Amazon Turns Off In-App Purchases In iOS Comixology 244
whisper_jeff writes: "Under the bold assumption that, since they were able to do it with books, they must be able to do it with comics, Amazon has decided to avoid Apple's 30% cut of in app purchases by removing the option from digital comic book platform Comixology for iOS users. It will be interesting to see if digital comic readers leap through the extra hoops to read digital comics on their iOS device or if Amazon has just signed the death knell for their new purchase. Readers may decide that buying a book and buying a comic aren't the same thing — that the extra hoops they're being forced to leap through simply aren't worth it for a comic that takes five minutes to read."
As a big comixology user, this *sucks* (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, one of the great things about comixology was being able to quickly buy/download the next comic in the series when I was binge-reading. I have *hundreds* of comics through them, but I'm not sure if I will be buying any more with this new system. The kindle thing was enough of a pain, but at least a book takes a little longer to read.
I think they've shot themselves in teh foot on this one.
Re: (Score:3)
I have *hundreds* of comics through them, but I'm not sure if I will be buying any more with this new system.
Agreed. I have bought hundreds of comics through this app, usually when they are on-sale and/or I'm reading one comic and get hooked and can just use the app to grab the rest of the series or storyline. In-app purchase was key since shopping through the Comixology website was simply not very convenient.
I completely get why Amazon would want to stick it to Apple with a move like this. What I find to be un-Amazon-like is that they are screwing over their customer experience in order to do it. Say what you wil
Re:As a big comixology user, this *sucks* (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just taking a poke at apple. Apples fees are egregiously high. Smaller operators may just be forced to suck it up but Amazon is in the position of making a more tactical decision. Not only do they have their own device(s) but Apple is not exactly without other competitors. I guess they feel they're in a position where they can see how it plays out.
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point, Amazon have a business plan that means they aim to make no profit, instead they reinvest or subsidise loss making lines with profitable ones, so they can kill other on-line markets and grow towards monopoly on-line market for everything.
They won't care if comixology is unprofitable for years. For them it's better than letting another on-line market take a cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think that the newsstand might have higher overheads per copy sold than Apple?
The OP was not complaining about the margin per se, but that the margin in these circumstances where costs are low and all the actual work has been performed by other developers, is grossly high.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What overheads to Apple have *at all* from items sold in-app from a phone you have purchased over your own internet connection or data plan?
Re: (Score:2)
None of this is needed for an already installed app. If apple wants to offer these things as a service, more power to them. To make it mandatory... Well, I guess people buy their crap voluntarily but hopefully they'll wise up (yeah...)
Re: (Score:3)
But given that apps with in-app purchase are typically free to initially download, your claim that none of it is needed is pure crap. Apple hasn't got any money for all the services it's provided prior to the in-app purchase, so of course they deserve a cut of the in-app purchase.
The amount of the cut is certainly debatable. But the fact that they take one is not controversial in the slightest. Well not with actual developers. Idiots on Slashdot that aren't developers, is a slightly different story.
Re: (Score:3)
That's quite amusing since Amazon also impose a most favoured nation clause on their suppliers. That makes it quite quite hard to make them out to be the victim here.
Worse, Amazon pay a percentage of ebook sales to authors. But Amazon themselves set the price. And of they decide it's zero, they are giving the ebook out to customers without the author receiving a penny.
http://www.mhpbooks.com/amazon... [mhpbooks.com]
You were saying?
Re: (Score:3)
You're comparing apples and oranges. Amazon takes a cut of 30% or 65% to sell your book, makes it searchable as part of their listings, and distributes your book. Apple takes a cut of 30% for merely allowing you to sell content using an app that you wrote, solely because that app is running on their hardware platform.
Again, no it's not just because it's on their platform. Apple are providing many things I already mentioned. You still aren't including them because most of them are lumped in with the original app for which Apple has usually supplied all services FREE. I've already covered that.
And of course you're missing the fact that every business charges what the market will bear, not their costs plus a minimal profit. And in general the market is quite happy with the market they are offered for a mere 30% charge.
But as with any other service purchased by a major corporation, once purchased, consumers would expect it to be integrated under Amazon's brand, which means integrating their billing system into Amazon's.
Actu
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever written a billing system that has to handle refunds through three entirely different mechanisms provided by three different companies?
