Why are you people defending Apple?(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Why are you people defending Apple?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/16/why-are-you-people-defending-apple/
33 comments
30% is not as much as people think it is. I've been involved in billing systems that do recurring billing and it is actually surprisingly hard, a lot harder than one-off payments. Just a few examples:
* Credit cards on file get stolen or expire all the time.
* People forget to cancel in time and do charge backs which you then have to resolve in some other way.
* People e-mail customer support a lot more than for regular payments ("I want cancel, and please refund last x month too"). Support is expensive
* Apple operates in a lot of countries where credit card penetration is very low and other payment methods are required.
... and then they handle the entire operation of the app store, and they need to make a profit somewhere. When the iPhone just came out Apple claimed they were not making any money on the app store and I think that's entirely believable. Margins will have gone up as scale increased but now that they have added recurring billing those margins will be lower again.
* Credit cards on file get stolen or expire all the time.
* People forget to cancel in time and do charge backs which you then have to resolve in some other way.
* People e-mail customer support a lot more than for regular payments ("I want cancel, and please refund last x month too"). Support is expensive
* Apple operates in a lot of countries where credit card penetration is very low and other payment methods are required.
... and then they handle the entire operation of the app store, and they need to make a profit somewhere. When the iPhone just came out Apple claimed they were not making any money on the app store and I think that's entirely believable. Margins will have gone up as scale increased but now that they have added recurring billing those margins will be lower again.
This is a completely subjective judgment. You don't think 30% is too much for these services.
Double faux pas: It's not subjective, because I provide quantitative arguments (Apple not making money on the app store initially) and facts (recurring billing is much more expensive than regular billing, which is common knowledge to billing experts). Also note that I did NOT say 30% wasn't too much, I said it's not as much as people think.
I'm not saying I agree with Apple's new policies, but I don't remember seeing any outrage when Amazon was taking a whopping 70% of ebook sales, while simaltenously instituting a most favored nation clause which made it impossible for publishers to sell their books cheaper via any other distribution channel.
Unfortunately Apple brings out the fanboy in some, while also bringing out the rabid anti-Apple sentiment in others. I wish the hyper emotion would get toned down on both sides.
Unfortunately Apple brings out the fanboy in some, while also bringing out the rabid anti-Apple sentiment in others. I wish the hyper emotion would get toned down on both sides.
Won't this just make consumers hurt at the end? The most reasonable option as a developer is just to mark up the prices by 30% and then say if you want it the normal price, too bad - Apple needs its cut.
I don't know or care about all the particulars. This feels like pure greed, not some cool strategic play.
In other news: this is the first decent thing I've read on TC in six months!
In other news: this is the first decent thing I've read on TC in six months!
Apple can do this because they have a monopoly on good design. Almost nobody outside Cupertino understands that design, user interface, and user experience matter.
Shame on you people for having opinions that don't match mine.
YOU PEOPLE!? What's that supposed to mean?
And people wonder why I hate the walled approach Apple takes.
The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices.
Apple deserves to have control over their own platform, but this is getting a little crazy. The extra fee wouldn't be so bad if developers could increase fees through apps to offset it, but Apple is forcing them into a horrible position. They can't say the reason for higher prices is Apple charging them. They have to eat that cost for the customer and aren't even allowed to post links to their site in the app anymore.
The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices.
Apple deserves to have control over their own platform, but this is getting a little crazy. The extra fee wouldn't be so bad if developers could increase fees through apps to offset it, but Apple is forcing them into a horrible position. They can't say the reason for higher prices is Apple charging them. They have to eat that cost for the customer and aren't even allowed to post links to their site in the app anymore.
Now everyone should know, if they didn't before, why Apple is no Microsoft. Apple isn't content to create a platform, they want to own everything. They want a walled garden, they want captive users, they want to be able to demand exorbitant profit margins in perpetuity.
Mostly benign monarchies may seem very attractive at first glance, but over time abuse of power is inevitable and then it's too late.
Mostly benign monarchies may seem very attractive at first glance, but over time abuse of power is inevitable and then it's too late.
I wonder how much content will end up simply as web apps and web sites and then it won't matter what platform the end user chooses.
I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies.
I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies.
> I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies.
Bingo!
I leaned that way before as well. recent events just reinforced my decision to do the same. i've got one iOS native app in the pipeline for a startup client now. but it will hopefully be my last. there are just too many business ideas, too many features and experiences I can deliver quite satisfactorily as a desktop-friendly & mobile-friendly website, or on Android, to have to put up with this Nazi behavior on Apple's part anymore. i demand the ability to have whatever features I want, whatever content I want, do billing however I want, design my UI whatever way I think best, use whatever tools I want, and make new releases when and how I want, with no more bureaucracy, rituals or dumbass XCode quirks and mole-whacking. No more.
Bingo!
I leaned that way before as well. recent events just reinforced my decision to do the same. i've got one iOS native app in the pipeline for a startup client now. but it will hopefully be my last. there are just too many business ideas, too many features and experiences I can deliver quite satisfactorily as a desktop-friendly & mobile-friendly website, or on Android, to have to put up with this Nazi behavior on Apple's part anymore. i demand the ability to have whatever features I want, whatever content I want, do billing however I want, design my UI whatever way I think best, use whatever tools I want, and make new releases when and how I want, with no more bureaucracy, rituals or dumbass XCode quirks and mole-whacking. No more.
I wish that were practical, but Web apps just don't measure up for a lot of domains. Personal example: I was recently toying with the idea of porting a design program to be a Web app, but even just getting very simple typography right is pretty intractable.
Sure, not everything can be a web app, but a lot of the subscription world can easily be ported to web app, since the content will likely be delivered in HTML.
Interestingly, serving e-books over HTML would destroy the DRM models that Amazon and others have developed to "protect" their content. I can't see there being a Kindle web-based reader unless Amazon takes the same road as Apple with regard to DRM [1], and tells all their content providers to get on board.
[1] http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
[1] http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
If you're talking desktop, I agree, since the browser has become so pre-eminent there. But for mobile, Web apps are distinctly second-tier citizens. Just installing one on your home screen is voodoo beyond the ken of most iPhone users.
It's not so bad on Android. And Google is very good at Web Apps. Try viewing the web app versions of gmail and such on your phone. They're not as full featured as the dedicated apps, but they work damn well. The big thing is making them look like real apps to the end user. No one wants to have to remember a bunch of web addresses. Something like what Chrome does on the PC is good...instead of a classic link shortcut for your desktop, it makes an "app" out of it. Giving it its own icon and name like any other program on the computer.
Unless they want any kind of DRM.
Why would you need DRM for a web app with a subscription model?
To stop subscribers copying all the content and then unsubscribing. For services where most of the value is in the back catalogue this is a risk.
If that's all the value you're offering your users, DRM is the least of your problems. If it's that easy for users to exhaust the content they actually want, you're going to have problems with customer retention, not to mention customer acquisition.
good luck with that.
[deleted]
Apple doesn't want to own everything. They're happy being the BMW of tech and generate massive profits.
Comparing this situation to monarchies and abuses of power is stupid. It's just an in-app subscription model for a mobile OS that nobody is being forced to use.
Comparing this situation to monarchies and abuses of power is stupid. It's just an in-app subscription model for a mobile OS that nobody is being forced to use.
Not all monarchies are bad, but most eventually turn worse. That's where the comparison to the iPhone platform is relevant. Apple has a lot of control over the platform, and so far people haven't been overly concerned about that. But over time people may start to realize that Apple is not as benevolent a company as they've been led to believe.
Yes, people can go elsewhere. And I think that's precisely what will happen. Apple has had the lead in mobile app development as a platform up until now, but their restrictive and short-sighted rules and policies may very well sap much of that momentum.
Yes, people can go elsewhere. And I think that's precisely what will happen. Apple has had the lead in mobile app development as a platform up until now, but their restrictive and short-sighted rules and policies may very well sap much of that momentum.
> all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices.
Music on iOS devices isn't DRMed and hasn't been for some time. If your new device can't play m4a files this is a separate issue and you can transcode them just like if you had a pile of drm-free WMAs.
Apps are DRMed but even if they weren't it'd be irrelevant unless a WINE-analogue for iOS came about (and consider the time-scale this would take and performance issues, etc. UIKit is non-trivial). I can't move an Android app onto my iPhone either, despite its lack of DRM, and whether the blocker is legal or technical is irrelevant. The real problem isn't that a user can't move their 99c iOS whatever-app to their new android phone, it's that they can't find or don't know how to find or can't be bothered finding equivalent app(s) for their new phone. Leaving aside the whole question of relative top-tier application quality on the platforms.
Movies, I don't know the behaviour here. Do people collect big libraries of apple DRM-ed movies, enough to keep them stuck to a phone? TV episodes I could see, but those strike me as more disposable in any case.
What is the 'etc' in "music, movies, apps, etc"? It's not your photos. It's not your emails. It's not your calendars or your contacts. It's not even the data saved in your applications - there's a trivial API now for transferring files from an application to your desktop via iTunes; if you can't export the data from your favourite applications to transfer to a different platform, that's on the application developers, not Apple.
I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should).
Music on iOS devices isn't DRMed and hasn't been for some time. If your new device can't play m4a files this is a separate issue and you can transcode them just like if you had a pile of drm-free WMAs.
Apps are DRMed but even if they weren't it'd be irrelevant unless a WINE-analogue for iOS came about (and consider the time-scale this would take and performance issues, etc. UIKit is non-trivial). I can't move an Android app onto my iPhone either, despite its lack of DRM, and whether the blocker is legal or technical is irrelevant. The real problem isn't that a user can't move their 99c iOS whatever-app to their new android phone, it's that they can't find or don't know how to find or can't be bothered finding equivalent app(s) for their new phone. Leaving aside the whole question of relative top-tier application quality on the platforms.
Movies, I don't know the behaviour here. Do people collect big libraries of apple DRM-ed movies, enough to keep them stuck to a phone? TV episodes I could see, but those strike me as more disposable in any case.
What is the 'etc' in "music, movies, apps, etc"? It's not your photos. It's not your emails. It's not your calendars or your contacts. It's not even the data saved in your applications - there's a trivial API now for transferring files from an application to your desktop via iTunes; if you can't export the data from your favourite applications to transfer to a different platform, that's on the application developers, not Apple.
I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should).
Valid points. You're right. Maybe I went a bit overboard. But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods. I don't blame them for that. What I blame them for is pushing everyone else out just because they control enough of the market to do so.
> I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should).
Absolutely. However, those things aren't huge. Different platforms have equivelants anyway. If I go from iOS to Android (or the other way around), I have plenty to take the place of those. Setting them up again may take a little time, but not much.
> I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should).
Absolutely. However, those things aren't huge. Different platforms have equivelants anyway. If I go from iOS to Android (or the other way around), I have plenty to take the place of those. Setting them up again may take a little time, but not much.
> But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods.
I wouldn't even say that. I'd say "Apple focuses on making their services and goods work together painlessly." Being incompatible with other things is not the goal but it does end up being the end result some of the time. It's a subtle but important distinction.
I wouldn't even say that. I'd say "Apple focuses on making their services and goods work together painlessly." Being incompatible with other things is not the goal but it does end up being the end result some of the time. It's a subtle but important distinction.
I would agree with you were it not for what they're doing now with this whole in-app transaction thing. They're forcing other services out. It wouldn't be a problem except they don't let companies adjust their prices to reflect the cut Apple is taking and they don't let you advertise the fact you can get the same service outside the app.
> Being incompatible with other things is not the goal
Yes, a lot of the time it is. Apple went out of their way to prevent the ipod working with non-itunes software, they also went out of their way to make itunes music streaming over the network incompatible with other software.
Yes, a lot of the time it is. Apple went out of their way to prevent the ipod working with non-itunes software, they also went out of their way to make itunes music streaming over the network incompatible with other software.
[deleted]
"I can't move an Android app onto my iPhone either, despite its lack of DRM, and whether the blocker is legal or technical is irrelevant."
That's actually Apple's fault too. There is an Android runtime for iOS (http://www.xmlvm.org/android/). However, as far as I understand Apple's store rules, such a runtime must not be used for applications.
That's actually Apple's fault too. There is an Android runtime for iOS (http://www.xmlvm.org/android/). However, as far as I understand Apple's store rules, such a runtime must not be used for applications.
Actually that's a cross compiler, and products made with it are almost certainly allowed on the appstore (I actually worked on a J2ME->iPhone cross compiler in 2008 when the appstore rules were even stricter, and products using our compiler were allowed on the appstore (though we were living in constant fear, back in those days it was much more ambiguous)). It's only useful if you've got the source for your android application, at which point you can recompile it into an iPhone app. It doesn't run a 'bare' android app.
If an actual Java runtime was made though, that would be banned.
If an actual Java runtime was made though, that would be banned.
What the article actually says is:
> Not to mention the fact that users have built up libraries of dozens of applications and DRM-laden content that won’t transfer between devices.
What you say is (emphasis added):
> The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices.
Music is DRM-free on iTunes and has been for some time. TV shows and movies are another matter and have other issues (such as only one download), which is why I won't buy them from there.
