Hot Spork Chat : Join us in an AIM chat room!

Apple's relationship with the press, customers, and dealers

tliet – March 20, 2008 05:34AM Reply Quote

Although we don't live in the Apple is beleaguered times anymore, there's still enough to be said about them...
Transplanted once again...

The Gay Blade - 05:54pm Mar 31, 2000 EST
The Blade will attempt to transplant yet another rhetorical sapling here
on the Spork boards by copping a page from the delightful Brian Miller,
writing eloquently on the superannuated boards of yesteryear:

Brian Miller - 03:07pm Sep 30, 1999 PT
The man with a plan

My recent PowerBook G3 fiasco notwithstanding, I am beginning to wonder if
Apple is planning on abandoning "small fry customers." Consider the
evidence:

1) Apple's war with the Macintosh press;
2) Apple's slashing and burning of small local dealers, who often provided
the best service "in a pinch";
3) Apple's continued horrendous customer service breaches (individual Apple
Store orders cancelled in favour of large educaction/business orders).

Pulling all this evidence together and analysing it makes me feel far more
"worried" about Apple's future than any time under Amelio. Consider, for
instance, what all of those resources spent on lawyers threatening tiny Mac
sites could do in customer service and relations.

Before we consider Apple's "invasion" into the Fortune 1000 enterprise to
be ready, we have to focus on Apple's status in its own current markets. In
my view, there's a lot of "retrenching" to do before they're ready. They
can start by ceasing their intimidation of Mac publishers, letting the damn
Mac rags publish OS 8.6 on their cover disks, and spending a bit more time,
effort, and energy on a "satisfy the customer at all costs throughout the
organisation" policy. These are all core competencies they'll need before
they can even THINK of invading the big-enterprise space.
[/quote]

Page 15 of 29 Pages:

10 11 12 13 141516 17 18 19 20

YDD – February 17, 2011 08:06AM Reply Quote

Quote

How much do you want to bet that the New York Times starts a new, subscription publication, the Shmew Shmork Shmimes, with most of the same content as the NYT and a subscription price 30% higher?

Something similar to this?

ddt – February 17, 2011 08:12AM Reply Quote

The aggregator issue is a big one, on the legal, business, and other fronts. I can say that many publishers/publications are definitely concerned about that.

As for the NYT, I can say about that is they are really not a quick-reacting organization, especially in regards to electronic media... .

ddt

porruka (Admin) – February 17, 2011 08:19AM Reply Quote

ddt,

I don't know about anyone else, but I was just using the NYT as a placeholder example of "large+somewhat valuable periodical brand" although at one point, they were out on the front lines. JW will remember our trip to NYC to talk to them in the AOL days ('96 I think).

It's probably going to be a model of "internal syndication" to accomplish this, and likely only the behemoths (the ones least likely to 'get it') will have the resources to actually accomplish it. Actually separate the news/content gathering/creation from the assembly/presentation... sort of an MVC approach to publishing?

I'm just thinking aloud here,...

ddt – February 17, 2011 08:32AM Reply Quote

Oh sure -- your larger point is a good one... just trying to add my little bit of knowledge... .

ddt

johnny k – February 17, 2011 09:18AM Reply Quote

As the Onion article suggests, the NYT has already segmented its products. The iOS app only gives you a subset of the whole newspaper. So for Apple's purposes, they are not the same product. But that's not interesting - this subscription thing is made to be appealing to publishers. It's all the other content providers' business models that are thrown into disarray.

porruka (Admin) – February 17, 2011 09:27AM Reply Quote

jk,

You're right, in a sense. Ultimately, what this seems to be is an effort to cut unnecessary (definition vague) middlemen out of the process, replacing a multitude with Apple (as far as Apple devices are concerned).

It can be taken in the context of something we've been talking about on these boards in other threads: video content (previously known as television). Assume you do actually get content *creators* willing to take advantage of new "direct" distribution channels (like that horrible WealthTV). It's not going to work in the "consumers have to visit a thousand different places to find interesting content" world; so for Hulu for example, does it add any value above aggregation? (I don't know, I don't use it.) If not, Apple is likely looking to kneecap it. It will get challenging definitely, as many of the new media aggregators are really just distribution arms for the creators themselves, and won't want to give up that control.

So to take your statement and modify it slightly, I'd say that the subscriptions are made to be appealing to _creators_, and it sucks balls for everyone in the middle (which at times are the same or strongly-related entities).

John Willoughby – February 17, 2011 10:11AM Reply Quote
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius

My thought was that by providing "seperate but equal" content as an ostensibly new publication at a higher price a content provider could then make only the more expensive publication available for iOS subscriptions. Apple tax passed on to consumers.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2011 10:12AM by John Willoughby.

Cloudscout – February 17, 2011 10:50AM Reply Quote
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ

Someone pointed out the following in Google's "Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement":

Quote

4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market.

Looks like the same restrictive policy as Apple, right? Wrong... for two major reasons:

First, there's the fact that you aren't required to distribute your apps exclusively via the Google Market. In fact, here's how Google describes it:

Quote

Distributing your apps through Market is non-exclusive; you may choose to distribute your applications through other channels as well. Keep in mind the version published in Market must comply with all Android Market policies.

Second, Google has more specific details in their "Android Market Developer Program Policies" document:

Quote

Developers charging for applications and downloads from Android Market must do so by using an authorized Payment Processor. Developers offering additional content, goods, or services for an application downloaded from Android Market must offer an authorized Payment Processor as the payment option.

