Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World)Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World)Posted Feb 16, 2011 21:07 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)In reply to: Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World) by zonker Parent article: Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World)
http://gburt.blogspot.com/2011/02/banshee-supporting-gnom...
Shuttleworth speakth:
So this is self-consistent behaviour from Canonical and not a Banshee specific engagement. I just don't see how Canonical is going to sustain a robust ISV marketplace with a 75% revenue taxation rate.
-jef
(Log in to post comments)
Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World) Posted Feb 16, 2011 21:17 UTC (Wed) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link]
And people think Apple's "we'll take our 30% on everything you do for allowing you to be on our platform" position is offensive.
Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World) Posted Feb 16, 2011 23:17 UTC (Wed) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]
> And people think Apple's "we'll take our 30% on everything you do for allowing you to be on our platform" position is offensive.
They're hardly comparable figures. The 30% is the proportion of the song price that Apple takes. The 75% is a proportion of the affiliate kickback, which will be some fraction of what Amazon takes of the song price. Assuming Amazon takes the same proportion of the song price as Apple does, and that they kick a third of it back to the affiliate (both fairly generous assumptions), the total affiliate kickback would be about 10% of song price, and Canonical's take 7.5% of song price.
(Note: Obviously, this does not affect the substance of the debate on what a fair Canonical/Gnome split would be in the least; all I'm criticising is the 75% to Apple's 30% comparison.)
Banshee Amazon Store disabled in Ubuntu 11.04 by Canonical (Network World) Posted Feb 16, 2011 23:43 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Apple's new 30% policy is not about music...its being applied for all apps that have a subscription or content based delivery model.
http://www.technewsdaily.com/apple-wants-30-of-subscripti...
Including ebooks purchased from vendors like Amazon:
And furthermore it appears that Google is looking for a 10% revenue cut for app developers who want to sign up subscribers via its Google One Pass offering to app developers.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209861/Rhapsody_b...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/...
The question isn't whether a platform entity like Apple or Google or Canonical should get revenue from app developers. They should. The question is what sort of cut is reasonable and fair. If 10% is being accepted as fair and 30% is being pointed to as unsustainable..then logic holds that a 75% stake of any revenue stream is pure crazy and full of fail.
If Canonical is intent on making a 75% revenue split their standing policy when working with any ISV and any retailer...they are going to fail at generating interest in their platform from such vendors.
-jef
|
|||||||||||||