But it's not Apple demanding DRM. It's the content producers, who are still until the woeful delusion that DRM prevents copying. In reality it simply annoys customers. The only reason music is DRM-free on iTunes is because Apple extracted that concession as part of a deal that gave the RIAA three pricing bands for songs ($0.69, $0.99 and $1.29, which basically means $1.29 for anything new) over the previous model, which was $0.99 for everything.
> Not to mention the fact that users have built up libraries of dozens of applications and DRM-laden content that won’t transfer between devices.
What you say is (emphasis added):
> The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices.
Music is DRM-free on iTunes and has been for some time. TV shows and movies are another matter and have other issues (such as only one download), which is why I won't buy them from there.
But it's not Apple demanding DRM. It's the content producers, who are still until the woeful delusion that DRM prevents copying. In reality it simply annoys customers. The only reason music is DRM-free on iTunes is because Apple extracted that concession as part of a deal that gave the RIAA three pricing bands for songs ($0.69, $0.99 and $1.29, which basically means $1.29 for anything new) over the previous model, which was $0.99 for everything.
I get what you mean, but it still locks you into Apple's devices. Also, Amazon is able to produce content without DRM. Mp3 format music, etc.
Also, Amazon is able to produce content without DRM. Mp3 format music, etc.
I'm not sure I see your point
Apple music = Amazon music = DRM free
Apple iBooks = Amazon Kindle books = incl DRM
Apple movies = Netflix = everyone else = incl DRM
I'm not sure I see your point
Apple music = Amazon music = DRM free
Apple iBooks = Amazon Kindle books = incl DRM
Apple movies = Netflix = everyone else = incl DRM
Apple music = Amazon music = DRM free
Correct.
Apple iBooks = Amazon Kindle books = incl DRM
Apple movies = Netflix = everyone else = incl DRM
Less correct. Kindle and Netflix have DRM, but they don't have the platform lock-in of iBooks and movies. iBooks, as far as I know, is only available on iOS. DRM is bad, but DRM that's tied to a smaller range of platforms is even worse.
Correct.
Apple iBooks = Amazon Kindle books = incl DRM
Apple movies = Netflix = everyone else = incl DRM
Less correct. Kindle and Netflix have DRM, but they don't have the platform lock-in of iBooks and movies. iBooks, as far as I know, is only available on iOS. DRM is bad, but DRM that's tied to a smaller range of platforms is even worse.
[deleted]
1) You're not locked into Apple's devices. ITunes is standard mp4 audio and plays on a variety of platforms; the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too.
2) Amazon's VOD service provides DRMed video, too.
Then what's the issue?
2) Amazon's VOD service provides DRMed video, too.
Then what's the issue?
> the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too
That's the problem. The DRM locks it to Apple only software and/or hardware.
That's the problem. The DRM locks it to Apple only software and/or hardware.
How does Amazon's VOD DRM free you of software/hardware lockin?
Amazon doesn't manufacture the device you view your content on. Amazon VOD support is available on a wide range of hardware from multiple manufacturers.
So yeah, the DRM is still there, but if you're not happy with the way Samsung is doing things, you can hop to LG or Sony just as easily.
Compare with Apple where if you bought video content on iTunes and don't like the AppleTV... well... tough.
So yeah, the DRM is still there, but if you're not happy with the way Samsung is doing things, you can hop to LG or Sony just as easily.
Compare with Apple where if you bought video content on iTunes and don't like the AppleTV... well... tough.
I never said it did. DRM is a problem no matter who provides it. But Apple definitely ties it much more into their devices than other companies. There's an iTunes app built into the iPhone that can't be removed unless you jailbreak. Google has yet to do something like this with Android. You have more options and aren't tied to one specific service.
well, for one thing, you can stream amazon VOD on linux, whereas you can't view itunes movies on linux.
Or RealPlayer, MediaCenter, or Songbird.
[deleted]
> and aren't even allowed to post links to their site in the app anymore.
whoa. first time I heard this. if this is true, it's probably straws[final+5] for me. goodbye native iOS app development, hello mobile multi-platform web apps and Android apps.
whoa. first time I heard this. if this is true, it's probably straws[final+5] for me. goodbye native iOS app development, hello mobile multi-platform web apps and Android apps.
They are trying to force content producers to work exclusively with Apple.
I can up the cost to the end user _as long as I stay only with Apple_. Once I move my product to a second competing device, then it really hurts profit because the price has to stay the same.
Once they become the exclusive provider, then they continue to dominate the market, regardless of what other tablets and operating systems come along.
I can up the cost to the end user _as long as I stay only with Apple_. Once I move my product to a second competing device, then it really hurts profit because the price has to stay the same.
Once they become the exclusive provider, then they continue to dominate the market, regardless of what other tablets and operating systems come along.
Actually having the same content/product sold through both Apple and somewhere else is an interesting case. Between the two distribution channels, in which do you put your R&D or advertising dollar when channel Apple returns 30% less per customer gained there versus channel other?
Well.
First up, I suspect this policy won't last long; the most likely explanation for it that I can see is that Apple's trying to figure out what the market will bear. Which, you know, is something they tend to do fairly often with the iOS platform, and sometimes it works the first try and they stick to the policy, and sometimes it doesn't and they change it.
But as far as choosing where to focus money, I think Apple's banking on the fact that nobody else in the mobile space has the kind of integrated platform and distribution channel iOS has. There's a lot of attraction there, especially given that the alternatives (i.e., Android) not only aren't there yet, but aren't even close to getting there.
So right now, if I had to choose where to put my budget, I'd put it into iOS without a second thought; sure, Apple's going to get a cut, but the reduced overhead and relative ease (if I want broad exposure on Android, how many app stores do I have to market my content in? How many carriers do I have to sign deals with to get promoted? etc.), combined with an existing and known-to-be-loyal installed base for the platform, would suggest to me that I'm going to make up the difference pretty quickly.
First up, I suspect this policy won't last long; the most likely explanation for it that I can see is that Apple's trying to figure out what the market will bear. Which, you know, is something they tend to do fairly often with the iOS platform, and sometimes it works the first try and they stick to the policy, and sometimes it doesn't and they change it.
But as far as choosing where to focus money, I think Apple's banking on the fact that nobody else in the mobile space has the kind of integrated platform and distribution channel iOS has. There's a lot of attraction there, especially given that the alternatives (i.e., Android) not only aren't there yet, but aren't even close to getting there.
So right now, if I had to choose where to put my budget, I'd put it into iOS without a second thought; sure, Apple's going to get a cut, but the reduced overhead and relative ease (if I want broad exposure on Android, how many app stores do I have to market my content in? How many carriers do I have to sign deals with to get promoted? etc.), combined with an existing and known-to-be-loyal installed base for the platform, would suggest to me that I'm going to make up the difference pretty quickly.
That's not how I read their ToS, they are forcing content providers to offer the same price as elsewhere.
They ban pop-up's or redirects outside.
Both of these are good for end users, and user experience. The 30% cut is only going to affect the providers, not the end users, (at least not directly). They are in turn offering a large user base to these providers, in essence acting like a distributor.
If this somehow leads to providers leaving, I'm sure that Apple will back off some of these rules.
They ban pop-up's or redirects outside.
Both of these are good for end users, and user experience. The 30% cut is only going to affect the providers, not the end users, (at least not directly). They are in turn offering a large user base to these providers, in essence acting like a distributor.
If this somehow leads to providers leaving, I'm sure that Apple will back off some of these rules.
Why does the price have to stay the same between platforms?
That is one of Apple's requirements. Whatever you sell somewhere else, it has to be the same price or cheaper at Apple.
You cannot charge more on iOS to compensate for Apple's 30% cut (which I think is rather high for subscriptions).
You cannot charge more on iOS to compensate for Apple's 30% cut (which I think is rather high for subscriptions).
Aside from the subscription model involved, this is identical to (but with a better producer margin at 70%) what Handango and other PalmOS app distributors offered.
I remember developers being up in arms because (a) Handango wanted a 60% cut, (b) you had to offer the same pricing on the Handango store as anywhere else, and (c) you couldn't direct people out of the Handango store.
The clause you're talking about is pretty standard in reseller contracts everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one in the distributor contract for selling software in boxes at Apple stores, where the manufacturer makes 10% or less of the retail price. Also, Amazon has to make certain deep discount prices only visible after clicking or putting into the customer's cart because while they can sell for less than the MSRP, they aren't allowed to advertise (or let searches advertise) at that deep discount price.
Edit: Added (c) as I remembered it while rereading this.
I remember developers being up in arms because (a) Handango wanted a 60% cut, (b) you had to offer the same pricing on the Handango store as anywhere else, and (c) you couldn't direct people out of the Handango store.
The clause you're talking about is pretty standard in reseller contracts everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one in the distributor contract for selling software in boxes at Apple stores, where the manufacturer makes 10% or less of the retail price. Also, Amazon has to make certain deep discount prices only visible after clicking or putting into the customer's cart because while they can sell for less than the MSRP, they aren't allowed to advertise (or let searches advertise) at that deep discount price.
Edit: Added (c) as I remembered it while rereading this.
This articulated a lot of my issues with Apple better than I could. I tend to steer clear of TC, but I think this is the best article I've seen on this issue of the 30% cut.
"And finally, there’s the related notion that anyone who doesn’t like Apple’s rules can pick up and move to another platform, like Android. Which is ridiculous."
What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous.
Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.
What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous.
Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.
I did suck it up and switched to Android. It isn't painless. I now like Android better than iOS, but you need to change your muscle memory and learn where various options are. And all of the apps and content you purchased on iOS are no longer accessible, which is the real pain-point.
These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for 'normal' people. If Amazon pulls the Kindle app, a user is probably more likely to "just switch" to iBooks as opposed to a different platform that supports Kindle. Which is apparently what Apple is counting on.
These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for 'normal' people. If Amazon pulls the Kindle app, a user is probably more likely to "just switch" to iBooks as opposed to a different platform that supports Kindle. Which is apparently what Apple is counting on.
I've gotten to see a bunch of people switching from iOS to Android, plus a bunch of people upgrading from a feature phone to Android. If Android is the first smartphone you see, it seems natural to you. If you're used to iOS, it's harder to switch. It took me 3-4 weeks before Android felt natural and the iPhone felt alien to me.
Oh, come on. None of these things even existed a few years ago. People are consumers and will adjust to whatever is the newer, better tech.
That's not how people's brains work. When Mom first sees a smartphone, it's a cool new thing. Yeah, there's a learning curve, but it's new, so that's obvious. She'll deal.
Fast forward three years. Mom has developed a lot of habits and expectations. Time for a new smartphone. When Mom buys a new smartphone, if it works differently than the one she had before, it is confusing and you just can't do anything with this piece of crap and why oh WHY can't it just be like her old one?
And asking people to just throw away everything they own and buy it all again? Not only should that extra cost factor into your decision, there's a wealth of evidence that people irrationally weigh sunk costs more heavily than they should.
Fast forward three years. Mom has developed a lot of habits and expectations. Time for a new smartphone. When Mom buys a new smartphone, if it works differently than the one she had before, it is confusing and you just can't do anything with this piece of crap and why oh WHY can't it just be like her old one?
And asking people to just throw away everything they own and buy it all again? Not only should that extra cost factor into your decision, there's a wealth of evidence that people irrationally weigh sunk costs more heavily than they should.
I do not find the Mom argument particularly compelling. Humans are some of the best things at learning on the planet.
(From reading HN, I'm starting to believe that I must be one of the blessed few with a Mom who is not a complete jackass).
If she wants to switch (and she will if she can no longer get the things that she wants), it will get bitched about for 2 weeks, then she will figure it out and you'll never hear about it again. This is some sort of squeaky wheel confirmation bias.
(From reading HN, I'm starting to believe that I must be one of the blessed few with a Mom who is not a complete jackass).
If she wants to switch (and she will if she can no longer get the things that she wants), it will get bitched about for 2 weeks, then she will figure it out and you'll never hear about it again. This is some sort of squeaky wheel confirmation bias.
This is not about my mom, who is in fact a pretty plucky lady when it comes to technology, and I don't think it's confirmation bias. I'm speaking from my experience supporting lots of people who fit the general archetype of the Mom who had never used Macs at a job before.
In my experience, it takes more than two weeks before they stop missing the other way of doing things. The violation of their expectations bothers them to such a degree that it interrupts the part of their brain that would otherwise help them learn the system. They might learn eventually, but they will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming.
In my experience, it takes more than two weeks before they stop missing the other way of doing things. The violation of their expectations bothers them to such a degree that it interrupts the part of their brain that would otherwise help them learn the system. They might learn eventually, but they will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming.
[deleted]
Depends on how many books these normal people have in their Kindle libraries. 15 or more and buying a Kindle seems the obvious choice.
'normal' people?
Normal people is a pointless term. You may as well just say people.
Saying 'These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for people.' would sound horrible and arrogant, but at least it would be honest.
You, and the author of this article, shouldn't use such a lazy and condescending phrase.
Normal people is a pointless term. You may as well just say people.
Saying 'These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for people.' would sound horrible and arrogant, but at least it would be honest.
You, and the author of this article, shouldn't use such a lazy and condescending phrase.
