Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

The situation you describe has already happened in the console world - Nintendo. Today the Big N is a shadow of it's former self, albeit still quite popular. Apple offers the iTunes store -Nintendo used cartridges they manufactured and licensed as their way of controlling what is available and

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Yes, of course. Similes are a way of making complicated issues seem simpler. And... this is one particularly complicated issue. The deal seems pretty solid. In exchange for 30% and _significant restriction of liberties*_ you get to sell your apps into a platform that's renowned for stability, w

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Naah "surfing the web" is hardly the same as 10 years ago, nor is it what Tim Berners-Lee originally envisioned. It is in fact just one generation of a manifestation of a hypermedia system. The moment the location bar is gone, the moment most sites run rich state models on the client (think GWT/FWT

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

no matter what happens with native, the web is still there and is critically important. and users want to surf the web. that's the incentive. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Moandji Ezana wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Chess wrote: > >> Native vs Web will exist as long as there ar

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Chess wrote: > Native vs Web will exist as long as there are devices with > programmable capabilities, and that will continue to occur probably > long after all of us have turned to dust. > Maybe, but the real question is: what incentive will Apple have to contin

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Native vs Web will exist as long as there are devices with programmable capabilities, and that will continue to occur probably long after all of us have turned to dust. On Feb 22, 5:28 am, Casper Bang wrote: > > I'm starting to wonder: if lots of content providers move from iOS to the > > Web, wi

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

I could care less about sharecroppers because this isn't sharecropping. You want to take a 21st Century communications and computing platform and compare with an 18th Century farming method? Really? On Feb 21, 8:07 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > I strongly suggest you read up on what usually ha

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

> I'm starting to wonder: if lots of content providers move from iOS to the > Web, will Apple continue to invest as much in mobile Safari? Well it's interesting that, initially, iSteve didn't envision 3'rd part native applications on the iPhone but rather HTML stuff. In all likelihood we are bound

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ "To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. But to impose this course on any web service or web application that

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

I strongly suggest you read up on what usually happens to the sharecroppers in such an arrangement. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this grou

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Sharecropping allows tenants to use land without having to purchase that land, the land owner in exchange gets a portion of the proceeds of that use. I guess you expect developers to create, market, sell, support a complete mobile ecosystem in order so they can create apps and save %30 of a sale?

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Well, let's see - when the App Store started out, apple took 30%, and this was clearly reasonable - dealing with credit card transactions costs lots of time and effort and money, as is making installs and such work right, as is vetting for malicious intent, and there's also the promotion and hos

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Robert Casto wrote: > Real estate agencies do property management and will charge you a finders > fee and then monthly management fee. Usually 50-100% to find the tenant, and > then 10% per month of the rent to manage things. > > Following that model, if Apple is m

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Real estate agencies do property management and will charge you a finders fee and then monthly management fee. Usually 50-100% to find the tenant, and then 10% per month of the rent to manage things. Following that model, if Apple is managing the sale, content, and lots of other things about the r

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Feb 17, 4:12 pm, Moandji Ezana wrote: > To me, it's like a real estate agency finding someone to rent your house, > then taking 30% of the rent in perpetuity, because they "brought you the > customer". It doesn't make any sense (unless you're selling original content > only on iOS - ie. The Dai

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

2011/2/17 Cédric Beust ♔ > I'm not 100% sure but I thought I read that not only does Apple take 30% of > the purchase price, but they also won't allow you to sell your stuff on iOS > more expensive than other places? Is that true? Yes. It's in the original press release. > > If it is, then thi

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Robert Casto wrote: > Companies will need to decide whether being on the iPhone is worth the > investment. Paying 30% of their in-app income will most likely eliminate all > financial benefit to being on the iPhone I'm not 100% sure but I thought I read that not

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Companies will need to decide whether being on the iPhone is worth the investment. Paying 30% of their in-app income will most likely eliminate all financial benefit to being on the iPhone. Most likely that will drive companies to Android which doesn't have that "tax." Users will then have to buy a

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Robert Casto wrote: > But once you have that app, why should anyone have to pay Apple anything > since the purchase is done inside an app on a network that Apple doesn't > own? I liked Chris Adamson's post on this issue: http://www.subfurther.com/blog/2011/02/01/

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

If Apple wants to charge for every app and get rid of the free model so be it. Then they have charged you for Kindle and you now have the app. The fact that you are buying something from Amazon on an application you have bought on a phone you have bought should mean you don't have to pay Apple anyt

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Google has revealed its own system: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/simple-way-for-publishers-to-manage.html

