Now Apple requires 30% from all
It all started with the fact that the company Sony wanted to make an app Reader books for iOS. I think everyone knows that the application was originally made for its own hardware and makes it possible to read (and buy) the products of many publishers (eBooks). After the application was made, it turned out that Apple does not want to see it on its system.
The reason for this was the “new” order, that all sales of any content inside any application should be able to go through iTunes, so that you can shoot 30% from them.
In addition, all programs that do not use the In-App-Purchase API will be erased from the App Store this summer.
')
Publishers are concerned and not without reason: the new adjustment will affect a huge number of programs and businesses aimed at iOS, as an opportunity to sell content. For example, Netflix and Hulu have long and successfully streamed films and television programs, almost all publishing houses offer their own publications. All this has so far passed the pocket of Apple, and the apps themselves were free.
It is worth noting that Apple does not prohibit the sale of content through another store directly, they only oblige to sell through its own Apple-based interface (with a 30% redress), if the sale is already offered through the brand. Thus, "users are guaranteed maximum convenience." Diplomacy, of course, is addressed to consumers - the image must be protected, but publishers with similar formulations will not bother their heads.
In general, this is nothing special, it would be surprising to expect that Apple will abandon its policy of total monetization, especially after the publishers themselves have made such a hyip from the iPad, that now, apart from stumbling and falling, to run and offer content with Apple’s premium can’t do anything. Of course, we all know that 30% pay in the end not consumers, but consumers.
Of course, the whole action also has other long-term consequences. If Apple forces content buyers to tie themselves to iTunes, then in principle there is nothing else to do but continue to buy Apple devices.
Link , for those who think that an article without a link is moveton.
Update:
Due to the heated discussion in the comments forced to add clarification.
Speech is generally not about being honest and / or adequate. Here, everyone has his own opinion: the publishing houses, apparently, are radically different than those of Apple, judging by the fact that an emergency meeting in London is just about this.
I can not argue with the fact that Apple is free to do what he wants with his brainchild, they have a whole army of lawyers for that.
I tried only to say that Apple is currently the only one who provides such a platform for publishing houses, Android on tablets - still from the future.
While earlier publishing house collaboration with Apple was beneficial to both: Apple was making a living from hardware, and publishing houses provided content for sale that made Apple products popular.
Now the balance is changing dramatically in the direction of greater profits for Apple and higher prices for users.
However, it is the monopoly position that makes publishers accept the requirements, while they, being in a difficult situation (for example, about print media), hoped for a new electronic medium, which, in principle, had to make content cheaper, more accessible and ergo to increase the number of buyers , at no additional cost to publishers.
But why should we feel sorry for the publishers? They overslept and use the business model that they had before the invention of the personal computer. They invented the DRM, lobbied politicians, they lowered lawyers for children and thought that they could forever profit from this. Dinosaurs who have not heard a fallen meteorite.
Now Apple is beginning to harvest, sown years ago and cultivated with great zeal. They saw in time what should be the model for content in times of light mobile devices permanently connected to the network. I congratulate Steve not so much on his long-sightedness as on the consistent implementation of the idea.
The reason for this was the “new” order, that all sales of any content inside any application should be able to go through iTunes, so that you can shoot 30% from them.
In addition, all programs that do not use the In-App-Purchase API will be erased from the App Store this summer.
')
Publishers are concerned and not without reason: the new adjustment will affect a huge number of programs and businesses aimed at iOS, as an opportunity to sell content. For example, Netflix and Hulu have long and successfully streamed films and television programs, almost all publishing houses offer their own publications. All this has so far passed the pocket of Apple, and the apps themselves were free.
It is worth noting that Apple does not prohibit the sale of content through another store directly, they only oblige to sell through its own Apple-based interface (with a 30% redress), if the sale is already offered through the brand. Thus, "users are guaranteed maximum convenience." Diplomacy, of course, is addressed to consumers - the image must be protected, but publishers with similar formulations will not bother their heads.
In general, this is nothing special, it would be surprising to expect that Apple will abandon its policy of total monetization, especially after the publishers themselves have made such a hyip from the iPad, that now, apart from stumbling and falling, to run and offer content with Apple’s premium can’t do anything. Of course, we all know that 30% pay in the end not consumers, but consumers.
Of course, the whole action also has other long-term consequences. If Apple forces content buyers to tie themselves to iTunes, then in principle there is nothing else to do but continue to buy Apple devices.
Link , for those who think that an article without a link is moveton.
Update:
Due to the heated discussion in the comments forced to add clarification.
Speech is generally not about being honest and / or adequate. Here, everyone has his own opinion: the publishing houses, apparently, are radically different than those of Apple, judging by the fact that an emergency meeting in London is just about this.
I can not argue with the fact that Apple is free to do what he wants with his brainchild, they have a whole army of lawyers for that.
I tried only to say that Apple is currently the only one who provides such a platform for publishing houses, Android on tablets - still from the future.
While earlier publishing house collaboration with Apple was beneficial to both: Apple was making a living from hardware, and publishing houses provided content for sale that made Apple products popular.
Now the balance is changing dramatically in the direction of greater profits for Apple and higher prices for users.
However, it is the monopoly position that makes publishers accept the requirements, while they, being in a difficult situation (for example, about print media), hoped for a new electronic medium, which, in principle, had to make content cheaper, more accessible and ergo to increase the number of buyers , at no additional cost to publishers.
But why should we feel sorry for the publishers? They overslept and use the business model that they had before the invention of the personal computer. They invented the DRM, lobbied politicians, they lowered lawyers for children and thought that they could forever profit from this. Dinosaurs who have not heard a fallen meteorite.
Now Apple is beginning to harvest, sown years ago and cultivated with great zeal. They saw in time what should be the model for content in times of light mobile devices permanently connected to the network. I congratulate Steve not so much on his long-sightedness as on the consistent implementation of the idea.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/113161/
All Articles