Whoah! Settle down there. "Normal" is not an offensive term, unless you yourself deem geeks to be superior.
what do you mean pointless? if you find "normal people" condescending you'd probably be shaken to know that i actually prefer "muggles".
to be blunt, i can't even find the arrogance in the quote you fabricated. are you suggesting that people who are considered tech savvy don't have an easier time navigating new technology?
to be blunt, i can't even find the arrogance in the quote you fabricated. are you suggesting that people who are considered tech savvy don't have an easier time navigating new technology?
'Muggles' I prefer, at least it's sincere. The problem I have with the term 'normal people' is that it is a polite way of referring to 'the unwashed masses'.
Which isn't a polite thing to say no matter how you phrase it.
In the context of this article in particular, in order to bolster a flawed argument, 'normal people' are presented as people so stupid as to be unable to comprehend a second brand of telephone.
This is simply untrue, and to imply that people don't have the power to choose between two products, because 'normal people' are too stupid to use more than one type of phone is absurd.
If you have a problem with Apple's 30% cut of in app purchases, that's fine. But please use something a little more substantive than a silent, and most likely non-existent, underclass of sub-humans as your justification.
Which isn't a polite thing to say no matter how you phrase it.
In the context of this article in particular, in order to bolster a flawed argument, 'normal people' are presented as people so stupid as to be unable to comprehend a second brand of telephone.
This is simply untrue, and to imply that people don't have the power to choose between two products, because 'normal people' are too stupid to use more than one type of phone is absurd.
If you have a problem with Apple's 30% cut of in app purchases, that's fine. But please use something a little more substantive than a silent, and most likely non-existent, underclass of sub-humans as your justification.
ah. well said, i misunderstood your point. and agree. though i think the concern with "normal people" as a phrase specifically is still misdirected. it is a concept that warrants some word or phrase, and there is no harm intended.
in fact, i know several "normal people" who'd probably prefer considering themselves "normal people". at the very least, as opposed to "computer nerds". which incidentally is a term i've never found offensive.
in fact, i know several "normal people" who'd probably prefer considering themselves "normal people". at the very least, as opposed to "computer nerds". which incidentally is a term i've never found offensive.
I'm probably being a bit too pedantic.
I just don't see why the author would choose to use the loaded term 'normal people' instead of just 'people'.
edit: Unless he was being lazy and hanging his argument on an unfair caricature.
Which I believe he was.
I just don't see why the author would choose to use the loaded term 'normal people' instead of just 'people'.
edit: Unless he was being lazy and hanging his argument on an unfair caricature.
Which I believe he was.
He is the author of the article.
He was referring to the fact that once you've made significant investments in a platform + applications + DRM content, it's not really straightforward to move to another platform, especially because you cannot transfer the content you already paid for.
Also let's not forget about early termination fees from carriers, or getting another subscription just to get another phone.
For some people moving to another platform can be a significant expense. And for most people it's not really clear what else you might be missing on the other platform, that you were accustomed to using now.
Also let's not forget about early termination fees from carriers, or getting another subscription just to get another phone.
For some people moving to another platform can be a significant expense. And for most people it's not really clear what else you might be missing on the other platform, that you were accustomed to using now.
Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's little money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks.
Also, as a reminder in case you live in a country where it isn't so: Contracts prevent most of Apple's customers from jumping platforms, and sunk costs in iOS apps tighten the lock-in.
Also, as a reminder in case you live in a country where it isn't so: Contracts prevent most of Apple's customers from jumping platforms, and sunk costs in iOS apps tighten the lock-in.
Oh that's gonna change, no doubt. Produces can't ignore iOS, true, they'll suck it up for now, but the mobile market isn't gonna stay this way forever if Apple continues to behave this way.
I say 80% of all apps we do, we do now both for iOS and Android. While Android used to be a second class citizen a year or so ago - often just recieving a 'port' of the iPhone version (ok it runs, we're done) - now there's much more focus on making 'native' Android apps (no more Back-button in the navigation bar etc.). Android revenue is still behind iOS, but it's profitable and worth doing.
Since Android is growing already at a much faster rate than iOS and the whole tablet & smartphone business is only expected to get bigger anyway, you gotta wonder where we'll be in say - 5 years from now? Which will be the next Windows, the OS with 90% market share, that everybody is gonna develop for? Well it could've been iOS, but I don't think that's going to happen anymore.
I say 80% of all apps we do, we do now both for iOS and Android. While Android used to be a second class citizen a year or so ago - often just recieving a 'port' of the iPhone version (ok it runs, we're done) - now there's much more focus on making 'native' Android apps (no more Back-button in the navigation bar etc.). Android revenue is still behind iOS, but it's profitable and worth doing.
Since Android is growing already at a much faster rate than iOS and the whole tablet & smartphone business is only expected to get bigger anyway, you gotta wonder where we'll be in say - 5 years from now? Which will be the next Windows, the OS with 90% market share, that everybody is gonna develop for? Well it could've been iOS, but I don't think that's going to happen anymore.
> you gotta wonder where we'll be in say - 5 years from now?
Is it possible that the market won't coalesce and will instead stay fragmented? I wonder about the likelihood of that happening. It seems unlikely that either Android or iOS will capture 90% market share any time soon, plus, there is Blackberry to contend with (perhaps the Playbook will revive their fortunes somewhat) and you can never completely count out Microsoft either, as we've seen with the recent Nokia situation.
I think there are perhaps a couple of ways this could go. First, regardless of who executes best on technology, there may be a company who executes best on earning money for developers, and this economic factor could really boost the platform - if developers start coalescing around a platform, consumers may (will?) follow. (I think iOS has the edge here.)
Second, if the market remains fragmented it is going to be untenable for many companies, particularly small ones who develop software for clients, to support all of the platforms. They'll either have to specialize in one, perhaps two, of the platforms and avoid or subcontract work for the other platforms, or they'll need to start relying more heavily on HTML5 and workarounds like Phonegap. From that perspective, it may be in the best interest of web developers to see the platform fragmentation continue and perhaps get even worse.
Is it possible that the market won't coalesce and will instead stay fragmented? I wonder about the likelihood of that happening. It seems unlikely that either Android or iOS will capture 90% market share any time soon, plus, there is Blackberry to contend with (perhaps the Playbook will revive their fortunes somewhat) and you can never completely count out Microsoft either, as we've seen with the recent Nokia situation.
I think there are perhaps a couple of ways this could go. First, regardless of who executes best on technology, there may be a company who executes best on earning money for developers, and this economic factor could really boost the platform - if developers start coalescing around a platform, consumers may (will?) follow. (I think iOS has the edge here.)
Second, if the market remains fragmented it is going to be untenable for many companies, particularly small ones who develop software for clients, to support all of the platforms. They'll either have to specialize in one, perhaps two, of the platforms and avoid or subcontract work for the other platforms, or they'll need to start relying more heavily on HTML5 and workarounds like Phonegap. From that perspective, it may be in the best interest of web developers to see the platform fragmentation continue and perhaps get even worse.
See... I kind of agree with you but I had a different take on things... It seems to me the time is right for people to get better at making web applications that provide really rich functionality. I know right their don't seem to be web applications that are as good as native clients but if people really work towards that direction they can avoid the walled garden all together... Of course then they have to convince users to go to the webpage and 'install' it as an icon in the dashboard..
Many people have already made the comparison between the mobile wars of the 10's and the PC wars of the 80's, where Google is now playing the role of Microsoft and Apple is now playing the role of, er, Apple.
But what I find ironic is Microsoft's role in this new platform war. Microsoft and Windows Phone 7 has now taken on the role of what was the stodgy old monopoly that only cared to make products for enterprises: IBM and OS/2.
But what I find ironic is Microsoft's role in this new platform war. Microsoft and Windows Phone 7 has now taken on the role of what was the stodgy old monopoly that only cared to make products for enterprises: IBM and OS/2.
> Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's no money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks.
It sounds like being on iOS as opposed to Android is worth money to you. That's what Apple thinks too.
Either prove them wrong or pay the piper.
It sounds like being on iOS as opposed to Android is worth money to you. That's what Apple thinks too.
Either prove them wrong or pay the piper.
Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known. Ask Netscape. Does the fact that Apple's appeal comes from its monopoly position somehow make its actions less of a shakedown?
I recall reading that Android was shipped on more phones in Q4 than iOS. If true, how can you consider Apple a monopoly if they aren't even the most popular mobile OS out there?
Android was shipped on three times as many phones as iOS in Q4 (in the US).
You might be confusing it with the fact that installed base of Android is now equal to iOS on smartphones. (It's not yet caught up with iOS across phones, pods and pads)
You might be confusing it with the fact that installed base of Android is now equal to iOS on smartphones. (It's not yet caught up with iOS across phones, pods and pads)
Correct me if you disagree, but it sounds like there is a pretty healthy non-monopolistic ecosystem in the mobile market, doesn't it? It confuses me how people can equate Apple with a monopoly, when they clearly are not controlling the entire market (unless you reduce the market to "Apple App Store", which really doesn't make sense).
Well, I'm probably not a typical case, because I'm European and have an economics degree so I see the core problem with IT today as being the constant chasing after network effects and monopolies. How many times do we need to see ignorant people lured into these roach motels before we as an industry or a society do something about it?
On the other hand, I think Android has already earned its place as the next Windows, which I'm glad of, because it's open source which avoids the possibility of it being abused too much.
But monopolies are about power rather than simple numbers. One good test would be if Apple can single-handedly dictate a price rise across the industry, which is one possible outcome of this latest announcement. Though, I actually think the interlocking demands are specifically intended to remove certain competitors from iOS without explicitly naming and kicking them out, much like they blocked Flash apps via over-broad limitations on programming language choice.
On the other hand, I think Android has already earned its place as the next Windows, which I'm glad of, because it's open source which avoids the possibility of it being abused too much.
But monopolies are about power rather than simple numbers. One good test would be if Apple can single-handedly dictate a price rise across the industry, which is one possible outcome of this latest announcement. Though, I actually think the interlocking demands are specifically intended to remove certain competitors from iOS without explicitly naming and kicking them out, much like they blocked Flash apps via over-broad limitations on programming language choice.
I definitely see where you're coming from -- excellent point, mentioning that monopolies are about power, not numbers.
However, your comment, "How many times do we need to see ignorant people lured into these roach motels before we as an industry or a society do something about it?" stuck out. From my perspective, the fallacy there is that we as a society exist as something more than a collection of individuals. I read a very interesting article today about how Darwin might actually be a better economic father, as opposed to Adam Smith. The reasoning was that Darwin's theory explains self-interest outside of the context of society; that individuals act in their best interests which may or may not benefit society.
Perhaps our differences are down to our backgrounds. Europe, as a whole, tends to look at the societal unit, whereas Americans tend to look at the individual level, where societal consequences are emergent behavior.
However, your comment, "How many times do we need to see ignorant people lured into these roach motels before we as an industry or a society do something about it?" stuck out. From my perspective, the fallacy there is that we as a society exist as something more than a collection of individuals. I read a very interesting article today about how Darwin might actually be a better economic father, as opposed to Adam Smith. The reasoning was that Darwin's theory explains self-interest outside of the context of society; that individuals act in their best interests which may or may not benefit society.
Perhaps our differences are down to our backgrounds. Europe, as a whole, tends to look at the societal unit, whereas Americans tend to look at the individual level, where societal consequences are emergent behavior.
Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known Ask Netscape. Does its resemblance to Microsoft in the '90s make Apple's actions more justifiable somehow?
You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today.
And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.
You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today.
And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.
Regarding your first paragraph: Are you seriously suggesting that the iPhone, iPod and iPad are anything but ridiculously profitable without Apple taking a 30% cut from Pandora? Apple's reports to its shareholders seem to indicate otherwise. (And if you're not claiming that, bringing up Sun is a red herring.)
Regarding your second paragraph: I agree with you. The Mac is the best personal computing platform, yet it is not a monopoly. But having a monopoly in the mobile app market does give Apple a monopoly.
Regarding your second paragraph: I agree with you. The Mac is the best personal computing platform, yet it is not a monopoly. But having a monopoly in the mobile app market does give Apple a monopoly.
>But having a monopoly in the mobile app market does give Apple a monopoly.
They don't. Doesn't Android actually have more apps in their app store? It really is what the parent said: the Apple market place is just better, it's not any kind of monopoly.
They don't. Doesn't Android actually have more apps in their app store? It really is what the parent said: the Apple market place is just better, it's not any kind of monopoly.
[deleted]
|Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition
Do you even know what a monopoly is? Because based off your comment I don't think you do.
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
So tell me what product does Apple have a monopoly on? Laptops? No. Cell phones? No. Mp3 players? No. App store? No: https://market.android.com/
There are alternatives to Apple, you just don't like them.
Do you even know what a monopoly is? Because based off your comment I don't think you do.
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
So tell me what product does Apple have a monopoly on? Laptops? No. Cell phones? No. Mp3 players? No. App store? No: https://market.android.com/
There are alternatives to Apple, you just don't like them.
[deleted]
until enough producers move.
>there's no money to be made
Man, I can't read this thread. There is so much hyperbole. I should have recognized the type of people this headline and article would bring out.
edit: I don't understand your claim. Your wording wasn't problematic. As I read it before and read it now, you're implying that moving to Android results in "little money to be made". That's the part that I don't really understand I guess.
