"iFlow wants 50% like they were getting before the agency model."
You may not have intended this, but that sentence reads as though iFlow is merely making less money than it wold like. The problem's worse than that. iFlow would be losing money with each book sold.
iFlow doesn't have the clout to negotiate contracts with individual major publishers: books are made available through a wholesaler. The wholesaler distributes the publisher's cut, takes its own, and gives iFlow itself a cut of _less than_ 30% of the sale price. Since Apple suddenly wants an entire 30% of the sale price, iFlow would literally be losing money with each transaction to make up Apple's "cut".
As part of the agency model, all books must be sold at the same retail price, so iFlow can't simply bump up the price of its books to compensate, either.
iFlow never sold books directly through their app, because the iOS terms never allowed in-app sales. If iFlow was selling books before, they were doing it through a website, unless their app was incorrectly approved.
iFlow doesn't need any clout when negotiating a cut, everybody gets the same deal:
>All sales agents get a 30% commission on the sale of a book. No one gets a different deal. Prior to the agency model, publishers typically offered retailers a 50% discount.
Apple only gets a cut if they handle the processing, i.e. sold on iOS. Books are not a subscription, they can be sold on a website outside of iOS without restriction.
Am I wrong on any of this? I got downvoted but I'm not sure why.
To the best of my understanding, in the top model here iFlow gets 0%, in the bottom model, iFlow gets 30%. iFlow previously used the bottom model and got 50%. They could continue to use the bottom model at 30%, on iOS or other platforms, but clearly that's not enough for them to get by.
Their complaint here is the agency model of pricing itself.