or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's new App Store restrictions block Sony eBookstore, may lock out Amazon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new App Store restrictions block Sony eBookstore, may lock out Amazon - Page 7

post #241 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

It does restrict non-digital products.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fresh...346631494?mt=8


Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #242 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Fixed it for ya!

Only a mental imbecile "fixes" things like that.

Feel free to answer why Sony owes Apple a tax, if iTunes does not owe Windows a tax.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #243 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Oh, can you buy an ebook from Fictionwise and put it on iBooks? Really?

I've never heard of Fictionwise, but mostly I use iBooks to read stuff I buy from O'Reilly. Issues of DRM may limit things of course and that may be a problem with Fictionwise.

But yes, you can buy an ebook from somewhere else and put it in iBooks.
post #244 of 276
Quote:

Here are the in-App guidelines from Apple.

http://developer.apple.com/news/ios/...p_purchase.pdf

In there you will see it is forbidden to buy physical stuff using in-app purchasing.

( they may be allowed to use their own, I dont know).
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #245 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Lol. I love the childish posters calling people childish.

1) If a a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should not be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying why should iTunes piggy back on Windows?
2) Apple changed the guidelines. They said they didnt, but they did. Now you have to offer in-App purchasing if you also had out of app purchasing. Sony followed the rules as we all understand them. In fact people on here were stating that they must have been rejected because they did not have an external website.

Thats what they had. They also had to add an IAP button. They decided the cost was too high.

Nice try, but no. And no amount of weaseling about the requirements changes that fact. They are what they are, and the handful of devs that I have contacted since this "broke" that are putting apps in the App Store agree with the fundamental understanding of that section.
post #246 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by felipur View Post

I've never heard of Fictionwise, but mostly I use iBooks to read stuff I buy from O'Reilly. Issues of DRM may limit things of course and that may be a problem with Fictionwise.

But yes, you can buy an ebook from somewhere else and put it in iBooks.

O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks
post #247 of 276
What a strange thread.

No matter what Apple does - if it had decided to ban all external sellers ( or cost them out as here) - the people who should be pissed are just getting in there defending them.

madness.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #248 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.

This response is nonsensical - please clarify your point.
post #249 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Do I?

Why is saying that a 30% margin will see all these vendors flee "simplistic".

maybe I know business, and am working in a company which cant afford that tax. Maybe you know nothing.

They're a company who sold books at a loss for a great period of time without any sweat. I'm sure they will make a business decision based on a lot more things than that.
post #250 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks

silly me, here I thought I had simply to pay and download books to read them at will on whatever platform I wanted. I wonder if I ran the Fictionwise books through a conversion utility it would ignore the DRM? After all I bought and paid for them...
post #251 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

What a strange thread.

No matter what Apple does - if it had decided to ban all external sellers ( or cost them out as here) - the people who should be pissed are just getting in there defending them.

madness.

to acknowledge and agree to this very simple and straight-forward disclaimer at the end of the general guidelines you linked to:

Quote:
Nothing herein is intended to modify the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, the iPhone Developer Program Enterprise License Agreement, the iPhone Developer Program University Agreement, and/or the iPhone Developer Program University Student License Agreement ("Agreement"), as they may be modified by Apple from time to time.\tIn the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the Agreement and this document, the Agreement shall govern. Apple may at any time, and from time to time, with or without prior notice to You modify this document as well as any features, functionality or services described herein.\tYou understand that any such modifications may require You to change or update Your Applications at Your own cost. Apple shall not be liable for any losses, damages or costs of any kind incurred by You or any other party arising out of or related to any modification or discontinuation of this document or any of the features, functionality or services described here.

if you are in business as you have claimed earlier - how did you overlook this? It is for all intents and purposes standard disclaimer boilerplate used by a myriad of businesses.
post #252 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Here are the in-App guidelines from Apple.

http://developer.apple.com/news/ios/...p_purchase.pdf

In there you will see it is forbidden to buy physical stuff using in-app purchasing.

( they may be allowed to use their own, I dont know).

