PhoncipleBone
Banned
That is my hope as well. I dont like the news, but it does make things easier. Hopefully they do have a way to say there is a cheaper option.numble said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple vs. Amazon battle brewing over e-books? Answer: Probably not.
- Thread starter Zombie James
- Start date
- Status
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Then Apple gets a cut and in turn makes the iBooks versions potentially cheaper? And would publishers allow it since it is raising the price on their products?Talon- said:
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I was commenting on the fact that the content providers themselves may not like Amazon, Sony, or BN hiking the prices on the products for in app purchases.AndyD said:
Zombie James
Banned
Updated the OP with the new info, thanks.
Phoenix
Member
i doubt this is going to be an issue. Even is Apple could initially get away with this, the EU would shut them down almost over night. Unless Apple plans to get rid of the UIWebView, there is nothing they can do. They cannot tax transactions that take place on the regular web and I doubt they are trying to. You can't spin up your own appstore, but there is nothing stopping you from sync'ing with apps purchased off "device".
Charred Greyface said:
well, now it looks like Sony would need to resubmit their app with in-app purchases and, optionally, a link to a web page for external purchases.
we've always known that a vendor couldn't build their own in-app purchase system, but now there's the extra work of having to use both their own web page plus Apple's in-app purchase system.
Zombie James
Banned
I don't understand how this benefits Apple in any way. What's Amazon going to do, realistically?
Kindle e-book, normal purchase: $9.99.
Kindle e-book, in-app purchase: $9.99 + 30%.
Amazon isn't going to take a cut to give Apple their 30% so they'll pass than onto consumers. Consumers, looking at two different prices for the same book, will buy the cheaper one. Apple gets nothing and it just adds complexity that doesn't need to exist. Unless i'm reading this wrong?
Kindle e-book, normal purchase: $9.99.
Kindle e-book, in-app purchase: $9.99 + 30%.
Amazon isn't going to take a cut to give Apple their 30% so they'll pass than onto consumers. Consumers, looking at two different prices for the same book, will buy the cheaper one. Apple gets nothing and it just adds complexity that doesn't need to exist. Unless i'm reading this wrong?
Zombie James said:
I think their reasoning was twofold.
1. they wanted to offer the most convenient and consistent purchase option to users.
2. 30% money for us. yay!
I'm not sure if they considered potential backlash from these third parties potentially raising costs for the in-app purchase price.
anyway, i don't think you're reading it wrong. Apple has very little to gain from this. it's just going to add another option for the user to choose from and make the UI more messy.
Well I know some small developers (or at least one I know personally) were annoyed that Apple didn't let them put purchases on the web and forced them to only use in-app purchases, while the big developers were allowed to get away with it. The developer I know was also selling books--dictionaries to be exact--that also had the same ebook-type publisher licensing terms that usually go with e-books.
This new policy should also loosen some restrictions for developers, if applied consistently--you don't need to buy horse armor with an in-app purchase! Push them out to the web with their credit card.
This new policy should also loosen some restrictions for developers, if applied consistently--you don't need to buy horse armor with an in-app purchase! Push them out to the web with their credit card.
As it is right now, this is a dick move. The 30% cut for developers makes sense because of the time and resources required for the store and its downloads, but publishers cant live with that same amount for their content.
Like they did with their music store, I hope they announce tomorrow a different revenue share for in-app purchases. I think Apple gets about 10% from music sales which is far more reasonable.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
That doesn't sound too unreasonable.giga said:
As it is right now, this is a dick move. The 30% cut for developers makes sense because of the time and resources required for the store and its downloads, but publishers cant live with that same amount for their content.
Like they did with their music store, I hope they announce tomorrow a different revenue share for in-app purchases. I think Apple gets about 10% from music sales which is far more reasonable.
This is what I've been hoping as well, but it feels like wishful thinking--there usually would be more rumors going around.giga said:
But the argument can be made--they will not be expending resources to review this content like they review apps for bugs. They already know that it's been difficult for magazines/newspapers to monetize under the current system unless they try to go outside the iTunes payment system (which is awkward).
