Dirty Percent(daringfireball.net)
daringfireball.net
Dirty Percent
http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent
97 comments
What I like about Gruber, even when I disagree with him, is that I think he understands, better than any other outside commentator, how Apple's management team thinks and works. He's not a leading expert on business, or on technology, but I'd call him a leading expert on Steve Jobs' mind.
This understanding is part of why Gruber often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when he disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing from the point of view of Apple Inc., the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?"
(This also explains why I hate Gruber's writing about competiting companies like Microsoft and Google. I don't think he understands how those companies think and work at all, so his commentary on them totally lacks that insight and usefulness.)
This understanding is part of why Gruber often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when he disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing from the point of view of Apple Inc., the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?"
(This also explains why I hate Gruber's writing about competiting companies like Microsoft and Google. I don't think he understands how those companies think and work at all, so his commentary on them totally lacks that insight and usefulness.)
I think where this gets annoying is when it becomes impossible to discern when Gruber is just "explaining what Apple is thinking" and when he is putting forth his own opinion. Its tiresome to criticize his Apple apologism and constantly run into the counter-argument that "he isn't really saying that its OK for Apple to engage in X practice, he's just explaining it", because it is often difficult (if not impossible) to discern if that's the case.
I do think Gruber intentionally blurs that line to insulate himself from criticism. And I think that's pretty dishonest and petty-- much like his irritatingly self-satisfied one-off comments aimed at his opponents. (Technology related and otherwise).
EDIT: Minor grammatical correction
I do think Gruber intentionally blurs that line to insulate himself from criticism. And I think that's pretty dishonest and petty-- much like his irritatingly self-satisfied one-off comments aimed at his opponents. (Technology related and otherwise).
EDIT: Minor grammatical correction
> This understanding is part of why he often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when Gruber disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing based on Apple's point of view as a corporation, the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?"
Yet he rarely qualifies that with, "While I don't agree" or something similar. He does sometimes, which leads me to believe that he usually is talking about what he believes.
Yet he rarely qualifies that with, "While I don't agree" or something similar. He does sometimes, which leads me to believe that he usually is talking about what he believes.
But that's just the thing... People often act like Gruber is writing about how things should be, but more often he's just writing about how things are (or how he thinks they will be), and why.
--
As a side note... I got my first Mac in 1989. I've been reading the Mac press for over 20 years, and Daring Fireball for about 7 or 8 years. There was a time in the "dark ages" of the 90s when even the most die-hard Apple fans had a "love the product; hate the company" mentality, because it seemed like Apple's management was doing everything they could to screw things up.
Daring Fireball is entirely a product of the Steve Jobs II era, with much more competent management, so it hasn't had quite as much reason to gripe. But Gruber has had some long-standing disagreements with Apple. He bitched for years about how much worse the Finder was in OS X. (I think the only reason he stopped is that he gave up hope that it'll ever be fixed.)
--
As a side note... I got my first Mac in 1989. I've been reading the Mac press for over 20 years, and Daring Fireball for about 7 or 8 years. There was a time in the "dark ages" of the 90s when even the most die-hard Apple fans had a "love the product; hate the company" mentality, because it seemed like Apple's management was doing everything they could to screw things up.
Daring Fireball is entirely a product of the Steve Jobs II era, with much more competent management, so it hasn't had quite as much reason to gripe. But Gruber has had some long-standing disagreements with Apple. He bitched for years about how much worse the Finder was in OS X. (I think the only reason he stopped is that he gave up hope that it'll ever be fixed.)
He's made a comfortable life as a professional sycophant. Better to swallow some pride occasionally than derail the gravy train.
I found it pretty hilarious when Gruber quoted Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Gruber owes his good fortunes to being the premier Apple shill, and no amount of logic, reasoning, facts or ethics is going to change that.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/23/dhh-it-dept
Gruber owes his good fortunes to being the premier Apple shill, and no amount of logic, reasoning, facts or ethics is going to change that.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/23/dhh-it-dept
Does he?
He earns money from ads, do you think he would earn less should he write critically about Apple?
(All of this seems very much beside the point, though. Discussions about Daring Fireball have become so predictable. Nobody seems to be even interested in talking about the arguments, everyone wants to throw dirt around.)
He earns money from ads, do you think he would earn less should he write critically about Apple?
(All of this seems very much beside the point, though. Discussions about Daring Fireball have become so predictable. Nobody seems to be even interested in talking about the arguments, everyone wants to throw dirt around.)
> He earns money from ads, do you think he would earn less should he write critically about Apple?
Well, he has stated on many occasions that he has "sources" inside of Apple where he gets alot of his information from. If he started to be overly critical of Apple and his sources suddenly dried up then his writing would suffer, his readership would go down and his ad revenue would decease.
So I'd say it's pretty easy to make the case that he would indeed earn less if he was overly critical of Apple.
Well, he has stated on many occasions that he has "sources" inside of Apple where he gets alot of his information from. If he started to be overly critical of Apple and his sources suddenly dried up then his writing would suffer, his readership would go down and his ad revenue would decease.
So I'd say it's pretty easy to make the case that he would indeed earn less if he was overly critical of Apple.
Scrap "overly critical", I just want him to be critical.
And what is the incentive of the Apple insiders? While Gruber may not, they are perfectly capable of forming their own, independent opinions on what Apple proper does, as orthogonal as they may be.
And what is the incentive of the Apple insiders? While Gruber may not, they are perfectly capable of forming their own, independent opinions on what Apple proper does, as orthogonal as they may be.
"I just want him to be critical."
Why? When 99% of the media sledges Apple with no reason, why do you care if 1% supports Apple with no reason?
----
The thing that gets me about the Apple vs $var debates, is that most of the people screaming about how they hate Apple have never tried Apple. Whereas the people supporting Apple against $var have almost invariably tried $var and found it lacking.
One side brings informed opinions, the other brings baseless bile. Whenever I see that happen, regardless of the topic, I know which side of that divide I want to be on.
-----
True story: today I went down to the local $non_profit and helped out one of the guys get his new Apple laptop hooked up to the network and the network printer. The network worked immediately after entering the WEP password. The printer didn't work first time, so I deleted it and tried with new settings. It worked the second time. I also tried to persuade him of the virtues of buying a 1-2TB drive and using Time Machine.
It was so easy it was embarrassing.
I contrast that with some work I did with a startup last year. I bought one of their own Windows laptops into their HQ, and trying to get onto their own wireless network was a nightmare, even though I had a room full of techies to help. I strongly suspect that in the end the tech support guy just turned off the wireless router and left it off because it was too much trouble.
I'll do Apple support for love (ie free support for friends and family) , but you couldn't pay me enough to do Windows support. I fully appreciate the guys that do take on that thankless task, but I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Does that make me an incoherent raving Mac fanboy? Some would say so. But at the same $non_profit I stood and patiently nodded while one of the 70 year old blokes told me about his Windows experiences. At the end I fully commended him (he's running anti-virus, anti-spam and does regular backups) for his efforts, and I assured him that he was doing the right thing with the backups, to keep doing exactly what he is doing. I didn't preach to him about Apple at all, I don't see the need. If he's happy, let him be happy. If he is doing everything right but has some nagging feeling that he should be doing something else, I will reassure him that he's miles ahead of the rest of the pack.
Why? When 99% of the media sledges Apple with no reason, why do you care if 1% supports Apple with no reason?
----
The thing that gets me about the Apple vs $var debates, is that most of the people screaming about how they hate Apple have never tried Apple. Whereas the people supporting Apple against $var have almost invariably tried $var and found it lacking.