Thanks for the link. Saved me having to go find it. Looks like they do forbid real world items. The Freshdirect description said you can make a cart either on the web or in the app and complete the order either on web or in app or visa versa. I haven't used this particular app but it looks like they should only do checkout on the web site in order to comply with the rules specified in your linked document from Apple.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #253 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The screaming is from the Apple defenders.

No the screaming has been from you and your repeated spamming about this topic in nearly every single thread you post in. WTF are you going to say after your app does get approved due to your appeal? Are you actually going to come back and say "sorry, I was overreacting like an idiot"?
post #254 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.

Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.

Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!

So by your argument - any app that allows a purchase to be made - such as a grocery shopping app, ebay app, amazon app (not sure if you can/cannot purchase through this) then apple should take 30%.

Hell lets go all the way and say MS should take 30% for online shopping in IE. Apple should take 30% for everything bought in Safari. etc.

Hell lets take it even further. Buy anything using apple software whatsoever and you pay 30%.

Do you think that Apple should also be charging 30% on all software installed on a mac? What about the Steam game store that not long ago launched on mac.

You are another victim of apple bullshit rhetoric
post #255 of 276
So let me get this:
The Kindle does not allow the purchase of content, except from Amazon.

Nook does not allow the purchase of content, except from Barnes and Noble.

The Reader does not allow the purchase of content, except from Sony.

iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch support the direct purchase of content from Apple or from anyone else, but with a 30% hosting fee.

They also allow import of content, without any fee, over a browser. This is how Kindle works, and how Sony, supposedly, chose not to.

The horrifying, scary, anti-trustworthy restriction is that content for iOS devices, offered outside the app, must also be available for in-app purchase.


Unlike the Kindle, Nook, or Reader, the i-devices let anyone buy content anywhere they like.
post #256 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apparantly Apple have released a statement.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ur-guidelines/

Apples made no change to its App Store Guidlines, its simply enforcing a rule thats been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines, company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.

Despite what she is saying that is a change in guidelines.

No it isn't. The rule was always the rule. Apple gave folks a grace period to make the adjustment on their own. That period is over. But developers knew how the rule stood from the start and that Apple had the right to reject if you didn't follow the rule.

Sony tried to not follow the rule, got dinged and is trying to paint Apple as the big bad evil because they aren't willing to treat Sony as special.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #257 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks

Nothing a little Googling (can I recommend that here) won't resolve. DRM doen't really protect anything it just turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
post #258 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

So let me get this:
The Kindle does not allow the purchase of content, except from Amazon.

Nook does not allow the purchase of content, except from Barnes and Noble.

The Reader does not allow the purchase of content, except from Sony.

iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch support the direct purchase of content from Apple or from anyone else, but with a 30% hosting fee.

They also allow import of content, without any fee, over a browser. This is how Kindle works, and how Sony, supposedly, chose not to.

The horrifying, scary, anti-trustworthy restriction is that content for iOS devices, offered outside the app, must also be available for in-app purchase.


Unlike the Kindle, Nook, or Reader, the i-devices let anyone buy content anywhere they like.

Either block them completely or let them develop an app how they want. Don't start dictating their prices.

Explain your view on my post above.
post #259 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

wrong. Read my next comment ( and we have posted so many rebuttals to this it is not funny.)

Okay, well, that is stupid (if accurate).
post #260 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

So by your argument - any app that allows a purchase to be made - such as a grocery shopping app, ebay app, amazon app (not sure if you can/cannot purchase through this) then apple should take 30%.

Hell lets go all the way and say MS should take 30% for online shopping in IE. Apple should take 30% for everything bought in Safari. etc.

Hell lets take it even further. Buy anything using apple software whatsoever and you pay 30%.

Do you think that Apple should also be charging 30% on all software installed on a mac? What about the Steam game store that not long ago launched on mac.

You are another victim of apple bullshit rhetoric



Except that Apple has not made any such demand. You can buy software via the Mac store or anywhere else. On the Mac store, 30% of the cost is known to be for the store cut. Anywhere else, the cut is whatever it is--traditionally more than 30%.

On iOS the user is not constrained at all. He can buy books from a web site. He can buy them from the iBookstore. He can buy them as an in-app purchase.