If they just announce "recurring subscriptions" tomorrow, that doesn't solve very much--couldn't an app just build it's own reminder/notification system to remind customers to renew their subscription?
Guardian Bob
Member
Sorry Apple, Amazon is one company you probably can't beat.
No idea how it will work or what the revenue share will be. Just have to wait and see.numble said:
Well if Amazon was forced to adjust their app, theyd basically have to put a higher priced in-app purchase price next to their regular web purchase price. (Theres no way they would eat that cost)teiresias said:
Would consumers pick the simpler in-app purchase over a more convoluted web one? For most of them, I dont think so.
I don't see why Apple deserves any cut. This isn't like Amazon is developing on the itouch format. They are offering an app which is compatible with their own business model.
Of course I don't think this is that big of a deal. Most kindle purchases are made from the computer versus in an app.
Of course I don't think this is that big of a deal. Most kindle purchases are made from the computer versus in an app.
dynamitejim
Member
Making a mountain out of a mole hill. Ebooks aren't app purchases. The respective ebook sellers don't own the rights to the contents. Nor are the ebooks restricted to just being used in the iPhone apps. It'd be like saying music I buy from iTunes is an app purchase. There's no way Apple could force this through.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Beside the user, the group this is going to impact is probably the publishers assuming Amazon passes on the added costs to the user (as highlighted above with the iTunes version of the book costing more than buying the same book externally), right? I wonder how that would impact their relationship with Apple in regards to the iBook store many of those same publishers provide to
Also, I'm struggling to imagine why anyone would buy the same book but at a higher price? Amazon will have a tough time in designing a new UI without causing confusion. If you have an 'iTunes or 'iPad' specified title for each book, it may confuse someone to think the Kindle version of the book is incompatible and hence opt for the more expensive iTunes version.
Either, this is going to inflame eBook piracy. The varying formats and their DRM restrictions are already a headache
Also, I'm struggling to imagine why anyone would buy the same book but at a higher price? Amazon will have a tough time in designing a new UI without causing confusion. If you have an 'iTunes or 'iPad' specified title for each book, it may confuse someone to think the Kindle version of the book is incompatible and hence opt for the more expensive iTunes version.
Either, this is going to inflame eBook piracy. The varying formats and their DRM restrictions are already a headache
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
What?TheBranca18 said:
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Meus Renaissance said:
I really really doubt Amazon would market a book as and "IPad Version" to fool it's own customers to buying something that gives apple a cut. I'm sure it will be explained better than that.
lunarworks
Member
Really?giga said:
Do you know what the markup for printed material is? Stores usually get a 40% cut of the retail price.
I'm very interested in Sony's e-reader app because they now sell e-books in Japan (in Japanese, of course), so it would be quite beneficial for me that Sony's app is published soon.
This news makes me so much happier that I traded my iPad in for a MacBook Air. No way that thing will ever function as a real computer, and Apple's closed model is living proof of that. I can tolerate a phone being closed off to some extent, but I don't see the logic with a tablet like the iPad.
This news makes me so much happier that I traded my iPad in for a MacBook Air. No way that thing will ever function as a real computer, and Apple's closed model is living proof of that. I can tolerate a phone being closed off to some extent, but I don't see the logic with a tablet like the iPad.
Amazon was actually giving publishers a 65%-35% split irrc before Apple came along with a 30%-70%. But this is besides the point. For the same reason nobody wants Verizon telling Apple that they either get a cut of app store revenue, or put VCast apps by default on the phone, before the iPhone is allowed on their network, nobody wants Apple to do the same thing to Amazon (that they either get a cut of ebook sales by including Apple's in-app purchase mechanism) before the app is allowed on their platform. It's bullshit.lunarworks said:
The Nook, Sony Reader and practically all the other small stores who use drm, all use the same type of DRM so you can get a book from any of them and read on your Nook or Sony Reader. It's the same DRM that libraries use too, which is why you use those on the Nook and Sony Readers but not the Kindle. Apple implemented its own separate DRM.Tobor said:
How is this relevant? Im talking about 30% of the price being paid to Apple. This is going through three channels: publisher -> distributor -> apple. Apple taking away 30% of the final price cuts all the profit made from the distributor. Its not sustainable.lunarworks said:
I guess my main gripe is Apple essentially forcing you to have to use the Appstore to get a program on your device. If there were alternate, supported, methods for installing applications other than through the Appstore or iTunes I would agree that Apple could do whatever the fuck they want on their store.
