February 4, 2011 at 15:53Now Apple requires 30% from all
It all started with the fact that Sony wanted to make a book reader application for iOS. I think everyone knows that the application was originally made for their own hardware and makes it possible to read (and buy) the products of many publishers (eBooks). After the application was made, it turned out that Apple did not want to see it on its system.
The reason for this was the “new” order that all sales of any content inside any application should be able to go through iTunes, so that they could remove the notorious 30%.
In addition, all programs that do not use the In-App-Purchase API will be erased from the App Store this summer.
Publishers are worried and not without reason: the new regulation will affect a huge number of programs and businesses aimed at iOS as an opportunity to sell content. For example, Netflix and Hulu have been successfully streaming films and television programs for a long time, almost all publishing houses offer their publications. All this so far has passed Apple’s pocket, and the apps themselves were free.
It is worth noting that Apple does not prohibit the sale of content through another store directly, they only oblige to sell andthrough its own Apple-vsky interface (with a 30% corvee), if the sale is already offered through the company. Thus, "users are guaranteed maximum convenience." Diplomacy, of course, is addressed to consumers - the image must be protected, but publishers cannot be bothered with such wordings.
In general, there is nothing special about this, it would be surprising to expect that Apple will abandon its policy of total monetization, especially after the publishers themselves made such a hype out of the new product (iPad) that now, except for stumbling and falling to run and offer content with Apple’s extra charge can’t do anything. Of course, we all know that 30% of the total pay is not the publishers, but the consumers.
Of course, the entire stock also has other long-term consequences. If Apple forces content buyers to tie themselves to iTunes, then, in principle, there is nothing left for him to do but continue to buy Apple devices.
Link , for those who think that an article without a link is a bad manners.
Update:
Due to heated discussion in the comments, I have to add clarifications.
It's not really about being honest and / or adequate. Here everyone has their own opinion: the publishing houses, apparently, are radically different than Apple, judging by the fact that in London an emergency meeting is just about this.
I can’t argue that Apple is free to do what it wants with its brainchild, they have a whole army of lawyers for this.
I just tried to say that Apple is currently the only one that provides such a platform for publishing houses, Android on tablets is still from the future.
Whereas before, collaboration between publishing houses and Apple was beneficial for both: Apple made money on hardware, and publishers provided content for sale that made Apple products popular.
Now, the balance is sharply changing towards greater profit for Apple and higher prices for users.
However, it is precisely the monopoly position that forces publishers to agree with the requirements, while they, being in a difficult situation (for example, about print media), hoped for a new electronic medium, which in principle should make content cheaper, more accessible and ergo to increase the number of customers , at no additional cost to publishers.
But why should we feel sorry for the publishers? They overslept and use the business model that they had before the invention of the personal computer. They came up with DRM, lobbied politicians, they lowered lawyers for children and thought they could forever profit from it. Dinosaurs who did not hear the fallen meteorite.
Now Apple begins to harvest, sown years ago and cultivated with great zeal. They saw in time what the model for content should be during the days of light mobile devices permanently connected to the network. I congratulate Steve even not so much with his farsightedness as with the consistent implementation of the idea.
The reason for this was the “new” order that all sales of any content inside any application should be able to go through iTunes, so that they could remove the notorious 30%.
In addition, all programs that do not use the In-App-Purchase API will be erased from the App Store this summer.
Publishers are worried and not without reason: the new regulation will affect a huge number of programs and businesses aimed at iOS as an opportunity to sell content. For example, Netflix and Hulu have been successfully streaming films and television programs for a long time, almost all publishing houses offer their publications. All this so far has passed Apple’s pocket, and the apps themselves were free.
It is worth noting that Apple does not prohibit the sale of content through another store directly, they only oblige to sell andthrough its own Apple-vsky interface (with a 30% corvee), if the sale is already offered through the company. Thus, "users are guaranteed maximum convenience." Diplomacy, of course, is addressed to consumers - the image must be protected, but publishers cannot be bothered with such wordings.
In general, there is nothing special about this, it would be surprising to expect that Apple will abandon its policy of total monetization, especially after the publishers themselves made such a hype out of the new product (iPad) that now, except for stumbling and falling to run and offer content with Apple’s extra charge can’t do anything. Of course, we all know that 30% of the total pay is not the publishers, but the consumers.
Of course, the entire stock also has other long-term consequences. If Apple forces content buyers to tie themselves to iTunes, then, in principle, there is nothing left for him to do but continue to buy Apple devices.
Link , for those who think that an article without a link is a bad manners.
Update:
Due to heated discussion in the comments, I have to add clarifications.
It's not really about being honest and / or adequate. Here everyone has their own opinion: the publishing houses, apparently, are radically different than Apple, judging by the fact that in London an emergency meeting is just about this.
I can’t argue that Apple is free to do what it wants with its brainchild, they have a whole army of lawyers for this.
I just tried to say that Apple is currently the only one that provides such a platform for publishing houses, Android on tablets is still from the future.
Whereas before, collaboration between publishing houses and Apple was beneficial for both: Apple made money on hardware, and publishers provided content for sale that made Apple products popular.
Now, the balance is sharply changing towards greater profit for Apple and higher prices for users.
However, it is precisely the monopoly position that forces publishers to agree with the requirements, while they, being in a difficult situation (for example, about print media), hoped for a new electronic medium, which in principle should make content cheaper, more accessible and ergo to increase the number of customers , at no additional cost to publishers.
But why should we feel sorry for the publishers? They overslept and use the business model that they had before the invention of the personal computer. They came up with DRM, lobbied politicians, they lowered lawyers for children and thought they could forever profit from it. Dinosaurs who did not hear the fallen meteorite.
Now Apple begins to harvest, sown years ago and cultivated with great zeal. They saw in time what the model for content should be during the days of light mobile devices permanently connected to the network. I congratulate Steve even not so much with his farsightedness as with the consistent implementation of the idea.