A group of news publishers sent a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook seeking similar deal terms in its App Store that Amazon gets for its video-streaming service.
Gerry Smith and Mark Gurman for Bloomberg News:
A group of news publishers sent a letter to Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook seeking similar deal terms in its App Store that Amazon.com Inc. gets for its video-streaming service.
Apple takes 30% of the revenue from most subscriptions in its App Store, then 15% after the first year. But in late July, a congressional antitrust panel disclosed internal emails showing a more-favorable deal struck between Apple services chief Eddy Cue and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. They agreed to a 15% revenue share for Amazon Prime Video customers who signed up through the iPhone app and no revenue share for users who already subscribed via Amazon or elsewhere, the emails showed.
“We would like to know what conditions our members — high quality digital content companies — would need to meet in order to qualify for the arrangement Amazon is receiving for its Amazon Prime Video app in the Apple App Store,” Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, wrote in the letter to Cook.
Digital Content Next represents several news outlets that rely on subscriptions for much of their revenue, including The New York Times, News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The group also represents Bloomberg LP, owner of Bloomberg News.
MacDailyNews Take: Obviously, Amazon can offer Apple access to their online store, so Apple and Amazon have a wide-ranging deal that delivers benefits to both companies for working together. (See: Amazon strikes deal with Apple to sell new iPhones, iPads, and more worldwide – November 9, 2018) All The New York Times et al. have to offer Apple, besides a seemingly endless stream of cheapskate complaints, is worthless fiction and slanted propaganda masquerading as journalism. (Ironically, The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder, CEO, and president of Amazon.)
Visit Apple’s store on Amazon.com here.
Amazon is a competitor and there shouldn’t any deal, and same goes for having deals with Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.
That is an uber dumb comment. Both Apple and Amazon can benefit from using each others platforms. They may be competitors in some spaces but can cooperate in others.
Larger vendors can obviously negotiate better terms and Amazon is the biggest in online trading. Apple still makes good money with a 15% cut from Amazon.
Amazon needs Apple more, those sweet heart deals to other giant Silicon Valley companies is what will sink the Apple store, Fortnite will be sitting/squatting for free in the Apple until the case is heard.
Those special treatment deals will be the end….
The minute Apple News alerted me to some anti-Trump BS I removed it from my phone. The NY Times is a well written propaganda. I can’t believe people pay for that. TASS is a more objective source.
This is what choice looks like
I subscribed directly to the NY Times.
Why enrich Apple?
The NY Times is a Wall Street owned media corporation just like the Wall Street Journal & FOX News. The end product is Wall Street approved versions of “news.” The consumers of this propaganda develop a herd mentality and obediently line up to the supposedly different
“left—-right” stalls……..to the slaughterhouse.
They are the mainstream for 3/4’s of the country (Southeast not included) and always have been why are people upset…
The biggest owner of the NY Times is Mexican Carlos Slim.
The biggest owner of Faux news is Australian Rupert Murdoch.
Prime Video is a benefit of Prime. How many people realistically sign up for Prime Video in-app? 99.9999999% of Prime Video members sign up on Amazon’s website. Apple negotiated with Amazon by creating an asset out of nothing.
Well, there at MDN you have your answer; Amazon pays for Apple’s hosting and vetting and misc. labor expenses so Apple reduces/eliminates the 30% fee. Those who lack the ability or are unwilling to offer back a value comparable to 30% are asked to pay the 30%. This quid pro quo is quite simple. A corporate union (yes, corporations have unions. This one is an instance) of publishers are simply asking publicly for Apple’s terms but why must this question be public in the first place? It’s as if it is grandstanding to make Apple look badly and to appear victimized by Apple’s normal Capitalistic practice.