Other Software > Developer's Corner

Apples, Walled Gardens, and Screw Deals - Oh My!

<< < (2/5) > >>

Eóin:
Yeah I kind of agree. Android is already beating Apples market share, they should have tried switching platform. Though if they didn't write portable code, that could be difficult.

40hz:
Yeah I kind of agree. Android is already beating Apples market share, they should have tried switching platform. Though if they didn't write portable code, that could be difficult.
-Eóin (May 11, 2011, 06:17 PM)
--- End quote ---

Problem is it isn't just the code. It's obtaining content. That's where they got blindsided.

And Apple wasn't the only guilty party - even if they were the instigator. The other part of the burn deal was how all the major book publishers lined up behind Apple with an agency arrangement that effectively shuts out the little guys.

I think you'll be seeing more independent innovation get swallowed up this way. Small outfits will come up with the idea and the first apps. And the big boys like Apple will then sign them up just to see what happens. Most times it won't be something where they'll see enough profit potential to move in on it immediately. But that doesn't matter because it costs them nothing to adopt a wait & see attitude. And they have all the time they need since they control the platform.

However, once something looks like it will really take off big time, all it will take is a rule change to push the innovators out so the big companies can take over and "properly exploit the opportunities" such an emerging "new use" will create.

In short: only the 'big players' need apply.

Nothing to see here, folks! Just business as usual...now move along!  :-\

steeladept:

Problem is it isn't just the code. It's obtaining content. That's where they got blindsided.

-40hz (May 11, 2011, 06:28 PM)
--- End quote ---

Except they already had the content.  They got the agreements with the publishers, they had the required DRM, and they had the application on a viable platform.  The only thing that changed was the payment rules of the platform.  Therefore, if possible, change platform and keep on trucking.  Of course that is the caveat, isn't it?

Target:
However, once something looks like it will really take off big time, all it will take is a rule change to push the innovators out so the big companies can take over and "properly exploit the opportunities" such an emerging "new use" will create.
-40hz (May 11, 2011, 06:28 PM)
--- End quote ---

seems like this is an 'innovative' take on an old tactic

In the past the big guys paid squillions to buy up the competition.  Apple seems to have come up with a new approach where they make money out of closing the competition, then more money by capitalising on the 'new' opportunities...

40hz:
The only thing that changed was the payment rules of the platform.
-steeladept (May 11, 2011, 06:42 PM)
--- End quote ---

Which the publishers got behind knowing full well it would price iFlowReader out of the market.

That short 8-hour notice before the publishers (as a group) pulled on iFlowReader and went over to Apple was a coordinated and well planned "hit" if I ever saw one. Moves like that don't just happen without extensive prior arrangements being made. Ask anyone who ever managed a major database just how easy a big update like that would be. They'll be the first to tell you all the pieces had to have been in place long before the announced 8-hour deadline went into effect. Those eight hours were probably only used to make the data change "official" and run a final test on it.

And now that the agency model is in place (assuming Apple didn't obtain exclusive or preferential distribution rights like they usually try for) there's no reason why the publishers would want to offer any different deals to the other platforms.

Nor is there reason for any of the other platforms (Android, et al.) to be interested in offering any different deal to their app authors.

As the matter of a fact, why deal with an indy developer at all? Why not just create the app in house for themselves and keep 100% of all revenues including the app sale? After all, if Apple can demand and get 30%, why should the other platforms accept any less - or cut in anybody else in for a slice of their pie?

Like Target pointed out, it's old wine in new bottles.

This particular vintage is called Sorry Charlie Chianti.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page