One side brings informed opinions, the other brings baseless bile. Whenever I see that happen, regardless of the topic, I know which side of that divide I want to be on.
-----
True story: today I went down to the local $non_profit and helped out one of the guys get his new Apple laptop hooked up to the network and the network printer. The network worked immediately after entering the WEP password. The printer didn't work first time, so I deleted it and tried with new settings. It worked the second time. I also tried to persuade him of the virtues of buying a 1-2TB drive and using Time Machine.
It was so easy it was embarrassing.
I contrast that with some work I did with a startup last year. I bought one of their own Windows laptops into their HQ, and trying to get onto their own wireless network was a nightmare, even though I had a room full of techies to help. I strongly suspect that in the end the tech support guy just turned off the wireless router and left it off because it was too much trouble.
I'll do Apple support for love (ie free support for friends and family) , but you couldn't pay me enough to do Windows support. I fully appreciate the guys that do take on that thankless task, but I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Does that make me an incoherent raving Mac fanboy? Some would say so. But at the same $non_profit I stood and patiently nodded while one of the 70 year old blokes told me about his Windows experiences. At the end I fully commended him (he's running anti-virus, anti-spam and does regular backups) for his efforts, and I assured him that he was doing the right thing with the backups, to keep doing exactly what he is doing. I didn't preach to him about Apple at all, I don't see the need. If he's happy, let him be happy. If he is doing everything right but has some nagging feeling that he should be doing something else, I will reassure him that he's miles ahead of the rest of the pack.
It's an indirect effect. Majority of his readers are Apple fans and need a constant reminder why their platform is better than others. ( Think about it in terms of being a sports fan. You'll rarely subscribe to a beat writer who tries to uncover scandals in your team and tries to find faults ).
He earns money from software and services which run in Apple-based platforms. ( Pixelmator, for example ). If he constantly undermines Apple, will Pixelmator be happy?
He has to give an air of legitimacy by pointing out Apple's faults once in a while and competitors' good products now and then. His primary audience is Apple fans. and he writes for them.
He earns money from software and services which run in Apple-based platforms. ( Pixelmator, for example ). If he constantly undermines Apple, will Pixelmator be happy?
He has to give an air of legitimacy by pointing out Apple's faults once in a while and competitors' good products now and then. His primary audience is Apple fans. and he writes for them.
Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this.
Is the following statement (from the article) false?
As for ruthless profiteering, consider that Amazon, with their e-book publishing, originally took the fat end of a 70-30 revenue split with authors.
Is the following statement (from the article) false?
As for ruthless profiteering, consider that Amazon, with their e-book publishing, originally took the fat end of a 70-30 revenue split with authors.
This was true until iBooks came out. Keep in mind that a 70% cut for the publisher for books is better than most authors traditionally get. Meanwhile, record labels' cuts are usually more than 90%.
Definitely agree. Plus defending every single part of Apple's policies makes him set up straw men and false dichotomies like nobody's business.
Take his summation: "iOS isn’t and never was an open computer system. It’s a closed, controlled console system..." The implication being that iOS users have no right to complain because they signed up for a "closed" system.
Systems are never just "open" or "closed." Apple's move here is making the system more closed.
Take his summation: "iOS isn’t and never was an open computer system. It’s a closed, controlled console system..." The implication being that iOS users have no right to complain because they signed up for a "closed" system.
Systems are never just "open" or "closed." Apple's move here is making the system more closed.
Ad hominem. You should address logical flaws and false statements.
And he was critical of Apple in two of the four points, so your premise is false.
Edit: This discussion is also something of a strawman, attacking none of the important arguments made in the article.
The point about what Gruber would say if Microsoft had done this is simply a preemption of an ad hominem attack against himself and it's quite unfortunate that he chose to address it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's fairness in charging 30%, which is what we should all be talking about because it's a very important topic.
Very sorry to see this community of rationalists fall for a refutation of something that's irrelevant to the main discussion.
And he was critical of Apple in two of the four points, so your premise is false.
Edit: This discussion is also something of a strawman, attacking none of the important arguments made in the article.
The point about what Gruber would say if Microsoft had done this is simply a preemption of an ad hominem attack against himself and it's quite unfortunate that he chose to address it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's fairness in charging 30%, which is what we should all be talking about because it's a very important topic.
Very sorry to see this community of rationalists fall for a refutation of something that's irrelevant to the main discussion.
Ad Hominem? He said only one thing about 'Gruber' that he is tired of him. Rest of his comment was about Gruber's arguments and non arguments. I didn't see any Ad Hominem attack in the original comment.
And how is Gruber's overall argument right if he is critical of Apple in two of the four points? How does that even make sense?
And how is Gruber's overall argument right if he is critical of Apple in two of the four points? How does that even make sense?
>>I used to be a big fan of Gruber, but I'm getting increasingly tired of his "defend Apple at all costs" mentality.
Contains a claim that Gruber's mentality is to defend Apple at all costs. Since Gruber does not do this in the post, it is a false claim.
This claim is used to lend credence to the idea that Gruber is in fact misrepresenting his feelings about Microsoft since the situation presented would force Gruber, with the presumption that he defends Apple at all costs, to say otherwise than what he said he would say. Except that the premise is false.
All of this makes you wonder why OP would single out this point to begin with since it's the least salient to the thrust of the article. This makes OP's point something of a straw man and character attack.
Contains a claim that Gruber's mentality is to defend Apple at all costs. Since Gruber does not do this in the post, it is a false claim.
This claim is used to lend credence to the idea that Gruber is in fact misrepresenting his feelings about Microsoft since the situation presented would force Gruber, with the presumption that he defends Apple at all costs, to say otherwise than what he said he would say. Except that the premise is false.
All of this makes you wonder why OP would single out this point to begin with since it's the least salient to the thrust of the article. This makes OP's point something of a straw man and character attack.
Does anyone know of a browser plugin that will automatically eliminate from view any Hacker News comment containing the phrase "ad hominem?" Ad-Hom Block Pro or some such?
And add "Strawman" to Ad-Hom Block Pro. The moment I see somebody use that word I think, "This person learned to 'argue' by reading Internet forums. Disregard."
Few things grate as much as the self-satisfied "strawman" police.
Few things grate as much as the self-satisfied "strawman" police.
Interestingly, this comment sets up a strawman to represent all people who use the term "strawman"... :)
Please also add 'begs the question' to Ad-Hominem Block Pro.
Your post raises an interesting point, how did all these 'strawman police' become such a bunch of self-satisfied nazis in the first place?
Your post raises an interesting point, how did all these 'strawman police' become such a bunch of self-satisfied nazis in the first place?
Actually I learned to argue by going to college.
And instead of issuing snide remarks about categories of bad arguments, why not tell me why you don't think the label fits, and if it does why you don't feel compelled to address it?
And instead of issuing snide remarks about categories of bad arguments, why not tell me why you don't think the label fits, and if it does why you don't feel compelled to address it?
Well said. I die a little inside, every time I read those words (and the inevitable dissection that veers away from the actual content of the discussion, and towards the process of deciding who's 'right').
Debating is good and fine - but (imo) sometimes, concentrating on the minutia isn't as worthwhile as expressing an idea.
Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'.
Debating is good and fine - but (imo) sometimes, concentrating on the minutia isn't as worthwhile as expressing an idea.
Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'.
Funny running into you on this thread, after our earlier discussion. I want to thank you for identifying for me what it is about online discussions that turn me off. You really hit the nail on the head with: "Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'."
