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 3

post #81 of 276
I think what happened is that Sony wanted users to buy books within the app. All IN APP purchase must go through Apple. That is not new. Amazon and B&N redirect users to Safari to buy books.
post #82 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

Apple is not stopping you reading your pdf you bought elsewhere on the iphone.

Yeah, they haven't blocked the internet. However lets say the digital content was a movie, playing in a flash player, and a company tried to bring out an application to view previously bought content using HTTPS live streaming?
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #83 of 276
This is a mistake.

I`m a Mac only user but have been biding my time to see if Apple would open up it`s mobile devices to third party content.

If true this move will be the final deciding factor in keeping me off Apples mobile devices.
I`ll be using Android for phones and tablets, I simply won`t be limited in such a crippling way for paid content.

I`m sure I`m only one of many who feel this way.
post #84 of 276
I'm from Romania and I have an iPhone 4 which I enjoy a lot. I was ready to buy an iPad but one of the reasons for buying it was to read ebooks. Here in Romania you can not buy books from iBooks, the only way to buy books is from Amazon with Kindle. So if I will not be able to use the iPad as a reader I'm not buying it anymore. I will be force to buy an Android crap tablet which I will use as a reader \
post #85 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Yeah, it is. All that matters is that you sell more than a certain number. 70+ %

You can pull "facts" like this out of your ass all you want, but Apple is not even remotely a monopoly.
Monopolies are characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce a particular product or service, along with a lack of viable substitute products or services.

There are plenty of other tablet computers on the market, with new ones being introduced at a rapid pace. Consumers can buy tablets and content - digital and otherwise - from Apple or from a variety of other vendors and platforms. Apple is doing nothing to restrict consumers from buying competitors' products other than making products that are so clearly superior that consumers freely chose to purchase them over their rivals. This is in sharp contrast to what Microsoft did for years to kill off competition in the desktop OS market - where they used unethical business practices to keep people from buying what, at times, were clearly superior products.

By your definition, BMW has a monopoly because they don't allow competitors to make and sell their own BMWs and because they exercise tight control over who manufactures the components that go into their vehicles.
post #86 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

You can pull "facts" like this out of your ass all you want, but Apple is not even remotely a monopoly.
Monopolies are characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce a particular product or service, along with a lack of viable substitute products or services.

.

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #87 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

You’re melding a single product with a product category. If we say Apple has a monopoly on iPad then we can also say Samsung has a monopoly on Galaxy Tab and MS has a monopoly on Kin.

In business, a monopoly refers to a commodity or service type, not a brand, otherwise all companies would have a monopoly on their product.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #88 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisss1205 View Post

I think what happened is that Sony wanted users to buy books within the app. All IN APP purchase must go through Apple. That is not new. Amazon and B&N redirect users to Safari to buy books.

I have just read 11.2 myself and I would say that you are correct -- this is about in-app purchases. All in-app purchases must go through the app store. Therefore, this would not effect Amazon in the slightest.
post #89 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Product: as in Tablets, Cell phones, not iPad, iPhone
post #90 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisss1205 View Post

Product: as in Tablets, Cell phones, not iPad, iPhone

Yeah. Tablets.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #91 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

But does the Kindle allow 3rd-party apps? This is ‘a’ Wild, Wild West scenario where Apple needs to think this through before moving. If you deny other eBook vendors you risk losing HW sales in the short term and possibly the longterm, but if you allow it you risk losing HW sales in the long term if other vendors can create a good competing product, especially if that competitor allows an easy option for getting books.

I don’t think the correct path is certain is a balance of these two will likely happen. We’ve see Apple do this very thing with iOS and the SDK since their release. They start small and simple and expand from there. This seems like the best course of action, IMO. The problem with opening too soon is if you make a mistake you can’t easily close it back up without incurring other, potentially worse issues.

Well put. It is a tricky balance to strike and perhaps a third way needs to be explored that can balance these two extremes.

p.s. Are you leaving FL to somewhere with no internet till the summer?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #92 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

I have just read 11.2 myself and I would say that you are correct -- this is about in-app purchases. All in-app purchases must go through the app store. Therefore, this would not effect Amazon in the slightest.

Apple reads in, as for. These days.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #93 of 276
Hopefully the rumoured up-coming subscription package rules will allow Sony, Amazon etc to distribute their materials in a way that pays Apple as the platform holder.

Google don't need to do this with Android as they already have their hooks in android to get data for their advertising division. Why do you think that android is 'free'?
post #94 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.

It's the same darn content, doesn't matter if I paid in a print magazine, on the Kindle store, Apple Store or whatever store. Don't double bill us! Geez. The whole reason why DRM music failed was because it can't be played across a spectrum devices easily, why is Apple making this mistake now? They should've learned the lesson. The content sell devices, and Apple makes the devices, Apple shouldn't be too greedy with content here.
post #95 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezingmariner View Post

It's the same darn content, doesn't matter if I paid in a print magazine, on the Kindle store, Apple Store or whatever store. Don't double bill us! Geez. The whole reason why DRM music failed was because it can't be played across a spectrum devices easily, why is Apple making this mistake now? They should've learned the lesson. The content sell devices, and Apple makes the devices, Apple shouldn't be too greedy with content here.