Man, I can't read this thread. There is so much hyperbole. I should have recognized the type of people this headline and article would bring out.
edit: I don't understand your claim. Your wording wasn't problematic. As I read it before and read it now, you're implying that moving to Android results in "little money to be made". That's the part that I don't really understand I guess.
In response to your edit:
My understanding from every report I have ever read is that there just isn't a lot of money in Android apps. Not a lot of developers share, but those who do tend to report underwhelming results compared to what I see from iOS shops (and those who develop for both platforms have said exactly that in no uncertain terms). For example, Kreci posts his profits every month, and the monthly average is something like $1300 from 10 apps, several of which are pretty popular. All the news stories I see about the Android Market seem to agree with this. If you have better information, I would honestly be fascinated to hear.
(I don't mean to impugn Kreci's success. He's well within the range he wants to be in for where he lives and I'm nothing but happy for him — but for where I live, that's rent on a cheap apartment.)
My understanding from every report I have ever read is that there just isn't a lot of money in Android apps. Not a lot of developers share, but those who do tend to report underwhelming results compared to what I see from iOS shops (and those who develop for both platforms have said exactly that in no uncertain terms). For example, Kreci posts his profits every month, and the monthly average is something like $1300 from 10 apps, several of which are pretty popular. All the news stories I see about the Android Market seem to agree with this. If you have better information, I would honestly be fascinated to hear.
(I don't mean to impugn Kreci's success. He's well within the range he wants to be in for where he lives and I'm nothing but happy for him — but for where I live, that's rent on a cheap apartment.)
I've put 50 apps into the Android market recently that are direct ports of iOS equivalents. Across the board they make about 40% of the iOS ones. So, it's not as good, but it's a complete myth that there's no money there. And it's still growing tremendously.
I think the perception of Android has been deeply colored by the early experience of developers when Android really was a niche geek market. However after 800% growth last year it just isn't that market any more - it's a market mainly full of real consumers who outnumber the geeks now. When a platform is growing as fast as Android pretty much any benchmark you read from even months ago is going to be misleading.
I think the perception of Android has been deeply colored by the early experience of developers when Android really was a niche geek market. However after 800% growth last year it just isn't that market any more - it's a market mainly full of real consumers who outnumber the geeks now. When a platform is growing as fast as Android pretty much any benchmark you read from even months ago is going to be misleading.
We have an app in the Android Market and the same type of app in the App Store. The Android app makes about $7500/month and the iOS app makes about $3000/month.
We're about to release another paid app in March on both platforms that will be give us more data about the performance of apps in each marketplace. Maybe I should write a blog post about it...
We're about to release another paid app in March on both platforms that will be give us more data about the performance of apps in each marketplace. Maybe I should write a blog post about it...
The same app, or the same type of app? Judging from overall revenue reports this would seem to make you the exception, not the rule. I'd read it.
The Apple App store still makes by far the most money - $1.8 billion in revenues last year compared to $102 million for Android Market. Same for per app - an average of $5400 per year for the App store vs $850 for Android Market.
http://www.conceivablytech.com/5652/business/apple-leads-glo...
http://www.conceivablytech.com/5652/business/apple-leads-glo...
I originally qualified that a lot more, but it read awkwardly, so I shortened it and assumed people would know what I meant. I'm sorry if it bothers you that much. Is the new wording better?
People used to say that about Windows and OS X. And indeed, many of the people who are allowed to choose for themselves have chosen to suck it up and replace Windows machines with OS X machines.
So yes, move to Android and stop being such miserable worms. Ditching an iPhone is not like ditching $5,000 worth of IBM PC-XT, especially because Apple have sync'd all your contacts, emails, and other personal data with your computer.
So yes, move to Android and stop being such miserable worms. Ditching an iPhone is not like ditching $5,000 worth of IBM PC-XT, especially because Apple have sync'd all your contacts, emails, and other personal data with your computer.
Not everyone is tech-friendly and acceptable to new technology they see some things, as intrusive etc which is why certain platforms couldn't have existed in the earlier stages of the Internet etc hence, they are less likely to move over to a new platform because they are familiar with it and know where everything is.
I’m sure this post will invite a throng of Apple advocates to poke holes in my logic
...as if that were not transparently the intent of an article entitled "Why are you people defending Apple?"
...as if that were not transparently the intent of an article entitled "Why are you people defending Apple?"
Comments all removed.
The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my perspective just because it might be contrarian?
Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.
The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my perspective just because it might be contrarian?
Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.
You defend Apple because Apple is good at generating profits for large, entrenched industries at the expense of users? That's an unusual stance.
Also, which industries are you thinking of where the employees do not use some Google service or another every day? Even industries where I hear people constantly cursing Google often get a lot of value from their offerings.
Also, which industries are you thinking of where the employees do not use some Google service or another every day? Even industries where I hear people constantly cursing Google often get a lot of value from their offerings.
Google is bad for business?? this is an utterly bizarre statement.
HTC seems to be doing well for itself tooling their machines with Google android.
Consider the potential revenue business generates from Adwords. Or freeing small businesses from having to run and manage their own email systems.
My favorite example is the benefit a myriad of startups gained from having access to Google API's like maps, and the benefit business gets from being easily found on a map, a bar for instance is a business too, i find them with Google maps.
You also dont seem to qualify having the most advanced search engine in the world a benefit for businesses, talk about a tremendous impact on the entire ecosystem.
I could go on, with ease. but i think you might get the point, your view of business benefit is too narrow, your sharp dichotomy between business and consumers is false as well, businesses are consumers of other businesses too.
HTC seems to be doing well for itself tooling their machines with Google android.
Consider the potential revenue business generates from Adwords. Or freeing small businesses from having to run and manage their own email systems.
My favorite example is the benefit a myriad of startups gained from having access to Google API's like maps, and the benefit business gets from being easily found on a map, a bar for instance is a business too, i find them with Google maps.
You also dont seem to qualify having the most advanced search engine in the world a benefit for businesses, talk about a tremendous impact on the entire ecosystem.
I could go on, with ease. but i think you might get the point, your view of business benefit is too narrow, your sharp dichotomy between business and consumers is false as well, businesses are consumers of other businesses too.
Apart from some of those examples being incredibly tenuous (personal computing), and the concept of defending companies position on one thing because you like its decisions elsewhere being kinda scary.
But Google has had that impact on the entire web, both by providing visibility and a revenue stream via advertising.
But Google has had that impact on the entire web, both by providing visibility and a revenue stream via advertising.
Comments all removed.
Make judgment calls in each case.
Don't like or dislike a company, that's just senseless. Rather, like or dislike what a company does. Appreciate IBM's Watson, and dislike IBM's European business dealings in the 30's and 40's. Appreciate contributions Apple has made to personal computing, disliking their control-freak attitude.
Use your brain, don't make sweeping generalizations by sweep shit under the carpet.
Don't like or dislike a company, that's just senseless. Rather, like or dislike what a company does. Appreciate IBM's Watson, and dislike IBM's European business dealings in the 30's and 40's. Appreciate contributions Apple has made to personal computing, disliking their control-freak attitude.
Use your brain, don't make sweeping generalizations by sweep shit under the carpet.
Comments all removed.
I don't know you, and haven't conversed with you, so I can't speak for how you support Apple.
I simply oppose people who will defend any action, no matter how absurd, because they support the people behind that action in most other cases. You'll see all sorts of gymnastics used to justify it, but it really boils down to people supporting things they wouldn't normally, were they outside of context of their 'affiliation'. You see this a lot in politics (I used to do this myself, before I realized how silly it was), and you see it with popular consumer brands as well.
I simply oppose people who will defend any action, no matter how absurd, because they support the people behind that action in most other cases. You'll see all sorts of gymnastics used to justify it, but it really boils down to people supporting things they wouldn't normally, were they outside of context of their 'affiliation'. You see this a lot in politics (I used to do this myself, before I realized how silly it was), and you see it with popular consumer brands as well.
People tend to build their identities around their affiliation. Attacking Apple probably makes him feel like you are attacking him. Similarly his support of Apple is merely him supporting his own identity. It's silly, I know, but people do that all the time. It's freakishly hard for people caught in the identity/affiliation trap to disentangle that aspect of their psyche's.
It's often why you can observe fantastic levels of cognitive dissonance in people over politics or religion or other things that people build affiliation around...it's simply easier to think inconsistently than to untangle one's own identity. Rational evaluation simply goes out the window since identity is primal, emotional.
Apple is the best in the world at building the link between identity and affiliation. They don't just sell stuff, they sell an identity. Being an Apple fan is being one of the cool kids, it's part of the "in" crowd, it keeps you from being a boring accountant looking guy in a suit, it's hip, it goes against "the man", etc. All of these are what Apple's advertisements sell, not their stuff. Apple's advertisements don't just list off features and talk about why they are better, they show cool looking people dancing in silhouette, or hip young dudes looking disdainfully on a suit wearing PC user, or a colorful Olympic athlete throwing hammers at gray talking heads, etc. etc. etc.
"Buying Apple makes you cool"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Imamacimapc.jp...
"Buying Apple makes you stand out in a crowd"
http://www.iphonefootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ma...
"Buying Apple makes you an olympian"
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/04/images/apple-1984.jpg
"Buying Apple makes you an artist"
http://top-technology-reviews.com/uploadfiles/top-technology...
"Buying Apple makes you a great dancer"
http://adstrategy.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/apple.jpg
"Buying Apple makes you smart like Einstein"
http://ivovodanovic.cl/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/old-apple-...
"Buying Apple makes you a leader among men"
http://adhdrollercoaster.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/appl...
etc. etc. etc.
Pick a positive trait, things that people want to be and Apple has probably run an ad campaign around it. It's why people line up around the block to buy a new Apple product sight unseen. They need to show their affiliation with the club of Apple.
Apple doesn't advertise cute, or quirky, or super technical, they advertise the kind of person that people want to be. They advertise the quarterback in HS or the head cheerleader. They advertise Martin Luther King JR. and Einstein. They advertise the philosophical cool guy with the vintage yet cool outfit that hangs around coffee shops and debates French literature. They don't advertise the nerdy guy in his parent's basement, or the D&D geek. They don't advertise the quiet genius, toiling away on hard and esoteric problems for years on end, they advertise leaders! They don't even really advertise "ease of use", "great price", "best specs". They advertise a coherent image.
And then, to close the deal? They actually provide a pretty nice piece of hardware and some pretty decent software that's well integrated, well thought out and generally easy to use. This justifies the entire image building exercise.
So the moral to my story is that, don't get frustrated with people who appear to have useless blind allegiance to the cult of Apple. What you are asking them to do is to be objectively critical of themselves, which to be honest, almost no one is able to do.
(full disclosure, I have plenty of areas where I have this problem myself, I guess it's just basic human nature)
It's often why you can observe fantastic levels of cognitive dissonance in people over politics or religion or other things that people build affiliation around...it's simply easier to think inconsistently than to untangle one's own identity. Rational evaluation simply goes out the window since identity is primal, emotional.
Apple is the best in the world at building the link between identity and affiliation. They don't just sell stuff, they sell an identity. Being an Apple fan is being one of the cool kids, it's part of the "in" crowd, it keeps you from being a boring accountant looking guy in a suit, it's hip, it goes against "the man", etc. All of these are what Apple's advertisements sell, not their stuff. Apple's advertisements don't just list off features and talk about why they are better, they show cool looking people dancing in silhouette, or hip young dudes looking disdainfully on a suit wearing PC user, or a colorful Olympic athlete throwing hammers at gray talking heads, etc. etc. etc.
"Buying Apple makes you cool"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Imamacimapc.jp...
"Buying Apple makes you stand out in a crowd"
http://www.iphonefootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ma...
"Buying Apple makes you an olympian"
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/04/images/apple-1984.jpg
"Buying Apple makes you an artist"
http://top-technology-reviews.com/uploadfiles/top-technology...
"Buying Apple makes you a great dancer"
http://adstrategy.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/apple.jpg
"Buying Apple makes you smart like Einstein"
http://ivovodanovic.cl/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/old-apple-...
"Buying Apple makes you a leader among men"
http://adhdrollercoaster.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/appl...
etc. etc. etc.
Pick a positive trait, things that people want to be and Apple has probably run an ad campaign around it. It's why people line up around the block to buy a new Apple product sight unseen. They need to show their affiliation with the club of Apple.
Apple doesn't advertise cute, or quirky, or super technical, they advertise the kind of person that people want to be. They advertise the quarterback in HS or the head cheerleader. They advertise Martin Luther King JR. and Einstein. They advertise the philosophical cool guy with the vintage yet cool outfit that hangs around coffee shops and debates French literature. They don't advertise the nerdy guy in his parent's basement, or the D&D geek. They don't advertise the quiet genius, toiling away on hard and esoteric problems for years on end, they advertise leaders! They don't even really advertise "ease of use", "great price", "best specs". They advertise a coherent image.
And then, to close the deal? They actually provide a pretty nice piece of hardware and some pretty decent software that's well integrated, well thought out and generally easy to use. This justifies the entire image building exercise.
So the moral to my story is that, don't get frustrated with people who appear to have useless blind allegiance to the cult of Apple. What you are asking them to do is to be objectively critical of themselves, which to be honest, almost no one is able to do.
