On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:45:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What Apple wants to do is take 30% of the revenue from the book
> 
>   Do you have an actual reference to this? (I'm not saying you are
>   wrong.
> I just have never heard that the 30% share applies to books as well as
> apps. It would be nice to know for sure.)

Well, I know it's the reason why Amazon and Barnes & Noble removed in-app 
purchases from the apps.  Let me see if I can find one of the articles 
(it probably was on The Register)....

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/18/app_of_the_week_ios_amazon_kindle/ 
is as good a starting point as any.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:45:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> What Apple wants to do is take 30% of the revenue from the book
> > 
> >   Do you have an actual reference to this? (I'm not saying you are
> >   wrong.
> > I just have never heard that the 30% share applies to books as well as
> > apps. It would be nice to know for sure.)

> Well, I know it's the reason why Amazon and Barnes & Noble removed in-app 
> purchases from the apps.  Let me see if I can find one of the articles 
> (it probably was on The Register)....

> http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/18/app_of_the_week_ios_amazon_kindle/ 
> is as good a starting point as any.

  I thought you were talking about selling books for the iPad, rather than
an app that has an in-app purchasing system for additional data.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9/2/2011 9:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:53:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/2011 8:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Apple's attempts to extort *30%* of content sales with apps distributed
>>> through the app store
>>
>> That's pretty much industry standard for all the app stores, including
>> Microsoft and Android.
>
> I don't think so, but my sample size is one at present.  (It's standard
> for the app itself, not the paid content - the paid content is what I'm
> talking about).

Google takes a 30% cut of sales on the app store. Microsoft takes a 30% cut 
of sales on XBox indy games and Win7 phones. Amazon takes a 30% cut of books 
you publish on the Kindle.

> After all, Amazon isn't a charity either - Apple cutting into their
> profits doesn't mean they make less, it means they raise their prices.

My guess is Amazon is big enough to make a deal with Apple for books Amazon 
is publishing themselves. For self-published books (i.e., small publishers), 
it's the same cut either way.

>> A big part of that is to prevent piracy from jailbroken iphones/ipads.
>
> I don't think that's what Apple's motivation is.  They want to make money
> not just on the apps, but on the content purchasable in the apps as well.

Sure. But the reason people bother to put content up when it could be part 
of the app is to help curb piracy, which is still a major drawback of iphone 
publishing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:47:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:45:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> What Apple wants to do is take 30% of the revenue from the book
>> > 
>> >   Do you have an actual reference to this? (I'm not saying you are
>> >   wrong.
>> > I just have never heard that the 30% share applies to books as well
>> > as apps. It would be nice to know for sure.)
> 
>> Well, I know it's the reason why Amazon and Barnes & Noble removed
>> in-app purchases from the apps.  Let me see if I can find one of the
>> articles (it probably was on The Register)....
> 
>> http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/18/
app_of_the_week_ios_amazon_kindle/
>> is as good a starting point as any.
> 
>   I thought you were talking about selling books for the iPad, rather
>   than
> an app that has an in-app purchasing system for additional data.

No, I was talking about in-app purchases.  Sorry for not making that 
clearer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:06:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 9/2/2011 9:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:53:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/1/2011 8:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Apple's attempts to extort *30%* of content sales with apps
>>>> distributed through the app store
>>>
>>> That's pretty much industry standard for all the app stores, including
>>> Microsoft and Android.
>>
>> I don't think so, but my sample size is one at present.  (It's standard
>> for the app itself, not the paid content - the paid content is what I'm
>> talking about).
> 
> Google takes a 30% cut of sales on the app store. Microsoft takes a 30%
> cut of sales on XBox indy games and Win7 phones. Amazon takes a 30% cut
> of books you publish on the Kindle.

Yes, but that's not the same as what I'm talking about.  I'm talking 
about in-app purchases - Apple seems to think that they are entitled to 
take 30% of Amazon's revenues for books purchased in the Kindle app.  No 
other vendor does that that I've heard of.

So what Amazon has done is moved the Kindle app into an HTML5-based cloud 
app so they don't have to pay Apple the 30%.

>> After all, Amazon isn't a charity either - Apple cutting into their
>> profits doesn't mean they make less, it means they raise their prices.
> 
> My guess is Amazon is big enough to make a deal with Apple for books
> Amazon is publishing themselves. For self-published books (i.e., small
> publishers), it's the same cut either way.

No, we're talking about two different things here.

>>> A big part of that is to prevent piracy from jailbroken iphones/ipads.
>>
>> I don't think that's what Apple's motivation is.  They want to make
>> money not just on the apps, but on the content purchasable in the apps
>> as well.
> 
> Sure. But the reason people bother to put content up when it could be
> part of the app is to help curb piracy, which is still a major drawback
> of iphone publishing.