I've (tragically) spent far too many hours trying to convince various developers that tables aren't good for layout - my motives are sincere - but I admit, it's a conversation that's more than enough to turn anyone off :)
I meant what I said about emailing if you'd like some tips about CSS - I had few 'a-ha' moments that really made my life easier.
I meant what I said about emailing if you'd like some tips about CSS - I had few 'a-ha' moments that really made my life easier.
At least the phrase gives you a point of attack if you disagree. You get to say "it isn't ad hominem because of reason X".
I find this far better than responding to arguments that deliberately attempt to obfuscate avenues of attack by couching everything in terms of "opinion" or "I have opinion X, but".
I find this far better than responding to arguments that deliberately attempt to obfuscate avenues of attack by couching everything in terms of "opinion" or "I have opinion X, but".
If someone makes one, they should call it "No Homi"
"well, that would definitely require competition regulators"
No offense, but the idea that the government needs to step in is a nonsensical argument that is getting repeated with increasing frequency whenever Apple does something controversial. There is not a single market in which Apple competes where they have a monopoly (caveat: tablet computers right now, but that market is revving up to be hyper competitive in the very near future, and who would want the government intervening there at this nascent stage). A monopoly is required for antitrust investigations.
Do you know who Apple's "competition regulators" are? Google, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, Palm/HP, et al.
No offense, but the idea that the government needs to step in is a nonsensical argument that is getting repeated with increasing frequency whenever Apple does something controversial. There is not a single market in which Apple competes where they have a monopoly (caveat: tablet computers right now, but that market is revving up to be hyper competitive in the very near future, and who would want the government intervening there at this nascent stage). A monopoly is required for antitrust investigations.
Do you know who Apple's "competition regulators" are? Google, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, Palm/HP, et al.
Your comment essentially assumes "someone who disagrees with me so much, couldn't possibly be sincere!" Please don't do that, that's bad discourse.
<em>Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this.</em> No, you don't - because you're a developer, not someone who has to argue with them in the areas where they <strong>do</strong> do petty shit like this.
<em>Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this.</em> No, you don't - because you're a developer, not someone who has to argue with them in the areas where they <strong>do</strong> do petty shit like this.
[deleted]
I don't believe Costco publishes their vendor agreements so you really have no idea how Costco treats their suppliers.
Also, no one complains that Google takes 32% of AdWords.
Also, no one complains that Google takes 32% of AdWords.
They don't take 32% of the purchase price for purchases that were made by someone who clicked on an AdWords link, though.
If you're monetizing your content via adsense then they're taking 32% of your profit.
It's been repeated over and over again that this is about content publishers. eg. Selling magazine subscriptions.
Apple provides access to a large number are: A) affluent, B) have credit cards in the system C) are conditioned to buy via that medium, to me it's worth 30% to get access to that market.
It's like rent on a busy street, if you're selling trinkets with a minimal markup it's probably not worth it. If you're selling high end with lots of markup it's probably worth it. iOS isn't for everyone, it's a luxury brand, not every model is going to work on that platform. Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that.
It's been repeated over and over again that this is about content publishers. eg. Selling magazine subscriptions.
Apple provides access to a large number are: A) affluent, B) have credit cards in the system C) are conditioned to buy via that medium, to me it's worth 30% to get access to that market.
It's like rent on a busy street, if you're selling trinkets with a minimal markup it's probably not worth it. If you're selling high end with lots of markup it's probably worth it. iOS isn't for everyone, it's a luxury brand, not every model is going to work on that platform. Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that.
If you're monetizing your content via adsense then they're taking 32% of your profit.
Right, and that's absolutely expected. Apple should feel free to take 30% of anything purchased in-app. What they shouldn't do is force vendors to charge everyone else 30% more for the same product.
It would be like Google saying, "if you want to show an ad on your blog, you have to give us 30% of the money you make at your garage sale". It simply makes no sense.
Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that.
I want one where I can pay $10 for a book on my Kindle and read it on my phone when I don't have the Kindle with me. Paying Apple an extra $3 so that I can read my books on my phone doesn't make much sense to me.
But that's why I don't own an iPhone. My phone is a chunk of circuit boards that fits in my pocket, not my life.
Right, and that's absolutely expected. Apple should feel free to take 30% of anything purchased in-app. What they shouldn't do is force vendors to charge everyone else 30% more for the same product.
It would be like Google saying, "if you want to show an ad on your blog, you have to give us 30% of the money you make at your garage sale". It simply makes no sense.
Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that.
I want one where I can pay $10 for a book on my Kindle and read it on my phone when I don't have the Kindle with me. Paying Apple an extra $3 so that I can read my books on my phone doesn't make much sense to me.
But that's why I don't own an iPhone. My phone is a chunk of circuit boards that fits in my pocket, not my life.
They're doing work there though--selling the ads. Apple is taking 30% of your sales when you're doing the work (other than the actual payment processing).
Google takes all of AdWords, since it's on their own site. They take a 32% cut of AdSense.
The thing is, advertisers could use other channels to put ads up on the web. They can advertise with Chitika or whatever and get a bigger cut than they would with Google. They typically don't, because AdSense adds a lot of value by targeting the ads well. On the other hand, if you want to sell software on an iOS device, the only way is through the app store. Apple doesn't need to add any value to protect their 30% cut from competition because they don't allow competitors.
The thing is, advertisers could use other channels to put ads up on the web. They can advertise with Chitika or whatever and get a bigger cut than they would with Google. They typically don't, because AdSense adds a lot of value by targeting the ads well. On the other hand, if you want to sell software on an iOS device, the only way is through the app store. Apple doesn't need to add any value to protect their 30% cut from competition because they don't allow competitors.
I think the last argument is misframed. If you want to sell software on a tablet device, you can do it through Android, iOS, or probably a couple other ways. Apple's claim, presumably, is that the quality of iOS, the App Store, and of the hardware that runs iOS, adds at least that much value over Android. And, given how much more money people make on iOS apps compared to Android apps, they're probably right.
The argument about subscription issues is related but more complicated.
The argument about subscription issues is related but more complicated.
and google never published that percentage until iAd came around.
But Costco does publicise how much markup they put on their products as a maximum:
_Costco's maximum markup on merchandise is 14 percent, and "a lot of products don't come close to 14 percent," Sinegal said. By comparison, supermarkets commonly mark up merchandise by 25 percent and department stores by about 50 percent._
http://www.gazette.com/articles/costco-33279-springs-store.h...
Costco is extremely cut-throat, there have been several articles about Costco and how if they aren't receiving the lowest price for a product they just won't have it on the shelves, the Coke dispute was pretty big [1].
Overall I find that Costco is pretty transparent when it comes to the products they offer, and how much they charge for them. So far Costco has been a great value for me as a consumer!
[1]: http://www.wbur.org/npr/120590548/price-fight-coke-isnt-it-a...
_Costco's maximum markup on merchandise is 14 percent, and "a lot of products don't come close to 14 percent," Sinegal said. By comparison, supermarkets commonly mark up merchandise by 25 percent and department stores by about 50 percent._
http://www.gazette.com/articles/costco-33279-springs-store.h...
Costco is extremely cut-throat, there have been several articles about Costco and how if they aren't receiving the lowest price for a product they just won't have it on the shelves, the Coke dispute was pretty big [1].
Overall I find that Costco is pretty transparent when it comes to the products they offer, and how much they charge for them. So far Costco has been a great value for me as a consumer!
