[hugh]

I didn't think you could buy Kindle books in the app and had to use Safari so is this any different?

 

[hugh]

With Zinio, I buy the magazines at the website and the content stills gets on my iPad. I'm not sure that Apple is going to change that.

 

[hugh]

If that were true then it would kill my Zinio, Kobo, Sirius Satellite radio, Economist and Globe2Go app.

The result would be the iPad would lose 80% of its vale to me and I wouldn't buy the second unit that we've been discussing in our household and would likely look for an Android tablet of similar size.

 

[hugh]

Apple says it hasn't changed App Store rules, it's just enforcing them

from the article

But Apple's statement on Tuesday would indicate that the company will continue to allow access to those purchases through, for example, a browser -- as long as the content is also made available for purchase within the application itself. That would require changes to some existing applications that offer purchases, such as the Amazon Kindle software.

 

[hugh]

Agreed.

Apple needs to clarify this. For the first time, I really see why I might have to consider an Android tablet.

The good news is that with Android Tablets coming this year, Apple has to be a little more careful.

 

[hugh]

Agree with NeilN.

For example, I have the Economist App. It's free and I get free digital downloads with my paid print subscription. Why should I pay an additional 30% so Apple can get a chunk?

I understand Apple deserves some Cash because servers and bandwidth aren't cheap so maybe they could charge the Economist a listing fee or $2 for every app downloaded. The Economist could then charge $1.99 for the app which I would gladly pay.

 

[hugh]

Apple isn't a charity, it's a corporation operating in a capitalist market and answerable to it's shareholders.

Wholeheartedly agree, hence why I think Apple should charge a listing fee or expect a minimum of $2 per app or something.

As a consumer, I am willing to pay a fair price for the app but I don't want to pay 30% on my reading material.

My economist print sub is $150 a year. I am not going to pay $195 a year so Apple can get $45 a year for the subscription. I am more than willing to spend a one-time $10 for the app and then Apple and the mag can fight over the share.

If Apple wants $45 a year for the magazine sub, plus $36 a year for my Globe and Mail sub (30% of $120) plus 30% of all my book purchases then they can shove it where the sun don't shine and I will buy an Android tablet.

Before I buy a second iPad, which I planned on buying in April or so when version two comes out, I want this settled.

Apple needs to remember that 30% of a lost iPad sale equals zero dollars!

 

[hugh]

Well, right now we don't know what the implications are going to be for subscription based services.

And that is the problem. Apple needs to come clean and tell us what it intends on doing.

I use the Kobo app and if suddenly Kobo (like Sony) is no longer welcome on the iTunes store then I am going to be very unhappy when I can't read books on my iPad anymore.

As it stands today, our family will likely replace our two touches, iphone, iPad and add an iPad and maybe even a MAC in the next 2 to 3 years.

If I can't read my newspaper subscription, magazine subscriptions and books on my iPad without paying a 30% premium then Hello android!

 

[hugh]

Gino, sorry if it sounds like we're picking on you, I don't mean too.

Having made my apology upfront, the truth is I don't give a rats behind if Apple has been lax in enforcement or is changing the rules of the game.

As a consumer, I want to clearly know if I am going to continue to be able to continue to use these applications on the iPad and what, if any, additional costs I will have to incur.

In the last year, I have bought 8 magazine subscriptions, lots of books, a newspaper sub. Total cost is likely over $500. The thought of adding $150 a year to read it on an iPad is not thrilling me.

 

[hugh]

I'm not sure I understand the press release so I think we are going to have to see how this gets applied.

FWIW, I'm glad Apple has published this and I hope the practical aspects of the issue get resolved very soon.

My guess is it will crush Zinio.

Going forward, if it means more cash out of my pocket for my magazine and newpaper subscriptions, then I will likely look at buying a WebOS or Android tablet.

 

[hugh]

The developer of the app is free to set the subscription price at whatever they want. For obvious reasons the price has to be the same (or better) both in-app as it is outside the app.

Gino,

That is a major problem.

What if Time Magazine wants $52 a year after commission to sell digitally. So on Apple store it would be priced at about $75 a year to consumers.

Now what if the Android market wants a 10% commission. Can Time sell a yearly sub for $58 on the Android Market?

My guess is Apple would not allow it and if that is the case then what Apple was doing (if I understand correctly) would be an illegal restraint of trade.

(p.s. I agree that Apple should be compensated somehow)

 

[hugh]

NeilN, you can't have two intermediaries so unfortunately, Zinio will be history. FWIW, I think all app stores are eventually going to start charging commissions.

An App store is a retailer. It needs to make money. The real problem is you can't buy iPad apps from another retailer.

Longer term, I can see the anti-trust folks in Europe and North America forcing Apple to open up its hardware to other retailers.

 

[hugh]

This is a wonderful opportunity for Andriod, webOS and Blackberry tablets. They could court Amazon to their platform (and to drop iOS) by not having a policy similar to the one Apple just announced, and it would be a major selling point for those platforms for customers who would otherwise select an iPad.

No it`s a mess. Imagine having to buy an Android tablet to read Time and the Wall Street Journal and then buy an iPad for USA Today and Newsweek and then buy a WebOS tablet to buy the New York Times and People magazine.

As a consumer, I want to be able to read any newspaper or magazine on any tablet.

 

[hugh]

DanceswithLysol, I think he ignored it because it doesn't make any sense. I think if you read Gino's earlier post, it pretty sums up why the Apple situation is unique.

 

[hugh]

Quotes from a number of providers in the last day suggest that no one really knows what's going on. My guess is that it's all rumour and conjecture until we see some concrete examples.

 

[hugh]

The percentage is irrelevant.

The seller should charge a retailer a set price and the retailer can decide the upcharge. This encourages competition amongst retailers.