Gerry Conway:
This is a very big deal, because it strikes to the heart of what made Comixology’s app a near-perfect venue for discovering and falling in love with new comics, a venue creators and publishers have been searching for since the collapse of mainstream newsstand distribution in the late 1970s-early ’80s: it destroys the casual reader’s easy access to an impulse purchase. And that’s a terrible development for the future of comics.
There are so many good parts of this article I could have quoted.
This does seem like sour grapes on Amazon. It’s fast becoming a PR nightmare.
Unfortunately it’s just comic books and not enough people care. I wish it were not the case because they seriously ruined a good thing and a great thriving eco-system. One has to wonder did Comixology the company know that Amazon planned to do this beforehand and they still decided to sell out because the $ was right, or are they just as much in dismay as the rest of us?
Is it really that hard to order outside of the app?
(serious question, I don’t buy anything on iOS)
Hard, no. But it is far more intensive than before. Before, you could simply finish the comic you were reading and if the next issue was available, tap to buy it and input your iTunes password. Done.
Now, you might be told that there’s a new issue, but you can’t tap on it to be taken to the store to buy it. You have to go back to the Home screen and open a browser, visit the ComiXology site, log in, find the item you want, add it to the cart, VIEW the cart, and then checkout.
If you’re the type of person that subscribes to comics, this won’t affect you overmuch, but for impulse buyers, this provides a lot of chances for someone to change their mind about spending that money.
Meanwhile, the Comixology app continues working just fine on Android and Metro, because this isn’t really an Amazon problem. this is an Apple problem. Amazon is simply doing what 99% of content providers on Apple’s platform do: rather than pay Apple’s 30%, they tell users to buy stuff from the website.
Whose fault is this? Is it really entirely Amazon’s fault, or could it be that Apple is partly to blame here, because their decisions have caused this user-hostile change?
It now works like the Kindle app. Is the Kindle app hard to use? Not really, it’s just a bit annoying to have to jump to a different app to buy things.
Yeah, that’s clumsy.
It definitely illustrates my point of Apple changing their policy. This policy is causing terrible user experiences since that alert for “next issue” could simply open the browser for you with ease.
[not to rehash that, just saying]
Figured as much.
Exactly!
Do you also goto iTunes (Google Play) on your PC to purchase apps instead of on your phone? Give me a break John.
Yes, I use Google Play to install often ’cause I can easily install to multiple devices. It isn’t as often but I do it on my PC often.
As for having to do it from my phone, no. Google doesn’t have a silly policy forcing me to.
Should a consignment store not get a cut of the crap of yours they sell? There’s a reason Apple gets a cut. Google is just using this as a loss leader for now and will eventually monetize it with the same cut or ads, just like Google maps is full of ads now.
Back to the brick/mortar?
A consignment shop has to shelve/display/manage your product. Apple doesn’t.
I have zero ads in Google Maps.
yep, I agree with your previous point. I also agree with MG Siegler who said this is a HUGE strategic mistake. It may take years but this could really damage Apple.
Of course they knew what would happen, the folks in charge simply didn’t care enough. The only excuse that fits would be if everyone at Comixology was incompetent. Since that isn’t the case it must be the cash that influenced them. I agree Amazon deserves some of the hatorade going around but the buck literally stopped with Comixology and, for better or worse, they chose.
It really could hurt, bad.
I think the challenge Apple faces here is if they forego their 30% here and allow a more open outside purchase model, then TONS of apps will find ways to do the same thing. Then Apple is stuck managing the store and making nothing off any of the business that they foster. That’s wrong too.
This is the inherent problem when you put several middlemen between the product and the customer. Amazon wants to play in the iOS playground, but they don’t want to pay for the privilege because it cuts into their percentage. I understand that, but in any kind of retail scenario you’re going to make varying profit depending on how you sell. I bet Nike make more money if you buy shoes in one of their stores than they do if you buy a pair at Walmart.