[1]: http://www.wbur.org/npr/120590548/price-fight-coke-isnt-it-a...
Well, we do know about Costco dropping Coca-Cola and Apple because Costco wasn't satisfied with the terms they were getting. They came to an agreement with Coke but Apple products are still gone.
If you're a retailer willing to drop Coca-Cola, we can pretty much assume you're a strong-willed company. Whether that leads to triumphs of principle over practicality or displays of pettiness is, I'd say, a matter of perspective.
If you're a retailer willing to drop Coca-Cola, we can pretty much assume you're a strong-willed company. Whether that leads to triumphs of principle over practicality or displays of pettiness is, I'd say, a matter of perspective.
[deleted]
All this talk about Gruber, the fanboy that blindly defends Apple, seems to be missing one thing, which is why he should be unhappy instead.
John Gruber in general likes the way Apple does things. Right? Not a controversial position, well understood and, these days, pretty common. So first off, I'm never surprised when he posts about "here's the thought process and mechanics behind the way Apple does things" even if that's the top-level business decisions Apple makes.
So with that understanding, what kind of thing should he naturally be unhappy about? Things Apple does that are uncharacteristic, bad moves for their users, or just downright unethical (i.e. knowingly lying to customers). I truly believe that's it.
Let's toss aside the idea that this move is uncharacteristic (even detractors say "that's the way Apple likes things.") Second, he's explained how he thinks these rules seem good for users. And finally, although I know a lot of people think Apple is doing something unethical, I really don't think John sees things that idealistically when it comes to these kinds of things.
He did demonstrate some sympathy to criticism that Apple changed their rules, but I don't think he sees that at all as unethical. He's idealistic about design but I don't think he's idealistic about business and the marketplace. I actually don't think he really cares as much about the business angles, but that's where the interest is these days.
I really don't see any reason he should be unhappy with this plan. I think he's explained pretty well why he thinks it's a reasonable approach, and given that evidence I think you need to argue pretty forcefully to suggest he's being insincere.
John Gruber in general likes the way Apple does things. Right? Not a controversial position, well understood and, these days, pretty common. So first off, I'm never surprised when he posts about "here's the thought process and mechanics behind the way Apple does things" even if that's the top-level business decisions Apple makes.
So with that understanding, what kind of thing should he naturally be unhappy about? Things Apple does that are uncharacteristic, bad moves for their users, or just downright unethical (i.e. knowingly lying to customers). I truly believe that's it.
Let's toss aside the idea that this move is uncharacteristic (even detractors say "that's the way Apple likes things.") Second, he's explained how he thinks these rules seem good for users. And finally, although I know a lot of people think Apple is doing something unethical, I really don't think John sees things that idealistically when it comes to these kinds of things.
He did demonstrate some sympathy to criticism that Apple changed their rules, but I don't think he sees that at all as unethical. He's idealistic about design but I don't think he's idealistic about business and the marketplace. I actually don't think he really cares as much about the business angles, but that's where the interest is these days.
I really don't see any reason he should be unhappy with this plan. I think he's explained pretty well why he thinks it's a reasonable approach, and given that evidence I think you need to argue pretty forcefully to suggest he's being insincere.
tl;dr
On businesses that can't afford 30%: Too bad, Apple wants to be the middleman
On price matching: Apple won't budge because their competitors (e.g. Amazon) insist on price matching
On the 30% slice itself: Apple is proposing that publishers (et al) will make more money at 70% than they'd make at 95% with someone else's business model
On (anti-)competitiveness: Apple is the only one which allows its competitors to have apps on its devices
Summary: iOS is a closed, controlled console system - more akin to Playstation or Xbox than to Mac OS X or Windows
On businesses that can't afford 30%: Too bad, Apple wants to be the middleman
On price matching: Apple won't budge because their competitors (e.g. Amazon) insist on price matching
On the 30% slice itself: Apple is proposing that publishers (et al) will make more money at 70% than they'd make at 95% with someone else's business model
On (anti-)competitiveness: Apple is the only one which allows its competitors to have apps on its devices
Summary: iOS is a closed, controlled console system - more akin to Playstation or Xbox than to Mac OS X or Windows
What I do not understand is why no-one is complaining about Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 as a closed system but about Apples iOS line.
WHY is Apple bad for closing a system but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not? I really do not understand that.
WHY on earth has a cellphone to be open as a OpenSource project? Is there a reason for that? (Android has open sources but no-one can commit changes. It's all in Googles hands what comes into the next Android version which doesn't fit with OpenSource at all)
WHY is taking a 30% cut bad for all developers and Apps? (Jobs said that the 30% cut is not for SASS Apps but only for Newspaper Apps, right?)
Please give me some answers I'm starting to don't understand these discussions lately.
WHY is Apple bad for closing a system but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not? I really do not understand that.
WHY on earth has a cellphone to be open as a OpenSource project? Is there a reason for that? (Android has open sources but no-one can commit changes. It's all in Googles hands what comes into the next Android version which doesn't fit with OpenSource at all)
WHY is taking a 30% cut bad for all developers and Apps? (Jobs said that the 30% cut is not for SASS Apps but only for Newspaper Apps, right?)
Please give me some answers I'm starting to don't understand these discussions lately.
A console is a very different biest from a mobile communication device, of which openness and interoperability is hugely advantegous to society.
Thus the line apple is toeing here is a dangerous one.
I wouldn't make the same argument for iPods, iPads or Macs.
Thus the line apple is toeing here is a dangerous one.
I wouldn't make the same argument for iPods, iPads or Macs.
Grubers gonna grube :(
Talk about burying the lede!
"But leaving aside the revenue split, there are technical limitations as well. The existing in-app purchasing system in iOS has a technical limit of 3,500 catalog items. I.e. any single app can offer no more than 3,500 items for in-app purchase. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of Kindle titles.
"Something’s got to give here. I don’t know what, but there must be more news on this front coming soon. I don’t believe Apple wants to chase competing e-book platforms off the App Store."
In other words, all the rest of the article, defending the Apple terms, is so much codswallop. Because Gruber believes that these terms are unacceptable, as in Dead On Arrival, to major users of in-app purchases and will have to change shortly to accommodate them.
And once you have figured that out, why not apply this to the other users of the platform, the rest of these arguments? "Eating margins will chase applications off iOS" and "Catalog limits are too low for many credible use cases" apply to many more developers than just Amazon Kindle.
But for some reason these arguments are dissociated from the ones Gruber wants to make. Instead of putting together the whole picture, he comes to these major stumbling blocks and writes the equivalent of "Does Not Compute."
Talk about burying the lede!
"But leaving aside the revenue split, there are technical limitations as well. The existing in-app purchasing system in iOS has a technical limit of 3,500 catalog items. I.e. any single app can offer no more than 3,500 items for in-app purchase. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of Kindle titles.
"Something’s got to give here. I don’t know what, but there must be more news on this front coming soon. I don’t believe Apple wants to chase competing e-book platforms off the App Store."
In other words, all the rest of the article, defending the Apple terms, is so much codswallop. Because Gruber believes that these terms are unacceptable, as in Dead On Arrival, to major users of in-app purchases and will have to change shortly to accommodate them.
And once you have figured that out, why not apply this to the other users of the platform, the rest of these arguments? "Eating margins will chase applications off iOS" and "Catalog limits are too low for many credible use cases" apply to many more developers than just Amazon Kindle.
But for some reason these arguments are dissociated from the ones Gruber wants to make. Instead of putting together the whole picture, he comes to these major stumbling blocks and writes the equivalent of "Does Not Compute."
