The Chrome Web Store looks like the native iTunes store. That is not a compliment.
Despite that it is still better looking than the Android Market Web Store. The best thing I can say about the Android Market is that it is remarkably fast.
South Korea built vast infrastructure around IE6 and ActiveX. Just a year ago a full 60% of Korean traffic still came from IE6. Why? Because they relied heavily on features that were not in the spec that Microsoft deprecated and nobody else can or will implement.
An extreme example. But it highlights the importance of sticking to specs that can be freely implemented by anyone. Five years from now when MPEGLA decides to throw down the crap hammer do you want to have to keep around old Safari binaries just for sites that migrated to h264 while the rest of the web moved on?
Until the W3C officially adopts a royalty free codec as part of the HTML standard, Google and Mozilla should assume HTML video is dead. They might as well make the <video> tag inoperable by default. Just parse it and ignore it.
Of course, Google owns VP8. So they are pushing it so it might become a defacto standard that later gets officially adopted. Despite meeting the requirements to be part of the HTML spec, without the official backing of the W3C it is no different than any other out of spec extension to HTML.
Is Mozilla intentionally trying to create market confusion? It isn't obvious from the name, but this is built on XULRunner and has no relation to Google Chrome.
I'm not sure about the IRS, but I know for a fact non-profits have been in a bind with Apple for years for just that reason. Apple wants 30% of the donations. Or rather, Apple will not allow credit card transactions that do not go through in app purchase.
Every charity wants to arm its people with an iPad or send out a free iPhone app to collect donations. Ever notice how there aren't any?
It's downright ridiculous if section 11.2 is applied universally. So does Apple get a cut of Cisco's WebEx contracts whenever a customer decides to fire up the free iOS app? Does Apple get a cut of OverDrive's contract to deliver eBooks and audio books to local libraries if someone downloads the iOS app? This doesn't even make sense.
Are Netflix and Hulu going to hand over 30% of their subscription fees to Apple if the user wants to fire up the service on an iOS device? Is that even feasible?
Are the Apple tax examiners going to look for login screens and reject apps based solely on that now?
No, probably not. It's probably just a cover for Apple to beat up on its competitors (Amazon, Barnes and Noble) and to let everyone else (Netflix, Hulu) get a free pass. Much like how Apple singled out Adobe yet allowed Appcelerator and UNITY to continue without pause.
Why didn't Google's investigation go further? Why didn't they decompile the IE8 toolbar to figure out what it was really doing? Maybe that's against the DMCA and Google can't admit to it?
Having the evidence in code would have made the accusation irrefutable.
My understanding is that Amazon was guaranteeing some publishers the same profit per sale that they would get from a hardback book in exchange for allowing Amazon to fix the price at $9.99. In some cases the profit was more than the $9.99 Amazon was charging so Amazon had to pony up $1 or $2 on each sale.
I think more recently Amazon has allowed publishers to use an alternative agency model that lets the publishers set their own prices and Amazon takes a fixed percentage cut of the sale. This doesn't cause Amazon to lose money, but now publishers can sell eBooks at nearly the same price as paper books which hurts the Kindle's attractiveness and slows adoption.
Regardless, this is an unworkable situation Apple has constructed. Amazon barely makes 30% of the sale price of each book if it even makes that much at all. It can hardly afford to give away its entire fee and then some to Apple.
This is either a strong arm attempt to get Amazon to agree to a strategic agreement for a fraction of the revenue or Apple is simply trying to destroy the Amazon Kindle app entirely. Either way Apple wins and Amazon loses. I suppose consumers can come out ahead if the strategic agreement allows in app purchasing of Kindle books for the same price, but it could also be bad if the iOS Kindle app disappears.
The point is the competition still lags, so Apple still has a free pass with users and developers. And if the competition suddenly caught up, Apple only needs pull back just enough to make us all forget.
Really, it's stunts like this that shows how much iOS leads the competition. Like electing a convicted murderer to public office because his competition is that incompetent. Android isn't forcing Apple to compete on its terms at all.
There are other troubling inconsistencies as well. But I decided to stop there. I only want the author to go back and fix his numbers, I don't want to write the article for him.
Without a doubt, this whole thing is a poor abuse of statistics. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you can make $100,000 and keep a lot in the bank by living like someone who makes $30,000. Which, by the way, there are quite a few of those people in the United States.
This reminds me of the "no intermediate code" snafu that was later repealed. Apple keeps testing the boundaries of what we will tolerate because it knows it can get away with it while the competition still lags behind.
This newest development sets a truly frightening precedent, though. Any subscription service that sees significant growth through their iOS app is vulnerable to Apple's tax collectors. As soon as it looks like you're making money, Apple can jump in and extort 30% of your gross revenue or sink your whole business. Granted, maybe you owe some thanks to Apple, but 30% can quickly turn a sustainable business into a bankrupt one.
Considering Amazon already loses money on each Kindle book sold, losing an extra 30% on top of that may not be a financially viable option. Apple is effectively trying to edge Amazon out of its marketplace.
Something is wrong about the author's numbers here.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey the author cites says the 25-34 year old that spends 37.1% of their salary on housing is only making $58,946 per year, NOT $100,000 per year.
Whether intentional or not, the survey is being misrepresented to the benefit of the author's argument.
At $79 per year, Amazon Prime is cheaper than Netflix streaming only (12 x $7.99 = $95.88 per year). And you get free 2-day shipping to boot.
It's an incredible value. Almost too good of a value actually. But that is what Amazon might just need to compete with the likes of Netflix. Much like the losses they have been taking on Kindle books, maybe they will start eating it on streaming video rentals, too.
HTC, Foxconn, and Samsung will build it with your logo on the back; Google will provide the OS updates; and you just need to provide the value add like integration with a popular service whether that's Facebook, MTV, or Disney. Even Barnes and Noble was able to make a nice Android device with its own App Store.
Such a venture could easily pay for itself like Google's Chrome and Android projects did. It's a tough call. No matter what Facebook is reliant on Google and Apple for its mobile future. Then again the easiest path for Facebook (i.e. Android) also ties them even more closely to Google's whims.
Despite that it is still better looking than the Android Market Web Store. The best thing I can say about the Android Market is that it is remarkably fast.