So if I buy a CD, should the record store also give me a free vinyl copy and a free digital copy if I want it too?
post #96 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

So if I buy a CD, should the record store also give me a free vinyl copy and a free digital copy if I want it too?

If it has the rights. The content providers have applied to rights on the iPad. It wasnt always granted. Now Apple has banned em all.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #97 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezingmariner View Post

It's the same darn content, doesn't matter if I paid in a print magazine, on the Kindle store, Apple Store or whatever store. Don't double bill us! Geez. The whole reason why DRM music failed was because it can't be played across a spectrum devices easily, why is Apple making this mistake now? They should've learned the lesson. The content sell devices, and Apple makes the devices, Apple shouldn't be too greedy with content here.

My iPad allows me to use images, videos, music and other content that I've obtained from external sources. This has always been the case, and I suspect will always be the case. This isn't about Apple controlling where you get your content. It's specifically about limiting "in app purchases" on their devices. I have purchased far more ebooks from Amazon/Kindle than through iBooks. Amazon is not prevented from doing this - they just can't do it via in app purchasing.

Apple doesn't allow porn in the app store, but they don't restrict the endless supply of porn accessible on the internet via the browser. Apple supports openness alongside a controlled, curated environment. You get to choose what you want to consume, but they get to control what content goes through their curated areas. I think that's a perfectly reasonable balance.

Nothing to see here folks, at least until the full story comes out.
post #98 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

That is now banned on this new interpretation. All content which can be bought outside iOS is banned. ( Kindle may have a bye).

That's exactly opposite of what Apple is saying.

"...said that Apple told Sony that from now on, in-app purchases must go through Apple."

Every purchase made inside of Apps must use Apple API, not their own stuff. But they have no rules over what people can do on a website, outside of an app.
post #99 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

That's exactly opposite of what Apple is saying.

"...said that Apple told Sony that from now on, in-app purchases must go through Apple."

Every purchase made inside of Apps must use Apple API, not their own stuff. But they have no rules over what people can do on a website, outside of an app.

So why wont Sony just resubmit?

The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.

The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.

The story is accurate.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #100 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Why would sony generate this FUD? If their app was rejected in a way that could fix it they would fix it and re-submit.

Also, take a look at the screenshots.

People dont want to believe this - because it sounds crazy. It is crazy. But it is true.

Why do you assume Sony is a nice guy. They are a direct competitor to Apple. I can see they want to paint Apple in bad light as much as possible.
If this is all about a new policy, why do I still be able to purchase books using Kindle app?
post #101 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Hopefully the rumoured up-coming subscription package rules will allow Sony, Amazon etc to distribute their materials in a way that pays Apple as the platform holder

What?
post #102 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Why do you assume Sony is a nice guy. They are a direct competitor to Apple. I can see they want to paint Apple in bad light as much as possible.
If this is all about a new policy, why do I still be able to purchase books using Kindle app?

Why would they just not release their app if Apple said to do the purchasing in their ( already existing) website. Thats a simple fix.

Kindle is in the Not Yet Banned position.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #103 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Why would they just not release their app if Apple said to do the purchasing in their ( already existing) website. Thats a simple fix.

They want to whine. They want Apple to be a bad guy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Kindle is in the Not Yet Banned position.


Really? When? Do you have a date when they will be banned?
post #104 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

They want to whine. They want Apple to be a bad guy.
:

They spent months on development for the iOS platform merely to generate FUD? Jesus. Thats a low one.

Quote:
Really? When? Do you have a date when they will be banned?

Next submission I guess.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #105 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it...
Its the opposite of what we wanted to bring to the market, said Haber. We always wanted to bring the content to as many devices as possible, not one device to one store.

So big deal - Sony can have its Reader but it cannot sell content directly. So buyers have to go somewhere else and upload the Sony books. I don't see this as a problem - why should Apple subsidize Sony's sales?

I assume Sony has not approached Apple about any kind of deal to share the profits.

If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.
post #106 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

So why wont Sony just resubmit?

The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.

The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.

The story is accurate.


What you have is something that looks like the Safari interface. There's absolutely no guarantee that it is indeed Safari; or if the search function is in Safari, that the actual purchasing part is still inside Safari.

As to why wouldn't Sony resubmit a modified app? That would mean they have to put up actual money and time and effort to make a new app, modify part of their infrastructure, modify someone's powerpoint presentation about how this effort is going to make them money. The reasons are endless. If by complaining you somehow make Apple reverse course, you don't have to do all of that.

Who wouldn't complain first?
post #107 of 276
Apple has just thrown a huge lifeline to Honeycomb and the fledgling Android tablet industry. The market for tablets will be driven by the applications and the content available for them. If Apple demands 30% of everything we do with devices we already paid them for, the content will leave, and so will consumers and businesses.
post #108 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

They spent months on development for the iOS platform merely to generate FUD? Jesus. Thats a low one.

