age where the distinction between those PCs and phones is going to vanish, because desktop apps will become available on phones and vice versa.

I think it's fine to compare the two. the lines will get more and more blurred as me move on. iPad is blurring them more than ever.

but you gotta understand that marketshare creates the monopoly. and that's not an issue right now in mobile with Apple's store.


edit:

They are going to. They are going to put something in the iOS 4.5 term of service to block the kindle app. You just watch. :tinfoil:

indeed

 

[Tobor]

but they haven't actually done anything to the amazon app.

He can't troll properly if he sticks to facts.

 

[Blackhead]

It's not a failure, it's just not the rousing success the Kindle store is. And the prices are set by the publishers. The only way they let Apple sell these books is that they could charge what they wanted. Amazon has a much bigger stick in this fight.

I like iBooks better than the Kindle app (or real Kindle), but you can't beat the selection or prices on the Kindle.

Actually Apple used that as a competitive advantage against Amazon when the iBooks store launched. Amazon was selling ebooks and setting prices just fine and forcing concessions from the publishers before Apple came along agreed to the agency model.

Spoiler

A little analogous to how everybody says Google is letting the carriers back in after Apple 'opened' the phone industry

 

[Tobor]

Actually Apple used that as a competitive advantage against Amazon when the iBooks store launched. Amazon was selling ebooks and setting prices just fine and forcing concessions from the publishers before Apple came along agreed to the agency model.

Spoiler

A little analogous to how everybody says Google is letting the carriers back in after Apple 'opened' the phone industry

Amazon was buying at full price and then lowering them, eating the losses in order to build a monopoly. Don't act like they were saints in this thing.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Amazon was buying at full price and then lowering them, eating the losses in order to build a monopoly. Don't act like they were saints in this thing.

Exactly. The publishers hated it because it seemed to be devaluing the product. Customers loved it because it was cheap, but no one could compete with it.

 

[devildog820]

Actually Apple used that as a competitive advantage against Amazon when the iBooks store launched. Amazon was selling ebooks and setting prices just fine and forcing concessions from the publishers before Apple came along agreed to the agency model.

Spoiler

A little analogous to how everybody says Google is letting the carriers back in after Apple 'opened' the phone industry

Touche.

I think it was a little more nuanced than that, though. I remember the publishers were scared that Apple would turn the publishing industry upside down the way it turned the music industry. They didn't want to license content to Apple at all, or something like that. So Apple gave them the agency model to get the content.

 

[Blackhead]

Exactly. The publishers hated it because it seemed to be devaluing the product. Customers loved it because it was cheap, but no one could compete with it.

Amazon was buying at full price and then lowering them, eating the losses in order to build a monopoly. Don't act like they were saints in this thing.

Im not saying Amazon are saints. But brick-and-mortar bookstores have been buying hardcovers and selling them for cheaper for years. The publishers are trying to increase their margins when switching to digital.

Touche.

I think it was a little more nuanced than that, though. I remember the publishers were scared that Apple would turn the publishing industry upside down the way it turned the music industry. They didn't want to license content to Apple at all, or something like that. So Apple gave them the agency model to get the content.

Scared? Maybe 3 years ago. But they've been publishing books to the app store before the iPad even came around and they treated the tablet announcement like it was Moses coming down from the mountain. Apple had them eating out of their hand, the agency agreement was just the icing on the cake.

 

[Somnid]

Amazon was buying at full price and then lowering them, eating the losses in order to build a monopoly. Don't act like they were saints in this thing.

Fuck you Amazon for making me pay less.

 

[numble]

Fuck you Amazon for making me pay less.

And paying more later after they eliminate both their competitors and their subsidies.

 

[Tobor]

Touche.

I think it was a little more nuanced than that, though. I remember the publishers were scared that Apple would turn the publishing industry upside down the way it turned the music industry. They didn't want to license content to Apple at all, or something like that. So Apple gave them the agency model to get the content.

Exact opposite. The publishers were scared Amazon would be to publishing what Apple was to music, and used Apple as the wedge to force Amazon to give them what they wanted.

Apple doesn't care, as a straight 70/30 works fine for them. And customers will win in the end this way, as the publishers can't price higher than the market will bear for very long. Prices are already dropping on catalog titles.

 

[teiresias]

Amazon was buying at full price and then lowering them, eating the losses in order to build a monopoly. Don't act like they were saints in this thing.

Because as we know, having a business model that includes loss leaders is a sure sign of malice and satanism.

 

[Tobor]

Because as we know, having a business model that includes loss leaders is a sure sign of malice and satanism.

When 100% of your product is a loss leader, that's not only a bad thing, but anti-competitive.

 

[Somnid]

And paying more later after they eliminate both their competitors and their subsidies.

And yet Kindle still has the widest selection, best prices, hardware and software support. Tin-foil hatting much?

