or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store

post #1 of 399
Thread Starter 
Apple issued a surprisingly timely response to a claim made by the New York Times that suggested the company might bar iOS apps that sell content outside of Apple's software market within iTunes.

The original report was based on comments from Sony, which said its ebook Reader app had failed to pass Apple's approval process because its in-app sales weren't going through Apple.

Writing for the New York Times, Claire Cain Miller and Miguel Helft wrote the Apple is "further tightening its control of the App Store," and then speculated that this might spell the last days for similar apps, including Amazon's Kindle ebook title, which like Sony Reader, competes against Apple's own iBook app.

However, Wall Street Journal blogger John Paczkowski has reported 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."

That would be the reverse of the situation reported by the Times, and also makes more sense. Pulling popular titles such as Kindle, and similar content-access apps including Dropbox, Hulu+, Netflix and Pandora, would do little to benefit Apple.

In-app option required, but not exclusive

Instead, as Paczkowski explained, "Apple wants its cut on sales enabled by its iOS devices, it has an established guideline that allows it to take it and thats what its doing.

"Developers are still free to send customers to their own Web stores, but they must also offer them the option of purchasing content within their apps themselves, and they must route those sales through Apple which will then take its percentage."

This harmonizes with Apple's previous policy, enabling users to buy through iTunes (and allowing Apple to earn a cut for facilitating the convenience) without forcing all content to be purchased within iTunes. For example, Amazon can sell Kindle-DRM ebooks directly from its website or through its own Kindle device, and iOS Kindle app users can sync those purchases to their iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad.

Apple has never supported in-app sales of content within apps that bypass its iTunes payment system however, an issue that has irritated the music labels, movie studios, newspaper and magazine publishers, and now, Sony's Reader business.

Why Apple charges a cut

The company's newfound ability to earn a cut from software built to use and benefit from its platforms, starting with iPod games and moving through iPhone and iPad apps and the new Mac App Store, has enabled Apple to deliver a rich ecosystem of software that contributes to its device sales.

In its music and app stores, Apple is acting as a virtual mall developer, building markets that attract shoppers and charging vendors a cut to support the costs needed to build and operate the stores. Apple also manages promotion, merchandizing and sales fulfillment, enabling small developers and indie musicians to focus on their craft, leaving much of the business side to Apple.

While the company has always aspired to operate the iTunes Store as a break even business, the cut it takes from media and software sales enables it to deliver an attractive, curated market for content that has attracted users who previous refused to pay anything for music or apps, creating real markets for content to replace the "open" distribution of music, video, and mobile apps that have been devastated by direct piracy, copyright infringement, malware, and junkware.

Outside of iOS apps, Apple hasn't made iTunes the exclusive source for content, allowing third parties such as Amazon to sell music and ebooks that iOS users can play. It has however restricted third parties from selling DRM-protected music (including Windows Media Audio files sold through PlaysForSure stores), from offering iOS native apps intended for widespread distribution outside of iTunes (web apps offer the only wide-open iOS platform for third parties), and has examined other grey areas as well.

For example, Apple initially blocked Adobe from delivering native iOS apps created using its Flash Developer tools, a position it has since relaxed now that iPad and iPhone apps are well established as viable platforms.

Taking a cue from Nintendo

Tying third party apps to its platforms in the same way Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft promote exclusive games for their respective platforms (and similarly charge licensing fees from their developers, albeit much higher than Apple's cut) has also enabled Apple's iOS App Store to stand out and receive valuable third party promotion from broadcasters and advertisers directing their customers to iTunes.

Apple previously struggled for decades to attract third party software titles to its unique Macintosh platform; it did not directly benefit from very profitable software sales of titles such as Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop and PageMaker, applications which originated on the Mac, profited from its existence, and then jumped ship to support Windows, taking the value of Apple's platform and directly transferring it to Microsoft.

With the shoe now on the other foot, Apple appears unlikely to ever relinquish control to third party developers that have historically demonstrated scant platform loyalty when it conflicted with their own profits. Apple's iTunes markets now drive their own traffic, making it hard for developers, studios, and labels to refuse to offer their content through Apple.

Apple plays hardball

NBC Universal pulled its content from iTunes for a year in late 2007 before it came crawling back ready to play. And while neither Microsoft nor Adobe have moved their mainstream apps to the new Mac App Store yet, both have experimented with new iOS apps and have expressed an interest in expanding their app availability through Apple.