(full disclosure, I have plenty of areas where I have this problem myself, I guess it's just basic human nature)
I absolutely agree. I think the trick is realizing that the mechanism is exactly the same for apple as it is with any other "affiliation"; Apple just happens to be particularly effective at it. Democrats and Republicans can get by with painting the opposition as Communists or Facists (who is supposed to be who? it seems to change every other week...) whereas Apple goes with "cool" vs. "lame", or variations of.
Almost universally I believe, the tendency of humans to fall for it stiffles critical thought. I don't delude myself by thinking I can put an end to it (it probably is just basic human nature), but I do oppose it when I recognize it.
Aside: what are your thoughts on the concept of 'hipster'? (the popularity of liking unpopular' things) I would like to think that perhaps it's some sort of "immune response meme" to the phenomenon, but I fear that is wishful thinking at best.
Almost universally I believe, the tendency of humans to fall for it stiffles critical thought. I don't delude myself by thinking I can put an end to it (it probably is just basic human nature), but I do oppose it when I recognize it.
Aside: what are your thoughts on the concept of 'hipster'? (the popularity of liking unpopular' things) I would like to think that perhaps it's some sort of "immune response meme" to the phenomenon, but I fear that is wishful thinking at best.
Hipsters are the most persistent, insidious type of this phenomenon. They are quite literally the epitome of the phrase "let's be different, just like everybody else".
Their affiliation/identity is based on artificial or perceived scarcity. It's no different than the type of people that walk around flaunting their bespoke clothes and car, and talk about the singular performances of operas and ballets they've attended (but probably don't really understand).
There doesn't have to be any actual substance to the trivia they know, only that know that to fit into their affiliation they must adhere to certain guidelines regarding scarcity.
For hipsters it's unknown bands, a certain psuedo-bohemian style of clothes pastiche and a few other odds and ends that mark their affiliation. But the attitude is not really any different.
What's always striking about hipsters is that when you see a lot of them quickly, one can't help but be struck by the boring sameness of it all.
Reminds me of this site: http://www.latfh.com/
What makes it particularly insidious is that once somebody joins this affiliation, how completely consuming it becomes. It affects everything that person does down to their transport. But in the end it's really just a quest for personal identity by people who are unable to self actualize that identity for themselves.
Their affiliation/identity is based on artificial or perceived scarcity. It's no different than the type of people that walk around flaunting their bespoke clothes and car, and talk about the singular performances of operas and ballets they've attended (but probably don't really understand).
There doesn't have to be any actual substance to the trivia they know, only that know that to fit into their affiliation they must adhere to certain guidelines regarding scarcity.
For hipsters it's unknown bands, a certain psuedo-bohemian style of clothes pastiche and a few other odds and ends that mark their affiliation. But the attitude is not really any different.
What's always striking about hipsters is that when you see a lot of them quickly, one can't help but be struck by the boring sameness of it all.
Reminds me of this site: http://www.latfh.com/
What makes it particularly insidious is that once somebody joins this affiliation, how completely consuming it becomes. It affects everything that person does down to their transport. But in the end it's really just a quest for personal identity by people who are unable to self actualize that identity for themselves.
I don't think I was hiding the fact that a big part of my Apple support comes equally from my distrust of Google than my love of Apple.
I just look at the wreckage each has created and would pick Apple's wreckage over Google's any day.
I'm a bit surprised that people find my position to be unusual. I think it represents reasonable behavior. But I often feel this way on HN. :-/
I just look at the wreckage each has created and would pick Apple's wreckage over Google's any day.
I'm a bit surprised that people find my position to be unusual. I think it represents reasonable behavior. But I often feel this way on HN. :-/
I would honestly like to know what "wreckage" Google has created? Granted, I probably haven't experienced the most likely types (domain gets a penalty, webmaster doesn't understand how to fix it, or that sort of thing). Most of the time, they spend their days trying to make information open and accessible to everyone, which I love.
In contrast, given the chance, Apple would control everything I do on my computer and charge me for it. No doubt that computer would be beautiful and it would work very well, but I prefer to manage on my own.
In contrast, given the chance, Apple would control everything I do on my computer and charge me for it. No doubt that computer would be beautiful and it would work very well, but I prefer to manage on my own.
[deleted]
Google is great for consumers, but they are really terrible for businesses
Apple has been "terrible" for Nokia and RIM. Competition and consumer surplus and creative destruction are good, even if in the short run some businesses suffer.
The revenue stream you site is an addiction for most sites
This is somehow different from the revenue that publishers earn from Apple's app and iTunes stores?
Apple has been "terrible" for Nokia and RIM. Competition and consumer surplus and creative destruction are good, even if in the short run some businesses suffer.
The revenue stream you site is an addiction for most sites
This is somehow different from the revenue that publishers earn from Apple's app and iTunes stores?
Yes but why argue about whether Apple is good or bad at all, instead of talking about whether this latest In-App purchasing rule is good or bad. A bad idea isn't good simply because Apple has done great things in the past.
That is a false dichotomy, Apple vs. Google. I think it's a poor way of trying to make sense of the situation. Keep in mind that the word "Google" is not even cited in the link.
There's no need to defend every one of Apple's decisions, sometimes people do stuff that sucks, or even brings Google to the discussion just to defend Apple.
EDIT: That said, your points were good, I liked the articulation of your comment, I upvoted you.
There's no need to defend every one of Apple's decisions, sometimes people do stuff that sucks, or even brings Google to the discussion just to defend Apple.
EDIT: That said, your points were good, I liked the articulation of your comment, I upvoted you.
Comments all removed.
I don't own or develop for a smartphone of any sort, but still disapprove of how Apple has been handling user (and developer, I do not consider them to be separate) rights. What Google does has nothing to do with how I feel (though I of course have opinions about their actions as well, they are offtopic).
On perhaps a slightly related note: I don't vote for whichever political party opposes the one I dislike the most. Maybe I'm weird like that.
On perhaps a slightly related note: I don't vote for whichever political party opposes the one I dislike the most. Maybe I'm weird like that.
I'm sure the one all-encompassing corporate overlord is better than the other. Absolutely! Where do I enlist?
Apple isn't enjoying almost monopoly like status on the internet. It is a walled garden.
If you want the alternative there are plenty out there, but they are not going to be as likely to make you money.
I wonder why Apple see it fit to charge for that.
If you want the alternative there are plenty out there, but they are not going to be as likely to make you money.
I wonder why Apple see it fit to charge for that.
We can laud the achievements Apple has accomplished without refraining from criticism where they fall short. Furthermore, even taking what you say for granted, these past achievements do not validate the approach Apple is taking today with their new in-app subscriptions policy.
Comments all removed.
>Google has not had this kind of impact on anything short of SEO consultants. Very few industries have trusted Google and ended up satisfied with the outcome.
You've never heard of Google Ads, I suppose.
The idea that Apple's gouging is somehow a boon is completely shortsighted. Android's Market offers a much more lucrative path to the future plus it's possible to create verticals in Android that don't rely on a centrally planned store for approval and distribution. Mobile is young and my guess is these verticals are going to be big. Apple's store won't scale in the long term.
You've never heard of Google Ads, I suppose.
The idea that Apple's gouging is somehow a boon is completely shortsighted. Android's Market offers a much more lucrative path to the future plus it's possible to create verticals in Android that don't rely on a centrally planned store for approval and distribution. Mobile is young and my guess is these verticals are going to be big. Apple's store won't scale in the long term.
Why did you remove the comments? Now all we see is some changed comment that was downvoted before you changed it.
Yes, people do not understand the purpose of voting. It's not to express agreement or disagreement but rather to rate the validity of the points made in the comment.
Anyway. I did disagree with you, but I upvoted your comment and I would have liked to continue the argument. Now I can't because you removed your comments.
Yes, people do not understand the purpose of voting. It's not to express agreement or disagreement but rather to rate the validity of the points made in the comment.
Anyway. I did disagree with you, but I upvoted your comment and I would have liked to continue the argument. Now I can't because you removed your comments.
All of his comments in this thread except one were positive at the time he removed them. This is some kind of hissy fit.
I see almost entirely positive points on your comments? In fact this comment is still at 10.
For myself I agree with the good points you raised about Apple, but this article and all these comments are much more about the specific issue at hand. I feel like you're not seeing the context in quite the same way as other commenters myself included.
Considering you didn't mention compulsory In-App price matching at all, you actually haven't defended Apple over this issue in these comments at all. It just kind of reads like you didn't read the article and are just responding to the headline.
For myself I agree with the good points you raised about Apple, but this article and all these comments are much more about the specific issue at hand. I feel like you're not seeing the context in quite the same way as other commenters myself included.
Considering you didn't mention compulsory In-App price matching at all, you actually haven't defended Apple over this issue in these comments at all. It just kind of reads like you didn't read the article and are just responding to the headline.
davidu owns operate OpenDNS which competes with Google DNS.
http://blog.opendns.com/2009/12/03/opendns-google-dns/
http://blog.opendns.com/2009/12/03/opendns-google-dns/
Re: Removing your comments:
Yeah, some people seem to be very downvote-happy. Sorry. I appreciated hearing your opinion, though I did think it was very weird. Weird is interesting.
Just remember that with as many users as HN has nowadays, there will always be some people who feel the need to downvote anything they disagree with. I've found that, in general, it's not the same people you're talking to.
I think the best policy is to ignore the downvotes unless they're accompanied by a comment with a good reason why, because jerks who downvote frivolously are not worth your time.
Yeah, some people seem to be very downvote-happy. Sorry. I appreciated hearing your opinion, though I did think it was very weird. Weird is interesting.
Just remember that with as many users as HN has nowadays, there will always be some people who feel the need to downvote anything they disagree with. I've found that, in general, it's not the same people you're talking to.
I think the best policy is to ignore the downvotes unless they're accompanied by a comment with a good reason why, because jerks who downvote frivolously are not worth your time.
Zach said it best yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469
Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own stuff!
They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the artists would find 30% economically untenable?
The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%.
When all someone wants out of Apple is merely to process the payment and send things down the pipe, gee, who do they think they are? But that's not what Apple is actually holding themselves out as. Apple doesn't want to be in that kind of commodity market anyway. Seems reasonable to me.
Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own stuff!
They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the artists would find 30% economically untenable?
The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%.
When all someone wants out of Apple is merely to process the payment and send things down the pipe, gee, who do they think they are? But that's not what Apple is actually holding themselves out as. Apple doesn't want to be in that kind of commodity market anyway. Seems reasonable to me.
Your argument only works in the context of someone like Rhapsody, who is a pretty bare-bones wrapper on top of content.
But consider services like last.fm, Netflix, or Pandora - where there is a significant value-add on top of merely distributing content. They are providing consumers a valuable service but yet also cannot afford the steep cut that Apple is now demanding.
The "they're distributors and deserve to get cut out" argument is a fallacy, because some distributors actually do provide consumer value - and they're all getting taken to the cleaners with Apple's new move.
Besides, a diverse crop of distributors competing with each other is a far better situation to be in than exchanging all of that for a monolithic monopoly of another distributor. Make no mistake, this isn't some populist uprising where the producers make their work available to the consumer and bypass the middleman - the middleman still exists, it's now Apple, and now Apple has all the cards.
But consider services like last.fm, Netflix, or Pandora - where there is a significant value-add on top of merely distributing content. They are providing consumers a valuable service but yet also cannot afford the steep cut that Apple is now demanding.
The "they're distributors and deserve to get cut out" argument is a fallacy, because some distributors actually do provide consumer value - and they're all getting taken to the cleaners with Apple's new move.
Besides, a diverse crop of distributors competing with each other is a far better situation to be in than exchanging all of that for a monolithic monopoly of another distributor. Make no mistake, this isn't some populist uprising where the producers make their work available to the consumer and bypass the middleman - the middleman still exists, it's now Apple, and now Apple has all the cards.
If last.fm, etc. are providing so much value why are their margins so thin? Are they providing value less than 30% of the cost of the base product?
What yungchin said, but also because last.fm and Pandora's source supplier has a stranglehold over the market (aka the traditional labels). Like Netflix, their entire business revolves around having the right to play their content, so the content producer can take them to the cleaners easy peasy.
And now they're being squeezed from the other side. Life sucks right now for services that make content discovery and recommendations better.
And now they're being squeezed from the other side. Life sucks right now for services that make content discovery and recommendations better.
The real problem there is that there are already two sets of distributors in the music market.
The songwriters/artists/producers create the songs.
The record companies distribute it.
The "distribution plus" companies like last.fm distribute it.
Now they want Apple to distribute it too (quite reasonably).
Well, one of those distributors is going to have to drop their rates. I'd suggest the one that already takes most of the pie, rather than the poor "distribution plus" innovator squeezed in the middle. But, as we know, the record companies are insane and will not accept this suggestion.
Could they afford to do this if people weren't paying for music? No. Solution: stop paying for music in any form that ends up in the pocket of the big recording labels.
The songwriters/artists/producers create the songs.
The record companies distribute it.
The "distribution plus" companies like last.fm distribute it.
Now they want Apple to distribute it too (quite reasonably).
Well, one of those distributors is going to have to drop their rates. I'd suggest the one that already takes most of the pie, rather than the poor "distribution plus" innovator squeezed in the middle. But, as we know, the record companies are insane and will not accept this suggestion.
Could they afford to do this if people weren't paying for music? No. Solution: stop paying for music in any form that ends up in the pocket of the big recording labels.