I'm pretty much in agreement with everything Gruber said (first time for everything).
The one thing that really annoys me though is that Apple have decided is that if you offer a subscription-model outside of the app store, you now have to offer it at the same cost inside the app store.
Instead of paying 1-4% credit-card transaction fees with 24 hour payment terms, you now have to potentially pay a 30% app-store transaction fee with payments taking a month or more if your users decide to take up the option of paying via the app store.
Now I can see why Apple can't discount their 30% as this is the margin they seem to give to stores selling iTunes cards (yes, Apple makes nothing on apps bought with iTunes cards). But to require all apps to be forced to use the in-app subscription model is just ridiculous. What next? A native SAP client forced to sell their $100k product through the app store?
The one thing that really annoys me though is that Apple have decided is that if you offer a subscription-model outside of the app store, you now have to offer it at the same cost inside the app store.
Instead of paying 1-4% credit-card transaction fees with 24 hour payment terms, you now have to potentially pay a 30% app-store transaction fee with payments taking a month or more if your users decide to take up the option of paying via the app store.
Now I can see why Apple can't discount their 30% as this is the margin they seem to give to stores selling iTunes cards (yes, Apple makes nothing on apps bought with iTunes cards). But to require all apps to be forced to use the in-app subscription model is just ridiculous. What next? A native SAP client forced to sell their $100k product through the app store?
Steve Jobs has already commented, in an email, that this isn't meant for SaaS apps:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/21/steve-jobs-email-suggest...
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/21/steve-jobs-email-suggest...
Moreover, such arguments are silly. Nobody buys an iPad and then looks through the app store for $100k apps to run on it, or even $5k apps. If you are in the market for such an app, you buy the app and then go shopping for the hardware.
Perhaps Apple has now ceded the market for mobile clients of $100k enterprise Java applications to Android. If so, I doubt they are losing much sleep in Cupertino.
Obviously Apple's pricing model makes no sense for markets that they are not actually in. What matters, however, is the competitive landscape of the market that they are in.
Perhaps Apple has now ceded the market for mobile clients of $100k enterprise Java applications to Android. If so, I doubt they are losing much sleep in Cupertino.
Obviously Apple's pricing model makes no sense for markets that they are not actually in. What matters, however, is the competitive landscape of the market that they are in.
Some Gruber's articles feature a lot of insight, and are highly enjoyable. And some of his articles may be easily dismissed as blatant fanboyism. Unfortunately, this is an example one of the latter and not the former. I stopped reading after the second blatant "pull-it-out-his-ass" assumption he makes about the "complainers".
Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard.
These two statements are fundamentally at odds; it's highly unlikely that Apple is making more money from App Store purchases / subscriptions than from iOS hardware sales. Consequently, for Apple to be competitive, they need to offer as much value as possible to the user, so that more users will end up on their platform. Since many of the most popular apps are business models that can't afford a 70/30 split, Apple damn well better care about them. If I can't get Kindle, Netflix, Hulu, Dropbox, etc, etc. on an iPhone/iPad, I won't buy another one. Period.
These two statements are fundamentally at odds; it's highly unlikely that Apple is making more money from App Store purchases / subscriptions than from iOS hardware sales. Consequently, for Apple to be competitive, they need to offer as much value as possible to the user, so that more users will end up on their platform. Since many of the most popular apps are business models that can't afford a 70/30 split, Apple damn well better care about them. If I can't get Kindle, Netflix, Hulu, Dropbox, etc, etc. on an iPhone/iPad, I won't buy another one. Period.
I think that in their quarterly financial calls they've consistently reported the iTunes store as running "about break even". They don't sound unhappy about it, so presumably they're on the positive side of break even rather than on the negative side.
The following Dickens quote springs to mind: "Income, twenty shillings a week, expenditure, twenty shillings and sixpence; result, misery. Income, twenty shillings a week, expenditure, nineteen shillings and sixpence; result, happiness."
However if Apple cut back to say 25% then it might mean that they are subsidising people's use of the store. This would be bad for Apple because they would be losing money. Boo hoo. On the other hand, if they were losing money with one hand in order to (as you suggest) gain it with the other, then they would open themselves to questions of dumping, price fixing, abuse of monopoly etc.
Selling at below cost is a typical strategy to keep new entrants out of the market, and so would be evil. But apparently taking 30% is evil too, so it doesn't matter what they do, somebody is going to be unhappy with them.
The following Dickens quote springs to mind: "Income, twenty shillings a week, expenditure, twenty shillings and sixpence; result, misery. Income, twenty shillings a week, expenditure, nineteen shillings and sixpence; result, happiness."
However if Apple cut back to say 25% then it might mean that they are subsidising people's use of the store. This would be bad for Apple because they would be losing money. Boo hoo. On the other hand, if they were losing money with one hand in order to (as you suggest) gain it with the other, then they would open themselves to questions of dumping, price fixing, abuse of monopoly etc.
Selling at below cost is a typical strategy to keep new entrants out of the market, and so would be evil. But apparently taking 30% is evil too, so it doesn't matter what they do, somebody is going to be unhappy with them.
I just know one thing: the moment Kindle is removed from the app store, I'm selling my iPad.
I'd love for Amazon to remove the DRM from their books, and just sell books in epub format which can be read on any device without a Kindle app. That would solve Amazon's problem with iOS/Apple, and also be an ideal solution for end users. EDIT: what I mean is, music is now sold without DRM. Why do we still need DRM for ebooks? I'd love to be able to just put all my ebooks in a Dropbox folder, and not depend on Amazon to create an app for every platform where I want to read my books.
But if you'd like Amazon to make a concession as large as this, surely Apple should be asked to make a few concessions too?
Both companies sell IP - and both rely on a various forms of DRM to enforce scarcity. I think selling IP will eventually be seen as a fruitless (and unsustainable) pursuit - but for the time being this is a way both these companies are making a profit selling digital goods.
Both companies sell IP - and both rely on a various forms of DRM to enforce scarcity. I think selling IP will eventually be seen as a fruitless (and unsustainable) pursuit - but for the time being this is a way both these companies are making a profit selling digital goods.
As far as I can remember, Apple/Steve Jobs talked the music industry into dropping DRM on music. As the leading ebooks store Amazon should be the one to push to remove DRM from books.
Well, I'm still waiting for the day when I can drag and drop one of these DRM free MP3s onto an iPod (without having to shackle my device to my computer via iTunes).
It's not exactly freedom in the best sense of the word ;)
Are iBooks DRM free? I don't think so ...
It's not exactly freedom in the best sense of the word ;)
Are iBooks DRM free? I don't think so ...
The Dropbox app on iOS can play mp3 files so you don't have to use iTunes to sync your music.
iBooks having DRM is (IMO) a problem with the publishing industry, just as DRM on music used to be a problem with the music industry. I want Amazon, and Apple, to push the publishing industry into dropping DRM on books.
iBooks having DRM is (IMO) a problem with the publishing industry, just as DRM on music used to be a problem with the music industry. I want Amazon, and Apple, to push the publishing industry into dropping DRM on books.
I think I'd like to be able to pay an author directly - that would be my ideal solution; and an ebook should necessarily cost less than a paper book. But I agree - removal of DRM should be a target.
The MP3 tip's a good one - thanks.
The MP3 tip's a good one - thanks.
I may be wrong, but I thought the choice between DRM or not for books was up to the publisher and not Amazon?