Apple handle refunds. It's part of the service.
Have you ever had to explain to customers that the refund policy for product A is different from the policy for product B because you bought product A using an iOS app?
No, but of the many things that customer support have to explain to customers that doesn't seem particularly complex. Especially as iOS users tend to know that they do all their purchases through the App Store. Simplicity wins.
Yes, it is more difficult for Amazon than it is for other developers, unless they have no intention of ever unifying the purchasing experience, which is something that they are obviously trying to do.
Well that's their choice to make it more difficult for themselves than all those other businesses.
Yes. Let the market sort it out. The three companies who go off on their own and do things outside of in-app purchase without a really good reason (companies without an ongoing customer relationship outside of the iOS world) will get slammed in the press, and nobody will make that mistake again. The companies that do have a legitimate reason won't be criticized for it, and in the end, it will all "just work (out)".
Your belief that the free market means things magically "just work out" is touchingly naive. Especially after the estimate of just 3 compani
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly though, here is the issue...
Apple runs the marketplace. They want to make money so they take a percentage of sales. Fair enough, pay to play.
Apple allows free/very cheap apps. They allow these because it improves their market position and they're willing to take the hit on the overheads to improve their marketshare. Also fair enough.
The issue becomes that item 1 conflicts with item 2 in terms of apple making money because it allows people to use free or cheap apps with in-app purchases to cut Apple
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This would be well and good if they only charged the 30% fee for in-app purchases that are made through their payment system. But the problem is that they prohibit people from doing it in any other way (i.e. processing their own payments, or even just opening their website in an embedded browser in an app). So it's not just that you have to pay 30% for the use of Apple services - it may well be the fair price (and if not, the market would correct it) - it's that you're forced to use their services for your
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have a selective memory. Developers originally flocked to the app store because Apple was only taking 33%, not the 50% or more they were used to suffering from.
Additionally, it's not even about overhead. It's about supply, demand and what the market will bear. I hope you complain just as bitterly when you buy batteries. Do you have any idea what the markup is on those things?
Re: (Score:2)
So, you love the service but not enough just to go to a web site and buy it for 30% (or so) less than you have been paying now?
I can't wait to see more companies rebelling against Apple's ridiculous (and in the case of music, borderline anti-trust) tax on all in-app purchases. The fact is they have priced everyone else but themselves out of the content market on iOS devices since the margin on a lot of content is less than the 30% they take...
Re:As a big comixology user, this *sucks* (Score:4, Informative)
So, you love the service but not enough just to go to a web site and buy it for 30% (or so) less than you have been paying now?
That's a rather optimistic assumption.
Re: As a big comixology user, this *sucks* (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nick Danger: "How much of an idiot do you take me for?"
Rocky Rococco "First Class."
Re: (Score:2)
do you think they get much more than that going thru a publisher for paper books? Most paper media has 50% of retail for the "newsstand" and another large chunk for the printer. My in-laws have worked for the distributors and the markup is crazy.. but so is the amount of returned product that gets pushed thru the shredder and not paid for.
Sure Apple could knock off their 30% fee, but why? They take less than the same item sold in a store, but not so much less that publisher will ABANDON retail channels. A
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Argentina. I have a comic book shop and the markup is 30-35% only.
"Newsstands" get the comics, sell them, and pocket the difference. The remaining ones are returned at no cost for them (not even shipping).
"Real" stores like mine, have to pay in advance, unsold ones you stick up your own ass, and have to pay higher taxes, operating costs, and credit/debit card fees (3%/1.5% respectively, plus other taxes). People don't expect a newsstand to operate with CC but when they come to my shop they get mad
Re:As a big comixology user, this *sucks* (Score:5, Informative)
And you know what? Comixology knew that, that's why they sucked it up and gave Apple the 30% (though to be honest, the wholesale price Comixology paid meant they still made a profit - even raw comic books that sell for $4 probably cost the store $2 or less). Because by making the user jump through hoops to buy it to get that extra 30% means they'll lose the impulse-buy. And impulse-buy is big - for every person willing to jump through a hoop, 10-20 would just do one-click purchasing (just ask Amazon - if One-Click didn't work, why bother suing B&N over it?), making that 30% easily justifiable.