But they don't want Apple to distribute it. Apple is telling them that if they want to distribute to Apple users, it has to be through Apple.
I don't think discovery and recommendation are worth much. I pay for Spotify for the access, I would not pay for recommendations, which can be built on any addressable technology via social networks anyway.
Spotify already have negative margins though so 30% wont work.
Spotify already have negative margins though so 30% wont work.
Their margins are so thin because in reality they all compete with The Pirate Bay. It's only when you take that competition into account that the 30% starts to sound unreasonable.
iTunes competes with the Pirate Bay with 30% margins and does reasonably well from a revenue perspective.
Your argument is known as the Paradox of Value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value Lots of Value !== Lots of Profitability
The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%.
This was already addressed in the article. iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple.
This was already addressed in the article. iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple.
iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon.
But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped?
Apple's primary target here is probably Amazon. A company which, incidentally, is no stranger to the art of using a powerful distribution network, an existing customer base, and a DRM-locked e-reader platform as a lever to demand big shares of revenue:
http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-kindle-70-30-...
According to this article, and the Stross piece linked therein, Amazon's standard deal is that they take seventy percent. Their "generous" deal for self-publishers is that they take a mere 30%... but the publisher must give Amazon the right to set the price as Amazon sees fit.
Makes Apple's 30% cut look pretty good, actually. But, of course, if you're a print publisher you pretty much have to have a deal with Amazon, so I expect there are a lot of negotiations going on right now.
But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped?
Apple's primary target here is probably Amazon. A company which, incidentally, is no stranger to the art of using a powerful distribution network, an existing customer base, and a DRM-locked e-reader platform as a lever to demand big shares of revenue:
http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-kindle-70-30-...
According to this article, and the Stross piece linked therein, Amazon's standard deal is that they take seventy percent. Their "generous" deal for self-publishers is that they take a mere 30%... but the publisher must give Amazon the right to set the price as Amazon sees fit.
Makes Apple's 30% cut look pretty good, actually. But, of course, if you're a print publisher you pretty much have to have a deal with Amazon, so I expect there are a lot of negotiations going on right now.
To be clear, I don't actually care about how much Amazon actually makes on each copy sold. What bothers me is that Apple has seemingly made it economically unviable for distributers to exist in the AppStore at all. This means we have to rely on Apple for content on our iOS devices, and until Apple scales up its content sources, the users are losers in this deal.
If users are truly the losers in this deal, then won't they vote with their wallets?
In what sense? Many (like me) already own iOS devices and are invested in it with all the apps/games/songs/books that we already bought. I probably won't switch platforms based on the absence of a newspaper/music subscription service, but I sure would like the option of having those.
Wasn't it obvious when you bought the non-transferable music, books and apps that this was the sort of company you were dealing with?
It strikes me that this is a pretty unreasonable complaint. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't think it's fair to moan when it turns out it's a duck.
I'm not knocking Apple, I like Apple but we as consumers need to be aware of what we're buying into and I don't think we can moan that it was in anyway unclear the way they behave, particularly to the sort of person who frequents Hacker News and really can't feign ignorance.
It strikes me that this is a pretty unreasonable complaint. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't think it's fair to moan when it turns out it's a duck.
I'm not knocking Apple, I like Apple but we as consumers need to be aware of what we're buying into and I don't think we can moan that it was in anyway unclear the way they behave, particularly to the sort of person who frequents Hacker News and really can't feign ignorance.
I think you missed my point:
I'm not feigning outrage at the fact that I can't transfer everything I bought for phone A onto phone B.
I'm saying that shutting out apps because they don't cough up Apple's ransom only hurts the customer and that customers won't necessarily vote with their wallet and move somewhere else because they have already invested in their current platform/device.
I'm saying that shutting out apps because they don't cough up Apple's ransom only hurts the customer and that customers won't necessarily vote with their wallet and move somewhere else because they have already invested in their current platform/device.
If they won't do anything about being hurt, then the question is surely how hurt are they?
It depends on what you consider the injury to be. If they didn't have a smartphone before they purchased an iPhone, then having a phone that lacks the features of other smartphones doesn't really injure them, it just makes them jealous, which is possibly bad for business. But if they don't switch, then the lack of that feature isn't as important to them as the other apps they have purchased, etc. Are you injured? Well, you got a bad deal, and in a way Apple changed the terms of your contract without notifying you, but it's hard to say that you've really lost anything. More, you just made the wrong purchase due to asymmetric information.
Still, in this case, I think Apple is engaging in a weird sort of brinkmanship with distributors, and I'm not sure they're in a position to dictate such terms.
Still, in this case, I think Apple is engaging in a weird sort of brinkmanship with distributors, and I'm not sure they're in a position to dictate such terms.
So it's ok to hurt customers a little bit. Just as long as it's not enough to force them to move platforms. Ok, Got it. Just as long as you're honest with it.
We can still be disappointed even if we're not surprised.
In the sense that if you are unhappy with your iPad, your next tablet will be something else. New customers won't buy an iPad if it doesn't do what they want.
True, some users might have some switching pain, but that's true for most things. Windows to Mac, Xbox to PS3, Kindle to Nook. Lock in is real, but rarely determinative.
Consumers vote with their wallets. The free market is a powerful thing.
True, some users might have some switching pain, but that's true for most things. Windows to Mac, Xbox to PS3, Kindle to Nook. Lock in is real, but rarely determinative.
Consumers vote with their wallets. The free market is a powerful thing.
People who own an iPhone or iPad bought it because they perceived it as their best option. Whether they buy something else, or just grit their teeth and bear it because there's still nothing better, they're being hurt when their best option gets worse.
Agreed, but shame on the competition if they're unable to build a product good enough to convert dissatisfied iPad customers.
How often do you expect to replace an item like an iPad? I'd expect one to last at least 2 years.
(Songs have no DRM, you can play them everywhere.)
Eventually, but many are locked in by 2 year contracts. Apple probably figures it can force them to switch from Kindle to iBooks and then once their cell phone contract is up they will have even more incentive to by an iPhone 6 because all of their content is inside Apple's walled garden.
Amazon has made a substantial investment in digitizing backlist titles. Is Apple going to do the same? If not, Amazon will always have the edge on books.
"But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped?"
iBooks is still an also-ran. Publishers pretty much have to work with Amazon. iBooks is easier to ignore, I should think.
iBooks is still an also-ran. Publishers pretty much have to work with Amazon. iBooks is easier to ignore, I should think.
We'll see. Your logic was impeccable a year ago, before any iPads were sold; that's probably why iBooks is such an also-ran today. (Contracts take time to run out, the iPad isn't even a year old, and its success has taken even the optimists by surprise.)
But ignoring the iOS market gets harder by the day. There's a lot of tasty, tasty customers out there.
We'll see what happens. Note that Apple's new, um, clarification of its policy doesn't take effect for several months. I expect there will be weeks of furious behind-the-scenes jockeying for position among Apple, Amazon, and various publishers, after which there might be more announcements.
But ignoring the iOS market gets harder by the day. There's a lot of tasty, tasty customers out there.
We'll see what happens. Note that Apple's new, um, clarification of its policy doesn't take effect for several months. I expect there will be weeks of furious behind-the-scenes jockeying for position among Apple, Amazon, and various publishers, after which there might be more announcements.
The thing is, publishers and distributors can make better deals with Amazon, because Amazon will carry a wider array of stuff including physical books, including books that don't make sense as ebooks such as pop-up books, or the books that come with accessories like tree seedlings to plant or meditation beads or whatnot.
If I remember correctly, Amazon's planned Android app store caused a giant ruckus a few weeks back because of the ridiculous pricing policies.
Of course Android allows competing app stores--indeed Amazon's is one. So both developers and users have a choice on Android that's not available on iOS.
By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple.
You mean users lose out on the larger distributers. I know I'm going to get voted down for this, but I think an ecosystem of small and independent players producing content might actually be beneficial to users in the long run.
Apple is doing the distribution, so what purpose do the large distributors have? The only things that the customer needs are discovery and tastemakers. Distribution isn't so much a problem in the age of the internet.
You mean users lose out on the larger distributers. I know I'm going to get voted down for this, but I think an ecosystem of small and independent players producing content might actually be beneficial to users in the long run.
Apple is doing the distribution, so what purpose do the large distributors have? The only things that the customer needs are discovery and tastemakers. Distribution isn't so much a problem in the age of the internet.
Or, you know, it's a way to get content providers to sell through Apple. If there's a 30% premium to get on iOS through Amazon, a way around that is to just sell through iBooks.
We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff.
We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff.
We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff.
I think part of the reason they rescinded on that is because people freaked out about it :)
I think part of the reason they rescinded on that is because people freaked out about it :)
And because they realized that it ruled out large swaths of application classes that they don't have an issue with (games, for example).
Mostly, it was about keeping crappy flash apps of iOS. And from a platform perspective, that did actually make a lot of sense.
Mostly, it was about keeping crappy flash apps of iOS. And from a platform perspective, that did actually make a lot of sense.
[deleted]
I think you're grossly underestimating how much 30% of revenues means. Let's look at how this could actually affect you. Lets forget for a second that Amazon is even part of this issue. Let's stick to straight software development, what HN knows best. Let's look at the profit margins of some of the best software companies:
http://www.google.com/finance?catid=us-54399928&sort=ANI...
Look at what percentage of revenue that net income is, and count how many are above 30%. Now, isn't it a bit more difficult to make money on a product if your 30% margin is gone? Sure, Apple deserves some money for payment processing and distribution, maybe something for acquiring a new customer but certainly not 30% of all revenue.
Yes, you may say you can just raise price, right? Well, to compensate you would have to raise price over 40%. Meanwhile, the customers have already demonstrated the prices they are willing to bear, so that doesn't quite work.
So now, if you've started a business of developing iOS apps, you're severely hampered by this 30% revenue cut you're giving to Apple. The small guys will probably deal with it because they won't know better, but think of it this way: Apple has just taxed 30% of the value you have created for your users. That's 30% of your income.
You can argue this is a retail model and they should get a margin the same way you do if you sell something through Best Buy, but it becomes anticompetitive when they've blocked off any option you have to sell directly to a customer or through any other channel. The companies on that list do very little business through retail, and they would suffer if they had to give up 30%. Moreover, Apple's own margins would take a hit if they had to sell everything through a retail partner.
(Also don't get why it matters that Rhapsody, Netflix, Amazon don't create content. Apple doesn't create most of the stuff that goes into an iPhone, but that doesn't mean they don't add value and shouldn't be able to make money)
Look at what percentage of revenue that net income is, and count how many are above 30%. Now, isn't it a bit more difficult to make money on a product if your 30% margin is gone? Sure, Apple deserves some money for payment processing and distribution, maybe something for acquiring a new customer but certainly not 30% of all revenue.
Yes, you may say you can just raise price, right? Well, to compensate you would have to raise price over 40%. Meanwhile, the customers have already demonstrated the prices they are willing to bear, so that doesn't quite work.
So now, if you've started a business of developing iOS apps, you're severely hampered by this 30% revenue cut you're giving to Apple. The small guys will probably deal with it because they won't know better, but think of it this way: Apple has just taxed 30% of the value you have created for your users. That's 30% of your income.
You can argue this is a retail model and they should get a margin the same way you do if you sell something through Best Buy, but it becomes anticompetitive when they've blocked off any option you have to sell directly to a customer or through any other channel. The companies on that list do very little business through retail, and they would suffer if they had to give up 30%. Moreover, Apple's own margins would take a hit if they had to sell everything through a retail partner.
(Also don't get why it matters that Rhapsody, Netflix, Amazon don't create content. Apple doesn't create most of the stuff that goes into an iPhone, but that doesn't mean they don't add value and shouldn't be able to make money)
But most of those companies are not dependent on direct-to-consumer sales for their revenue. You’re never going to see “Oracle Database, Standard Edition One—$6,000” on the App Store directory. I suspect that even Microsoft gets most of its software revenue from either OEM deals or big-business hundred-seat license packs, rather than from over-the-counter sales.
Who says iOS devices are consumer only? There's plenty of business apps in the app store and plenty of large enterprises who are using the iPad and plenty of people who would love to handle their ERP through the iPad.
Even then, not all of those businesses are enterprise focused like Oracle. I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of people (myself included) who would love to have MS Office on the iPad instead of what's out there.
Even then, not all of those businesses are enterprise focused like Oracle. I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of people (myself included) who would love to have MS Office on the iPad instead of what's out there.
[deleted]
I disagree with the last part. Apple desperately wants to be in the commodity payment processing business. They want a cut of every transaction that takes place on a cell phone, which someday soon may be almost every transaction in the consumer economy. Normally the transaction processing business is a small slice of a huge pie. Apple's plan is to take a huge slice of a huge pie. Obviously it's in no one else's interest to give them all this extra pie, so Apple figures it will abuse it's market position to force everyone to go along.
It's pure evil, but that really shouldn't surprise anyone at this point.
It's pure evil, but that really shouldn't surprise anyone at this point.
Uhh, it's an ingrained reflex from my teens.
Because they're not Microsoft.
It's just the leftover bitterness of Amiga Persecution Complex. Billg killed the Amiga
...or so it is widely believed, especially in Europe.
