[solsticegt1]

Check out this article from CNN on Apple

http://www.cnn Sidestepping Apple: Companies rethink app strategiescom/2011/TECH/mobile/07/26/companies.rethink.apps.wired/index.html

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[calaviqpfza4]

RIM could only wish they had the eco system that Apple has created. You may or may not agree with their rules, but you also don't have to play with them, as the article suggest. You can't argue with their success and you can't argue with the number of developers that develop apps for iOS.

Again, RIM could only wish (and their customers) they had the eco system that Apple has created.

[kirson]

Interesting. I agree that the eco-system is admirable. I do hope that RIM is able to replicate something at least similar to it. That being said, it is a bit amazing the Apple is charging their full 30% for CONTENT coming through the app. I understand the desire to get a piece of it, but the full 30% seems crazy. Could you imagine they tried to charge a Banking app 30% of the funds you moved through the app?

[calaviqpfza4]

Interesting. I agree that the eco-system is admirable. I do hope that RIM is able to replicate something at least similar to it. That being said, it is a bit amazing the Apple is charging their full 30% for CONTENT coming through the app. I understand the desire to get a piece of it, but the full 30% seems crazy. Could you imagine they tried to charge a Banking app 30% of the funds you moved through the app?

Credit card companies easily charge 28% and I don't hear anybody complaining (well we all complain, you get what I mean). You take what you can get. After all Apple is providing all the leg work for you. Developer tools, App Store, marketing, storage, etc.

[steve911]

It really doesnt surprise me that Apple is taking 30% for these purchases. Why not? I would do the same if I sold the same number of devices that Apple does. Its a true monopoly. They dictate the price. If you don't accept, find a way around it or bend over. Its a business not a charity.

Also IMHO, I have a strange feeling that Stevie Boy had no part in this decision. No offence to Steve but once he's gone, Apple stock will plummet, MUCH worse than the beating RIM has been taking. Then greed and control will take over the company, only to alienate the consumers, publishers and developers who then all rebel against them. If I had stock in Apple I would get out now while the going is good. Once its announced the Steve has passed I don't think Apple will ever recover.

[DenverRalphy]

It really doesnt surprise me that Apple is taking 30% for these purchases. Why not? I would do the same if I sold the same number of devices that Apple does. Its a true monopoly. They dictate the price. If you don't accept, find a way around it or bend over. Its a business not a charity.

Really? You support apple taking somebody else's revenue?

Take ebooks for example. With the Kindle, Nook, etc.. the publishers of the ebooks determine the price a book is sold for. The retailer gets a 30% cut of the price it's sold for. That's dictated by the publishers. So now Apple is telling Kindle, Nook, Google Books, Kobo, etc, that Apple gets a 30% cut of any transaction through "In App" purchases. It's not 30% of the seller's cut Apple is taking, it's 30% of the price of the book. So now if an ebook reader has in app purchasing, Apple takes the entire profit for the book, leaving the retailer with 0%.

And do you know who it was that engineered the ebook publishing industry to ensure the publishers dictate the selling price of the book and the 30/70 split? Good ole Steve Jobs. Prior to his interference when Apple started iBooks, publishers would sell their books to retailers, then retailers could then sell the books for whatever price they wished. But when iBooks came about, Steve Jobs went to the publishers and helped engineer their pricing model to ensure that nobody could sell an ebook cheaper than he could, nor could anybody get a better deal.

[lnichols]

So all these great apps can't even download content easily now because Apple wants a cut of the content. RIM should be running to Amazon and be courting them. Then RIM should start running add campaign showing in app purchase of Kindle. Unfortunately RIM will likely do neither. Anyway I don't think the great app ecosystem of Apple will remain great if they make it cost prohibitive for providers to distribute content through the apps. This could be a great opportunity for competitors to poach developers with content. I wonder if at some point someone will go after Apple for Anti Trust because they essentially are making their iBooks app the only game in town.

