

The true cost of publishing on the Amazon Kindle - cwan
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/02/15/the-true-cost-of-publishing-on-the-amazon-kindle/

======
bigiain
Interesting, the tech press is currently full of doom and gloom about Apple
charging a 30% commission on publishers content sales, including many comments
about how it'll force Amazon to pull the Kindle reader app, yet here I see the
claim that Amazon's charging their publishers more. This article claims Amazon
sends publishers (Price - delivery costs) * 70%

(admittedly, since Amazon are delivering some of their content "for free"( to
the customer) over 3G, having the publishers pay some of the cost seems fair
to ensure bandwidth-heavy publications don't free-ride on easier-to-deliver
items)

~~~
msbarnett
I think most of the angst around these new rules are less about Apple charging
30% of a magazine or book publisher's content sales, which may well be in-line
with what Amazon charges, and more about the apparent intent to impose this
same arrangement on things like Netflix, Rhapsody, and any other SaaS with an
app in the app store, most of whom don't have the leeway to survive forking
over 30% of a monthly fee to Apple.

That's where the whole "Apple deserves something for bringing millions of
eyeballs to the app store in the first place" argument really breaks down. The
iOS Linode utility app is of value to me as a user, but it's a tiny part of
what I get out of Linode, so it in no way seems reasonable for Apple to demand
that Linode now allow sign-ups through the iOS app and hand over 30% of the
monthly fee for those sign-ups. I'm not on Linode because of the iOS app, I'm
on iOS because of useful utilities like the Linode app.

So when most of these useful add-on utilities are driven off the store by this
crazy land-grab, users like me are going to be driven right off the platform
as well.

~~~
xenophanes
Didn't Apple say basically "if you can sign up in the app, you need to be able
to sign up in the app in a way we get a cut". So as long as linode doesn't
take on new customers in the app, no problem?

Similarly amazon could have a free iOS reader, no problem, from which you
cannot buy any books. it's when they want people using the iOS app to buy
books but not pay apple a cut that apple is unhappy.

Now I'm not saying I agree with Apple. I'm pretty skeptical of interfering
with the kindle app much because that sounds to me like it won't be good for
users. But I'm trying to keep an open mind and see what apple is actually
saying and trying to understand what's going on. I haven't seen anything about
apple trying to get 30% of linode monthly fees and i think that's a bit of a
straw man.

~~~
msbarnett
> Didn't Apple say basically "if you can sign up in the app, you need to be
> able to sign up in the app in a way we get a cut". So as long as linode
> doesn't take on new customers in the app, no problem?

From the press release[1]:

 _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._

So no, any SaaS that can take on new customers on their site has to give their
iOS app the same ability at the same price, with the requisite 30% cut to
Apple for those subscriptions. They don't get to choose to not offer it at
all.

> Similarly amazon could have a free iOS reader, no problem, from which you
> cannot buy any books. it's when they want people using the iOS app to buy
> books but not pay apple a cut that apple is unhappy.

Amazon already has this. You can't buy books from the iOS Kindle app, you can
only do it through their website, with a link in the app kicking you out to
Safari. That's also forbidden under the new rules (again, from [1]):

 _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._

[1]: <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html>

~~~
halostatue
[Note: I am paraphrasing bits below because I'm not sure of my legal right to
provide the exact wording of the agreements since those are behind developer
log-in pages and I don't want to risk my iOS developer account.]

>> Didn't Apple say basically "if you can sign up in the app, you need to be
able to sign up in the app in a way we get a cut". So as long as linode
doesn't take on new customers in the app, no problem?

> _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._

> So no, any SaaS that can take on new customers on their site has to give
> their iOS app the same ability at the same price, with the requisite 30% cut
> to Apple for those subscriptions. They don't get to choose to not offer it
> at all.

This is more about _content_ than about _access_. I could certainly be wrong,
but Apple's not after SaaS, and probably isn't even after content-rental
services (e.g., Netflix or Hulu).

The updated guidelines talk about _content_ that is _sold_ outside of the app.
(11.6, 11.9, 11.12, 11.13, 11.14). The developer agreement has
attachment/schedule 2 for In App Purchases. IAP can't be used for goods or
services that are used outside of your iOS app; the wording is very precise
(schedule 2:1.1). I would read that as Linode and similar services being 100%
in the clear because they aren't even allowed to use IAP.

Subscriptions are a little more fuzzy; both content _and services_ are allowed
for subscription (schedule 2:2.3), but rentals through IAP aren't allowed
(same). This suggests to me that services like Netflix and Hulu are pretty
safe, but it's not _as_ clear. Services in general are pretty clearly only
intended for services that are intended primarily to be accessed through your
iOS devices (the example provided is turn-by-turn map services). Schedule
2:2.3 also makes a limited exception to 3.3.9 of the main agreement for
content-app data collection.

The official agreement seems to say nothing about equivalent offer practice
(what you offer outside the app for purchase or subscription must also be
offered inside the app), but that could be that I just don't know the right
legalese.

------
zeteo
"We can pop a magazine in the post to subscribers for significantly less than
that."

To paraphrase Tannenbaum, do not underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full
of magazines, speeding on the highway.

------
gst
That makes me wonder if there is a (hidden) bandwidth limit on browser usage
too. Using the Web browser is currently free on the Kindle: While it only
works if you register with a US address, it works worldwide. So I guess that
there's a significant amount of money Amazon has to be if someone really uses
the browser for daily browsing.

------
nnutter
Seems like the important question is whether the price per MB is a cost
imposed by Amazon or by AT&T (or whoever their 3G provider is). If Amazon is
inflating the delivery cost then let Apple screw them over. If Amazon is being
screwed over by AT&T then this article is pretty pointless.

~~~
nnutter
I completely missed the point that Amazon is charging >30% of price to publish
to the Kindle. Not sure how I missed that...

Still seems like Apple's "implementation" is overly broad in comparison since
the iPhone is much more than an eBook reader. However, I am starting to
question whether it is quite as "evil" as I have been thinking for the past
few days.

------
DanielBMarkham
The narrative of this story is very similar to the narrative of the Apple
stories.

If the customer and the business have a third-party involved, (call him the
provider, the platform-owner, whatever), then there is an inherent conflict of
interest. The provider only cares about his walled garden, whereas the
business has to care first about the customer but secondly about having the
resources to make something the customer wants. The walled-garden guy could
care less about that. Now he can _say_ that he only has the best interests of
the customer in mind -- that's why his walls are so high. But in practice all
he really cares about is constructing the rules such that the trade-off in
general works most of the time for most people. That's a far cry from a free,
open and informed market.

What's it mean? It means no pictures for Kindle periodicals, that's what it
means. And it's unlikely to change any time soon. What a lame situation.

But part of this story has me perplexed. I helped my wife publish her first
ebook last weekend and we didn't get any grief at all from Amazon about
pictures. So e-books can be as big as you like?

I understand the issue is bandwidth, but publishing 12 ebooks for $3 bucks a
year to the same guy is just the same as the guy having a yearly subscription
for $36. Wonder why the difference between periodicals and regular ebooks, and
I wonder at what point Amazon would start complaining about file sizes?

------
poppysan
Amazon gives their users free 3g on the device. This is the delivery cost. I
think that as a publisher, the easier it is for a customer to visit my store
the better, and free 3g sure helps...

------
pasbesoin
£100 / GB. Smells like bullsh-t to me.