Because they're not Microsoft.
It's just the leftover bitterness of Amiga Persecution Complex. Billg killed the Amiga
...or so it is widely believed, especially in Europe.
Google is the one who undercuts entire industries by making products in the field free and Apple gets the blame for charging people to get access to paying customers.
What a funny ass backwards world we live in.
What a funny ass backwards world we live in.
If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely. They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what they're charging.
If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. If you find the fees are too high, you are not obliged to take part in it. I think the real reason this upsets so many is that it clearly is worth it for many developers to take part in it, just like it clearly is worth it to let apple take their 30% cut for everything else sold on the app store. People are riled because they don't want to have to pay apple this fee, but hard cold business logic demands that they should, because it is profitable to do so (or less unprofitable than not doing so). It wouldn't be threatening at all if you felt like you could afford to just walk away from the ecosystem apple's built.
Which seems to indicate they are adding value.
Now, as to whether the value added == 30%, I direct you to the first paragraph. But what's the motivation to create such a wonderfully easy to use ecosystem if you can't derive a profit off it?
If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. If you find the fees are too high, you are not obliged to take part in it. I think the real reason this upsets so many is that it clearly is worth it for many developers to take part in it, just like it clearly is worth it to let apple take their 30% cut for everything else sold on the app store. People are riled because they don't want to have to pay apple this fee, but hard cold business logic demands that they should, because it is profitable to do so (or less unprofitable than not doing so). It wouldn't be threatening at all if you felt like you could afford to just walk away from the ecosystem apple's built.
Which seems to indicate they are adding value.
Now, as to whether the value added == 30%, I direct you to the first paragraph. But what's the motivation to create such a wonderfully easy to use ecosystem if you can't derive a profit off it?
Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service.
Wrong. Please don't misunderstand this new policy as something that is in addition to the existing rules.
The Kindle App currently in the app store (which doesn't offer in-app purchase or subscription) is now probably in violation of the app store guidelines in light of these new terms. They have forced companies that offer any subscription service outside the store to also offer it in the store and with a hefty 30% commission.
Wrong. Please don't misunderstand this new policy as something that is in addition to the existing rules.
The Kindle App currently in the app store (which doesn't offer in-app purchase or subscription) is now probably in violation of the app store guidelines in light of these new terms. They have forced companies that offer any subscription service outside the store to also offer it in the store and with a hefty 30% commission.
It's both.
It's something in addition to the existing rules (a new feature; recurring subscriptions) and a change to the existing rules (content provided externally from the app store must now also be provided internally to the app store and give Apple their 30% cut).
I don't care much about the former; I don't like the latter.
It's also not yet clear whether this applies to any subscription service or merely content subscription services. Even within the concept of content subscription services, it's not clear whether this applies only to downloadable content (a la The Daily or Amazon Kindle) or streaming "rental"-type content (a la Netflix or Hulu).
Apple will need to clarify those positions, but I believe that this probably applies to downloadable content only. I do not believe that it applies to services (e.g., Dropbox or Salesforce, etc.) or to rental services (e.g., Hulu or Netflix).
This rule change badly hurts reseller-distributors (Amazon Kindle, Amazon Audible, B&N, Kobo, etc.); they don't have 30% of margin to give up and they can't afford to raise the price on everything 30%+ across the board just so they can stay in the iOS game. This is (to me) clearly anticompetitive and probably is just at the edge of antitrust-legal.
This rule change does not (immediately, if ever) hurt content owner-distributors (newspapers, magazines, major publishers). I say "(immediately, if ever)" because this is access to an additional stream of income, although it's at a fairly high premium. Apple's 30% may be a fairly low customer acquisition cost, though. The newspaper that it might hurt a little is the WSJ as (IIRC) it doesn't give access to all content unless you're already a WSJ subscriber. They will probably be required to implement in-app purchase to a WSJ-app subscription for an update very soon.
It's something in addition to the existing rules (a new feature; recurring subscriptions) and a change to the existing rules (content provided externally from the app store must now also be provided internally to the app store and give Apple their 30% cut).
I don't care much about the former; I don't like the latter.
It's also not yet clear whether this applies to any subscription service or merely content subscription services. Even within the concept of content subscription services, it's not clear whether this applies only to downloadable content (a la The Daily or Amazon Kindle) or streaming "rental"-type content (a la Netflix or Hulu).
Apple will need to clarify those positions, but I believe that this probably applies to downloadable content only. I do not believe that it applies to services (e.g., Dropbox or Salesforce, etc.) or to rental services (e.g., Hulu or Netflix).
This rule change badly hurts reseller-distributors (Amazon Kindle, Amazon Audible, B&N, Kobo, etc.); they don't have 30% of margin to give up and they can't afford to raise the price on everything 30%+ across the board just so they can stay in the iOS game. This is (to me) clearly anticompetitive and probably is just at the edge of antitrust-legal.
This rule change does not (immediately, if ever) hurt content owner-distributors (newspapers, magazines, major publishers). I say "(immediately, if ever)" because this is access to an additional stream of income, although it's at a fairly high premium. Apple's 30% may be a fairly low customer acquisition cost, though. The newspaper that it might hurt a little is the WSJ as (IIRC) it doesn't give access to all content unless you're already a WSJ subscriber. They will probably be required to implement in-app purchase to a WSJ-app subscription for an update very soon.
Yeah, this confused me a lot. The press release [1] says quite clearly:
> Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
It's that last clause which clearly states that apps like the the current Kindle app, which includes a "Buy Books" link at the top, will no longer be allowed.
This will be a massive shock to the nascent content-based app market on iOS. I can see only two possibilities for developers of these existing apps: primary producers of content who can afford to wear the extra 30% will just lose on their margin; or apps reduce the price of content on iOS so the Apple cut isn't as big. Neither option will be particularly palatable to most producers. Many might avoid the platform entirely.
But over the long term, I suspect this will have a positive disruptive effect in the iOS content market. Smaller producers who can build a business model around the 30% cut by Apple (similar to app developers) will have a better chance at maintaining a healthy margin.
[1] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html
> Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
It's that last clause which clearly states that apps like the the current Kindle app, which includes a "Buy Books" link at the top, will no longer be allowed.
This will be a massive shock to the nascent content-based app market on iOS. I can see only two possibilities for developers of these existing apps: primary producers of content who can afford to wear the extra 30% will just lose on their margin; or apps reduce the price of content on iOS so the Apple cut isn't as big. Neither option will be particularly palatable to most producers. Many might avoid the platform entirely.
But over the long term, I suspect this will have a positive disruptive effect in the iOS content market. Smaller producers who can build a business model around the 30% cut by Apple (similar to app developers) will have a better chance at maintaining a healthy margin.
[1] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html
So under the new guidelines, can Amazon distribute an app that lets you read Kindle books you’ve already purchased in other ways, with a note “we can’t actually make a clicky link here, but open up Safari and go to amazon.com to buy more books”?
[deleted]
Loopholes aren't going to work because your app is not going to get approved.
I agree this is a reasonable although surprising interpretation, as I posted yesterday:
http://zachbaker.com/apple-releases-new-rules-for-subscripti...
Apple has really confused myself and a lot of folks with this ambiguity.
http://zachbaker.com/apple-releases-new-rules-for-subscripti...
Apple has really confused myself and a lot of folks with this ambiguity.
To me the issue is the fact that if you have any form of subscription service -- then you MUST use the IOS service and you MUST pay apple their 30%.
Apple's service looks worthwhile and valid for certain use cases. But to insist that it must be used for any IOS Native app that has a monthly fee is a draconian change.
Reasonably Serious Case: I've been looking at building an app for my wife to offer to her fitness bootcamp clients.. By my understanding of the new rules - I need to allow people to sign-up / renew contracts from within the app. And give Apple 30% of the $200 or so fee.
Apple's service looks worthwhile and valid for certain use cases. But to insist that it must be used for any IOS Native app that has a monthly fee is a draconian change.
Reasonably Serious Case: I've been looking at building an app for my wife to offer to her fitness bootcamp clients.. By my understanding of the new rules - I need to allow people to sign-up / renew contracts from within the app. And give Apple 30% of the $200 or so fee.
I suspect that your analysis is completely wrong. IANAL, and all.
1. Apple disallows in-app purchases for physical goods; presumably this would include services that are provided in the physical world instead of wholly electronically.
2. Apps have to be (minimally) useful to people without requiring a for-pay subscription.
3. These new rules would only kick in if you offered content (or possibly services; this is the SaaS question still unanswered, but it probably only applies to content as delivered content—that is, it seems to me to not apply to rental content, e.g., Netflix or Hulu) to people that is dependent on a subscription fee or a one-time fee.
As an example, let's say your wife's app were to have two news feeds about her fitness bootcamps (regular and premium). If all of her fitness bootcamp clients (the people who pay $200) are given access codes to the premium feed subscription, she may be required to offer in-app purchase of access to the premium news feed to people who are not or cannot be her physical customer at a price equivalent to or less than what she charges for the physical customers to have access to that feed.
All you'd have to do to comply is provide access to the premium news feed as an in-app purchase for $200 or less and let Apple take 30% of that. They're not getting anything for her fitness bootcamp services.
1. Apple disallows in-app purchases for physical goods; presumably this would include services that are provided in the physical world instead of wholly electronically.
2. Apps have to be (minimally) useful to people without requiring a for-pay subscription.
3. These new rules would only kick in if you offered content (or possibly services; this is the SaaS question still unanswered, but it probably only applies to content as delivered content—that is, it seems to me to not apply to rental content, e.g., Netflix or Hulu) to people that is dependent on a subscription fee or a one-time fee.
As an example, let's say your wife's app were to have two news feeds about her fitness bootcamps (regular and premium). If all of her fitness bootcamp clients (the people who pay $200) are given access codes to the premium feed subscription, she may be required to offer in-app purchase of access to the premium news feed to people who are not or cannot be her physical customer at a price equivalent to or less than what she charges for the physical customers to have access to that feed.
All you'd have to do to comply is provide access to the premium news feed as an in-app purchase for $200 or less and let Apple take 30% of that. They're not getting anything for her fitness bootcamp services.
In reality for the case study -- I'll likely just leave it as a web app. I'm more comfortable with the web anyway. Or if it did go IOS native -- It would just be a free service.
re: 3. I worked on the worst-case assumption of SaaS Issues.. Isn't that seperate pricing though? If you have person A paying $200 for Bootcamp + App and person B paying $200 for App, isn't there a problem?
I'm wouldn't be concerned about new customers.. But if my existing customers have the app -- then they would have to have the ability to pay via iTunes for next month.. And that means a 30% cut to apple.
I'm not sure it's something they would enforce.. But I'm concerned regardless.
re: 3. I worked on the worst-case assumption of SaaS Issues.. Isn't that seperate pricing though? If you have person A paying $200 for Bootcamp + App and person B paying $200 for App, isn't there a problem?
I'm wouldn't be concerned about new customers.. But if my existing customers have the app -- then they would have to have the ability to pay via iTunes for next month.. And that means a 30% cut to apple.
I'm not sure it's something they would enforce.. But I'm concerned regardless.
No; for some other posts on this, I did some checking in the agreement and IAP is explicitly disallowed for rental content or services or for goods or services for use outside of the app.
Let's play with your case study a little more, though (it's fun!):
Because IAP cannot be used for goods or services outside of the app, your IAP subscription would have to be clear that it's for access to the premium feed only and not contracting your wife for fitness bootcamp services. What would you do if someone who lives 3,000 km from you purchased the bootcamp service through the app? You'd never be able to fulfill it (which is one reason why IAP can't be used for non-app goods or services, I suspect).
So, in reality, you might offer the premium feed a lot like the Schlock Mercenary app does (and has since it was introduced)[1]: one month for $0.99, three months for $2.99, or six months for $4.99. There's also a way to enter a subscription token, although I've never had one so I don't know exactly how it works. I would presume that they could start offering these directly for sale on the Schlock Mercenary store if people wanted to give Howard more money directly, rather than letting Apple take 30% of his definitely-worth-it $4.99.
Anyway, you'd have a nominal fee for your premium feed, and then you'd give the people who have contracts with your wife for her non-app services access codes to get at the premium feed without having to pay an extra fee.
Everybody wins, especially you and your wife, because now you're making money that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise, just for writing extra premium content.
[1] <http://www.plus14.com/iphone/schlock-mercenary-for-ipad/>; The in-app purchase is really cool: it gives you access to strips three days before they're published on the web. Love me some Schlock Mercenary. See als one of Howard's posts about this: <http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/free-schlock-for-iphone.... I have nothing to do with the app or the comic except being a satisfied reader.
Let's play with your case study a little more, though (it's fun!):
Because IAP cannot be used for goods or services outside of the app, your IAP subscription would have to be clear that it's for access to the premium feed only and not contracting your wife for fitness bootcamp services. What would you do if someone who lives 3,000 km from you purchased the bootcamp service through the app? You'd never be able to fulfill it (which is one reason why IAP can't be used for non-app goods or services, I suspect).
So, in reality, you might offer the premium feed a lot like the Schlock Mercenary app does (and has since it was introduced)[1]: one month for $0.99, three months for $2.99, or six months for $4.99. There's also a way to enter a subscription token, although I've never had one so I don't know exactly how it works. I would presume that they could start offering these directly for sale on the Schlock Mercenary store if people wanted to give Howard more money directly, rather than letting Apple take 30% of his definitely-worth-it $4.99.