And no, Amazon won't sell it online any cheaper - they can't. Diamond Comics (the SOLE comic distributor for practically ALL comics worldwide) has a virtual monopoly on it, and they view any reseller that undercuts others (comic stores) very dimly. The only time it doesn't matter is when the items are available through other channels (e.g., most books). But comics are Diamond's property and someone who undercuts may find their orders shorted, especially on items that are often allocated.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, Amazon won't sell it online any cheaper - they can't. Diamond Comics (the SOLE comic distributor for practically ALL comics worldwide) has a virtual monopoly on it, ...
Uh, make that "worldwide distribution of all american comics".
I have half a wall full of comic books (many of them actual books, with hard spines),
and I'm not sure if even a single one of them is from a publisher under Diamond's
"jurisdiction".
Re: (Score:2)
"worldwide"?
As an argentinian with a comic book store: LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, perhaps not. It's a seldom known fact that the cost of sales varies pretty dramataically.
It's possible (and for many companies, entirely probable) that it's cheaper to pay Apple 30% than to duplicate Apple's efforts. In fact, many are extremely happy that stores are only charging 30% and it saves them
Re: (Score:2)
30% is such a nice cut (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're mafia, or Apple.
Sad to say it, but Go Amazon. (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything that keeps down Apple's extortion, even a bit, is a win in my book. And you can tell that Amazon is doing this _explicitly_ to keep the unearned profits out of Apple's pockets rather than to optimize their own revenue. If all they were concerned about was their bottom line they would offer the in-app purchases at an additional mark-up that covers Apple's 30% and let any customers who value that convenience over the extra cost have at it, while still offering external purchases at current prices. Amazon is by no means a saint either, but a little healthy sibling rivalry and competition can often (though not always) benefit consumers in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
To me that's like cheering for Hitler against Staline, or vice versa.
Apple at least is a company that sells only to high income snobs (and some working class people in the Earth's richest countries). Amazon's motto is to take over everything and destroy retail businesses while setting back the workplace by over 100 years.
Amazon is worse? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a VAST oversimplification with a huge "axe to grind against Amazon" and/or "fanboyism of Apple" slant at best.
Not to mention the whole "setting the workplace back 100 years" is 100% pure BS.
You're forgetting Wal-Mart already existed long before Amazon even made any significant inroads into anything beyond selling physical books online at good prices and with an unmatched selection and good, though impersonal, service.
I happen to LIKE seeing companies like Amazon help keep things in check to some degr
Re: (Score:2)
Apple handles the billing, customer service, credit card merchant fees, runs gift card programs, provides a CDN to deliver both the app and downloadable content, and provides access to a captive market.
Paypal or merchant account require you to handle the charging, refunds, paperwork, etc. You also need to find your own addressable market. And run your own gift cards if you want bank-less people or kids to be able to purchase. And setup your own CDN. Depending on the situation you may need to pay commissions
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or Google. https://support.google.com/goo... [google.com]
And virtually everyone else that offers payment processing services
Sorry - you were attempting to imply that Apple was akin to the Mafia because they charge the same rate as everyone else for the same service. As you were.
Re:30% is such a nice cut (Score:5, Informative)
And virtually everyone else that offers payment processing services
Only in mobile app walled gardens. PayPal, 2checkout, authorize.net etc only take about 3%.
Re: (Score:2)
And virtually everyone else that offers payment processing services
Only in mobile app walled gardens. PayPal, 2checkout, authorize.net etc only take about 3%.
Bandwidth is cheap, so it's not a total excuse, but PayPal doesn't actually fulfill the entire transaction, just the payment. Apple hosts IAP content.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, given what Apple does for the developer, from payment handling, refund handling, taxes, hosting, etc., 30% can be considered cheap.
Bullshit. Any company that sells content outside of Apple's walled garden has to have that entire infrastructure anyway. If we were talking purchasing the app itself, fine, but that's not what anyone has been talking about here. For in-app purchases of digital media Apple provides no value beyond the convenience of their device but still wants to take 30%, which is usually pretty close to the margin on the content itself (the same content that Apple is often selling!)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're mafia, or Apple.
Or Amazon in this case.
What, you think they're passing 100% of the profits to the comic book publisher? Hah!
I'd bet they're going to take the 30% that Apple used to take, and stuff it right back in their own pockets, right along with any other existing fees.
