Publishers Ask Apple CEO for Same App Store Deal Given To Amazon (bloomberg.com) 45
A group of news publishers sent a letter to Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook seeking similar deal terms in its App Store that Amazon.com gets for its video-streaming service. From a report: Apple takes 30% of the revenue from most subscriptions in its App Store, then 15% after the first year. But in late July, a congressional antitrust panel disclosed internal emails showing a more-favorable deal struck between Apple services chief Eddy Cue and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. They agreed to a 15% revenue share for Amazon Prime Video customers who signed up through the iPhone app and no revenue share for users who already subscribed via Amazon or elsewhere, the emails showed. "We would like to know what conditions our members -- high quality digital content companies -- would need to meet in order to qualify for the arrangement Amazon is receiving for its Amazon Prime Video app in the Apple App Store," Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, wrote in the letter to Cook. Apple didn't respond to a request for comment. Digital Content Next represents several news outlets that rely on subscriptions for much of their revenue, including The New York Times, News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. The group also represents Bloomberg LP, owner of Bloomberg News.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tim Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Jobs was brutal to people inside Apple , but I actually dealt with him once re App Store problems (the guy actually replied to an email then got in contact) and was absolutely fantastic to me. In fact he pretty much saved my business. For all it's faults Jobs era Apple was super friendly to customers and devs. This era Apple, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
I have heard similar accounts from others. Steve’s Apple has much more focus than Tim’s. Eddie’s Apple scares the living shit out of me.
Re: (Score:2)
Though it's Adam's Apple that always surprises me.
Re: Tim Apple (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the condition obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
The condition is the ability to make a credible threat to walk away from Apple platforms. Amazon can, you can't, so Amazon gets a deal, and you don't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought it was just having a $1E12+ market capitalization. Just be careful not to fall below it [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised Amazon went for it. With their size they could have just told users to subscribe on their website and paid nothing.
In other news Amazon Prime is at least 15% over-priced.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon want customers at any cost. There are a significant number of customers who will only subscribe through their Apple devices - after all, it is just a fingerprint or face-id away. So simple.
Re: Isn't the condition obvious? (Score:2)
Apple isn't letting companies do this now and it's causing a LOT of problems.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bet. With *their* market capitalization passing $2E12 , it's probably causing overflow problems somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can be really petty about their standards in the app store. They don't want you to even mention signing up for services outside of their system. If you don't play ball with them your app essentially becomes just a log in screen with no help as to how you can create an account.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, America is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the trillion dollar corporate people.
Don't knock it. In 1863, President Lincoln reminded us of this all-important fact:
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in slavery, and dedicated to the proposition that some men are created more equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave corporations, solvent and bankrupt, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us the solvent, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored bankrupt we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under CEO, shall have a new birth of slave labor, and that government of the slaves, by the corporate people, for the corporate people, shall not perish from the stock market.
Re: (Score:3)
> Don't knock it. In 1863, President Lincoln reminded us of this all-important fact:
This is funny, but most people don't know that permanent corporations were banned in early America (because they were known to be sociopathic from British Empire days). They would only be chartered for limited times, for public purposes.
JP Morgan bought enough Congressmen to get Standard Oil a permanent, private-purposes corporate charter, and the rest is history.
Today, the courts are so corrupt everybody incorporates ev
More than that (Score:2)
Putting the itunes app on the amazon store and other crossovers also increased the bottom line. It was just a threat of loss but the mutual gain.
Re: (Score:2)
The condition is the ability to make a credible threat to walk away from Apple platforms. Amazon can, you can't, so Amazon gets a deal, and you don't.
While I largely agree, there exists one point of evidence to the contrary: a few other companies had the same deal prior to Amazon receiving it, and none of them are big enough to make a dent if they walk away. Specifically, Altice One and Canal+ [twitter.com], neither of which I had heard of before the deal was brokered with Amazon, apparently received those same terms prior to Amazon receiving them.
From what I recall in subsequent reporting, the companies have been enjoying those terms since 2018 or 2019, but it went l
30% is a lot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
30% of profits on the Apple store is too much money.
Plenty of companies spend much more than 30% of revenue on sales, marketing, and distribution.
The Apple app store gives you all of that on the day you release your app.
Anyone who thinks that isn't a bargain has never run a business.
Re:30% is a lot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:30% is a lot (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't lie, the App Store doesn't give you marketing or sales unless you are one of the lucky few.
My spouse runs an app business. She was making 20 times as much on the Apple store than all the Android stores combined ... until she decided to just dump Android and focus 100% on iOS. Apple gives you plenty of marketing tools, but you need to use the tools. It is only partly luck.
Re: 30% is a lot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of apps?
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of apps?
Sorry, but I won't tell you that. She has a big piece of a small niche, and if I told you it would be easy to identify her. I prefer to keep my Slashdot persona separated from my real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, can't blame you for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your spouse is one of the lucky few.
That is what I tell her, but she still doesn't appreciate me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:30% is a lot (Score:4)
30% of profits on the Apple store is too much money.
Surely it's 30% of turnover, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. When you consider what Apple delivers: A group of loyal users who will stick to that platform even when the number of apps available drops to zero. Just look at the number of rabid Fortnight fans that screamed about Apple dropping the game. But only to scream even louder when people suggested switching platforms.
One could argue that the solution to this kind of monopoly power is to split the App Store from Apple. Even though the stores customers are still locked into that platform, the resultin
Re: 30% is a lot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Think next time before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
When Apple started the Appstore, *ALL* the developers loved the low 30% rate Apple was charging.
Really Slashdot posters? (Score:3, Insightful)
appke (Score:3)
What about me? (Score:2)
...and there are lots of people who would like to know what conditions they would need to meet in order to qualify for the compensation package Jason Kint is receiving as CEO of Digital Content Next. It's anticompetitive that they don't hire
Re: (Score:2)
What about me? (Score:1)
Russia has ruled that Apple is abusing it's monopoly.
Should be simple enough... (Score:2)
Just include a print copy with the subscription. Amazon got the deal because most of what it offered with Prime was a physical service rather than a digital one.