Bad image for a competitor is not spreading FUD. Maybe you don't have your own business so you don't understand. I bet they're changing their app in the back room while yelling Apple at the front door. All this doesn't mean they'll give up on the app.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Next submission I guess.

Let see, shall we?
post #109 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

What you have is something that looks like the Safari interface. There's absolutely no guarantee that it is indeed Safari; or if the search function is in Safari, that the actual purchasing part is still inside Safari.

As to why wouldn't Sony resubmit a modified app? That would mean they have to put up actual money and time and effort to make a new app, modify part of their infrastructure, modify someone's powerpoint presentation about how this effort is going to make them money. The reasons are endless. If by complaining you somehow make Apple reverse course, you don't have to do all of that.

Who wouldn't complain first?

We are clutching at straws here. Using a different coloured toolbar would results in a rejection in itself.
Mocking up safari makes no sense. They have no infrastructural changes to make. Just link to their existing store ( and possibly link back when bought) . Thats a day's work.

( if they had to do this, which they dont, as they are doing it).
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #110 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Bad marketing to a competitor is not spreading FUD. Maybe you don't have your own business so you don't understand. I bet they're changing their app in the back room while yelling Apple at the front door. All this doesn't mean they'll give up on the app.

Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #111 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Apple has just thrown a huge lifeline to Honeycomb and the fledgling Android tablet industry. The market for tablets will be driven by the applications and the content available for them. If Apple demands 30% of everything we do with devices we already paid them for, the content will leave, and so will consumers and businesses.

No really. Content will be where consumers are willing to spend money. So far, Android customers have not shown willingness to spend. So Content providers will indeed put up with Apple's 30% demand to stay in App Store.

As for your ridiculus comment about not wanting to pay Apple 30% for doing things with devices you already paid for, why are you paying cable/satellite/Netflix etc. to watch programs on that TV you already paid for? Why are you paying ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile/others to use that Phone you already paid for? Why are you buying gas to use that car you already paid for?
post #112 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

So why wont Sony just resubmit?

The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.

The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.

The story is accurate.

Since Apple isn't talking, as usual, we probably won't know what this means (for Amazon ebooks) until Amazon attempts to release their next update. It would be pretty stupid for Apple to cripple the Kindle app on iOS.
post #113 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.

I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing. Your reading doesn't make any sense. if it does, then Apple is really really stupid. I fail to see how having many e-reader apps hurt Apple so far.
post #114 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing. Your reading doesn't make any sense. if it does, then Apple is really really stupid. I fail to see how having many e-reader apps hurt Apple so far.

Which in-app purchasing?
post #115 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.

What you're saying makes sense, but at the same time it's a little different in this case. In this case the consumer bought the device, so they should have a right to say what apps they want to put on the device.

In your analogy it's kind of like saying you're selling products in a store that someone else owns, and they want to put a competing product next to yours. That actually is how most businesses work... Multiple products that serve the same purpose.

It just gets confusing because Apple runs the App Store. You still own the iPhone/iPad/whatever though, so why wouldn't you be able to choose what you want on your device?
post #116 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Which in-app purchasing?

Do you use iPhone?
post #117 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

And why is related to the article?

Because the reason Sony and Amazon are currently bypassing the iOS Store for their downloads is to bypass Apple's pricing and any other restrictions Apple may have (eg. content). I don't see the 70/30 split continuing if they want to get serious about recurring subscriptions for the publication industry.

Seems pretty relevant to the article to me.
post #118 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Do you use iPhone?


I repeat, which in-app purchase is using Sony Reader?
post #119 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

No really. Content will be where consumers are willing to spend money. So far, Android customers have not shown willingness to spend. So Content providers will indeed put up with Apple's 30% demand to stay in App Store.

As for your ridiculus comment about not wanting to pay Apple 30% for doing things with devices you already paid for, why are you paying cable/satellite/Netflix etc. to watch programs on that TV you already paid for? Why are you paying ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile/others to use that Phone you already paid for? Why are you buying gas to use that car you already paid for?

My car takes gas from any gas company around me.

My TV accepts service from any provider in my area.

An iPad should accept content from any provider available as well.

The analogy doesn't quite work in this case.
post #120 of 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

So big deal - Sony can have its Reader but it cannot sell content directly. So buyers have to go somewhere else and upload the Sony books. I don't see this as a problem - why should Apple subsidize Sony's sales?

I assume Sony has not approached Apple about any kind of deal to share the profits.

If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.


except that apple has always said that they make money on the hardware and itunes is a non-profit value added service

kindle/ibooks/B&N may offer the same books but the ibook store sucks compared to amazon in terms of presentation and ease of use
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Something has gone wrong!

Please try again!

Something has gone wrong! Please refresh the page or try again later.

Tech support has been notified of the problem.

Error: 503 Service Unavailable

AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's new App Store restrictions block Sony eBookstore, may lock out Amazon