If Sony fails to establish its position on the iOS App Store, it will likely continue to be blown out of the water by competitors who have, including Amazon and Barns and Noble.

Sony--and Nintendo--may also eventually find themselves willing to support game sales through the iOS App Store, something both currently view as anathema. Both are still working to build their own new generations of portable gaming hardware, even as smartphones eat into the market for standalone players.

Sony has announced a plan to bring original PlayStation titles to Google's Android, but the software markets on that platform are currently dysfunctional and not attracting users or developers.
post #2 of 399
My only thought to this is that Apple made Amazon aware this was coming and allowed them to somehow plan for it. I guess we will see in the next couple days, but I don't see the kindle app being pulled
post #3 of 399
PR gobblygook. Obviously an app that is referencing a competing store is not going to also sell the same product on apple's iBookstore, it defeats the purpose. In other words "don't sell stuff outside of our store", which is what we knew from the beginning.
post #4 of 399
This is bullshit. If it makes Kindle books 30% more expensive I'm going to go totally Cambodia.
post #5 of 399
Can/do the guidelines make any restrictions on pricing?
post #6 of 399
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
post #7 of 399
This doesn't effect the Kindle or the Nook in any way. They already operate within the rules.

Sony attempted to add their own proprietary in-app store, which is clearly against the rules.
post #8 of 399
You aren't understanding the problem. Sony is attempting to add their own proprietary store on the back of the success of iOS. Apple isn't allowing Sony to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lggeek View Post

Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
post #9 of 399
The key sentence is: "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."

Kindle iOS App: Does allow purchare outside app, therefore is/ has always been required to offer in-app purchase.

What effect will this have?
post #10 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This doesn't effect the Kindle or the Nook in any way. They already operate within the rules.

Sony attempted to add their own proprietary in-app store, which is clearly against the rules.

It seems that Apple's plans would impact Kindle and Nook. Apparently Apple is insisting on their 30% cut.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...book-sales.ars
post #11 of 399
Who cares? Just buy a kindle. If you can afford an iPad, you can afford a Kindle.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #12 of 399
I don't like where this is headed. Rather than enforcing rules as is—something which is reasonable—Apple needs to make them a little more flexible. 30% cut on the book market (e.g. Amazon) is not viable for them, and if truly enforced, will leave the iOS users without these applications for accessing third-party content. It would set a dangerous precedent, disappoint users, and it would reduce my interest in investing into the iBookstore.

I'm not going to get too caught up in this. These situations usually get resolved in time, and Apple rarely pushes the envelope too far in this regard. We'll see...

Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

PR gobblygook. Obviously an app that is referencing a competing store is not going to also sell the same product on apple's iBookstore, it defeats the purpose. In other words "don't sell stuff outside of our store", which is what we knew from the beginning.

They're not saying they have to go through iBookstore. It sounds, rather, that they're saying an in-app purchase solution must also be made available (presumably giving them the 30% cut, which would destroy book profits for companies like Sony, B&N, Amazon).

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Who cares? Just buy a kindle. If you can afford an iPad, you can afford a Kindle.

Problem here is that I don't want to any more invested in Amazon's proprietary marketplace either...
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #13 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lggeek View Post

Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).

You just don't get it it. Why should Apple allow someone to advertise on iTunes to sell a product somewhere else exclusively - Apple has said that they have to make it available thru the iTunes App Store. They did not say they could not sell it anywhere else (unlike some of the handroid store rules).

I am not aware of Apple taking any steps to quash Cydia. They have not sat by idly and made it easy to jailbreak but that is quite different. Do you also think it is a great idea to steal Apple's IP and create a Hackintosh and support companies like Psystar who sell computers and Rebel EFI to allow people to ripoff and run the Mac OS X on a computer Apple never licensed it for? I think you would quickly find very little software of any real value.
post #14 of 399
Well this is certainly a sad state of affairs. Apple's pissed that competitors are skirting around their 30% cut by offering purchases outside the App Store, so now they're enforcing a rule that they were keen to ignore earlier. Talk about bait and switch. Let's have all these successful models enjoy freedom on iOS for a year, then suddenly impose the keeper's fee.