But an app developer cannot link to them ONLY at his for-pay web site. If he expects Apple to host the data, he must also, as one option, provide them directly in the app.

I'm not aware of anyone buying groceries or eBay office supplies for iPad streaming.
post #261 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This is a great analogy.

It's nice to see at least some people get it and realise that this whole thing is yet another tempest in a teapot generated by blog writers to get hits.

Another aspect to think about for those calling Apple "evil" this morning ...

Since Apple is perfectly okay with an app sending it's users to a web site to get content, it's the same thing as letting "Hanks Hammers" all have a big sticker on them that tells the prospective customer about "Hanks Hardware" down the street and how much better it is than the store they are currently shopping in! What more do people what them to do?

I dare anyone to find an instance of a real life bricks and mortar store that allows another competing store to stock products on it's shelves, and let's each one having a big advertisement for the second competing store. With iOS it's almost like giving the customers a free ride to the competitions store. And yet "Apple is evil" etc. WTF?

There are a couple of points I don't think you are taking into account...

1. I would be happy to buy from the iBookStore if only Apple would provide the selection of titles that are available from Amazon. I have over a hundred titles on the Amazon Kindle App. The vast majority are technical topics, of which almost none can be found on the iBookStore. So if I lose the Kindle App on the iPad, I am suddenly downgrading the range of available titles for future purchase.

2. This brings me to the second point... Today, I have a vast collection of ebooks on the iPad, which were basically bought long before there ever was an iPad. If the Kindle App gets the boot, I am no longer going to have the benefits of those pre-iPad purchases, for which I paid for before Apple was even in the eBook business. It may be that Apple allows installed Kindle Apps to remain on the iPad even though Amazon may be prohibited from distributing future Apps on the AppStore. It will only be a matter of time before the present day Kindle App gets deprecated with the release of a new IOS. So eventually the App will go away, along with my ability to read my legitimately purchased ebooks (which pre-date the existence of the iPad) on the iPad device.
post #262 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

Except that Apple has not made any such demand. You can buy software via the Mac store or anywhere else. On the Mac store, 30% of the cost is known to be for the store cut. Anywhere else, the cut is whatever it is--traditionally more than 30%.

On iOS the user is not constrained at all. He can buy books from a web site. He can buy them from the iBookstore. He can buy them as an in-app purchase.

But an app developer cannot link to them ONLY at his for-pay web site. If he expects Apple to host the data, he must also, as one option, provide them directly in the app.

I'm not aware of anyone buying groceries or eBay office supplies for iPad streaming.


What Amazon data is hosting Apple?
post #263 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Either block them completely or let them develop an app how they want. Don't start dictating their prices.

Explain your view on my post above.

If Apple wanted to... they could ask for 100% markup. And yes, at their very whim or flight of fancy, or if SJ is having just a bad day, he can pull an App... for whatever reason.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS! It's Apple's store. Their platform. They do and can DICTATE their terms, whether you, a small dev, or a conglomerate wants to play in THEIR sandbox.

The only "monopoly" that Apple has is making devices that people want and choose to buy... and that work out of the gate, rather than in version 3+ and calling it a dessert.

When Google/Microsoft and their OEMS get "their" S*** together... and it works... you will have more choices.

Until then... give it up. Sell your i-Stuff on Ebay... and be patient.

PS. reminds me of the famous line, "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?". That's how old "I" am!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #264 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.

Amazon charges sellers in its store 6-25% of the purchase price. So why do they have the privilege of getting that cut from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell?
post #265 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Amazon charges sellers in its store 6-25% of the purchase price. So why do they have the privilege of getting that cut from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell?

Oh, no, Amazon backs the finnncial transactions, covers the client, etc.
post #266 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Oh, no, Amazon backs the finnncial transactions, covers the client, etc.

And Apple don't?
post #267 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The only excuse I think they have is that - maybe - tomorrow there will be a new model announced with the Daily and they are rejecting apps for now, so they can re-tool. As usual Apple is being secretive.

There is something to this insight. Hopefully your on the right track.
post #268 of 276
Exactly as predicted, this was yet another in a long string of ridiculous anti-Apple shitstorms based on completely wrong information.


