4 ms·

The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inv

The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%. This was already addressed in the article. iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple.

Pooter 16y ago
Or, you know, it's a way to get content providers to sell through Apple. If there's a 30% premium to get on iOS through Amazon, a way around that is to just sell through iBooks. We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff.
- statictype 16y ago
  We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff. I think part of the reason they rescinded on that is because people freaked out about it :)
  - Pooter 16y ago
    And because they realized that it ruled out large swaths of application classes that they don't have an issue with (games, for example). Mostly, it was about keeping crappy flash apps of iOS. And from a platform perspective, that did actually make a lot of sense.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
stcredzero 16y ago
By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple. You mean users lose out on the larger distributers. I know I'm going to get voted down for this, but I think an ecosystem of small and independent players producing content might actually be beneficial to users in the long run. Apple is doing the distribution, so what purpose do the large distributors have? The only things that the customer needs are discovery and tastemakers. Distribution isn't so much a problem in the age of the internet.
mechanical_fish 16y ago
iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped? Apple's primary target here is probably Amazon. A company which, incidentally, is no stranger to the art of using a powerful distribution network, an existing customer base, and a DRM-locked e-reader platform as a lever to demand big shares of revenue: http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-kindle-70-30-deal-for-self-publishers/ http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-kindle-70-30-... According to this article, and the Stross piece linked therein, Amazon's standard deal is that they take seventy percent. Their "generous" deal for self-publishers is that they take a mere 30%... but the publisher must give Amazon the right to set the price as Amazon sees fit. Makes Apple's 30% cut look pretty good, actually. But, of course, if you're a print publisher you pretty much have to have a deal with Amazon, so I expect there are a lot of negotiations going on right now.
- statictype 16y ago
  To be clear, I don't actually care about how much Amazon actually makes on each copy sold. What bothers me is that Apple has seemingly made it economically unviable for distributers to exist in the AppStore at all. This means we have to rely on Apple for content on our iOS devices, and until Apple scales up its content sources, the users are losers in this deal.
  - jad 16y ago
    If users are truly the losers in this deal, then won't they vote with their wallets?
    - statictype 16y ago
      In what sense? Many (like me) already own iOS devices and are invested in it with all the apps/games/songs/books that we already bought. I probably won't switch platforms based on the absence of a newspaper/music subscription service, but I sure would like the option of having those.

Pooter 16y ago

Or, you know, it's a way to get content providers to sell through Apple. If there's a 30% premium to get on iOS through Amazon, a way around that is to just sell through iBooks. We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff.

statictype 16y ago
We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff. I think part of the reason they rescinded on that is because people freaked out about it :)
- Pooter 16y ago
  And because they realized that it ruled out large swaths of application classes that they don't have an issue with (games, for example). Mostly, it was about keeping crappy flash apps of iOS. And from a platform perspective, that did actually make a lot of sense.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

stcredzero 16y ago

By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple. You mean users lose out on the larger distributers. I know I'm going to get voted down for this, but I think an ecosystem of small and independent players producing content might actually be beneficial to users in the long run. Apple is doing the distribution, so what purpose do the large distributors have? The only things that the customer needs are discovery and tastemakers. Distribution isn't so much a problem in the age of the internet.

mechanical_fish 16y ago

iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped? Apple's primary target here is probably Amazon. A company which, incidentally, is no stranger to the art of using a powerful distribution network, an existing customer base, and a DRM-locked e-reader platform as a lever to demand big shares of revenue: http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-kindle-70-30-deal-for-self-publishers/ http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-kindle-70-30-... According to this article, and the Stross piece linked therein, Amazon's standard deal is that they take seventy percent. Their "generous" deal for self-publishers is that they take a mere 30%... but the publisher must give Amazon the right to set the price as Amazon sees fit. Makes Apple's 30% cut look pretty good, actually. But, of course, if you're a print publisher you pretty much have to have a deal with Amazon, so I expect there are a lot of negotiations going on right now.

statictype 16y ago
To be clear, I don't actually care about how much Amazon actually makes on each copy sold. What bothers me is that Apple has seemingly made it economically unviable for distributers to exist in the AppStore at all. This means we have to rely on Apple for content on our iOS devices, and until Apple scales up its content sources, the users are losers in this deal.
- jad 16y ago
  If users are truly the losers in this deal, then won't they vote with their wallets?
  - statictype 16y ago
    In what sense? Many (like me) already own iOS devices and are invested in it with all the apps/games/songs/books that we already bought. I probably won't switch platforms based on the absence of a newspaper/music subscription service, but I sure would like the option of having those.