[_StephenBB81]

Credit card companies easily charge 28% and I don't hear anybody complaining (well we all complain, you get what I mean). You take what you can get. After all Apple is providing all the leg work for you. Developer tools, App Store, marketing, storage, etc.

Credit card company's charge between 1.5% and 4% to businesses

Though I very much don't disagree with Apple taking a 30% cut off of the sell price for providing a distribution network, that is a reasonable price to pay for bandwidth, storage, distribution, and being included in a marketing strategy built around your product, since your product is an "app" and it's all about apps.


I hate the Apple ecosystem, but think it was a brilliant move and they came at it at the right time with the iPod, and iTunes, and just grew on that content delivery model.
IF RIM could grasp half of the ideals of Content delivery that Apple utilizes we'd have a very different competition layout today

[DenverRalphy]

Though I very much don't disagree with Apple taking a 30% cut off of the sell price for providing a distribution network, that is a reasonable price to pay for bandwidth, storage, distribution, and being included in a marketing strategy built around your product, since your product is an "app" and it's all about apps.

Getting their cut for the cost of the app is reasonable. But for content that Apple has no relation to whatsoever is quite unreasonable. As in the Kindle example; Apple does not provide any services related to the sale or delivery of the ebook from Amazon. They don't host the content, they don't handle the transaction, nor do they distribute the content once it's purchased. They even want the 30% cut of the sale if all the app does is display a readable url and instructs you to manually enter it into a web browser.

[Charlieo132]

Well if they developers/companies dont like it, I know one company that would like some great app developers.

[Economist101]

Interesting. I agree that the eco-system is admirable. I do hope that RIM is able to replicate something at least similar to it. That being said, it is a bit amazing the Apple is charging their full 30% for CONTENT coming through the app. I understand the desire to get a piece of it, but the full 30% seems crazy. Could you imagine they tried to charge a Banking app 30% of the funds you moved through the app?

"Moving funds" is a quite bit different than "purchasing content," but hey, why got caught up in distinctions that destroy your analysis? Details.

Really? You support apple taking somebody else's revenue?

Do you realize that the newspaper revenue split with Amazon used to be 70/30 with Amazon taking the 70% if the cost was below $2.99? Were you complaining about that? Were you even aware of it? Honestly, I wasn't complaining, in part because I wasn't aware of it either. As for Apple taking someone else's revenue, Apple is bringing the customers. Their contribution is no less than Amazon's, yet you don't complain at all about Amazon taking revenue. Amazon gets to do this because they bring the customers.

Take ebooks for example. With the Kindle, Nook, etc.. the publishers of the ebooks determine the price a book is sold for. The retailer gets a 30% cut of the price it's sold for. That's dictated by the publishers. So now Apple is telling Kindle, Nook, Google Books, Kobo, etc, that Apple gets a 30% cut of any transaction through "In App" purchases. It's not 30% of the seller's cut Apple is taking, it's 30% of the price of the book. So now if an ebook reader has in app purchasing, Apple takes the entire profit for the book, leaving the retailer with 0%.

That's the cost of offering one of these apps. However, retailers are free to reach consumers through web apps if they don't like the app terms. Or, they can remove their in-app links as Amazon has already done. Solved.

Getting their cut for the cost of the app is reasonable. But for content that Apple has no relation to whatsoever is quite unreasonable. As in the Kindle example; Apple does not provide any services related to the sale or delivery of the ebook from Amazon. They don't host the content, they don't handle the transaction, nor do they distribute the content once it's purchased. They even want the 30% cut of the sale if all the app does is display a readable url and instructs you to manually enter it into a web browser.

If you don't think that retailers would take advantage of the "readable URL" example if that option was available you're being completely disingenuous. That's like saying it's crazy that the U.S. withholds tax on every pay check, as opposed to, say, every other check. If they did the latter, smart people up their pay on the non-taxed check, and reduce it for the taxed check. The only way to enforce a rule is to remove the loopholes. Otherwise the loopholes destroy the rule.