Re:You mean, such a low cut... (Score:5, Insightful)
30% wholesale is 23% of retail, apple is taking 30% of retail (42% of wholesale if they were the store), AND THEY AREN'T EVEN THE STORE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that's because Amazon want to ruin the business of the publishers that scout new writers, pay ADVANCES, providing editing services, provide cover art, provide marketing services, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If there's a minimum amount of profit you must make from each sale, the answer is simple - when selling through Apple increase your prices to compensate for Apple's cut. Pass along the costs directly to the customer if you think they are unfair.
Except, of course, the obvious flaw to that suggestion for most digital content (books, music, movies/tv) is that the content owners are charging the same wholesale cost to Apple as they are to the other providers. Apple gets to keep all of their margin (which for digital content is often in the 30% range) while their competitors either give away the content at cost or become completely uncompetitive vs. iTunes.
Similarly, lots of things sold in stores are taking more than 30% of wholesale. Usually a LOT more.
Actually, physical media is no longer taking "a LOT more" than 30% margin these days, either. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't the publisher here. Apple isn't even handling the payments. No traffic needs to be handled by them and they *still* want 30%.
For what? It makes no sense. It didn't for books. It doesn't for Office365 and it doesn't for this. Apple just has this crazy idea that if it runs on their "magical" hardware they should get a cut. Fuck that!
Re: (Score:2)
Sellers don't get my credit card #, they don't don't get my name, and they don't get my email address.
Without an identifier such as an e-mail address, how does the seller associate the purchase with you so that it can provide the service for which you paid to you?
Erh... wouldn't it be smarter.... (Score:2)
To just let people buy it in store but make it 10% cheaper if bought directly on Amazon? People would instantly feel very smart if they jumped the hoops because it's CHEAPER and they're SAVING.
Re:Erh... wouldn't it be smarter.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not allowed. If an in app purchase is offered and the same purchase is available on an external source, the price of the in app purchase cannot be higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should start releasing "iOS edition" comics. Maybe throw the word "retina" in there too, just to make out there is some resolution difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then just inform people "We're not buying into this extortion racket, Apple wanted to force us to up our prices by 30% but we don't want to play along, we want to continue delivering high quality at our low, low prices to you. We're sorry for this inconvenience, but we hope you can agree that hopping over to our store is less annoying to you than paying a third extra for NOTHING".
Make a good mobile site (Score:2)
Just make the mobile web site work well, and it's hardly jumping through hoops. Someone mentioned how easy it used to be to buy the next issue in-app. Just make is so when you go on the web site, the next issue is right there waiting for you to buy it (the app can report back which issues you've finished). It would add all of 15 seconds to the purchase process.
I understand there's still a hoop there, but they don't have to be holding it very far off the ground, and it's certainly not on fire. They could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I wasn't trying to imply that making a mobile site work that way was hard. Frankly, was trying to imply it was relatively straightforward. It's always possible a big company borks something easy, but I fully expect that the need to switch to the web to purchase a comic book will be only very marginally less convenient than in the app. (I admit that in the app would always be the more elegant system, but it really doesn't have to be a big deal if Amazon is smart about it.)
Re: (Score:2)
or just, an amazon account...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really sure why giving your credit card info to Amazon is any different than giving it to Apple.
iTunes gift cards (Score:2)
It doesn't really make much difference... (Score:2)
In-App purchases for Comixology haven't worked properly for me for ages, so I've always tended to buy via the website anyway.
What I'd really like them to do is automatically download subscriptions when my iPad is plugged in and on WiFi. And also keep downloading when the screen turns itself off, under the same conditions.
A plague on both their houses (Score:2)
The 30% "tax" that Apple charges at the App Store is immune to market forces. It makes no difference what sells or how much, Apple gets a phenomenal markup. It's all reward, no risk. When this happens at a large scale it means that capitalism is dead, and all the remains is monopoly.
And before the ideological right zo
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think the overall idea is more akin to renting a booth at a bazaar or flea market. The fact they are charging you to use their infrastructure doesn't seem all that bad. The 30% seems over the top to me and the extra rules
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 30% "tax" that Apple charges at the App Store is immune to market forces.
How so? End users could always choose to switch to platforms that don't charge such tax.
remember that there is a duopoly: Android and IOS.
Both Google Play devices and Fire OS devices support Unknown sources. This allows Android to have multiple stores, and Amazon runs one of them.