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:44 AM, work only wrote: > 1, Well if millions download the App then yes its Apple bandwidth, I'm > sure a lot of people have download Amazon App, I have :) > I was talking about the bandwidth to download books, not the app itself. > 2, Yes this is just business, they

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

If they get enough kickback then that rule will fall. Remember the 'code using only objective-c' rule awhile back? On Feb 16, 12:50 pm, Alexey Zinger wrote: > I would agree with that, except for one thing.  Not sure if this has already > been addressed, but does this rule change affect existing a

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

? Alexey From: Chess To: The Java Posse Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 12:26:10 PM Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service They can do that and if enough people disagree then they lose sales and they either stop or slide into oblivion

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Meanwhile NewCorp, which is a thousand times the size and breadth of Rhapsody is all aboard. On Feb 16, 12:29 pm, Moandji Ezana wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Chess wrote: > > If all the publishers > > said "No more Apple" and that was enough of a factor to affect sales > > of its pro

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Chess wrote: > would the Newspapers/Magazines etc let Apple or > others use their platform to advertise/provide services for free? > Yes, except they call it a "leak" by "people close to the negotiations". :) Moandji -- You received this message because you ar

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Plus When I walk into WHSmiths and buy my favorite magazine for 6.00 GBP, you think less then 30% is going to the retailer, hell no more then 30% goes to the retailer. Why should digital be any different. Plus they will run Ads I'm sure! I do feel a bit sorry for Amazon books the profit margins a

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Chess wrote: > If I sold 100x more product using that eBay application then I would > happily pay the 30% per product. Not if you're doing so at a loss, which is possible if you don't have a profit margin above 30%. Moandji -- You received this message becaus

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Chess wrote: > If all the publishers > said "No more Apple" and that was enough of a factor to affect sales > of its products, they would stop or slide into oblivion. > It may be starting: http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/rhapsody-wont-bow-to-apples-subscriptio

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

They can do that and if enough people disagree then they lose sales and they either stop or slide into oblivion. If all the publishers said "No more Apple" and that was enough of a factor to affect sales of its products, they would stop or slide into oblivion. Consumers have ULTIMATE power because

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Feb 16, 5:30 pm, Chess wrote: > If I sold 100x more product using that eBay application then I would > happily pay the 30% per product. That logic only makes sense because Apple has a monopoly on the app marked for iOS. If you were on a Nokia and free to install anything and say, downloaded an

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Well has an App developer I like the Apple system a lot :) at the moment it is the best one out there. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Casper Bang wrote: > Subscribers of a newspaper are typically allowed to insert ads, > personals etc. for free... it's a good way to keep people subscribed >

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

> > How long would this last if Ford put a custom adaptor on fuel tanks from > their cars that only worked at BigOilCompany pumps ? > Well Ford would be dead, Ford does not own the adaptor the oil companies does own the pumps. Car compaines have to do what the oil company says. Anyways - Google

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

If you have capacity to ramp up to 100x of something that you can sell with an easy 30%+ margin on the profits, you are sitting pretty almost by definition. I'd be shocked to know that this includes anyone covered by this new ruling. Also What about the other direction? Might be small, but

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

If I sold 100x more product using that eBay application then I would happily pay the 30% per product. On Feb 16, 11:03 am, Casper Bang wrote: > Subscribers of a newspaper are typically allowed to insert ads, > personals etc. for free... it's a good way to keep people subscribed > to your newspap

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Subscribers of a newspaper are typically allowed to insert ads, personals etc. for free... it's a good way to keep people subscribed to your newspaper. One could argue that when you buy an iPad you become a permanent subscriber, when you pay Apple 99,- to be a developer, you also become a publisher

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

There is a twist, If Apple has done something that generates a story (aka content) for the magazine, you bet they will use it without charging Apple. Even if it does feed back into the buzz of people wanting Apple products. Now, would they love to monetize the story as well? I'm sure. But this

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Sure. Lets face it, would the Newspapers/Magazines etc let Apple or others use their platform to advertise/provide services for free? On Feb 16, 10:17 am, Moandji Ezana wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Chess wrote: > > I dunno, I can see Apples viewpoint. > > > Apple has invested millio

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Chess wrote: > I dunno, I can see Apples viewpoint. > > Apple has invested millions of dollars in research, development, > production, support to create a very popular platform. Now publishers > can come and put out an app for free and take complete advantage of

