
The freedom to eat pizza - raganwald
https://raganwald.posterous.com/the-freedom-to-eat-pizza
======
allwein
I was almost completely buying into the theme park and pizza concession
analogy. But then I thought of the one exception. You're allowed to buy Amazon
pizza outside of the park and bring it in for free, but only if Amazon has
agreed to set up a pizza shop inside the park as well.

And I think that's the key point of contention. I don't mind Apple taking a
30% cut of anything I sell from within my app. And I don't mind when they make
an editorial decision and make me remove offensive or inappropriate
functionality from my app. But compelling me to add or implement functionality
in my app or be rejected, that's contentious for me.

~~~
allwein
I'm _really_ curious what the status would be of third-party content
applications. Let's say that Amazon exposed reading functionality in a Kindle
Web API but not purchasing functionality. So I implement an iOS application
called kReader which can read Kindle books.

I wonder where I'd fall in Apple's rule restrictions then, since I'm not
offering anything for sale either in-app or out-of-app.

------
chc
There's a lot more lock-in with a phone than there is with a theme park. If I
go to Disneyland and I don't like any of the restaurants there (which is the
case), I can just eat at the Denny's across the street. A more apropos
comparison would be North Korea.

Again, if Apple allowed apps from outside the App Store on iOS devices, none
of this would be that much of a problem. You could still sell to these people,
but you just wouldn't be going through Apple to do it. Apple is essentially
abusing its monopoly position in the mobile app market combined with its
control of the phone itself to strong-arm money out of people.

Just so people understand my position: I've used Apple products almost
exclusively since 1984. My primary computer is a MacBook Pro, and my phone is
an iPhone 3GS. I'm not the sort of person who loves hating on Apple. But this
really is nothing more than Apple being _exactly_ the sort of bully Microsoft
was in the '90s, and I don't like it.

~~~
raganwald
I never said you should like it. I hope that my post conveys the idea that I
don't like Apple or Amazon's approach to locking people into content like
books.

------
nickzoic
I think it is a great analogy because it also points out the value of the
"theme park" to the consumer: they feel safe with the vendors within it. In a
lot of ways, that 30% is paying not just for Apple's e-commerce, but Apple's
stamp of approval.

My bet: Amazon and Apple will spend a lot of time posturing and then will
suddenly go quiet. Amazon (and the other "big names", who don't benefit from
Apple's name) will end up paying a smaller fee. Everyone else will pay their
30%.

Also, you have to remember that the face value of "Apple$" is not 1:1. Around
here (Australia) you can generally get iTunes cards at "20% off", which makes
them a better mechanism for the consumer than paying by credit card, but which
must be cutting into Apple's 30%.

------
ezy
This seems a bit condescending.

(most) Everyone is aware of the situation and understands the risks -- it does
not mean they cannot complain about the margin cut killing their business or
the requirement to enforce the margin cut for content both in and out of the
app store (even when said content is not linked to by the app).

I dont see how giving away things for free is relevant.

~~~
raganwald
Absolutely complain, you always have that right. I am just saying that I
consider most of the barking about this to be the Lion arguing with the
Cheetah about how to divvy up the Antelope's flesh.

------
statictype
Don't restaurants inside theme parks charge _more_ for their food than
outside? Maybe I'm wrong and have been visiting the wrong theme parks but that
has been my experience.

They can get away with it because once you're inside the theme park, it's
convenient to buy your food in there, instead of hauling it in from outside.

