MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: PaulieWalnuts on June 09, 2016, 06:12
-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0ac5bb0-2db0-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95.html#axzz4B4yGZRXZ (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0ac5bb0-2db0-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95.html#axzz4B4yGZRXZ)
Apple just increased app developer share from 70% to 85%. So if Apple takes now takes 15% and developers end up with 85% why is stock photography the exact opposite?
ETA: Looks like that link now has a paywall so try this
http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Apple+%28AAPL%29+Shows+Developers+Some+Love+-+UBS/11724884.html (http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Apple+%28AAPL%29+Shows+Developers+Some+Love+-+UBS/11724884.html)
-
Because apple makes their money selling their electronics, not the apps. The apps are just the add on, to increase the stickiness of their walled iOs garden.
Why canīt we sell images or video through apple? Can anyone convince them to open a stock shop for content to use with the apps?
-
Because apple makes their money selling their electronics, not the apps. The apps are just the add on, to increase the stickiness of their walled iOs garden.
Why canīt we sell images or video through apple? Can anyone convince them to open a stock shop for content to use with the apps?
I guess you are not aware that apple apps are not just an add on, its also a big part of their business..
-
I wonder if it's not something to do with the fact that "photographers" are seen by some as being ten-a-penny, whereas developers are not.
Apple want to keep their people happy, working, and making money which Apple gets a share of. Also said by Cobalt, the apps run on their tech as well.
Of course, good photographers aren't really ten a penny, as can be seen by looking at what a lot of the stock sites have become, but you can't expect investment bankers to know that.
-
I can't read the linked article, and reading other articles I can't find much reference to the reason for the change from Apple, but I would guess, reading between the lines, that it was agreed to after pressure from developers, probably the 1% who account for 95% of all sales.
So the top 1% of stock photographers, illustrators and videographers would need to work together to put pressure on the major stock sites to initiate change.
-
I can't read the linked article, and reading other articles I can't find much reference to the reason for the change from Apple, but I would guess, reading between the lines, that it was agreed to after pressure from developers, probably the 1% who account for 95% of all sales.
So the top 1% of stock photographers, illustrators and videographers would need to work together to put pressure on the major stock sites to initiate change.
Which never happens, or likely never will, since they are probably already getting huge benefits over what the masses get.
-
It is not a general change, just a change for subscriptions of more than one year:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11880730/apple-app-store-subscription-update-phil-schiller-interview (http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11880730/apple-app-store-subscription-update-phil-schiller-interview)
It's the carrot to get more subscriptions into the app store. In general, I try to avoid subscriptions like the plague and the ones I do have don't go through the app store. With the New York Times, for example, I buy a subscription via their web site that entitles me to read all content including via their iOS app. I think they avoided doing the subscription through the app because they didn't want to give apple 30%.
Apple may hope that by sweetening the pot they can capture more business they're now unable to get.
-
together to put pressure on the major stock sites to initiate change.[/b]
Which never happens, or likely never will, since they are probably already getting huge benefits over what the masses get.
Well, if it happens, it will happen so that e.g. Shutterstock will introduce a new top level paying $0.40 for subscription downloads and 33% on other downloads for people with $250,000 and more in total revenue. So... ;)