The following are exceptions for the two requirements above:

Where payment is primarily for a physical good or service (e.g. buying movie tickets; e.g. buying a newspaper app where the price also includes a hard copy subscription)
Where payment is for digital content or goods that may be consumed outside of the application itself (e.g. buying songs that can be played on other music players)

I think this is reasonable and would seem to be in line with the arguments Apple is using to try and justify their ridiculous policy. That is, if someone is buying content that is specific to the application running on that specific platform or device, Apple and Google could, arguably, deserve a piece of the action. If the iOS or Android device is merely a conduit to access content that is meant to be available on a broader scale (like music, movies, books, etc.) then those apps should be treated like glorified web browsers.

El Jeffe – February 17, 2011 12:55PM Reply Quote
What a journey.

I'm really surprised at the interest in all of this.
This matter is like Apple's version of Obamacare, and you guys are Tea Partiers.
LOL

ddt – February 17, 2011 02:17PM Reply Quote

...except we're actually reading the thing and going from facts...?

Ooh, Parlour!

ddt

Cloudscout – February 17, 2011 02:39PM Reply Quote
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ

Quote
John Willoughby
My thought was that by providing "seperate but equal" content as an ostensibly new publication at a higher price a content provider could then make only the more expensive publication available for iOS subscriptions. Apple tax passed on to consumers.

This wouldn't solve the problem, though. Sure, Amazon could come out with a "Schmindle" app which could sell books for 40% more than the Kindle store but users would only be able to view their Schmindle store books in that app. They still wouldn't be able to view their Kindle books in the app.

Then again, maybe that would work as a form of retaliation, though. They could allow people to view Schmindle books on Kindle devices but they'd look stupid because everybody else would be paying 30% less for the same books than they paid.

johnny k – February 17, 2011 06:04PM Reply Quote

Quote
porruka
So to take your statement and modify it slightly, I'd say that the subscriptions are made to be appealing to _creators_, and it sucks balls for everyone in the middle (which at times are the same or strongly-related entities).

Good point. Who's bitching about this? Some of us consumers, yes, because we don't know how it may hurt our investments. And old-world middlemen. Adobe and Microsoft didn't make the App Store the juggernaut it is, either.

Quote
Cloudscout
First, there's the fact that you aren't required to distribute your apps exclusively via the Google Market

That's great for the geeks, but I'm curious if anyone's made a real business model selling off-Market. It's hard enough getting Android users to pay in the Market. Your second point, I agree, Google's got smart rules, and I expect Apple to develop more nuance in its rules as situations dictate, like it's continually (if slowly) done with app developer guidelines.

Cloudscout – February 17, 2011 08:13PM Reply Quote
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ

Quote
johnny k
That's great for the geeks, but I'm curious if anyone's made a real business model selling off-Market. It's hard enough getting Android users to pay in the Market. Your second point, I agree, Google's got smart rules, and I expect Apple to develop more nuance in its rules as situations dictate, like it's continually (if slowly) done with app developer guidelines.

Getjar.com is building things up still. Like I said, they recently got some big VC money to grow their model.

Amazon announced last year that they were going to have their own Android app market as well and actually began courting developers last month.

John Willoughby – February 17, 2011 08:27PM Reply Quote
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius

The FTC is apparently looking into Apple's new policies.

Jeff Cooper – February 21, 2011 08:24AM Reply Quote

For Tony, and his complaints about Apple's pricing in Australia: Apple using "market power" to gouge Aussie iTunes users.

Cloudscout – February 21, 2011 08:34AM Reply Quote
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ

Google had been facing complaints about their strategy of actually converting app prices into local currency. Their latest changes, though, gave developers the ability to set their prices to specific local currency values rather than depending on the quirks of a fluctuating market.

What I'd really like to know is whether the developers are getting the extra money from their iTunes app sales in Japan and Australia or if Apple is pocketing it themselves.

porruka (Admin) – February 21, 2011 08:39AM Reply Quote

[I put this in the iPhone thread by mistake at first ]

Now this seems to imply things getting more interesting, extrapolating to almost a "native app + payments = apple payments" period.

Apple Smacks Readability In The Face With Subscription Rules; All SaaS In Trouble

[TechCrunch] http://tcrn.ch/gdXS32

John Willoughby – February 22, 2011 07:12AM Reply Quote
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius

Just got spam blocked on my first post of the day. I don't know how that software works, since Tom says it isn't content based, but it is really pissing me off.

Cloudscout – February 22, 2011 08:17AM Reply Quote
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ

I think he said it had something to do with timing... like clicking "Post message" too soon or too late. May have something to do with word count as well.

John Willoughby – February 22, 2011 08:29AM Reply Quote
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius

Right, but it was my first post in at least ten hours. It wasn't important, but it is annoying. I'd rather it just dim the posting options rather than letting you go to the effort of writing the post and then swallowing it.

[EDIT]

Oh, you meant the timing of clicking the button. That may well be it, since the post was written last Thursday, but I got swamped with work and forgot to click "Post." So the post took five days between "Reply" and "Post." I don't know why that would be spam behavior, but whatever.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2011 08:31AM by John Willoughby.

Page 15 of 29 Pages:

10 11 12 13 141516 17 18 19 20

Check Subscriptions New Topic Search

RSS

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login