This is a shakedown if you think about it. Apple doesn't like people selling products on their turf, so now they want their cut.
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #15 of 399
The question being the 30%. Is that 30% profiting Apple directly. Or is it paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the App Store that the Kindle and Nook are directly profiting from.

Free apps that have purchases outside of the App Store are getting a free ride from those that have direct purchases within the app store, and do pay their 30%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigelian View Post

It seems that Apple's plans would impact Kindle and Nook. Apparently Apple is insisting on their 30% cut.
post #16 of 399
while I do see the business motive behind this, there's also a key design choice: maintaining control over purchases within apps helps prevent mischievous developers from creating fraudulent purchases, stealing credit cards, etc.. making sure that the user is suspicious when there's a purchase screen they don't recognize. that kind of thing.
post #17 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

You just don't get it it. Why should Apple allow someone to advertise on iTunes to sell a product somewhere else exclusively.

Because it is common courtesy. Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.

Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.

You are a victim of apple marketing. Why should the mobile platform be so so different?

Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day.

They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.

They should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.
post #18 of 399
Do you feel its fair for Amazon and B&N to directly profit from the App Store while contributing nothing back to the App Store?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

This is a shakedown if you think about it. Apple doesn't like people selling products on their turf, so now they want their cut.
post #19 of 399
Thread Starter 
Apple issued a surprisingly timely response to a claim made by the New York Times that suggested the company might bar iOS apps that sell content outside of Apple's software market within iTunes.

The original report was based on comments from Sony, which said its ebook Reader app had failed to pass Apple's approval process because its in-app sales weren't going through Apple.

Writing for the New York Times, Claire Cain Miller and Miguel Helft wrote the Apple is "further tightening its control of the App Store," and then speculated that this might spell the last days for similar apps, including Amazon's Kindle ebook title, which like Sony Reader, competes against Apple's own iBook app.

However, Wall Street Journal blogger John Paczkowski has reported 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."

That would be the reverse of the situation reported by the Times, and also makes more sense. Pulling popular titles such as Kindle, and similar content-access apps including Dropbox, Hulu+, Netflix and Pandora, would do little to benefit Apple.

In-app option required, but not exclusive

Instead, as Paczkowski explained, "Apple wants its cut on sales enabled by its iOS devices, it has an established guideline that allows it to take it and thats what its doing.

"Developers are still free to send customers to their own Web stores, but they must also offer them the option of purchasing content within their apps themselves, and they must route those sales through Apple which will then take its percentage."

This harmonizes with Apple's previous policy, enabling users to buy through iTunes (and allowing Apple to earn a cut for facilitating the convenience) without forcing all content to be purchased within iTunes. For example, Amazon can sell Kindle-DRM ebooks directly from its website or through its own Kindle device, and iOS Kindle app users can sync those purchases to their iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad.

Apple has never supported in-app sales of content within apps that bypass its iTunes payment system however, an issue that has irritated the music labels, movie studios, newspaper and magazine publishers, and now, Sony's Reader business.

Why Apple charges a cut

The company's newfound ability to earn a cut from software built to use and benefit from its platforms, starting with iPod games and moving through iPhone and iPad apps and the new Mac App Store, has enabled Apple to deliver a rich ecosystem of software that contributes to its device sales.

In its music and app stores, Apple is acting as a virtual mall developer, building markets that attract shoppers and charging vendors a cut to support the costs needed to build and operate the stores. Apple also manages promotion, merchandizing and sales fulfillment, enabling small developers and indie musicians to focus on their craft, leaving much of the business side to Apple.

While the company has always aspired to operate the iTunes Store as a break even business, the cut it takes from media and software sales enables it to deliver an attractive, curated market for content that has attracted users who previous refused to pay anything for music or apps, creating real markets for content to replace the "open" distribution of music, video, and mobile apps that have been devastated by direct piracy, copyright infringement, malware, and junkware.

Outside of iOS apps, Apple hasn't made iTunes the exclusive source for content, allowing third parties such as Amazon to sell music and ebooks that iOS users can play. It has however restricted third parties from selling DRM-protected music (including Windows Media Audio files sold through PlaysForSure stores), from offering iOS native apps intended for widespread distribution outside of iTunes (web apps offer the only wide-open iOS platform for third parties), and has examined other grey areas as well.

For example, Apple initially blocked Adobe from delivering native iOS apps created using its Flash Developer tools, a position it has since relaxed now that iPad and iPhone apps are well established as viable platforms.

