Hacker News Reader

Comment by Supermighty | Hacker News Reader

I can understand Apple wanting to increase revenues. And even getting a bit of the subscription pie. But this whole thing seem wrong. It feels like Apple didn't really look at the whole ecosystem to see the ramification. Or that they did, but are overly confidant in their platform and reach to be able to force subscribers into this model.

I don't see this ending well.

View on HN

Perhaps they're hoping that this will force some of the subscription businesses off their platform, forcing people into whatever services Apple can give through subscription (iBooks, music). And then the businesses that do remain can actually pay. In the short run, I can't imagine users would care very much if they could only get their books from apple and not amazon, and it would probably help Apple lock in users. But, lock-in and anticompetitive behavior probably don't make for a good experience from the user's perspective in the long run... So, maybe they have a different angle.

That could be a thought, or goal, of theirs, to push content creators to their platform instead of through Amazon and Rhapsody middle men.

Users will and won't care depending on several factors. I can imagine that hardcore Amazon Kindle users will be pissed that they have one less platform to read their books on.

The Kindle syncs books and your position in the book between devices. It's a value proposition that's hard to beat. Even if you have the same book on your iBooks I think users will get pissed that they have to search to find where they finished reading it on their other devices.

iBooks syncs last-read-to positions for books that are on the device. It doesn't automatically sync books, though - that has to happen through iTunes.

Does it sync last-read-position across all your devices. Or as many devices as the Kindle app supports?

It does it across all the devices that run iBooks (i.e. anything that runs a recentish version of iOS).

"That could be a thought, or goal, of theirs, to push content creators to their platform instead of through Amazon and Rhapsody middle men."

You don't push creators to a platform by scalping 30% from their income.

That misses the point.

In this scenario, if you have the Kindle app installed on your iPad, and if you buy a subscription to something, you can do that from your kindle, your ipad, your computer, whatever. Kindle is cool that way.

Apple is saying, hey, if you do it through the ipad kindle app, we expect 30% of the subscription fee from the publisher. AND the publisher is not allowed to offer cheaper prices to off-ipad purchases.... so the only logical move for Kindle is "umm, okay, we'll stop providing a kindle ipad app and we'll take our customers elsewhere"

Leaving only the Apple-provided bookstore to handle subscriptions.

They don't want people using their platform to launch recurring-revenue models for content and then not get a piece of the subscription pie.

The point is that creators already have to deal with worse than 30% scalping when dealing with other distributors of their content. For example, Activision/Blizzard has the infrastructure to sell/distribute games from their own website, however, when they also sell those games through a big retail distributor like Walmart, they have to give Walmart a huge cut (I'm guessing more than 30%) to entice Walmart to sell that game through their stores. Now, Activision/Blizzard cannot sell the game for 10% less than the retail price from their own website (at least, not initially) because otherwise, Walmart says to Blizzard/Activision "If you don't sell the game from your website at the retail price, we won't sell your game through Walmart."

Even though it's a negotiation, it's mutually beneficial to the content producers and the distributors.

The game Apple is playing is that they want to take the same cut from content distributors as they would from content creators. It's a gutsy move by Apple because those content distributors are already taking a cut by reselling content from content creators. They wouldn't be willing to do this if they weren't also making an aggressive push to be a content distributor of all digital media.

It's one thing if Apple provides a competing service to Netflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, et al. (And may be accused on monopolism.)

The thing that boils my britches about this is that Apple DOESN'T have a competing service. When the services leave, the iPhone is left only with iBooks and iTunes, both of which are expensive and not very good.

I agree, but I also don't think it would be impossible for Apple to have their own hulu/netflix like service, after all, you can already buy some videos through itunes.

I think this will only be bad for users, but not bad enough to force masses of people to leave. There will always be a cost to leaving Apple behind (both psychological and monetary), and if Apple had to invent their own services to replace those that left, I think they would be more expensive and maybe not quite as good as other products, but they wouldn't be so bad as to force people to leave their iphone, which still has many fun/useful features that don't have subscriptions.

I think the only businesses that are in danger of leaving the apple system would be: Music streaming, video streaming, and books, and I think Apple would be able to provide their own in house replacements for those that left (for better or for worse).

In Apple's mind, iTunes and iBooks are competing services to Neflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, B&N eReader, Kindle eReader, except that iTunes and iBooks have less features or less content or worse experience or no streaming. They are all ways of providing access to view/read/listen to digital media from content producers. Right now, you may not view iTunes and iBooks as competing services because both are available on the same platform and provide different ways of accessing digital media.

Apple currently has to allow these competing services to be made available through their platform, either to make the platform more appealing to end consumers or because of worries of anti-monopolistic concerns or because Apple isn't comfortable with denying these.

iTunes most certainly does compete with Netflix and Hulu especially, and iBooks is obviously there to compete directly with other ebook providers.

I agree that both iTunes and iBooks are rather horrible products, though.

"In the short run, I can't imagine users would care very much if they could only get their books from apple and not amazon, and it would probably help Apple lock in users."

Have you had any actual users actually tell you this?

Everyone has heard of Amazon, everyone knows Amazon has lots of books, everyone knows Amazon has pretty competitive pricing, and most people who would consider buying an iPhone or iPad have probably also heard of Kindle. Having one device that can read Kindle books and also do a lot of other stuff is part of the current value proposition of iOS devices. If that goes away, it will inform the buying decisions of people in Apple's target markets very quickly.

Just imagine the next Walt Mossberg reviews, comparing Android and iOS devices, pointing out that you can read all your Kindle books on Android, but no longer on iOS. That's not going to immediately affect sales?

Heck, much of Apple's target market may already be hearing this news and taking it into consideration before deciding to buy an iOS device, because they are consulting their geek friends about the decision.

I know you said you think this will happen "in the long run", but I think it could affect Apple's sales much more quickly than you expect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com