Comments on: Apple Has Caused a Ruckus. Again.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:01:32 +0000

The upshot of Apples in-app purchase rule ultimately means less choice for the consumer and more money out of our pockets and into Apple’s pockets. The Agency 5 agreement and now this new one DO limit the ability of retailers to discount ebooks from these publishers, and now limits their profits. In short, the “in-app” purchases will mean Apple gets the 30% and amazon (or whoever) doesn’t get squat in this 30/70 split brought on by Agency 5 price(fix)ing (now Agency 6, since Random House joined in today). What motivation does amazon have to continue selling through the apple app? (Did anyone notice that all Random House ebooks went up in price at mid-night last night??)

I’m glad you’re sanguine about it, but I’m not. This isn’t good news for anyone interested in ebooks.

By: Jean Wan

Jean Wan — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:11:46 +0000

The way I see it, iTunes is analogous to a bricks-and-mortar store (let’s call it, for the sake of brevity, the Store) where I can purchase various forms of entertainment. The Store has an overhead that has to be maintained through the sales of physical products – the more the overhead can be reduced, and the more books a store can sell, the more money the Store makes. I’m simplifying immensely, but generally, I gather that’s the gist.

I see iTunes as that same store, but in the digital sphere. Now, some have argued that Apple has no right collecting money a) on apps that they don’t even develop, b) on digital merchandise that costs them nothing to maintain, with no overhead. The former may be true; the latter, I’m not so sure about. I know even less about a digital business than I do about a physical business, but I figure, who am I to judge the inner workings of iTunes? Someone has to be paid to make the App Store run.

That’s only my point of view. My small, consumer’s, peon’s point of view. And I agree with LynnD – the next few months are going to be interesting.

KJ – Yup. I am a) an Apple fan, writing this from b) a PC, which I have admittedly called a PC without any derogatory undertones because c) that’s the way I’ve grown up calling them, having a mother who wrote programs for PCs. Mea culpa. However, I do respectfully disagree with your usage of the past tense; I think Apple still makes great hardware.

By: Leigh AAR

Leigh AAR — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:24:16 +0000

Thanks, Lynn D. . . that makes sense to me now. they earn 30% and then have to pay that 30% to apple. . .

Don’t get me started on the agency pricing. . . Apple and the five have a lot to answer for, in regards to e-book

By: Tweets that mention Apple Has Caused a Ruckus. Again. « All About Romance’s News & Commentary Blog -- Topsy.com

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:59:27 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by All About Romance, Sunita. Sunita said: Yes, everyone needs an editor: http://bit.ly/iiogj3 I breathlessly await the followup post, "Apple TV is the Greatest, Take That You H8trz" [...]

By: KJ

KJ — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:45:12 +0000

You do realize that you are defending anti-trust practices?

Just want to make that clear.

Also, Macs are PCs. PCs are personal computers and NOT a term that means Windows. Linux machines are also PCs. For some reason Apple marketing tried to make this a dirty word and only came off looking foolish. The only people who use this word to mean “Windows” machines are people who don’t know any better. Read: Apple fans.

Apple used to make really awesome hardware and they used to have a great company but the minute the iPhone became popular something went really, really wrong in their philosophy and they become arrogant. Actually they became exactly like Microsoft and they lost their focus.

By: LynnD

LynnD — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:25:06 +0000

Leigh: As I understand it, the issue here is the “agency” pricing model that Apple and 5 of the Big 6 publishers came up with last year for ebooks last year. This model provides that publishers set the price for their ebooks for all retailers (the same price across the board) and the ebookseller gets 30% and the publisher gets 70%. If Apple requires ebooksellers such as Kobo, Amazon, Sony etc. to pay 30% of the ebook price to Apple for any sales made within the Apple App itself, these booksellers will get nothing from that sale (even though they are actually providing the content). At the present present time, these third party ebooksellers get around the 30% charged by Apple for sales within the Apple App by having the “purchase” portion of the transaction completed outside the App (i.e. via the web as opposed to in iTunes). Apple is trying to close this loophole. If they do and if the agency publishers continue to insist on the Agency model; how much revenue will Amazon and the other ebooksellers lose? Will it result in some of the smaller ebooksellers to go out of business? From a competition or anti-trust perspective, this is concerning because it raises the question of whether Apple is trying to deter fair competition in the marketplace with this policy. I think that it will be an interesting few months in the book world as the publishers, Apple, Amazon, Kobo, Sony and Google fight this one out. It will also be interesting to see if the “agency 5″ decide to renew the agency pricing agreements when they expire next month (get the popcorn ready).

By: Leigh AAR

Leigh AAR — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:28:34 +0000

I not sure I understand about the issue is? Haven’t publishers always discounted magazines with door to door sales (usually schools now), and subscription inserts in the actual magazine?

Are you saying that you can buy a book on itunes that really you are buying from Amazon? like a kindle book? Or are you just talking about the kindle app?

I rarely access itunes. I do love my iphone though.