 

[numble]

Because as we know, having a business model that includes loss leaders is a sure sign of malice and satanism.

Technically, a loss leader is to drive sales to other products in your own store. If you're looking at the Kindle Store, especially if you look at it from Kindle hardware, you're not driving sales to other parts of Amazon. The pricing strategy is clearly directed at competitors, and the business model is probably more akin to limit pricing or predatory pricing.

And yet Kindle still has the widest selection, best prices, hardware and software support. Tin-foil hatting much?

It's not a secret that they subsidize e-books, videos, and music downloads. When you charge below cost, you can't "make it up in volume," you are hoping to increase marketshare so that you can charge higher later, or you need to charge higher on other products somewhere else to maintain the subsidies, otherwise it is a bankrupt business model, especially when you're in the retail business.

 

[Tobor]

Last year at launch, the top books in iBooks were all priced at $15.99. Now, less than a year later, a quick glance shows every new York times bestseller at $12.99. The agency model is working, pricing is dropping to what the market will bear. What's the problem?

 

[Tabris]

I would think it would be very ironic if Apple got hit with an antitrust suit.

 

[Somnid]

It's not a secret that they subsidize e-books, videos, and music downloads. When you charge below cost, you can't "make it up in volume," you are hoping to increase marketshare so that you can charge higher later, or you need to charge higher on other products somewhere else to maintain the subsidies, otherwise it is a bankrupt business model, especially when you're in the retail business.

This is content, not hardware. Amazon has always worked by "the long tail." Amazon can continue to sell these books indefinitely at only the cost of hosting even if they have to pay a little more up front. Also, selling through Amazon is going to make some authors a lot more money despite the book being much cheaper because they don't go through a publisher. And it wasn't like books couldn't have been a lot cheaper. Ever buy college textbooks? Tell me that wasn't a scam.

 

[numble]

This is content, not hardware. Amazon has always worked by "the long tail." Amazon can continue to sell these books indefinitely at only the cost of hosting even if they have to pay a little more up front. Also, selling through Amazon is going to make some authors a lot more money despite the book being much cheaper because they don't go through a publisher. And it wasn't like books couldn't have been a lot cheaper. Ever buy college textbooks? Tell me that wasn't a scam.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I'm just talking about pricing strategy when they license content from publishers, which involves subsidies from Amazon's other businesses towards Amazon's electronic downloads. They have to pay a fee to the publisher for every book, song, or movie/show that a user downloads. In many cases, the fee charged to Amazon is higher than the fee charged to the user that buys it.

The long tail argument, the argument about authors skipping the publishers, and that books should be cheaper, have nothing to do with the topic of subsidies for licensing fees.

 

[VistraNorrez]

Never much liked Amazon's stance on DRM, but I thought they did a good job making the content you buy available on devices other than Kindles. Things might get messy now, though.

Amazon doesn't force anyone into DRM, it's up to the publisher and/or author (most of course go for it). Apple does force DRM on their e-books.

 

[LCfiner]

important update:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/01...al-purchases-to-also-offer-in-app-purchasing/

Apple Now Requiring eBook Applications With External Purchases to Also Offer In App Purchasing

Following up on last night's story revealing that Apple had rejected a Sony Reader iOS application for eBooks, All Things Digital has received an official statement from Apple clarifying the company's position. According to the company, Apple has not changed its terms, but is simply enforcing existing ones that require applications offering content for purchase outside of the application to also offer the content via Apple's in-app purchasing mechanisms.

Apple's made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it's simply enforcing a rule that's been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

While short of the originally-feared banning of all external content purchasing methods, the new enforcement does raise additional questions about how such popular eBook applications as Kindle will deal with the requirement. Notably, will in-app purchases be required to be priced at the same level as external purchases, and if so, how will content providers respond to Apple taking its 30% cut of revenue from the in-app purchasing method that is more convenient for consumers than the external purchasing method that sends all revenue to the provider?

I'll admit it: I think this is bad and worse than I had thought for vendors since the user will likely choose the easier in-app purchase option and then Apple gets a kickback and the developer loses revenue.

 

[dream]

I can't even think of a way to present two purchase methods to an end user and have them choose the one that is more cumbersome.

edit: unless they jack up the price of the in-app purchase

 

[numble]

important update:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/01...al-purchases-to-also-offer-in-app-purchasing/

Apple Now Requiring eBook Applications With External Purchases to Also Offer In App Purchasing





I'll admit it: I think this is bad and worse than I had thought for vendors since the user will likely choose the easier in-app purchase option and then Apple gets a kickback and the developer loses revenue.

Well that's bad news. Hopefully the allow price differentials between direct and iTunes like with the Mac App Store.

 

[LCfiner]

I can't even think of a way to present two purchase methods to an end user and have them choose the one that is more cumbersome.

make the in-app purchase option twice as expensive