Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Apple claims 30% just for being there."

They created the iPad, they created the App Store. Where was the NYT et al when the canvas was blank?

Also what is the cost for digital delivery versus print? And all publishers surely can have a web based subscription service if they desired - fully accessible from any iOS browser or other smartphone.




This is a separate argument but one I am so very tired of hearing so sorry if I come across as a bit terse.

The notion that because its electronic delivery then its cheap, or cheaper than print...

That is called an Assumption. And its a bad one too.

Print is expensive and labor intensive. It involves presses, unions, skill, delivery and distribution. However the big costs of that are offset by advertising in the pages.

Digital distribution is expensive but cheaper than print. It involves programmers, sys admins, dbas, CMS developers, web dev, consultants, support, hosting, ec2, bandwidth and more. However the big costs of this are not as easily offset by advertising on web pages because web advertising is dirt cheap.


"They created the iPad, they created the App Store. Where was the NYT et al when the canvas was blank?"

Isn't that similar to saying Google can ask for a cut for all web subscriptions made in Chrome? Apple created the iPad, true. But it's not that I have not paid for the device.


I think its more like if Google had also developed their own standard for sending pages to replace HTML/JS/CSS, replaced DNS with their own page discovery system, provided tons of pre-built reusable components that make up almost all parts of most sites, and then paid for all of the bandwidth for transferring webapps using this new system.

And then, still supported the old way of doing things, only charging a cut if you used their new system.


So Microsoft should be taking a 30% cut of every dime spent on Windows?


Apple doesn't charge me (or Valve) anything to buy something from Steam for Mac.

Likewise, they don't charge me when Netflix streams a movie on my Macbook.

It's their _market_ that they impose fees on. Amazon charges their Marketplace sellers up to 25% "referral fee" for all sales. Kindle market is 30% as well, I believe. Valve also takes a cut on both "retail" versions and DLC packs released through Steam. There were companies (like Introversion, who makes the awesome Darwinia and Multiwinia RTS games) that almost went bankrupt if it wasn't for Steams mighty distribution service and marketing (dare I say) genius.

What I don't get is, if NYT and other publishers are so ginned up about Apple's cut, why don't they just say "Hey, iPad users, go to NYTimes.com and subscribe. You'll receive the same hard-hitting journalism and insightful commentary in the Safari-optimized nytimes.com edition as you would from our iPad App. Subscribe today!" Problem solved.


wrt "why dont they just say": Apple prohibits "links" off-app subscription sites. It likely they'll take a dim of plain text too (obviously clickable links are not allowed).

I can kinda sorta understand Amazon charging the Marketplace guys (although 25% seems excessive), since they're targeting the long tail who would otherwise be invisible.

Obviously, I think Amazon charging publishers 30% to reach Kindle owners is bullshit, just as I think about Apple.


Apple did not do it for free. They had a business motive - and as a consumer, I ain't getting the device for free either.


yes they created the iPad...and I paid for it! Why should I pay more after that? It's like Ford saying they want 30% of all cab income since they created the "Crown Victoria" taxi car....


I think this analogy only holds true if Ford is asking for a take of a seamless dispatch service built into all Crown Vics sold to taxi fleets.


... and forcing all taxi companies to use it, and preventing them from putting pointers to their other payment options inside the car.

(Is it just coincidence that every analogy in support of Apple forgets that second bit. Are the analogy writers unaware of that clause, or does it start to sound oppressive so they just leave it out?)


You're right...the "seamless dispatch service" has it value BUT nowhere near the value of the car itself including things like reliability, comfort, space (etc) and certainly not even close to 30%. I think Apple is just pushing this high anchor so that it'll be negotiated down in the future. I believe we'll see this number being gradually notched down until it becomes either very low (in the low teens) or eventually 0 - just like most taxi fleet services now include the dispatch as a standard feature.


Are you paying more? From a user perspective, they're explicitly being charged the same for the content.

We can't view it completely from our developers perspective, because the average user just doesn't care.


All taxes on corporations are passed down to consumers (including Apple's).




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: