Yesterday, Apple announced a new subscription service available to all publishers of content-based apps on the App Store, including magazines, newspapers, video, music, etc.
Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases. Publishers set the price and length of subscription (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly). Then with one-click, customers pick the length of subscription and are automatically charged based on their chosen length of commitment (weekly, monthly, etc.). Customers can review and manage all of their subscriptions from their personal account page, including canceling the automatic renewal of a subscription. Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30 percent share that it does today for other In-App Purchases.
Publishers who use Apple’s subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their web sites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app. However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
Protecting customer privacy is a key feature of all App Store transactions. Customers purchasing a subscription through the App Store will be given the option of providing the publisher with their name, email address and zip code when they subscribe. The use of such information will be governed by the publisher’s privacy policy rather than Apple’s. Publishers may seek additional information from App Store customers provided those customers are given a clear choice, and are informed that any additional information will be handled under the publisher’s privacy policy rather than Apple’s.
Nathan Koppel reports for The Wall Street Journal, “Apple Inc.’s new subscription service could draw antitrust scrutiny, according to law professors… ‘My inclination is to be suspect’ about Apple’s new service, said Shubha Ghosh, an antitrust professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Two key questions in Mr. Ghosh’s mind: Whether Apple owns enough of a dominant position in the market to keep competitors out, and whether it is exerting ‘anticompetitive pressures on price.'”
MacDailyNews Take: No, and therefore, no. And, when law professors’ “inclinations” become meaningful in a court of law, let us know.
Koppel continues, “‘Millions will be spent litigating how broad the market is,’ said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust professor at the University of Iowa College of Law. Mr. Hovenkamp said digital media is the most plausible market. He said he doubted that Apple, currently, has a sufficiently dominant position in that market to warrant antitrust scrutiny. But, he said, if Apple gets to a point where it is selling 60% or more of all digital subscriptions through its App Store, ‘then you might move into territory where an antitrust challenge would seem feasible.'”
MacDailyNews Take: Then let’s revisit the issue of whether 60% of anything constitutes a “monopoly” if it happens, okay? And, by the way, using 60% share as the criteria would make Coca-Cola a “monopoly” in the carbonated cola market. Surely Pepsi would beg to differ.
Koppel continues, “Mr. Ghosh said courts in antitrust inquiries may look favorably when a company can articulate a legitimate business justification for behavior alleged to be anticompetitive. For this reason, Apple may ‘come up with a business justification’ for some of its restrictive subscription terms, he said. ‘They have invested in a platform so they need to create incentives to use the platform.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The sooner publishers, especially those of newspapers and magazines, realize that the old rules no longer apply, the better off they will be.
“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing. All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.” – Apple CEO Steve Jobs, February 15, 2011
One word: ‘Borders’!
The bellyaching going on over at Gizmodo about this is epic.
That’s right, it came in with the tides from Australia.
So here we go again. Much like antenna-gate this it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Actually, the fury is very real and the publishers are losing something here more precious than thirty-precent; they’re losing uncontrolled access to your personal information, which to them, is a gold mine of opportunity.
Apple said, if a customer comes to us first for a subscription, we will not share their personal information with the publisher. However, if that customer decides to bypass Apple, as a middleman, and goes directly to the publisher for their subscription needs, you are free to share their personal information with whom ever you like.
This is what the real stink is all about. Magazine publishers have been selling our personal information to advertisers (spammers) for ever. It’s such a lucrative market, they make more money selling our information than they do selling Sports Illustrated off the rack.
Apple has put a stop to that, if you’re buying through the App Store. Apple is right on this one, it’s their store and if you sign off on the terms of the agreement, your bound to it. It’s very legal.
Remember folks, a monopoly is NOT illegal. A company must abuse its monopoly position in a market in order for the courts to intervene, just ask M$.
Once again MacDailyNews is turning blind eye to actual potential issues here.
“MacDailyNews Take: Then let’s revisit the issue of whether 60% of anything constitutes a “monopoly” if it happens, okay? And, by the way, using 60% share as the criteria would make Coca-Cola a “monopoly” in the carbonated cola market. Surely Pepsi would beg to differ.”
Your take there is simply wrong. Coca-Cola even having a 90% share over Pepsi is not the same since free market brought the market share to that point. However, Apple restricting free market (by requiring subscriptions in App + 30% for Apple) is monopolistic as it is unfairly manipulating the market to its advantage.
“Apple restricting free market (by requiring subscriptions in App + 30% for Apple) is monopolistic as it is unfairly manipulating the market to its advantage.”
Completely wrong.
“Publishers who use Apple’s subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their web sites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple.”
But surely it’s still a free market? Nobody forced anyone to buy an iPhone or iPad. Apple made the products that people want to buy. If a publisher doesn’t like the terms of the contract they can sell their product a different way.
Yeah, like any other CE manufacturer actually has the competence to compete with Apple on this one.
Fact is Apple is raising red flags here. In the end there may be nothing to it. Then again, there may be an anti-trust violation. Only a thorough investigation will let us know for sure.
“Apple restricting free market (by requiring subscriptions in App + 30% for Apple) is monopolistic as it is unfairly manipulating the market to its advantage.”
Clearly, after reading that last statement, you know nothing about the free market. Apple will charge whatever they feel the market will bear and if you agree to the terms and conditions and sign off on the agreement, you will have done so of your own free will.
Apple is NOT the only game in town for subscription services, meaning, if you don’t like it, leave.
Caveat emptor!
Uh, no. You are free to choose any number of other platforms and digital stroefronts to hock your wares. If you choose to go with Apple you choose to play by their rules. The free market made Apple’s iPhone the single most popular smartphone on the planet, and the free market made the iPad, out of all the other tablets, the most popular tablet. Third parties wishing to hitch their wagon to Apple’s star are in no way shape or form guaranteed to leverage Apple’s platform for free.
So with this logic, do you not feel Apple is due any compensation for delivery of the content, or the device on which the content is viewed?
That’s like saying the paper companies should give free paper to the magazine for printing their product. That’s ridiculous.
Apple is paying for and providing a delivery method and device as a product. If the magazines want to deliver their content on those devices, it will cost them 30%. Period.
The only problem is that line about charging the same both inside and outside the app.
And I still think 30% is too high. Not everyone has the margins Apple has, so a 30% cut, when forced to do the same price both inside and out, means either publishers take a hit, or they raise prices across the board. One is unsustainable, the other is bad for consumers.
Anti-trust is a long shot though, because of the combination of a lack of monopoly and other means, both digital and non, of getting the publication out.
Would this apply to Netflix though? Or Hulu? Or is it just for publications like magazines and newspapers?
I have three apps in the App Store. One has taken over five years of development with an expensive Mac, many expensive plugins and developer tools. Why should a publisher of a book that took six months and a cheap word-processor to write get a larger margin than me?
You can set the price when you debut the app. In the case of publishers, many have been doing so for decades, if not longer, so a sudden price hike would be very noticeable.
@ MrMcLargeHuge,
“The only problem is that line about charging the same both inside and outside the app.”
—- Why, is fair not… er….. fair? Apple is taking a pre-emptive effort to say, fair price is fair price… for both.
“And I still think 30% is too high. Not everyone has the margins Apple has, ”
—– Er you seem to be forgetting that Apple provides the credit coverge, charging, downloading, overhead, etc to cover the cost of all this stuff. Do you remember when it was 50% to 70 % that other music services charged..??? Apple shocked the industry when it only charged 30 %.
Just a thought,
en
Your final point is a valid one. The reason I think 30% is too high is that this is not a one time thing, it’s recurring income. And according to Ars Technica, the subscriptions are not stored on Apple’s servers, they are stored on the publisher’s. Apple is taking 30% as a referral fee. Since it is recurring, I think 10% is fair.
The first line about requiring the same price inside and out was meant as “the only problem with regards to anti-trust”
All Apple wants is to ensure that the publisher isn’t charging more in the app store than they charge through their own subscription methods, thus undercutting the app store to make it more expensive.
I feel this is right for everyone. People have the right to go where they want when getting Digital Media. I don’t see how this is any different than what Amazon does, except that I think Apple takes a lesser cut at 30%. Not sure about what Amazon’s cut may be. Anyone have that info handy?
iQ
What is good for consumers trumps everything.
Better yet, remember that if you don’t like the rules Apple has set for it’s platform you and your business are welcome to not partake in Apple’s realm. The problem for businesses of all sizes, is that because consumers have spoken with their purchases of iOS devices in droves, that is becoming increasingly impossible if one wants to remain relevant to those consumers. So, again the answer that M$ has been so good at showing everyone else is, “If you don’t like our rules or the way we run our platform, go play in someone else’s sandbox.” We as Mac users first hand have seen how effective that option has been, because its lead to the innovations that brought about the MacOSX, the iPod, then the iOS platform itself. Free enterprise allows any of these naysayers a chance at building something better, Apple has no monopoly of any kind, just a very powerful platform for portable devices whereby others can compete unrestricted by constructing their own ecosystems.
If you have a Netflix subscription already Netflix doesn’t owe Apple anything. If you come to Netflix as a new subscriber through the App Store Apple get’s 30% in perpetuity. If you’re Netflix and you don’t want to pay that 30% then you make sure most of your subscribers come to you though your own efforts and not Apple’s. So the only time Apple takes a bite is when Apple brings you new customers. So who’s got their back up against the wall?
Keep in mind who is talking in this article…
All I see here are lawyers wanting to tap into Apple’s iOS driven dollars and having no true substance for it outside of their greed.
Apple is not monopolizing anything. They’re not trying to drive other companies out of business or crush real or potential competitors.
Apple is NOT Microsoft.
Apple-haters out there seem convinced that all moves by Apple are guided with evil intent. If trying offer the best user experience possible (and not ruffle feathers) is evil, then sign me up!
back to the apple has a monopoly thing. Okay, fine.
The fact is, apple doesn’t have a monopoly on the smartphone market. They have a monopoly on the market of “smart phones people actually want to use,” and I betcha that’s NOT a monopoly in the courts.
After all, aren’t android users always talking about android’s bigger market share?
I’m not sure that I understand the new rules. For example, if I have an app like DropBox that I have a pro account for 50Gb of storage for which DropBox charges $9.99 per month, does DropBox now have to offer this service through the app and take a 30% hit? This seems ridiculous.
exactly. It’s totally ridiculous and completely greedy.
No. It means that developers with subscriptions need to work _harder_ to advertise their ‘external’ subscriptions since they get a higher margin from that source.
I make 100% (less 5% PayPal) on my web-downloaded apps, but I sell 100x more on the Apple App store where Apple gets the customer for me. Apple gives me less margin, but a larger cake than before.
Everybody takes a cut when it comes to non cash transactions.
Including credit card companies. Note that Apple is paying the credit card companies out of their 30%. As well as providing a server, bandwidth as others have said.
And what about music? How much do the artists make? Is it even 10%? The record companies are simply the marketing departments – why don’t they offer “pay as you go” instead of “we’ll take 90% +”? And we’ll extend copyright to 75 years beyond the death of the author so we can continue to do this (now THAT is a travesty, but a new topic).
Since the record companies in another creative industry get away with it, I can’t see Apple being blocked, as long as people are free to go elsewhere.
Visa and Mastercard had to pay a big fine recently because they impeded Discover – that was monopoly position abuse, but there is none of that here.
Saying you have to offer the same price as elsewhere is where it gets a bit dicey tho – that is aggressive. Of course, if Apple didn’t do this, the big companies would simply either not offer the goods for sale in the app, or would inflate the price by at least 30%, since they have existing infrastructure elsewhere that they want to encourage the use of.
Visa used to have a rule that you couldn’t offer a 2% discount for cash sales to cover the Visa transaction fee, and thus encourage cash and discourage Visa. They were forced to stop that (gas stations often offer cash discounts now in the US, but not in, for example, Canada).
But Apple is saying you can do whatever you want at your own web site, so it would appear they’re safe. They are being aggressive with an industry that is in trouble, however. And giving the customer an excellent experience.
Nothing is stopping an app vendor from including a link to Apple saying “buy here from Apple” but including a message saying “please consider buying directly from our web site instead – we make 30% more. Use google to find the link”. It seems a bit unfair that Apple won’t allow the link to the website, deliberately making it less convenient for the user, deliberately encouraging them to use Apple’s app store and for the vendor to incur the 30% Apple transaction fee. But, as others have said, that is the platform rules.
It looks like the magazine vendors are going to have to get used to using Apple’s infrastructure at a 30% cost. And, thus use their infrastructure less, potentially, reducing ROI.
Things change.
Get Well Steve
“Nothing is stopping an app vendor from including a link to Apple saying “buy here from Apple” but including a message saying “please consider buying directly from our web site instead – we make 30% more.”
Amazon markets a kindle app on the App Store that offers subscription services for Kindle books, however, clicking the link takes you away from Apple, to Amazon’s store, where they keep all the money.
That changed, and I can’t wait to see how long it takes Amazon to pull their Kindle app.
Thanks for giving these idiots a developers point of view.
why would this apply to Netflix? I stream directly within the app.
Same as Ticketmaster charging their fee except the consumer pays it. Here, Apple is trying to help the consumer by having the publishers pay it.
The consumer always pays, regardless of the structure.
True, but we shouldn’t have to pay more than our fair share.
Sorry, MDN and the other Apple fanboys are wrong about this one. Many companies are operating at way below a 30% profit margin… if Apple were to charge them a 30% fee, those companies would be operating at a LOSS every month. It is amazing how quickly Apple has gone from being the good guys to the evil ones again. I can’t believe how Apple’s hubris and greed will do them in, once again. Time for Android to rightfully take over.
So what do you suggest a publisher is charged for accessing a massive ecosystem, Apple hosting their app, and Apple distributing it? I understand 30% is a large cut, but how much would it cast to put that all together yourself? Millions… Billions? Maybe 30% is to large, but what do you think would be fair?
What about the benefit that Apple got from having quality content on their devices? Apple makes a lot of money selling devices, yet the media companies that invested time and money developing for the App Store never got a share of Apple’s take.
“…yet the media companies that invested time and money developing for the App Store never got a share of Apple’s take.”
Really? Prove it.
These new subscriptions these companies would get through the app store are customers these companies may have never had if not for Apple. Apple is being paid a 30% cut for advertising, handling payment, hosting and delivery of content. It’s no different then selling a magazine in a physical store where publishers are already accustom to paying much much more then 30% for, printing, delivery and a cut for the store that sells the merchandise.
Don’t fool your self, if android was as big as apple, they too would charge an arm and a leg to get as much cash as possible..
“Time for Android to rightfully take over.”
Well then, MacBill I guess the Android platform better get busy with their planned subscription services, huh?
Not every shopkeeper can afford to reap the rewards of high-volume traffic by opening a store in a super mall, so they’ll just have to settle for a much smaller market. I’m sure the Android platform would be willing to make a deal that gives them both a much needed boost.
You’re dead wrong about your ‘Apple turned Evil’ vitriol. You don’t even have a dog in this fight, but that doesn’t stop you from spewing your hatred from the sidelines, does it?
In your ________________ mind, Apple went from underdog to top dog and now they’re turning evil? Apple hasn’t changed at all. In fact, they’ve taken up right where Steve Jobs left off, in 1985.
What has changed is, the company who displaced them as the techno-darlings of business has finally run out of steam, especially after that horrific display of monkey-boy dancing, and have become flaccid in the market, bankrupt of ideas, and with the white hot spotlight on them, not to mention the Department of Justice, they can no longer pilfer and pillage and strong arm the weak.
Apple’s seemingly out-of-step contrarian decisions are a breath of fresh air to me and billions of Apple customers around the world. They are attacking the status-quo right where they live, in the pocket book.
Can you even begin to imagine how effective they have been in changing the very cultures who have been stealing us blind for years!
Selling us one good song for the price of fifteen?!
Duping us in to paying twenty-dollars for a one-time viewing of a terrible movie, wherein the best parts were given away for free in the movie’s trailer? Buy a ticket and you should be able to watch that same movie over and over again any day of the week, until its gone from theaters.
And books! Have you ever been forced to pay 90-dollars for a book? If not, then your education ended with public school, didn’t it? Here’s to the hope that a centralized market for published material will change the publisher’s paradigm for the betterment of all involved.
You know who’s getting screwed over royally in most cases? The author. He draws an advance based on the publisher’s ability to predict sales. Thereafter, he receives a modest royalty, exclusive of the publisher’s myriad ways of reinvigorating additional sales, for which the author won’t receive a dime!
Finally, we’re going to see a parade of our favorite authors who will self-publish and will gladly give Apple a thirty-percent cut, which is way less than they were giving up to the publisher!
Go APPL!
The solution is simple. Publishers should get their subscribers to got to their site to activate the subscription and not the App Store. This way the publishers keep 100% and get to ask all the questions they want from the customer. They can go data-mining to their hearts content and not pay Apple a penny. Seems fair.
That isn’t a solution, that is the alternative Apple is offering publishers and iTunes customers. Go where you like.
“Time for Android to rightfully take over.”
You are an idiot.
Android is Google, and Google makes money by selling you, the user, to the highest bidder. You think it’s free, but it’s not. And if you think it’s free< you assign no value to the service or product.
Apple is in the business of reminding everyone that content has value, and so does your privacy.
Apple is providing a distribution point for digital media. They have costs to provide their service and as such have a right to charge for it.
The seller gets the advantage of another retailing outlet that may significantly increase their sales.
Apple is allowing the seller to sell the app independently. That’s a new facet that Apple have introduced to bring in subscriptions.
Keeping the price the same as in iTunes will be contentious. But Apple does the same with most of their products. Retailers cannot offer huge discounts on Apple products.
Steve Jobs is ridiculous and greedy. This is bad for Apple. He will back up under pressure like so many other times and come back to his senses. But this time Apple will push many content providers and customers out. This is why it’s ridiculous, Apple does not need this. This idea will not work.
Yes, how horrible that Apple would want to get some form of payment for hosting all these apps in their store and granting these companies access to their vast base of users.
There’s no free lunch. These media companies already pay much larger then 30% to print and deliver physical media, now they don’t have that cost, they’re coming out ahead.
Yeah that is true and a good point., but in the end it’s clear that apple doesnt really need it, they can and should charge money, but they would be A OK if they didnt. So why put that kind of pressure on now? The platform is still growing, help it grow, this to me seems like a sure fire way to slow it down…. Although kinda hard to slow down a speeding train. Lol
Palaver,
I Suppose you work for free and all your hard labor is given away to everyone, And your personal and Business time have no price tag on it correct.
So by your Analogy, Apple should do everything for free.
Palaver, How long would you or your family survive if you gave away all your time and everything you did to your competitor for nothing, Can you eat and make sure just your basic needs are met by giving away everything you do fro nothing in return.
So why do you expect Apple to give Away basic Services to Content providers for free.
All Apple is Asking is if you choose to click our Store Button instead of the other option you will pay us for that option, Since we will be hosting the Billing and reoccurring credit card fees, also Apple is taking Any responsibility of Fraud off the Hands of the Application Developers and placing it into a more trusted resource that has proven itself over and over.
You pay for basic Features Having all bills in One place with the added Security benefit, and it is worth 30%, Don’t like it use a different Option.
Palaver, you use Android and Microsoft powered hardware. This really doesn’t affect you. You also don’t know the difference between wholesale and retail. Apple isn’t gouging anyone, especially not you.
Publishers should get their subscribers to got to their site to activate the subscription and not the App Store. This way the publishers keep 100% and get to ask all the questions they want from the customer. They can go data-mining to their hearts content and not pay Apple a penny. Seems fair.
The ones who are being greedy are the newspaper publishers. They had hoped for windfall profits coming from internet subscriptions, HOPING to eliminate the middle man (not entirely true, because they would have to set up their own separate payment system and MASSIVE servers). And they still can do it on their own.
What happens now is that Apple offers them an additional approach (not free, but no more expensive than the CURRENT distribution and payment systems).
In other words, they are offered MORE CHOICES (a term cherished by the MS lobby — couldn’t help but turn the knife in the every day more bloody MS wounds).