Maybe Apple needs to come up with a simple 2-tier system, where resellers like amazon, who are doing most of the behind the scene’s legwork of hosting etc, pay a smaller percentage than a company who’s app weighs more heavily on Apple resources.
But the long and short from my perspective is that if Amazon wants to sell in Apple’s mall, they should be paying some kind of rent.
I’m good w/ them getting 30% for app purchases. Purchasing digital goods not hosted in the store [but is in the app] is the big difference.
You know, a smaller fee [5-10%] for in-app might be more feasible/acceptable. That’s a good point.
Thing is, Apple devices are nothing without apps. This is by design [get the OS out of the way] and works. So, playing the advocate, Apple benefits from quality apps being there regardless of it being paid or not. I bet some people buy iOS devices strictly for specific apps.
So Apple gets 30% + use of apps in advertising [for free] and the app owner gets 70%; granted, 70% of a bigger piece if Apple advertises the app.
Thoughts in that vein?
[for the record, I do understand Apple’s position. I just think it should change.]
I just rally against the opinion of those that would argue that Apple isn’t bringing ANYTHING of value to the table.
At the very least, they’ve created an environment with (if you believe the stats) the largest group of “highest value” users- those who are actually willing to spend money. If you don’t feel you need to tap into that market because you have a strong enough direct sales mechanism, then go for it. But someone puts their app on iOS devices for a reason- to reach customers they aren’t any other way, or in a way that more convenient for the user.
You’re right, Amazon and Apple both benefit from the partnership. Amazon gets access to Apple’s customers and makes (razor thin) margins on the products they sell. Apple is known as the platform that has ALL the apps you want, so customers buy their hardware.
Is that enough? Is Apple’s hardware profits enough commoditize EVERYTHING that it takes to run the appStore? I don’t think we’ll ever get that close a look at their books to know for sure, though Asymco as tried his darnedest to tease out the details.
No rebuttal. I agree on all points. Apple definitely provides a high value.
There’s a delicate balance Apple could find here to keep big named providers from jumping ship like this. I can’t say what would fix it, per se, other than nixing the requirement. In other words, if it is compelling enough to use iTunes purchasing, devs will choose it. If not, they’ll roll their own.
Value-based choice vs forcing it on us. I doubt they’ll nudge though. 🙂
try it sometime and get back to us. or dont. ever.
Well they have to manage the servers and the appstore. They also advertise the ipad so that people will buy it so that the appstore has customers. So there is some value there.
Nah, I’m good. I like my stuff to work on different devices.
Sorry, I disagree completely on the reason they are doing this. The article states that they degraded it purposefully to advance their kindle. If that was true, they also would have degraded the android and windows versions. instead, in those versions, they just added their own billing system. This is about earning profits and the 30% from apple was too much for amazon to tolerate.
They advertise to sell hardware.
Yes, they do have to manage the servers hosting the IPA files for the app downloads. They do not manage any servers for handling in-app purchases. The provider has to manage those servers while losing 30%.
Apple provides value, yes, but the provider is losing here.
That is for this case but what about things like IAP for candy crush? That is not hosted on their own servers because there is nothing to host. Maybe they should have a reduced rate for hosting your own content? You could argue that you didn’t have to pay for PC and Mac software but then no one bought digital comics on the PC or Mac. So apple is providing more than just access, but also opportunity. So I don’t know of a good solution.
Great point. Those virtual goods are of a different beast.
It is definitely not an easy solution. Someone will lose. Right now, it is the consumer for UX and Apple or Provider [depending on the type of good].
What’s the reason Apple gets a cut? Because they host the app files? That’s why they should get 30% of every comic sold? In what universe is that reasonable?
Actually, the “next issue” is not allowed to open the store for you, due to the same policy that requires purchases to be made via Apple or via the web. The problem with Apple changing the way digital goods are sold is that it complicates things for the user. Not the power user, of course, but my parents don’t have a PayPal account. Or a Google Wallet account. Or any of the other accounts out there.