"official comment from Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller, who said the company has not "changed our developer terms or guidelines," while noting that "we are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

In other words, this is the exact opposite of the situation reported by the Times.

Now will you Apple bashers kindly STFU for a while? (I'm talking to you, Gwydion, asdasd, iLiver, etc.)
post #269 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The screaming is from the Apple defenders.


Nothing in this thread proves the opposite despite the over-eager defence of Apple.
to believe the opposite we would need to believe that Sony doesnt understand in-app purchasing, and cant redirect a link to an external website.


We defend Apple because their record speaks for itself. And this is yet another example, as it has now surfaced that the Times completely misconstrued Apple's position. We defend Apple because this sort of thing happens time and time again, and every time we end up being right and the Apple hating douche bags end up being wrong.

You would think that after being wrong so many times you would start giving Apple the benefit of the doubt now and then. We're talking about Apple here - not Microsoft.
post #270 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

iOS is Job's speak for - I Own your Sh*t


Maybe Microsoft should start blocking applications from Windows. Apple is going to be sorry for this approach some day. People will get tired of this crap.
post #271 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteo View Post

If you read the NYTimes article it says in app and OUT OF app purchases. Also the screen shot of the app shows what looks to be safari for purchasing.

In your thinking should AT&T get a cut of every purchase? Or if I am on wifi shouldn't comcast get a cut? I mean the data is going over its network, they deserver their share.

Your argument is bull. That would mean Microsoft should get a cut of any software I install on windows.

...and the telephone company should get a cut when you purchase over the telephone line... yeah, yeah, yeah. This could get absurd very quickly, granted.

However, yours are all examples of infrastructure. We are talking about Stores themselves. So don't be obtuse. Does the Windows Desktop Operating System call itself a Store?

Secondly, the NYT can say what it likes -- it hasn't been established that it knows what the heck it's talking about. And Sony is probably stirring things up.

What we do know: Apple is saying that IF you want to offer Out of App purchases, then ALSO INCLUDE In App purchase opportunity. That's the deal for getting access to 160 million paying iTunes customers. I don't think anyone is interpreting the Apple guidelines as Apple expecting to take 30% of the Out of App purchases.

The App can even ask customers to avail themselves of the out of app purchasing method to help it keep some of its profit from big, bad Apple. Personally, I think people will tend to use the in-app purchasing, because Apple has spent time, effort and money to make it a good experience, seamlessly using the credit card already on file with their iTunes account. But this time, effort and money put into superior user experience apparently escape people -- or people expect, nay demand, that Apple give others free-rein to use it as they wish to make money.
post #272 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

These examples are not making sense. Apple doesn't own the store, I own the store, I bought the iPad and it is mine. It now has become my store. I now invite Amazon into my store to sell its books. How does Apple have anything to do with it? Amazon purchased the rights to give away its app in the App Store so Apple got its cut there but after that they should have no say.

What? Whoa, I think you are tripping, dude. I know the iPad is "magical" and all, and I hate to break this to you, but:

Um, how can I put this... the App Store is not actually "in" your iPad. It's somewhere else, like in California or North Carolina maybe; and your iPad is making a connection to it, over the intertubes. And, all those pretty tiles you see in the App Store App "on your iPad"? Well, they are little representations of the real programs. These 64x64 or so pixel images, "icons", get "streamed" over the intertubes; and what they represent are "files" (another metaphor, but please try to stay with me), which are full of code, which doesn't look like much, but in fact itself represents a bunch of ones and zeros. These files, "Apps", actually perform useable functions which you apply to certain needs (hence applications). But you must purchase a license for download and personal use -- at which point a licensed copy gets installed on your iPad through the system designed and maintained by Apple. These Apps know how to "talk" to your iPad and make it do "stuff". I know it's difficult, but that file, that "software" App you are downloading, those ones and zeros? It still doesn't "belong" to you, either. It's the property of the developer. He is granting you the use of his work on your personal devices.

I don't blame you, it really is hard to get your head around virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff. But, bottom line, man: the Store is not your Store. And it's not even on your iPad.