I don't have the reference at hand, but someone at Google recently stated that security is not guaranteed for Android.
Could you please dig up the reference for us? Besides, in products for home use, security is practically never proven. Neither iOS nor Android has a published audit using formal methods [wikipedia.org].
Their business model is all about not paying any tax to anybody anywhere anytime.
When Caesar leaves loopholes, you'd have to have an intellectual disability not to use them [wikipedia.org].
Depends (Score:2)
I could imagine that a flat-fee per month could serve them and theirs customers well.
Reenable it (Score:2)
And advertise all the prices as "$7 + $3 Apple Tax"
Re:Are they allowed to do that? (Score:5, Informative)
In app purchases pay a 30% fee to Apple to payment processing, etc. Purchases made outside the app (ie: at a developer's website such as amazon.com) do not incur the 30% fee.
It's up to each developer to decide if the 30% fee is worth the ease of use and Apple handling all the payment processing or not. The vast, vast, vast majority of developers happily pay that fee. Amazon is the one high profile developer to buck that trend, first with Kindle and now with Comixology.
Re:Are they allowed to do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are they allowed to do that? (Score:5, Informative)
I know for video that's pretty much the entire profit margin. Apple basically doesn't want any competition to iTunes so they have priced out TVOD/music competitors completely.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's not even a matter of Apple handling the payment processing. Even if you handle your own payment, they still want 30% if it's in app.
And you can *say* the "vast, vast majority of developers happily pay that fee", but in fact it's ONLY for their OWN in-app purchased assets, which 99% of the time are completely arbitrary (oh, Apple just took 30% of the fee on your extra life or 1000 quatloos? No way!) Please name any major TVOD or popular music providers who are paying a 30% fee on all purcha
Re: (Score:2)
So, what does "inside the app" mean? If my app includes a link to a web page that opens with Safari, is that okay? What if the web page in question looks exactly like the app's interface? What if it opens in a UIWebView instead?
Apple Blocks iOS Apps Using Dropbox SDK (Score:2)
If my app includes a link to a web page that opens with Safari, is that okay?
No. Apps that let the user reach the payment process from the app in any way will be rejected. Please see the previous Slashdot story Apple Blocks iOS Apps Using Dropbox SDK [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The vast, vast, vast majority of developers happily pay that fee.
happily (adv): to mutter swears under one's breath whilst impotently shaking his fist at the the heavens and kicking the family dog
Re: Are they allowed to do that? (Score:2)
Sounds more like a reason not to buy in to the Apple/iOS ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
I only rent from amazon when something isn't on netflix, hbogo, iTunes, or amazon prime.
Sounds more like a reason not to buy in to the Apple/iOS ecosystem.
Please name me one phone other than the iPhone that works with Amazon streaming, be it pay-per-view or Prime.
Re: (Score:2)
I only rent from amazon when something isn't on netflix, hbogo, iTunes, or amazon prime.
Sounds more like a reason not to buy in to the Apple/iOS ecosystem.
Please name me one phone other than the iPhone that works with Amazon streaming, be it pay-per-view or Prime.
Probably the upcoming Amazon phone of which this removal of in-app purchasing is part of the strategy for it.
When did that change? (Score:2)
You can sell externally, can't provide link in-app (Score:5, Informative)
I thought that any bolt-ons for apps had to be sold through the Apple Store so they could collect their 30% cut.
You can sell things externally to unlock features - for instance there are many applications for websites that require a paid subscription to work.
What you can't do is provide a link in the app that takes you directly to a purchasing page to work wrounf the in-app thing.
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
I'm pretty sure Comixology will lose far more in sales than they would gain by not giving away 30%, I've bought a number of things in the app but if I can't I simply will not bother to figure out how I can get them.
I do think it's a precursor to Amazon folding Comixology into the Kindle application, then it would be easier for people to make use of to buy comics as they already do books for the Kindle app. In that case I don't think they will lose many sales (though that's long term and I've not heard they plan to do so yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
Depends on your volume. Imagine if apple wanted a 30% cut of your ebay or amazon (regular purchases not e-books) purchases made using ebay/amazon app. I spend a lot on amazon.com, and I would consider that insane. If every middleman wanted a 30% cut, supply chains will completely collapse. Apple should honestly consider having a tired pricing based on volume. Apple is too stubborn to do that (so is google, so they dont have to worry about the competing mobile platforms doing better either), or they would ra
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if apple wanted a 30% cut of your ebay or amazon (regular purchases not e-books) purchases made using ebay/amazon app.