You can do this yourself (you can Google for how-to). The process of stripping Kindle DRM-MOBI format and converting it into ePUB is about as simple as ripping a DVD.
Or just send the Kindle over to Cydia.
Apple have done a great job of undermining their impending iPad 2 launch. I was on board for buying one (or the iPad 3), until the 30% subscription debacle ensued.
Whoever at Apple said that the iPad2 was a speedbump and the real glory was iPad3 kind of killed the iPad2 for me. Who's going to buy a tablet that is going to be obsolete in 6 months?
Gruber said it
http://daringfireball.net/2011/02/the_next_six_months
From an actual, yet unnamed, Apple Staffer:
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-staffer-ipad-3-is-the-one-to-...
That's what I was thinking of. Kind of throws a wet towel on the already rumored incremental iPad2 release.
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-staffer-ipad-3-is-the-one-to-...
That's what I was thinking of. Kind of throws a wet towel on the already rumored incremental iPad2 release.
I wonder if they are releasing too fast with the iPad - with a mobile phone an annual release cycle makes sense as that market changes so fast and they are subsidised for a lot of people.
However the iPad is pretty billed as the future computer replacement. I don't think a new version every year will sell as well.
However the iPad is pretty billed as the future computer replacement. I don't think a new version every year will sell as well.
It's a computer too, so billing it as a computer replacement is fuzzy thinking at best. I note that I cannot recall anyone at Apple saying this.
According to Fortune, either Cook, Oppenheimer or Cue said this "Capitalizing on the "explosive" demand for the iPad, believing that tablets could end up being a bigger market than PCs. (If this is so, Sacconaghi calculates that the iPad could eventually be a $60 billion to $100 billion business for Apple.)"
That doesn't mean that PCs will go away, at $500 for the average (future!) price of a PC that still leaves room for 100 million PCs to be sold each year, which is still a lot of PCs. It also doesn't say at what point in the distant future this might occur.
On the other hand, if it is some breathless pundit speculating hard (as they are wont to do) who claims that the iPad is a future computer replacement, I take it with exactly the same seriousness as I do all their other breathless pronouncements about the 101 iPod/iPad/iPhone killers that are announced each week, which is to say I don't take it seriously at all.
None of the tech pundits can predict the future worth a damn. They've proved this time and time again. Gruber has a running joke with claim-chowder (a play on words for clam chowder), where he takes the stupid things people said in the past and calls them to task for it.
According to Fortune, either Cook, Oppenheimer or Cue said this "Capitalizing on the "explosive" demand for the iPad, believing that tablets could end up being a bigger market than PCs. (If this is so, Sacconaghi calculates that the iPad could eventually be a $60 billion to $100 billion business for Apple.)"
That doesn't mean that PCs will go away, at $500 for the average (future!) price of a PC that still leaves room for 100 million PCs to be sold each year, which is still a lot of PCs. It also doesn't say at what point in the distant future this might occur.
On the other hand, if it is some breathless pundit speculating hard (as they are wont to do) who claims that the iPad is a future computer replacement, I take it with exactly the same seriousness as I do all their other breathless pronouncements about the 101 iPod/iPad/iPhone killers that are announced each week, which is to say I don't take it seriously at all.
None of the tech pundits can predict the future worth a damn. They've proved this time and time again. Gruber has a running joke with claim-chowder (a play on words for clam chowder), where he takes the stupid things people said in the past and calls them to task for it.
Let me replace the word computer for desktop/laptop if that helps you understand my point.
Don't get me wrong; I think there will still be developers using a laptop/desktop - I can't imagine trying to develop using an iPad. However for the average user do they really have the need of a desktop/laptop? For most people I would say no and ultimately it makes their lives easier.
I'll see if I can find the article where Jobs was saying that basically he saw the way computers [read desktops/laptops] are now as a dying market and the iPad/mobile market was the future. Maybe my statement was pushing it too much but the way I read it I think not.
Anyways my main point was that I just wonder if they are trying to push the iPad cycle too fast. Where in the subsidised mobile space it makes sense; will it make sense for tablets to be changing every 6-12 months?
Don't get me wrong; I think there will still be developers using a laptop/desktop - I can't imagine trying to develop using an iPad. However for the average user do they really have the need of a desktop/laptop? For most people I would say no and ultimately it makes their lives easier.
I'll see if I can find the article where Jobs was saying that basically he saw the way computers [read desktops/laptops] are now as a dying market and the iPad/mobile market was the future. Maybe my statement was pushing it too much but the way I read it I think not.
Anyways my main point was that I just wonder if they are trying to push the iPad cycle too fast. Where in the subsidised mobile space it makes sense; will it make sense for tablets to be changing every 6-12 months?
After reviewing yesterday's iPad2 announcement, where they were talking a lot about the 'post PC' nature of their product line-ups...
I concede your point. You were closer to truthiness than I was. I apologise and applaud your insight/foresight.
I concede your point. You were closer to truthiness than I was. I apologise and applaud your insight/foresight.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
used to be quite good, doesn't seem to be working at the moment. It shows the time between each revision, and when it was working clearly showed that sometimes there were only a couple of months between revisions, and sometimes there was a couple of years between revisions (the 30 inch monitor springs to mind).
Most Apple products were completely unpredictable in this regard. You could perhaps argue that the release of new computers or laptops was tied to intel's cpu release cycle, which while still appearing pseudo-random in terms of when Apple does their refresh, at least gives it some sane causal tie to the real world.
Oh, it seems to have loaded. So okay, right off the top we can see the iPod classic has in the past had refreshes as little as four and five months apart, and then 4 years (2006-09) where the new models came out in September each year.
Note that with Apple sometimes what counts as a 'new model' is really minor, even just something as small as a price drop.
iPod Touch, same thing, releases in September. Nano, September.
Shuffle, updated twice a year during 2006-09 period, only updated once last year.
Mac mini, updated twice in 2009, and not at all in 2008.
Since 2003 there have only been 4 years with a single iMac update, all the rest had two or more (2003 had 3!). So 13 updates in 8 years.
Mac Pro, only updated once a year since 2003 (2003 seem like a year where Apple pushed out a lot of refreshes).
MacBook, twice a year every year except 2005 and 2010, so 9 updates every 5 years.
MacBook Pro, multiple updates in a year not uncommon, 3 updates in 2006.
MacBook Air, once a year.
The first three iPhone updates were all 5 months apart (!!!)
The slowest updating ones of that lot mini, air and Mac Pro all feel (to me) like they update really slowly. Maybe the Pro will pick up with the switch to consumer chips instead of the server Xeons. In an industry with Moore's law (price per transistor halving every 18 months) running rampant back in the 2000s yearly or year and a half updates feel very slow.
The average Apple (hardware) product (including taking all the slowpokes into account) updates every 0.700205338809035 of a year. Call it eight and a half months.
So if they release a new iPad in March, seeing another one in November (just in time for Xmas! Funny that) would not be at all unreasonable.
used to be quite good, doesn't seem to be working at the moment. It shows the time between each revision, and when it was working clearly showed that sometimes there were only a couple of months between revisions, and sometimes there was a couple of years between revisions (the 30 inch monitor springs to mind).
Most Apple products were completely unpredictable in this regard. You could perhaps argue that the release of new computers or laptops was tied to intel's cpu release cycle, which while still appearing pseudo-random in terms of when Apple does their refresh, at least gives it some sane causal tie to the real world.
Oh, it seems to have loaded. So okay, right off the top we can see the iPod classic has in the past had refreshes as little as four and five months apart, and then 4 years (2006-09) where the new models came out in September each year.