No. People who think everything is free are ridiculous and greedy. Apple is under no obligation to allow third parties to monetize Apple’s platform for free, especially when those third parties contribute nothing to Apple.
Thank you Apple! I am so glad to have control over my personal information. I can manage all my subscriptions on one place. The publishers no longer have unfettered access. I am not required to give unneeded information to sign up for a subscription. I don’t have to create yet another user ID and password to remember. I don’t have to deal with a publisher selling my info to advertisers which then send spam snailmail and email.
Apple is wrong on this one. The 30% fee is exorbitant and unjustifiable. This policy will drive a lot of good publishers away from the iOS platform.
You can claim it’s exorbitant but it’s not unjustifiable. Apple justified their reasons in their press release, you just chose to disagree with their justification.
I’m sure you know much more about it then they do too. You know how much it cost Apple to process all of those billing requests, to host data on their servers and serve that data to customers. And of course I’m sure you know full well the intangible value of all the millions and millions of Apple’s customers that Apple allows these companies access too. New customers that these companies might never have had access to otherwise. Yeah, I’m sure you know that access to those customers is not worth anything at all. You’re so smart, Apple should strive to be more like you! When did you start your multibillion dollar company again?
This new change by Apple is stupid. If Apple had done this day 1, App growth would have been much slower.
Netflix, Amazon Kindle, et all are a major part of the ecosystem that makes Apple products fly off the shelves.
What really scares me is what this means for the future. I can see Apple someday wanting 30% of the cost of anything you do on a Mac, including Amazon purchases. Why be evil? When you are, it’s harder to keep any friends.
Makes the argument for “open” much more compelling.
And I have been a lifelong Apple fan. (until they booted the Manhattan Declaration App because a few homos objected.)
Think much?
Where does, “Apple someday wanting 30% of the cost of anything you do on a Mac”, even come from? That should scare you, gizmo!
It’s one thing to think that way, but to say it aloud in a public forum? And then as if to seal your fate as a loony maroon, you admit you’re homophobic! LOL
GizmoDan the righteous man
just butt-fucked himself in public!
+1
This view that an owner can do what he wants with the product as per a form of capitalisme sauvage is an American centric view which is not shared in the European Union or in most other Western democratic countries.
The test is whether a company with a dominant position abuses that dominance. Microsoft abused their position with Windows and the EU took action over it – even though no-one was forced to buy a Windows computer. Nevertheless, the dominance of Windows in the market place led to unfair practices.
Further, even where there is no dominance, ownership does not confer the right to dispose of the product as the owner wishes. It used to be that in the EU, manufacturers of products could stamp the price on it and refuse to allow it to be sold for a lower price. That prevented any price competition for the sale of the items. In the public interest and for the promotion of competition, such action was prohibited.
Similarly with Apple, if they are abusing their market position. The suggestion made above that a person or company or consumer builds their own tablet or operating system is unrealistic. If Apple is abusing a dominant position and is following unfair practices then it is no defence to say that it owns the product. The promotion of fair practice and competition is more important. The EU, in particular, has taken action against American and European companies that have attempted to behave unfairly or abusively and, I hope, would continue to do so.
The operative statement there is “if they are abusing their market position”, they’re not. They’re asking for fair compensation for a service (actually a group of services) they provide to the content providers.
They also don’t have a monopoly. You can still get newspapers and magazines from many other locations, even in *gasp* physical paper form. You can buy e-books direct from Amazon’s website and view them on your kindle or other electronic device. Netflix can choose to only let you stream to non iOS devices, like game consoles and computers, there’s way more of those then iOS devices. See? No monopoly.
I don’t see how an alternative payment method suddenly makes the App/iTunes store suddenly a monopoly, as it does not prevent other means of distribution that I can see.
Not sure the 30% cut is so bad for traditional print media if you consider the cost elements that are taken out of the equation:
* physical print run
* land or air distribution to end terminals
* last mile distribution to physical mailbox via rented staff or postal services.
For over the counter sales, the last element is replaced by commission to the point of sale in addition to return handling and destruction of unsold media.
Agreed, not to mention the invaluable cost benefit of free advertising of their publication on iTunes and access to millions of customers they might never have reached before.