Have you ever sold anything on eBay? Between eBay and PayPal (pretty much required to sell on eBay) and sometimes shipping fees, you are looking at not that far off 30% gone from the sale price.
If every middleman wanted a 30% cut, supply chains will completely collapse
Plainly they have not.
Again depends on their volume and how much amazon pays the content owners.
It depends on the N
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if apple wanted a 30% cut of your ebay or amazon (regular purchases not e-books) purchases made using ebay/amazon app.
I meant additional 30% fee for buying using the ebay app on an ipad/iphone. I do shop and I sell items on ebay often, the paypal fees I pay is 2.9% + 30 cents. eBay final value fee is 10% (more importantly the fee is capped at $250, unlike apple store) and the listing fee is free for first 50 per month (again volume matters). eBay+Paypal fees is much lower compared to Apple, which doesnt happen often.
if eBay where to sell items on their iphone app, they would have to increase their fees by 30%. Making the f
iTunes gift cards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever sold anything on eBay? Between eBay and PayPal (pretty much required to sell on eBay) and sometimes shipping fees, you are looking at not that far off 30% gone from the sale price.
My employer sells things on eBay, and eBay and PayPal combined take 15 percent. So does Amazon. Shipping will be the same no matter which storefront and payment processor the seller uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Google only takes the 30% if you use Google Checkout. They don't block you from running your own in-app purchasing (at least for music, movies, ebooks etc, I'm not sure about smurfberries). So yes, Apple does have to worry about the competing mobile platform doing better, though so far they are still in their superiority bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
supply chains only exist BECAUSE of the 30% markup at each step. In manufacturing business the "rule of thumb" is that items manufactured follow a rule of 3's. If I dig up $10 of iron ore and make it into metal bars then I would expect to sell those for $30. If I have a company that takes the metal bars for $30 and makes widgets I would expect to sell those for $90. Finally somebody would paint the widgets and assemble them into a finished product for $270. That's why Auto parts are so expensive individual
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not try to make sense here. We're in the middle of a good bit of Apple hatin' and making sense is just senseless.
Re: (Score:2)
What you can't do is provide a link in the app that takes you directly to a purchasing page to work wrounf the in-app thing. Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
So basically you're saying it's such a good offer we have to ban them from not taking advantage of it, Stockholm syndrome much? They can go to any website and buy any non-app item they want, the app store doesn't give you access to the market. The app store is the only remaining way to sell apps after all other ways have been taken away from you, it's what keeps the market hostage and enables them to get a 30% shakedown of all transactions. Why do you think there's no such thing in the PC world, here's mill
Re: (Score:2)
The app store is the only remaining way to sell apps after all other ways have been taken away from you, it's what keeps the market hostage and enables them to get a 30% shakedown of all transactions. Why do you think there's no such thing in the PC world, here's millions of people ready to one-click shop for only 30% of your gross?
For gaming on the PC, there's Steam. Google searches tell me they take 30% as well.
Because no sane business would use it if they had a choice.
Steam is popular with gamers, so game companies take the hit and publish through Steam. They have a choice, and not every game is on Steam, but many are.
Re: (Score:2)
30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
30% of your gross revenue? For transaction management? Whether you need it or not? Are you high?
Visa charges what? Around 3% to gain access to many millions of people who are carrying around a piece of plastic with the Visa emblem painted on it; for transactions under $50 they don't even have to push a button they can just tap the card on your payment terminal. 3% to access millions
Re: (Score:2)
Want to know why, for example, the Steam Mobile app doesn't allow you to buy Windows games for your PC and add them to your steam library right from the mobile app?
30% gross to Apple is why
Look up what percentage Valve charges other game companies to publish on Steam. Valve tries to hide this number, but it's been reported at 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up what percentage Valve charges other game companies to publish on Steam. Valve tries to hide this number, but it's been reported at 30%.
Developers wishing to reach the PC, Mac, or Linux game markets do not have to go through Valve. Observe multiple competing app stores, direct sales, physical retail sales, and so forth. If your business model isn't compatible with steam you can reach those customers any number of other ways. There is lots of software not on steam after all.