And you know what else? What you bought, what's yours, is what you can weigh in your hand. All that goodness, all that virtual, "magical" stuff that makes the iPad the iPad that you love; the stuff that brings it alive? That stuff isn't yours, either. That stuff is Apple's.
post #273 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

What?

I don't blame you, it really is hard to get your head around virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff. But, bottom line, man: the Store is not your Store. And it's not even on your iPhone or iPod or iPad.

Its not really that difficult to get the head around virtual space for people of average intelligence.

If we wanted to bypass the non-physical Apple Store and the associated stuff you mentioned which your barely warmed up IQ has apparently just managed to grasp then we can do that using the Kindle Store.

Thats the subject of this thread. To put it in your unweidly prose. When we buy something in the Kindle store ( in Safari) as it now stands they handle the virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff and Apple are taking, if this IAP is applied to Kindle, 30%.

Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.

Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #274 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.

Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.

30%? Maybe, maybe not. Bottom line is that neither the Kindle nor the Nook allows competitor ebook stores at all. The iPad is the dominant ebook reader in terms of numbers sold. If Amazon, B&N or Sony want a slice of that pie then they should pony up given their devices are locked down. Or leave the platform.

Unless they'd all like to get together and define a common DRM scheme that is interoperable across all devices and bookstores.

Yeah, I didn't think so.
post #275 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Its not really that difficult to get the head around virtual space for people of average intelligence.

If we wanted to bypass the non-physical Apple Store and the associated stuff you mentioned which your barely warmed up IQ has apparently just managed to grasp then we can do that using the Kindle Store.

Thats the subject of this thread. To put it in your unweidly prose. When we buy something in the Kindle store ( in Safari) as it now stands they handle the virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff and Apple are taking, if this IAP is applied to Kindle, 30%.

Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.

Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.

Do irony much? I thought there were a few clues in my unwieldy, tongue-in-cheek prose, which was for the benefit of someone who apparently thought (and I still find this unbelievable) that the App Store was his -- but mostly it was for everyone else's entertainment. Although my effort might have been in vain, I do try to vary my style on occasion, or from page to page, or even between one post and the next. From the sum of your copious output on this thread, I am rather receiving an incessant droning, like perhaps a needle is stuck somewhere. Perhaps this is why I now begin to sound like a pompous pedant. Forgive me that my forbearance for you is so short-lived. But now that we have established who has the barely warmed up IQ (both the one with the Store in his pocket and the one whom irony escapes), I'll address your point:

I know what you guys have said on every page of this thread. We have yet to see any proof that Apple was/is/shall ever try to take 30% of out -of-app purchases. It's not even clear that they will ask for 30% of everything sold through in-app purchases, other than the music, movies, books and other media that is actually stored on their servers. What has also been reiterated page after page on this thread is this:

Apple is asking developers who use its platform, Store, SDK, IP, business model and everything else, to include in-app purchasing along side out-of-app purchasing in their native, iOS apps which would not exist as a potential source of revenue for the developer without Apple. In-App purchasing provides the consumer (Apple's customer after all) a streamlined, consistent user experience, particularly appreciated by those who do indeed like using their iTunes Store account and getting one bill on one card. It also happens to help Apple maintain and develop the platform and store for all those who create apps, free and paid alike. And it's Apple's prerogative.

I know the stuff bought through the in-app purchase may or may not be on Apple's server. If Amazon and Sony want access to 160 million paying customers, this is simply what they are asked to do. If they go, they go. That is not my preference. I would miss them (but, believe it not, I wouldn't throw my iPad away; because unbelievable as it may be, I didn't buy it primarily for books). If Sony and Amazon do leave, Apple may make adjustments. On the other hand, Sony may simply be posturing and the NYT may be blowing it out of proportion. Who knows, Sony and Apple may be working it out as we speak.

(look asdasd, no caps! aren't you proud of me? See how compliant and amenable I am?) [Don't answer, that was rhetorical and ironic. In fact, please just don't answer.]
post #276 of 276
E-book really help ful when ever you are facing any problem. Last day i have invested in a Penny Stocks investment company and for 5month i did not get any payment. After that i follow and e-book on it and then make payment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's new App Store restrictions block Sony eBookstore, may lock out Amazon