But they are providing something. They are providing the platform that makes this all possible and that platform didn't just appear out of thin air. Apple invests a considerable amount of money and hard work (R&D) and infrastructure to make this all happen. And let's face it, if it wasn't for Apple showing the way all these upcoming Android tablets probably wouldn't be 'upcoming'.No, I don't understand why Apple should get a cut of subscription/book costs if they don't provide anything.
It's not Apple's place to dictating to the app developers what their business model should be. If the app developer wants to charge $0.99 for the app and include a free subscription/content, that's fine! But, if they want to charge a subscription or sell a book then they have to make that option available in the app as well.Fine, charge $0.99 for the app but even that is stretching it.
As for the Stanza/Baen situation, I don't know what the answers is to that. I'm sure they'll find a solution that either satisfies Apple, if they deem the Apple eco-system is important for their respective businesses, or they'll leave the Apple system behind.For example, there's a great e-reader app called Stanza which has links to online bookstores. You can also add links to other virtual bookshelves (basically web pages with XML markup). Baen Books, one of the few publishers who have a clue, have had an online bookstore for about a decade (or more). They added a feature a couple years ago where each account had a Stanza-compatible bookshelf. You buy a book on the website and it automatically appears in Stanza, ready for downloading. In this case, why should get Apple get a cut? And if they move to enforce this, who would they charge? Stanza or Baen?
No need to apologize Hugh and I don't feel like I'm being picked on. I'm merely sharing additional information as I'm learning about it and giving another point of view. Just like everyone else in these forums.Gino, sorry if it sounds like we're picking on you, I don't mean too.
You're correct but just because it isn't done on the desktop doesn't mean it shouldn't be done on these new platforms.Hey, I *like* Apple products and I'm usually defending Apple but the argument that they created the platform carries no weight for me. Content providers aren't charged a fee by Microsoft/Apple to have their stuff on Windows/Mac OS. The in-app option with the extra 30% markup creates a barrier to entry that Android doesn't have and is going to bite Apple in the ass if they try to enforce it.
They're nuts for trying to effectively dictate prices for non-iOS customers.“All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app...
Gino,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.