Magic the Gathering: Online
Re: (Score:2)
Developers wishing to reach the PC, Mac, or Linux game markets do not have to go through Valve.
True enough, but the fact that they "voluntarily" do so undermines your initial argument:
Original poster:
30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button
Your reply:
30% of your gross revenue? For transaction management? Whether you need it or not? Are you high?
Of course, it's not just about the payment transaction, it's very much the exposure to the userbase.
But in apple's case for example, take Microsoft Office. Microsoft doesn't need the app store to generate demand for its product. If they released office for the ipad they could sell it directly without any trouble at all. They certainly don't need apple to provide them infrastructure, exposure, or process Visa cards. But they couldn't. So for the longest time there was no office for ipad.
So what? Apple is a walled garden. If you want in, Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with Xbox. If it isn't worth 30%, Microsoft won't pay. If it is, they will.
And since the original article is about Comixology, 30% to gain access to millions of users ready to purchase doesn't s
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft allows the subscription to be purchased both through their site (where they keep it all) and in-app where they give Apple their 30%.
Yes, I knew that.
What was your point about Office again?
Supporting the (small minority of?) users that subscribe "in-app" is a nod to ease-of-use and helps expand the market. They can drop the feature in the future once the market is established, just as amazon did.
Plus Microsoft knows the vast majority of people will get their office 365 subscription elsewhere anyway
Re: (Score:2)
I used to have books on bookstore shelves. The publisher generally sold the book to stores for 50% of list.
Which makes sense - the bookstore has to have the property to sell the books, the staff to sell them, the rest of the infrastructure to get the books from a distributor to them along with all the accounting required, and make a profit on top of all that.
All Apple really needs are some hard drives and an Ethernet cable. I realize it's not that simple and maybe that's why they're taking 30% and not 50%,
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy with no retail experience what so ever.
Quite the contrary.
The apple app store is pretty reasonable for selling apps. It provides exposure, hosting, reviews, etc. But in-app purchases? The app itself is the store. The ONLY thing Apple does for them is provide the transaction processing.
bestbuy takes ATLEAST 30%
Off the initial purchase yes. But afterwards?
Lets take it one step backwards from in-app purchase revenue going to the app store. Why not have the app purchases go to the physical store.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
Amazon already has half of the planet's payment details already entered and ready to go at the press of the button. Heck, they even claim ownership of the "one click buy" idea.
They could easily do their own in-app purchases without any help from Apple if it weren't for the fact that Apple would ban them from iOS if they did so (and since iOS does not support alternative markets/sideloading/etc that would be it for Amazon).
I have to take Amazon's side on this one, but I'd gladly side against them if somebod
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you live in the US, which to you must be "the planet." Amazon is irrelevant to most of the world.
Sure, but I imagine they have virtually all the credit card numbers Apple has, which was the point...
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
It's a fair trade-off for some (probably most), not so fair for many others, especially those with small margins that are made up by large volumes. And, of course, a company like Amazon likely already has millions of people who already have payment details entered etc - all they need is their Amazon login...
The deal-breaker here, IMO, is rather the fact that this is forced on you. People wouldn't complain nearly as much if it was an option, like it for Android or Windows Store apps. It would also make for a
Re: (Score:2)
Can you add items to a wishlist for purchase later? Or buy credits externally then redeem them in-app?
I think you can do both of those things, they just have restrictions on direct purchases that you consume on the spot. Apple is only charging for the convenience factor of a user being able to buy on the spot, so mechanisms that are more delayed or convoluted they don't really care about.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have short term memory of a goldfish. When Apple first established the appstore, their 30% was considered *VERY* reasonable, and in fact other cell phone company appstores or RIM was charging way way above that, between 50% to 75%.
Re: (Score:3)
Quit raining on his chain.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how. It's always been possible to buy and view comics via the Comixology website. All they've done is remove the ability to buy via the app.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's retail store card situation isn't quite as hands-off for parents as Apple's. You need a credit card to create a new iTunes account, but afterward you can disconnect it and kids can be self-sufficient. They might take some birthday cash, buy an iTunes card just about anywhere, enter the code, they're off. I only get pulled in to help with things like backups and migration between devices.
The tween who uses my Amazon account for her Kindle has hit multiple little headaches I had to resolve for her