Essentially, Apple’s system is more akin to the Xbox. Microsoft collects fees on all the games being sold through its storefront, and it has been around longer than the App Store.
I doubt many would require a third party system only. Even if they did, Paypal/Wallet both offer direct checkout [vs setting up an account].
Edit:
For clarity, I mean I doubt they would force Paypal and not allow the user to type in a card number directly.
Sorry, the games aren’t really the best example. The DLC sold via Xbox’s storefront is more akin what we’re talking about here. Apple is charging 30% for the right to allow users a seamless purchasing experience. They’re not allowing other options to prevent people from having to enter their CC info for each app or signing up for an additional account for purchasing. That’s what makes it so valuable. And you can’t overestimate how big a difference it makes with the less tech savvy and more paranoid crowd.
True, but direct checkout returns us to the step of entering credit card info. Something which creates an additional, unnecessary step. I understand the point you’re trying to make. But the unneeded complexity flies in the face if the very spirit of using an Apple product.
I understood what you meant.
Thing is it works just fine on other platforms without being a terrible experience.
The difference between “not terrible” and “great” is a big one and it’s what separates Apple’s experience from the rest. Sure, it irritates some people, but the majority of the world (which is Apple’s target audience) wants as seamless an experience as possible. Providing multiple payment options may not be an issue for you or I, but it is potentially confusing for the less technical in the world. Something Apple tries very hard to eliminate and is not afraid to irritate people like you and me in order to achieve.
Not exactly true. The Comixology app on Android has also been updated to not allow comic purchases through Google Play. I’ve seen complaints on G+ as well as minor mentions within articles blazed with the headline about Apple iOS — like this one from The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/26/5656468/comixology-ios-update-removes-in-app-purchases
“The Android app has also been updated today, though the changes aren’t quite as drastic. In-app purchases are now made through Comixology rather than Google Play, similarly allowing the company to avoid paying Google a cut of its sales.”
Given a chance to hate on both Amazon and Apple, the media and bloggers will take it.
EDIT: And Amazon sent a statement to The Verge saying, “In the new Android 3.6 upgrade we have a new comiXology in-app purchase system and a great new shopping cart, one of our most requested features.” So, there is apparently confusion on the matter. Perhaps related to what version of Android a person is running?
They have degraded the Android app. See any number of complaints around G+ and minor mentions in articles like this one from The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/26/5656468/comixology-ios-update-removes-in-app-purchases
“The Android app has also been updated today, though the changes aren’t quite as drastic. In-app purchases are now made through Comixology rather than Google Play, “
EDIT: And Amazon sent a statement to The Verge saying, “In the new Android 3.6 upgrade we have a new comiXology in-app purchase system and a great new shopping cart, one of our most requested features.” So, there is apparently confusion on the matter. Perhaps related to what version of Android a person is running?
“In the new Android 3.6 upgrade we have a new comiXology in-app purchase system and a great new shopping cart, one of our most requested features. In the new app, customers may be prompted to update your payment information to continue purchasing books. This is a one-time action after which you can purchase inside the app.”
That’s from them but yeah, same message.
Strange… I deleted that reply after I reread the article. I edited it, then just removed it since I had misread some things (which just shows how things are co confused anyway 🙂 ) Now it’s showing up as “guest.” It even notified me I had a reply, despite being “guest” now. Weird. Well, never can say I won’t own up to a mistake or three. 🙂
I wonder what Google Play’s cut is? Maybe the suggestion above with Apple taking less for in-app purchases would be good, adjusted for whether the purchases are hosted at Apple or not.
Respect on owning it. I wasn’t trying to prove you wrong though, just backing your statement of Android changing too.
They charge the same 30% if you use Google Play to charge the customer, which is optional.
“For applications and all in-app products that you choose to sell on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price. You receive 70% of the payment and the remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees.”
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en&ref_topic=3452890