5 ms·

donohoe, I am sorry but I had to laugh. It's not just "being there" - you had to pay to build the app, sure, but do you know how much Apple had to invest for cr

by greyman 16y ago

donohoe, I am sorry but I had to laugh. It's not just "being there" - you had to pay to build the app, sure, but do you know how much Apple had to invest for creating the platform on which your app could be built? And implementing app store, and running app store, etc. etc... But yes, 30% feels a bit high for repeated payments with no added discovery by Apple, i agree with you on this one.

donohoe 16y ago
I'm not claiming Apple did nothing. They have built a great platform and its been very successful for them. I can imagine how much they spend building it but I can see how much they made back from that though. And this is before Subscriptions will add to that. My point is that Subscriptions can happen without Apple. But they have chosen to not allow that. They have also chosen to take 30%. Finally, they also take away any direct relationship a publisher can have with a customer (you can argue the pro's and con's of that but end result is publishers become dependent on Apple).
- GHFigs 16y ago
  My point is that Subscriptions can happen without Apple. Where they do, Apple takes no cut whatsoever. If you have a subscription-based web application, for example. The only way Apple can take a cut is if you're using what they provide.
- yardie 16y ago
  they also take away any direct relationship a publisher can have with a customer It takes 2 party to be in a relationship. Apple gives you the option of being in that relationship or not. Except for billing and shipping, I can't remember what the pros are for the publisher having my information. I do know that at the first chance they get they make money on the backside by blasting out my mailing address to every junkmail operation in existence.
  - donohoe 16y ago
    Agreed. However if CompanyX has a relationship with CompanyY and is negotiating prices/deal/terms/whatever it is in on very shaky footing to get a favorable deal if CompanyY completely owns the customer base for CompanyX.
- Bud 16y ago
  Thanks for representing the NYT viewpoint in the thread, donohoe. My question to you is, why should the NYT be so afraid of this? Customers will (mostly) know about Apple's 30% cut. If NYT wants the entire pie, can't they just sell the user an iPad NYT subscription on the NYT website or elsewhere, thus getting 100%? Apple has NOT chosen to not allow subscriptions from the outside. Doesn't what Jobs said explain that clearly? If NYT already sold the user, Apple gets zero. If NYT sells a new user from somewhere outside the iPad app, Apple gets zero. If, on the other hand, Apple sells a new NYT subscriber, from inside the iPad app, Apple gets a cut. Now, we can argue about whether the 30% cut is way too big, but this seems pretty close to fair, to me.
  - donohoe 16y ago
    This is NOT the NYT viewpoint but my own. I am a developer with the NYT but I'm not speaking for the NYT nor claim to be reflecting their views.
    - Bud 16y ago
      I apologize for my bad wording. I meant an NYT viewpoint, not the official views of the NYT. I would still be very interested in your answer and opinions.

by greyman 16y ago

donohoe 16y ago

I'm not claiming Apple did nothing. They have built a great platform and its been very successful for them. I can imagine how much they spend building it but I can see how much they made back from that though. And this is before Subscriptions will add to that. My point is that Subscriptions can happen without Apple. But they have chosen to not allow that. They have also chosen to take 30%. Finally, they also take away any direct relationship a publisher can have with a customer (you can argue the pro's and con's of that but end result is publishers become dependent on Apple).

GHFigs 16y ago
My point is that Subscriptions can happen without Apple. Where they do, Apple takes no cut whatsoever. If you have a subscription-based web application, for example. The only way Apple can take a cut is if you're using what they provide.
yardie 16y ago
they also take away any direct relationship a publisher can have with a customer It takes 2 party to be in a relationship. Apple gives you the option of being in that relationship or not. Except for billing and shipping, I can't remember what the pros are for the publisher having my information. I do know that at the first chance they get they make money on the backside by blasting out my mailing address to every junkmail operation in existence.
- donohoe 16y ago
  Agreed. However if CompanyX has a relationship with CompanyY and is negotiating prices/deal/terms/whatever it is in on very shaky footing to get a favorable deal if CompanyY completely owns the customer base for CompanyX.
Bud 16y ago
Thanks for representing the NYT viewpoint in the thread, donohoe. My question to you is, why should the NYT be so afraid of this? Customers will (mostly) know about Apple's 30% cut. If NYT wants the entire pie, can't they just sell the user an iPad NYT subscription on the NYT website or elsewhere, thus getting 100%? Apple has NOT chosen to not allow subscriptions from the outside. Doesn't what Jobs said explain that clearly? If NYT already sold the user, Apple gets zero. If NYT sells a new user from somewhere outside the iPad app, Apple gets zero. If, on the other hand, Apple sells a new NYT subscriber, from inside the iPad app, Apple gets a cut. Now, we can argue about whether the 30% cut is way too big, but this seems pretty close to fair, to me.
- donohoe 16y ago
  This is NOT the NYT viewpoint but my own. I am a developer with the NYT but I'm not speaking for the NYT nor claim to be reflecting their views.
  - Bud 16y ago
    I apologize for my bad wording. I meant an NYT viewpoint, not the official views of the NYT. I would still be very interested in your answer and opinions.