[DenverRalphy]

Do you realize that the newspaper revenue split with Amazon used to be 70/30 with Amazon taking the 70% if the cost was below $2.99? Were you complaining about that? Were you even aware of it? Honestly, I wasn't complaining, in part because I wasn't aware of it either. As for Apple taking someone else's revenue, Apple is bringing the customers. Their contribution is no less than Amazon's, yet you don't complain at all about Amazon taking revenue. Amazon gets to do this because they bring the customers.

Whatever agreement a publisher and a retailer come to is their own business. That's entirely up to the two parties to hash out and is irrelevant to the issue. What IS relevant, is Apple deciding they're going to intrude on any agreement between two other parties.

That's the cost of offering one of these apps. However, retailers are free to reach consumers through web apps if they don't like the app terms. Or, they can remove their in-app links as Amazon has already done. Solved.

Except that Apple changed the game after the fact. Apple was a key player in engineering the pricing of ebooks. Then later changed the rules of the game as pertains to their appstore, effectively laying claim to any and all revenue from ebook sales made from iOS devices. It's bad enough that Apple wants to control which apps you can install on your iDevices, they now want to lay claim to content that doesn't belong to them.

If you don't think that retailers would take advantage of the "readable URL" example if that option was available you're being completely disingenuous. That's like saying it's crazy that the U.S. withholds tax on every pay check, as opposed to, say, every other check. If they did the latter, smart people up their pay on the non-taxed check, and reduce it for the taxed check. The only way to enforce a rule is to remove the loopholes. Otherwise the loopholes destroy the rule.

That analogy makes absolutely zero sense to the issue. In any case, it's pretty sad that not only does Apple control whether you have a method in place to purchase content from within the app, but they also dictate that in no way can the app provide any instruction as to where to go to purchase the content.

Why any consumer would wish to support such an ecosystem is beyond me.

[sosumi11]

Except that Apple changed the game after the fact. Apple was a key player in engineering the pricing of ebooks. Then later changed the rules of the game as pertains to their appstore, effectively laying claim to any and all revenue from ebook sales made from iOS devices.

Apple changed the music game almost ten years ago using this strategy. Apple dictated that the maGic price was 99¢ and the single was reborn. Apple made about a nickel for every song sold because of the cost to maintain the iTunes Store. Apple is in the business of selling devices. They know, however, that without content, there are no sales. They can literally give the content away. And they practically do.

It's bad enough that Apple wants to control which apps you can install on your iDevices, they now want to lay claim to content that doesn't belong to them.

It's all about quality of the experience. Apple is actually taking the responsibility of policing what goes in your device so you don't have to. Android apps are filled with poor code, trojans and who knows what else. If RIM is serious about how their system works, they would follow Apple's lead. As far as content, Apple is a retailer, just as Best Buy and Amazon are. Why is this so wrong? Why shouldn't they get compensation for the functioning of the store whether its brick & mortal or behind a firewall?

Why any consumer would wish to support such an ecosystem is beyond me.

Over 225 million have given Apple their credit card numbers. Obviously convenience, ease of use and security is not important to you.

[DenverRalphy]

It's all about quality of the experience. Apple is actually taking the responsibility of policing what goes in your device so you don't have to. Android apps are filled with poor code, trojans and who knows what else. If RIM is serious about how their system works, they would follow Apple's lead. As far as content, Apple is a retailer, just as Best Buy and Amazon are. Why is this so wrong? Why shouldn't they get compensation for the functioning of the store whether its brick & mortal or behind a firewall?

What? This isn't about controlling the quality of the content. We're not talking about the security of apps here. We're talking about published content readable by apps already approved and vetted. Apple isn't approving or disapproving ebooks that readers are purchasing, they're just claiming the right to keep the revenue for themselves. They're taking money for content not being serviced and maintained within their appstore. Claiming rights to secondary revenue is... for lack of a better term... a load of crap.

Over 225 million have given Apple their credit card numbers. Obviously convenience, ease of use and security is not important to you.

Again, it has absolutely no relation to security. The convenience of purchases and delivery of content from within an app is a product of the app's developer, not the product of Apple.