Note that with Apple sometimes what counts as a 'new model' is really minor, even just something as small as a price drop.
iPod Touch, same thing, releases in September. Nano, September.
Shuffle, updated twice a year during 2006-09 period, only updated once last year.
Mac mini, updated twice in 2009, and not at all in 2008.
Since 2003 there have only been 4 years with a single iMac update, all the rest had two or more (2003 had 3!). So 13 updates in 8 years.
Mac Pro, only updated once a year since 2003 (2003 seem like a year where Apple pushed out a lot of refreshes).
MacBook, twice a year every year except 2005 and 2010, so 9 updates every 5 years.
MacBook Pro, multiple updates in a year not uncommon, 3 updates in 2006.
MacBook Air, once a year.
The first three iPhone updates were all 5 months apart (!!!)
The slowest updating ones of that lot mini, air and Mac Pro all feel (to me) like they update really slowly. Maybe the Pro will pick up with the switch to consumer chips instead of the server Xeons. In an industry with Moore's law (price per transistor halving every 18 months) running rampant back in the 2000s yearly or year and a half updates feel very slow.
The average Apple (hardware) product (including taking all the slowpokes into account) updates every 0.700205338809035 of a year. Call it eight and a half months.
So if they release a new iPad in March, seeing another one in November (just in time for Xmas! Funny that) would not be at all unreasonable.
I didn't know Adam Osborne worked at Apple
And, come to think of it, who isn't going to be pissed as hell to (2.0) update of your (1.5-ish) iPad?
It feels like an imitation of what they did with 3GS, but I can't recall the details and time frames of it compared to iPhone 4 back then.
It feels like an imitation of what they did with 3GS, but I can't recall the details and time frames of it compared to iPhone 4 back then.
At least in that case they were a year apart from each other (iPhone 3G 2008, 3GS 2009, iPhone 4 2010) on the normal release cycle.
I thought the furor over the 3GS was from people who bought the original 2007 iPhone at the non-subsidized price and then turned around and traded up to the 3G model at launch and paid the subsidized price. When the 3GS came out those folks were halfway into two-year contracts and didn't have any upgrade options with AT&T, so they couldn't do the same again, and felt slighted that a year later a better phone would come out and they couldn't get the subsidized price.
And that's not Apple's fault, that's just nerd rage over what happens when you buy a carrier-subsidized cell phone.
I thought the furor over the 3GS was from people who bought the original 2007 iPhone at the non-subsidized price and then turned around and traded up to the 3G model at launch and paid the subsidized price. When the 3GS came out those folks were halfway into two-year contracts and didn't have any upgrade options with AT&T, so they couldn't do the same again, and felt slighted that a year later a better phone would come out and they couldn't get the subsidized price.
And that's not Apple's fault, that's just nerd rage over what happens when you buy a carrier-subsidized cell phone.
Gruber shows his colors here:
This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it.
People aren't bothered simply because other companies can't do this. If Google, MS, RIM, Amazon, and HP all did the same thing people wouldn't say, "Great... everyone can do it!"
People are upset that Apple can do it, and they are.
People have long told me that Apple is a benevolent company. They point to the PC market and say, "Apple never did what MS did". And my retort was always, they couldn't, but if they could they probably would have.
Now we're seeing it play out. If Apple could squeeze Intel or Dell or Compaq they would have. Apple's benefit though is they're not a monopoly, and likely won't be one. But to the extent that they've captured a large share of disposable income they will drain their partners for every last cent. Because as Gruber has stated, Apple doesn't need you, but you sure need them.
This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it.
People aren't bothered simply because other companies can't do this. If Google, MS, RIM, Amazon, and HP all did the same thing people wouldn't say, "Great... everyone can do it!"
People are upset that Apple can do it, and they are.
People have long told me that Apple is a benevolent company. They point to the PC market and say, "Apple never did what MS did". And my retort was always, they couldn't, but if they could they probably would have.
Now we're seeing it play out. If Apple could squeeze Intel or Dell or Compaq they would have. Apple's benefit though is they're not a monopoly, and likely won't be one. But to the extent that they've captured a large share of disposable income they will drain their partners for every last cent. Because as Gruber has stated, Apple doesn't need you, but you sure need them.
I think Gruber is ignoring the competitive disadvantage Apple is putting themselves in by shutting out the "middle man" apps. Kindle, Spotify and Netflix are deeply entrenched, best-of-breed services - consumers have deep investment with their Kindle devices, Netflix accounts, etc. These are not minor points. People will give up their Kindles and use iBooks the day they uninstall iTunes and start using a Zune.
So Android, which is already very feature competitive and may have a bigger install base, could have no competitor in distributing a range of very popular, rapidly growing services. Vic Gundotra must be grinning ear to ear.
So Android, which is already very feature competitive and may have a bigger install base, could have no competitor in distributing a range of very popular, rapidly growing services. Vic Gundotra must be grinning ear to ear.
No, Gruber has stated that he does not believe Apple is ignorant of the consequences of taking 30% of Kindle sales or Netflix subscriptions via iOS — after all, Apple built Netflix support directly into AppleTV. He believes the company has probably been in talks with Amazon, Netflix, and similar companies for some time.
There's a lesson here. Build your brand inside of iOS and you're screwed. Apple can choke you. Build it outside of iOS and you have a chance to have reasonable terms. As nice as iOS is, w/o middlemen, established outside of iOS, like Kindle and Netflix -- it probably gets killed by Android.
That lesson is not limited to "iOS" and "Apple". If you place the financial future of your company solely to $PLATFORM, then $PLATFORM_OWNER will always present a risk. That's why the smart companies also get their services running on $PLATFORM_B, $PLATFORM_C and $PLATFORM_D.
" (Going further, many charge cards offer cash back on each purchase — they can do this because the cash-back percentage refunded to the customer is less than the transaction processing fee paid by the retailer.)
So the same-price rule is good for the user, and good for Apple."
This type of arrangement is not good for users and is very anti-competitive.
Banks often offer reward points worth 1% of a purchase in exchange for the use of their credit cards which incurs something like a 3% fee on merchants. The merchants have to increase their prices to maintain their margins but since they are contractually obligated not to charge credit card users more, price is increased for everyone. Even those who avoid credit cards end up paying the banks for other's use of them. If fact those who use the cards pay a little less for than those who don't because they get the 1% kickback. Next time you spend $500 of airmiles or reward points, know that you imposed $1500 worth of fees on customers likely not even using the service. The bank gave you a $500 kickback and pocketed $1000.
This scheme basically amounts to imposing a tax on everyone and it's enabled by the one percent reward points along with the price matching rule.
It's the same situation when selling on iOS. In order to pay for Apple's fees and maintain competitive margins, merchants will have to increase the prices of their products across the board, even when they are sold completely outside the Apple ecosystem. This means that if Amazon keeps their Kindle app in iOS, Amazon will have to increase prices _on every devices_ and when someone purchases a book on an Amazon device, through Amazon only, they will be indirectly paying a portion of the sale to Apple. That, IMO, is screwed up. This type of rule is illegal in many countries (at least with regards to credit cards) because it is clearly anti-competitive.
So the same-price rule is good for the user, and good for Apple."
This type of arrangement is not good for users and is very anti-competitive.