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

That's just seems to be how set coordinators roll. For the last 20 years, whenever Hollywood needed to show streamlined design tech, they'd usually resort to B&O because it's mainstream enough and looks good. You could even find a Beosound3000 in Monica and Rachel's apartment on Friends even it it

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

I dunno, I can see Apples viewpoint. Apple has invested millions of dollars in research, development, production, support to create a very popular platform. Now publishers can come and put out an app for free and take complete advantage of the platform for their own benefit, and not have to pay a

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Product placement! Apple hands out the equipment for free to TV shows and for movies. You'll also notice that 90% of laptops in TV-land are macbooks as well... On 16 February 2011 12:56, Miroslav Pokorny wrote: > Its funny while everyone knows that Android has passed Apple, mainstream > culture

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Its funny while everyone knows that Android has passed Apple, mainstream culture such as tv shows or advertisements only ever uses or shows IPhones. Everything tv or Hollywood almost (???) always shows Iphones. Strange but true. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

While I agree that Apple's moves potentially benefit the user (in terms of convenience), it won't benefit them if content providers pick up their stakes and leave altogether, or say "just use the website then" and provide rich clients only for other platforms. If that happens, then hopefully Apple

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Agreed. Apple has a solid track record of trying to push as hard as they can and see what they can get away with. It started with the NeXt (the floptical drive and Jobs' insistance that they didn't need a floppy because the Cube was so revolutionary that people would come to them instead of the ot

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

> These new resolutions are no exception and they fall right in line with this > ideology. Eventually this strategy will fail and terms of conditions will be lifted to allow for a bit more leniency - just as what happened with section 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.9 [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/ 2010/0

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

The culture at Apple, and with people who like the company and the products it creates, is that there is no limit to what you can do as long as it benefits the user. If it means charging more or imposing very strict or overly vague rules, it's okay as long as you can justify this with a better use

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Because it appears they are just trying to dig into people's pockets even deeper. People don't see a reason behind it. Here is a company incredibly profitable, loaded with cash, and they go off and make even more rules that force people to give them even more money. It makes people think of them as

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

How long would this last if Ford put a custom adaptor on fuel tanks from their cars that only worked at BigOilCompany pumps ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To u

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Plus I don't think Apple is EVIL :) Just look what happened with video games and 3.3.1 rule, Jobs & Co never were in the business of games, they said that they didn't think it would be that BIG. Apple just does not like doing things they are not good at, perfection to max! But after a bit they u

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

Why do people get SO upset when it comes to businesses, especially when its doing well (Apple App Store). Private business (any shop retail or not) - don't have to let anyone in the store, very funny that people think they have a god given right to to buy from any business. Yes it GOOD for busine

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

1 @ This argument is absurd. Kindle doesn't use Apple's bandwidth or marketing to sell books, only for the initial app download. 2 @ That said, you do imply that content publishers probably shouldn't rely on such a capricious platform. Does a publication need an app, anyway? Just use the web. 3 @

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

But restriction of trade is not. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more o

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Moandji Ezana wrote: > On 16 Feb 2011 02:30, "work only" wrote: > > > > Maybe because it's Apple Store and if you don't want to be their then > > don't release products, its not right to used Apple marketing and > > bandwidth for free and then get 100% profit out

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Miroslav Pokorny < miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote: > So why doesnt the USA government use its anti monopoly laws ? Because there are no such laws. Monopolies are perfectly legal in the US (and in most of the rest of the world). -- Cédric -- You received th

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

On 16 Feb 2011 02:30, "work only" wrote: > > Maybe because it's Apple Store and if you don't want to be their then > don't release products, its not right to used Apple marketing and > bandwidth for free and then get 100% profit outside of App Store. This argument is absurd. Kindle doesn't use Ap

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

"So why doesnt the USA government use its anti monopoly laws ?" Maybe because it's Apple Store and if you don't want to be their then don't release products, its not right to used Apple marketing and bandwidth for free and then get 100% profit outside of App Store. Paul :) On Tue, Feb 15, 2011

Re: [The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

So why doesnt the USA government use its anti monopoly laws ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/15/apple-in-app-subscriptions/ "Apparently, Apple has just updated the App Store Guidelines alongside the announcement today. And yes, it seems that one-time in-app purchases like those made through Amazon for the Kindle will fall under the same rules." http://firebal

[The Java Posse] Re: Apple in-app subscription service

> Does this mean that, for example, the Wall Street Journal app MUST allow > users to subscribe from within the app? I'd understand if they said that > in-app subscriptions could not be more expensive then outside-app > subscriptions, but this seems draconian. Yes AFAIK, Apple mandates that you mu