Anyway, you'd have a nominal fee for your premium feed, and then you'd give the people who have contracts with your wife for her non-app services access codes to get at the premium feed without having to pay an extra fee.
Everybody wins, especially you and your wife, because now you're making money that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise, just for writing extra premium content.
[1] <http://www.plus14.com/iphone/schlock-mercenary-for-ipad/>; The in-app purchase is really cool: it gives you access to strips three days before they're published on the web. Love me some Schlock Mercenary. See als one of Howard's posts about this: <http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/free-schlock-for-iphone.... I have nothing to do with the app or the comic except being a satisfied reader.
So as long as I convince Apple that the Bootcamp is $199 and the App is $1 then I don't have an issue (Unless non-IOS bootcampers catch wind and want a discount :P)
In terms of structure -- it will be more of a saas app -- Food/exercise diary with integration into the bootcamp client systems.. So all of your bootcamp workouts/measurements/results are already entered for you. That was my concern as the key feature of the app was to essentially see your bootcamp results and to give your trainer a look at your food diary. Which wont happen unless you're paying the $200 and actually there in meatspace....
// Of course -- I guess we could move into virtual coaching / training / etc... Getting workout and diet plans out of the app for a much higher monthly fee... that might be worth paying the 30% to Apple for as our clients wouldn't be ones we could reach elsewhere.. hmmm... this has potential.
In terms of structure -- it will be more of a saas app -- Food/exercise diary with integration into the bootcamp client systems.. So all of your bootcamp workouts/measurements/results are already entered for you. That was my concern as the key feature of the app was to essentially see your bootcamp results and to give your trainer a look at your food diary. Which wont happen unless you're paying the $200 and actually there in meatspace....
// Of course -- I guess we could move into virtual coaching / training / etc... Getting workout and diet plans out of the app for a much higher monthly fee... that might be worth paying the 30% to Apple for as our clients wouldn't be ones we could reach elsewhere.. hmmm... this has potential.
From what I can tell, there is no option - any type of outside subscription or content that can be accessed through an iOS app must also be offered as an app store subscription or in-app purchase (with the 30% cut). This means that books on the Kindle app, subscriptions through Rdio or Rhapsody, and many other low-margin products and services will be subjected to Apple's ridiculous 30% take.
Apple is still better than Microsoft.
It's clear that changed over the past few years, starting soon after dropping "Computers" from their name...
Apple is just like a religion or sport team to some ppl... no matter what happens they stay on their side, I hate ppl that take things as a religion.
BUT...
I don't disagree with apple in this one though, they own the infra and without them there would be no place to sell the stuff so you should pay.
BUT...
I don't disagree with apple in this one though, they own the infra and without them there would be no place to sell the stuff so you should pay.
They own the infrastructure, but they do not own the device. The customer does. They bought it.
Apple comes along and says that anything you want to use on the device you bought and paid for needs to go through their infrastructure. That's where it becomes a huge problem. Not that they're charging for using their services, but because they're charging to let people do things with their property.
Apple comes along and says that anything you want to use on the device you bought and paid for needs to go through their infrastructure. That's where it becomes a huge problem. Not that they're charging for using their services, but because they're charging to let people do things with their property.
EXACTLY.
That is exactly why I only run Linux based machines and my phone is a Nexus S.
When buy Apple hardware the transaction is more equivalent to a lease rather then a purchase.
That is exactly why I only run Linux based machines and my phone is a Nexus S.
When buy Apple hardware the transaction is more equivalent to a lease rather then a purchase.
They're charging to let people do things through the iTunes store.
Find me an example of them going after someone who liberated themselves from the iTunes store - Cydia still exists. Last I checked, there aren't any.
Find me an example of them going after someone who liberated themselves from the iTunes store - Cydia still exists. Last I checked, there aren't any.
But they make it very clear that the iTunes store is the only authorized/approved means of doing things on the device, and try to make it illegal to do otherwise (although the Library of Congress put a temporary stop to that agenda). And while they don't go after the jailbreakers, they do try to diminish their experience with things like the iBooks jailbreak test.
When you combine this behavior and stance with the "charging through the iTunes store" policy, it becomes effectively a mostly successful attempt to charge for doingsomething with the device. The Apple Tax in isolation, while disturbing, isn't intolerable. It's when you combine it with their other policies surrounding the platform that the real problem arises.
When you combine this behavior and stance with the "charging through the iTunes store" policy, it becomes effectively a mostly successful attempt to charge for doingsomething with the device. The Apple Tax in isolation, while disturbing, isn't intolerable. It's when you combine it with their other policies surrounding the platform that the real problem arises.
This.
More than the actual policy, what disturbs me is the number of people blindly defending it saying it's in the best interest of the users.
It is not.
This new subscription mechanism will effectively boot all newspaper/book/music subscription services off the App Store. This is great only if you're one of those people that believes every piece of technology you ever use should only be made by Apple.
The only entity that benefits from this scheme is AAPL
More than the actual policy, what disturbs me is the number of people blindly defending it saying it's in the best interest of the users.
It is not.
This new subscription mechanism will effectively boot all newspaper/book/music subscription services off the App Store. This is great only if you're one of those people that believes every piece of technology you ever use should only be made by Apple.
The only entity that benefits from this scheme is AAPL
[deleted]
I'm looking forward to Antitrust.
If I understand correctly, antitrust concerns would only kick in if Apple uses its monopoly power to screw its competitors. For example, if iOS apps were required to sell content for less at the App Store than through competing channels, then Amazon et al. could rightfully cry foul.
But screwing your customers is not an antitrust violation: it’s capitalism as usual. :-)
But screwing your customers is not an antitrust violation: it’s capitalism as usual. :-)
Given the impact of these new policies on music streaming services like Rhapsody et al and Apple's dominant share in the digital music and digital music player markets, I think antitrust will become part of the story sooner rather than later. Especially if Apple launches their own streaming service (as has been rumored).
Antitrust is about barriers to entry - the market is still wide open for anyone to compete with Apple.
Apple's new subscription model will cost more for end-users on all platforms. The new terms mean ~50% subscription price hikes across the board. Services can't reduce costs, and they aren't going to give away their profit.
Ironically, it also creates incentives for competing platforms because the profit will be 2-5x greater than on iOS.
Ironically, it also creates incentives for competing platforms because the profit will be 2-5x greater than on iOS.
Interesting to contrast Google Apps Marketplace: It charges 20% of "the total amount your customer ends up paying you for your application and related add-ons", specifically including recurring revenue but also excluding sales of items like books (unsure how they would classify e-books for this purpose).
http://developer.googleapps.com/marketplace/fees
20% off the top line for all revenue from a customer they acquire for you. Seems like a bargain for a one-time sale; seems costly in the out years when it's you, not Google, putting all the work into retaining the customer.
Not complaining. Just contributing a data point from a similar effort in a slightly different space.
http://developer.googleapps.com/marketplace/fees
20% off the top line for all revenue from a customer they acquire for you. Seems like a bargain for a one-time sale; seems costly in the out years when it's you, not Google, putting all the work into retaining the customer.
Not complaining. Just contributing a data point from a similar effort in a slightly different space.
I'm waiting for Apple to apply a per-MB charge for all data you access on iOS via WiFi or 3G that doesn't come from Apple.
I imagine the decision at Apple went something like this:
We can always go from 30% to 10% later, and all publicity is good publicity, so go for it.
We can always go from 30% to 10% later, and all publicity is good publicity, so go for it.
Additionally, it will also make the lower margin appear reasonable to developers etc, meaning Apple have given themselves a new revenue stream AND developers aren't that annoyed as they currently are at this 30% rate.
I suspect that, like most outrageous things Apple does
1) that we'll all have a big fight
2) Apple will continue with what they're doing for a while while we all get enraged and a bunch of us and the consumers jump platforms.
3) After months of fighting, Apple will relent and put a saner policy in place.
4) All will be right in the world
5) Wash, rinse, repeat.
More likely than not, Apple is probably doing what they do best which is to feel out the upper ceiling of the market, do a credible job of defeating their competition, find out where a comfortable profit can be made, then screw up any path to bigger market share because the margins (and the ability to control the ecosystem) aren't there.
1) that we'll all have a big fight
2) Apple will continue with what they're doing for a while while we all get enraged and a bunch of us and the consumers jump platforms.
3) After months of fighting, Apple will relent and put a saner policy in place.
4) All will be right in the world
5) Wash, rinse, repeat.
More likely than not, Apple is probably doing what they do best which is to feel out the upper ceiling of the market, do a credible job of defeating their competition, find out where a comfortable profit can be made, then screw up any path to bigger market share because the margins (and the ability to control the ecosystem) aren't there.
The biggest complainers in all this will be companies like rhapsody who are middlemen.
I see this as a steady development towards a new era, away from copyright and patents and towards distribution-driven innovation.
Look at Netflix, Apple and Google. They are discovering this model but just like the internet, I think the future will reveal itself over the next few years. People will pay for easy distribution and one-click purchasing. Some distribution networks will have a monthly fee for unlimited downloads. Others will have pay-per-download.
Here's the good news: rather than relying on a government-enforced monopoly (copyright, patents, etc.) to make sure that the publishers and innovators get paid, we will rely on direct-to-consumer distribution networks, which compete with one another for publishers and users on things like ease of use and selection.
In a way this is the Cable TV model. Eventually, I think everyone will move to a monthly subscription model for nearly unlimited downloads, like Netflix. That's because when torrent clients (or usenet or whatever else decentralized distribution network there will be) become as easy to use as the centralized ones (and decentralized always wins in the end), it will be just as easy and convenient to get a pirated movie as it is to get it on iTunes. But movies are expensive to make. That's why in the future, I think people will pay monthly fees instead of paying per item.
At the end of the day, there will be a huge number of people subscribed to Netflix-like distribution networks just like there are people subscribed to the internet, and generating "positive externalities" for the cheapskates that get free content through decentralized means. But the system will work. Content creators will flourish!
Look at Netflix, Apple and Google. They are discovering this model but just like the internet, I think the future will reveal itself over the next few years. People will pay for easy distribution and one-click purchasing. Some distribution networks will have a monthly fee for unlimited downloads. Others will have pay-per-download.
Here's the good news: rather than relying on a government-enforced monopoly (copyright, patents, etc.) to make sure that the publishers and innovators get paid, we will rely on direct-to-consumer distribution networks, which compete with one another for publishers and users on things like ease of use and selection.
In a way this is the Cable TV model. Eventually, I think everyone will move to a monthly subscription model for nearly unlimited downloads, like Netflix. That's because when torrent clients (or usenet or whatever else decentralized distribution network there will be) become as easy to use as the centralized ones (and decentralized always wins in the end), it will be just as easy and convenient to get a pirated movie as it is to get it on iTunes. But movies are expensive to make. That's why in the future, I think people will pay monthly fees instead of paying per item.
At the end of the day, there will be a huge number of people subscribed to Netflix-like distribution networks just like there are people subscribed to the internet, and generating "positive externalities" for the cheapskates that get free content through decentralized means. But the system will work. Content creators will flourish!
I'm completely disgusted by Apple's behaviour on this topic. Apple should be ashamed of itself for gouging developers. This is like if someone has a bakery in Des Moines, IA and then wants to expand to New York, and the city of New York insists that the price of cake the bakery charges be the same or lower than the price in Des Moines where the rent and operation costs are a fraction of what they are in NYC. This kind of monopolistic behavior by Apple is worse than Microsoft at its worst in the 90s and the early 2000s.
It's not worse than Microsoft.
Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile devices. Apple is acting as a distributor and asking for a cut for being that distributor. There are other equally viable distributors - web apps, Android, maybe even WP7.
I'm sure the Angry Birds or Pixelmator people don't begrudge Apple taking a cut for giving them a massive amount of marketing and promotion - as well as an ultra-simple way of receiving payment (still a major stumbling block in the online world).
The key thing is how they enforce the external restrictions. It does make sense to say you need to offer the same terms externally as inside the App Store - to the consumer. The problem is that this can appear totally unreasonable to the developer. It all depends on enforcement - if they go after 30% of Highrise revenue because 37Signals have a native client we will know things are wrong.
Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile devices. Apple is acting as a distributor and asking for a cut for being that distributor. There are other equally viable distributors - web apps, Android, maybe even WP7.
I'm sure the Angry Birds or Pixelmator people don't begrudge Apple taking a cut for giving them a massive amount of marketing and promotion - as well as an ultra-simple way of receiving payment (still a major stumbling block in the online world).
The key thing is how they enforce the external restrictions. It does make sense to say you need to offer the same terms externally as inside the App Store - to the consumer. The problem is that this can appear totally unreasonable to the developer. It all depends on enforcement - if they go after 30% of Highrise revenue because 37Signals have a native client we will know things are wrong.
Except, uh, without the monopoly.
[deleted]
[...] my colleague MG Siegler did a thorough piece talking about why this makes sense for Apple and users [...]
How surprising...
How surprising...
Apple's marketplace, Apple's T&Cs. If you can't do business using Apple's marketplace change your business model or change your marketplace. If enough people do the latter then Apple will have fewer quality suppliers.