Sure, but that's got nothing to do with the 30% cut Apple wants from in-
app purchases.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> No, I think most Android tablets try to be a media consumption device
> (let's face it, text input without a keyboard is painful for most
> people)

I've been using this incredible input method called "Swype", where you swipe
your finger over letters in the virtual keyboard instead of typing to write
words.  It's nothing short of marvelous and I've typed here and elsewhere with
it even from the bus.  I've written and published most of the articles in my
blog* with it without much pains and with reasonable productivity for what
people would expect from a smartphone.

No surprise, here I am taking a break at the snack bar while taking to you.
Sadly, Apple devices don't feature anything like it builtin, which is a real
shame (and Swype was developed by Samsung afaik) and does much for the
perception that the devices are completely inadequate for intellectual
production.

That and the fact that you're basically jailed to iTunes for media consumption
(a friend of mine requested some mp3s from mine because he can't download his to
his PC) make them big no-noes to me.

Btw, I've edited this in a full text editor.  Not quite emacs, but is much more
comfortable than tiny web form text entries.  Quite a bliss to do ctrl-c ctrl-v
with your fingers... :)


* my poetry and haiku in portuguese:
http://umavozatroz.wordpress.com/

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:34:20 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> No, I think most Android tablets try to be a media consumption device
>> (let's face it, text input without a keyboard is painful for most
>> people)
> 
> I've been using this incredible input method called "Swype", where you
> swipe your finger over letters in the virtual keyboard instead of typing
> to write words.  It's nothing short of marvelous and I've typed here and
> elsewhere with it even from the bus.  I've written and published most of
> the articles in my blog* with it without much pains and with reasonable
> productivity for what people would expect from a smartphone.

I've been using the beta on my phone as well - I do like it, and the 
latest beta is much better than the previous (always a good thing in beta 
software).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 18:10, Stephen wrote:
> > I am going to ask one of my American colleagues about this. ;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EkCdK6bUls
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBWrMQVsuak
>

Thanks, I get it now.

Squirrel! Indeed. :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:12:29 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
> > But I think the most egregious examples of "unnecessary letters" are the
> > place names "Leicester" and "Worchestershire".  But I can understand not
> > pronouncing all of those letters, particularly after a few pints. ;)
>
> Wales wins hands down. Consider the town of...
>
> Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysiliogogogoch
>
> No, I didn't just make that up:
>
> http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/gales.jpg
>
>

Do you mean "Saint Mary's Church in the hollow of white hazel near a rapid
whirlpool and the Church of Saint Tysilio near the red cave"?

If so, why not say it?  :-P

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/2/2011 11:06 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 9:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:53:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/1/2011 8:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Apple's attempts to extort *30%* of content sales with apps distributed
>>>> through the app store
>>>
>>> That's pretty much industry standard for all the app stores, including
>>> Microsoft and Android.
>>
>> I don't think so, but my sample size is one at present. (It's standard
>> for the app itself, not the paid content - the paid content is what I'm
>> talking about).
>
> Google takes a 30% cut of sales on the app store. Microsoft takes a 30%
> cut of sales on XBox indy games and Win7 phones. Amazon takes a 30% cut
> of books you publish on the Kindle.
>
But, that isn't the issue. The issue what that, to use the "in-app" 
purchase, Amazon would take a 30% cut, but then Apple would take another 
30%, since you where buying via *their* app store. So, in actuality, you 
would be paying like 60% extra, not 30%.

Think of it like an ATM transaction fee, the way they worked before 
banks mostly stopped charging their own customers. You would pay say 50 
cents to use the ATM *at all*, then another $1-$5, because you didn't 
just use the ATM card, you used "someone else's" ATM. In this case, you 
would be *required* to do all transactions for books via the Apple app, 
or even store, which would tack on 30%, but since the place you where 
*buying from* was Amazon, they would need to tack on another 30%, for 
their profit, and the result would be that, for a $1 book, you would be 
charged a 30 cent "transaction fee" by Apple, and then another 30 cents, 
by Amazon, for the actual profit they need to make from the purchase. 
Your $1 book is now $1.60. Now, make that a $10 book, and its not $3 
extra, but $6, and so on. Yet, if you bought the same book from Apple, 
it would only be $3.

Not sure why even having such a thing isn't illegal as hell, since I 
can't see it much different than if two businesses opened, both charging 
$5 for a pie, but one of them went and hired goons, to stand on the 
street and charge you an extra $1 to walk to the end of the street, 
where the other store was located, to buy the same $5 pie. Try that any 
place, but online, and you would have your ass handed to you...

Post a reply to this message