I sold my iPad before the courts decided Apple couldn't stop Jailbreaking, so I don't know how things are going on that front but I dislike that being the only other avenue.
But part of this stems from my insistence that a tablet be essentially a portable computer. It is fair to compare Apple's iPad to Sony's PS3 if you wish but by doing so you no longer really place the iPad as a computer and instead liken it to a toy, and maybe that's correct but that's not how I want it. Of course this is opinion, Apple very well may be able to do whatever they want legally and perhaps this method will be preferred by most people, I dunno. That's just why I bailed out.
This is slightly unrelated to the topic but I'm so disappointed in the tablet market right now, you have the iPad which is pretty closed and probably more limited than any of the others but it's also the best to use for the things it does do well, you have Android which theoretically should be better than the iPad but isn't, I liken it's openness compared to Apple as, well, Bullshit, and then you have Windows 7 Tablets coming that are probably going to be super flexible but will probably be less effective and intuitive to use than Android tablets or the iPad. Ugh. It's so frustrating.
I sold my iPad before the courts decided Apple couldn't stop Jailbreaking, so I don't know how things are going on that front but I dislike that being the only other avenue.
But part of this stems from my insistence that a tablet be essentially a portable computer. It is fair to compare Apple's iPad to Sony's PS3 if you wish but by doing so you no longer really place the iPad as a computer and instead liken it to a toy, and maybe that's correct but that's not how I want it. Of course this is opinion, Apple very well may be able to do whatever they want legally and perhaps this method will be preferred by most people, I dunno. That's just why I bailed out.
This is slightly unrelated to the topic but I'm so disappointed in the tablet market right now, you have the iPad which is pretty closed and probably more limited than any of the others but it's also the best to use for the things it does do well, you have Android which theoretically should be better than the iPad but isn't, I liken it's openness compared to Apple as, well, Bullshit, and then you have Windows 7 Tablets coming that are probably going to be super flexible but will probably be less effective and intuitive to use than Android tablets or the iPad. Ugh. It's so frustrating.
Well, considering they're not having much problems with their system as is, they can just put:Tobor said:
In App: 15.99
On Amazon: 9.99
User clicks through on the second link, and Jeff Bezos is happy.
Honestly, there's no way Apple pushes the Kindle app out of the way. It would be asinine considering how valuable it is to the iOS ecosystem. It's a huge selling point for the iPad to have the Kindle store available. They can afford to scoff at the Sony Reader store.
And, yes, I'm with the others in the thread that can't wait for publishers to knock these book prices down. Hopefully, as more people buy readers and tablets this year, we'll see the prices adjusted accordingly.
. They probably cant beat amazon in book selection/prices, so they find another way to snag a cut from their profits. Brilliant. Taking notesWell, they just released subscriptions to everyone, with a press release that describes their position. Pertinent part:
http://www.9to5mac.com/52086/apple-launches-app-store-subscriptions-for-all-developers#more-52086
Yeah, the press release directly focused on subscriptions, but you might think they will do something similar with specific content purchases. But they also say you can't put a link to purchase content outside, which would apply directly to the current method that Amazon and B&N uses.Charred Greyface said:
I know that The Economist has an iOS subscription purchase on its website that's not available via in-app purchase. They send you to the website and you pay for a subscription that only works on iOS. Don't know if they want to apply this only for iOS-only subscriptions or digital subscriptions overall.
Well the Economist can no longer send people to the website from within the apps, according to the press release. Developers will only be able to offer in-app purchasing within the app, and an authentication for those subscribied outside the app. And since the both prices have to be the same (i.e. Resulting in a 30% markup outside the store) the developer has little to offer the subscriber for choosing the web store. This is actually worse than we imagined when the rumor first appeared.numble said:
- Status