Banks often offer reward points worth 1% of a purchase in exchange for the use of their credit cards which incurs something like a 3% fee on merchants. The merchants have to increase their prices to maintain their margins but since they are contractually obligated not to charge credit card users more, price is increased for everyone. Even those who avoid credit cards end up paying the banks for other's use of them. If fact those who use the cards pay a little less for than those who don't because they get the 1% kickback. Next time you spend $500 of airmiles or reward points, know that you imposed $1500 worth of fees on customers likely not even using the service. The bank gave you a $500 kickback and pocketed $1000.
This scheme basically amounts to imposing a tax on everyone and it's enabled by the one percent reward points along with the price matching rule.
It's the same situation when selling on iOS. In order to pay for Apple's fees and maintain competitive margins, merchants will have to increase the prices of their products across the board, even when they are sold completely outside the Apple ecosystem. This means that if Amazon keeps their Kindle app in iOS, Amazon will have to increase prices _on every devices_ and when someone purchases a book on an Amazon device, through Amazon only, they will be indirectly paying a portion of the sale to Apple. That, IMO, is screwed up. This type of rule is illegal in many countries (at least with regards to credit cards) because it is clearly anti-competitive.
"Kindle doesn’t use subscriptions. Kindle offers purchases." The Kindle app doesn't support subscriptions, but the Kindle device does.
$35.88/year for the New Yorker (47 issues/year) on (B&W) Kindle vs. $234.53/year in the New Yorker iPad app and about $50/year for the paper version which comes with access to the archive on the web.
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Yorker/dp/B001O2SCKI/ref=sr_1_...
The xfinity iPad app now offers "Play Now" so it's not just a fancy remote control, but a content delivery app with a monthly subscription handled outside the app.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-first-look-comcast-xfinit...
$35.88/year for the New Yorker (47 issues/year) on (B&W) Kindle vs. $234.53/year in the New Yorker iPad app and about $50/year for the paper version which comes with access to the archive on the web.
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Yorker/dp/B001O2SCKI/ref=sr_1_...
The xfinity iPad app now offers "Play Now" so it's not just a fancy remote control, but a content delivery app with a monthly subscription handled outside the app.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-first-look-comcast-xfinit...
> APPLE SHOULD NOT REQUIRE APPS TO OFFER IN-APP SUBSCRIPTIONS
I really don't buy the relation to the initial offering of apps, but I admittedly think this is one of two big problems with this whole scheme. For one, Apple is not providing an end-to-end solution by hosting the content and cannot really keep track of all the SKUs with their current system. Never mind and SaaS providers not getting hosting out of that 30%. The economics and mechanism of app delivery are different than content delivery.
I think Apple should say that if you provide no link to your purchase / subscribing site, then you don't have to use IAP. In other words, if your app downloads content for your account, but doesn't allow in-app sales or link to out-of-app sales, then all is well.
I really don't buy the relation to the initial offering of apps, but I admittedly think this is one of two big problems with this whole scheme. For one, Apple is not providing an end-to-end solution by hosting the content and cannot really keep track of all the SKUs with their current system. Never mind and SaaS providers not getting hosting out of that 30%. The economics and mechanism of app delivery are different than content delivery.
I think Apple should say that if you provide no link to your purchase / subscribing site, then you don't have to use IAP. In other words, if your app downloads content for your account, but doesn't allow in-app sales or link to out-of-app sales, then all is well.
Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard.
Why not allow developers and publishers to set their own prices for in-app subscriptions? One reason: Apple wants its customers to get the best price
So on one hand competition is good, natural, and everyone benefits. But on the other, companies shouldn't be be able to compete with Apple's built-in subscription system?
Why not allow developers and publishers to set their own prices for in-app subscriptions? One reason: Apple wants its customers to get the best price
So on one hand competition is good, natural, and everyone benefits. But on the other, companies shouldn't be be able to compete with Apple's built-in subscription system?
Rhapsody, Sony and Instapaper were all geared up for the old subscription rules. That loud noise you hear from them is from the grinding of gears. They'll get back up to speed, but they sure had to downshift when they weren't ready to. They may not be able to take the same road they were expecting to, though.
I think one outcome you're going to see from publishers is that there will be separate plans for iOS users. Before, there was naturally only one option and the App Store app was just a client to the same subscription. Now, I can see where it makes a lot more sense to have an a la carte iOS subscription for these publishers.
I think one outcome you're going to see from publishers is that there will be separate plans for iOS users. Before, there was naturally only one option and the App Store app was just a client to the same subscription. Now, I can see where it makes a lot more sense to have an a la carte iOS subscription for these publishers.
One reason: Apple wants its customers to get the best price — and, to know that they’re getting the best price whenever they buy a subscription through an app. It’s a confidence in the brand thing: with Apple’s rules, users know they’re getting the best price...
So just like all the iPhone cases, laptop bags, headphones, and external hard drives at the Apple Store, then.
So just like all the iPhone cases, laptop bags, headphones, and external hard drives at the Apple Store, then.
Funnily enough, one of the people on HN screaming the loudest about this 30% was essentially trying to cut Apple out of any revenue at all.
What they were doing for their app was giving it away as a free download, then charging a one off subscription. Ta Da! No $ for Apple. Apple closes this loophole, and this guy starts screaming blue murder.
I've got very little sympathy for anyone like him who is just trying to rort the system and get something for nothing.
----
All the people screaming about Apple's 30% cut should just pack up, shut up, and go to Android where Google will take a 32% cut of their ad revenue. Vote with your feet peeps.
What they were doing for their app was giving it away as a free download, then charging a one off subscription. Ta Da! No $ for Apple. Apple closes this loophole, and this guy starts screaming blue murder.
I've got very little sympathy for anyone like him who is just trying to rort the system and get something for nothing.
----
All the people screaming about Apple's 30% cut should just pack up, shut up, and go to Android where Google will take a 32% cut of their ad revenue. Vote with your feet peeps.
I don't like Apple's business practises and never have, but this 70/30 split furore is hilarious to someone who has worked in retail and supply before. It is entirely normal for a retailer (apple) to take this kind of split in the retail price and the supplier/wholesaler to take 70%. In the retail industry I worked in, the retailer took a 35-40% portion.
This split is yawningly normal in retail. What's not normal is the huge numbers of "one-person" wholesalers... who have very little in the way of business experience and see that split as a "tax" rather than payment for a service.
This split is yawningly normal in retail. What's not normal is the huge numbers of "one-person" wholesalers... who have very little in the way of business experience and see that split as a "tax" rather than payment for a service.
Thank you. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticise Apple for (they are far from perfect) without making stuff up.
bit.ly told me that daring fireball was potentially problematic...
http://bit.ly/a/warning?url=http%3a%2f%2fdaringfireball%2ene...
think it has to do with the fact that he is running a URL shortener himself (i would guess bit.ly pro?) when he tweets it: http://df4.us/h8h
When Apple was the underdog, it all seemed to be about not what was possible, but what was fair, and what was right. Now it's a "Well, of course Apple would do that, wouldn't you?"
And he then punts on the biggest question of all:
What if Microsoft did this with Windows, and, say, tried to require Apple to pay them 30 percent for every purchase made through iTunes on Windows? To that, I say: good luck with that.
Not "well I'd certainly write a slam piece about it", not "well, that would definitely require competition regulators", not "that would be a dick move." Just "they couldn't do it anyway, so your hypotheticals mean nothing."
The way I put it (crassly) is "When you're Top Dog, you don't need to play like a bitch." Which is what Apple is doing, and honestly, they're turning me off from their products. And that's not about "Oh well, Apple likes to make money, and why shouldn't they be allowed to?" It's about looking like you're above it. Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this.