Taking a cue from Nintendo

Tying third party apps to its platforms in the same way Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft promote exclusive games for their respective platforms (and similarly charge licensing fees from their developers, albeit much higher than Apple's cut) has also enabled Apple's iOS App Store to stand out and receive valuable third party promotion from broadcasters and advertisers directing their customers to iTunes.

Apple previously struggled for decades to attract third party software titles to its unique Macintosh platform; it did not directly benefit from very profitable software sales of titles such as Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop and PageMaker, applications which originated on the Mac, profited from its existence, and then jumped ship to support Windows, taking the value of Apple's platform and directly transferring it to Microsoft.

With the shoe now on the other foot, Apple appears unlikely to ever relinquish control to third party developers that have historically demonstrated scant platform loyalty when it conflicted with their own profits. Apple's iTunes markets now drive their own traffic, making it hard for developers, studios, and labels to refuse to offer their content through Apple.

Apple plays hardball

NBC Universal pulled its content from iTunes for a year in late 2007 before it came crawling back ready to play. And while neither Microsoft nor Adobe have moved their mainstream apps to the new Mac App Store yet, both have experimented with new iOS apps and have expressed an interest in expanding their app availability through Apple.

If Sony fails to establish its position on the iOS App Store, it will likely continue to be blown out of the water by competitors who have, including Amazon and Barns and Noble.

Sony--and Nintendo--may also eventually find themselves willing to support game sales through the iOS App Store, something both currently view as anathema. Both are still working to build their own new generations of portable gaming hardware, even as smartphones eat into the market for standalone players.

Sony has announced a plan to bring original PlayStation titles to Google's Android, but the software markets on that platform are currently dysfunctional and not attracting users or developers.
post #20 of 399
If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.
post #21 of 399
You guys seem to think that 30% is money that goes right into Apple's pocket. It does not. It costs Apple a lot of money to maintain the App Stores. The more developers that use the App Stores the more money it costs Apple to maintain them. That 30% is a lot less than it would cost developers to build and maintain their own app stores.

I don't think it unreasonable for developers that profit from the App Store to contribute to its upkeep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.
post #22 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Well this is certainly a sad state of affairs. Apple's pissed that competitors are skirting around their 30% cut by offering purchases outside the App Store, so now they're enforcing a rule that they were keen to ignore earlier. Talk about bait and switch. Let's have all these successful models enjoy freedom on iOS for a year, then suddenly impose the keeper's fee.

This is a shakedown if you think about it. Apple doesn't like people selling products on their turf, so now they want their cut.

It's not shakedown because it's not turf. It's Apples store, their actual property. Sony would be using apples property to advertise and then telling the consumer to purchase elsewhere. If I owned a store, digital or otherwise, i wouldn't let someone use my retail space to convince my customers to go elsewhere.
post #23 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Do you feel its fair for Amazon and B&N to directly profit from the App Store while contributing nothing back to the App Store?

exactly -- free apps help Apple by keeping people involved with their products. free apps with ads pay for the service Apple provides by giving them a cut of ad revenue. free apps that make money and do nothing to support Apple?

why is Apple supposed to supply a user base, platform, servers to host the app, bandwidth for the thousands of people downloading the Kindle app -- and let Amazon/Sony/etc profit directly?

I do feel very conflicted about this.
post #24 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Because it is common courtesy. Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.

Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.

You are a victim of apple marketing. Why should the mobile platform be so so different?

Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day.

They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.

They should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.

Is your thought process really as disjointed as this post, or do you just copy and paste random criticisms from a list you keep?
post #25 of 399
Most of you guys have no idea what anti-trust means.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmac47 View Post

If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.
post #26 of 399
from the article:

Quote:
applications that support the purchasing of content from elsewhere must also provide users the option to buy it within the application. In-application purchases made through App Store software grant Apple a 30 percent cut of sales.

"We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Miller reportedly said. "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."

Note my bold above - they have allowed some exception to the rule until the platform matured a bit and now are requiring an equitable standing by apps with content purchasing outside of the App Store by including the ability to purchase inside the App Store - an also/and situation, instead of an external exclusive. How is it wrong? And Apple requires a 30% piece of the in-store action - call it charge for overhead.

They are NOT requiring in store-only, they are not blocking outside content purchasing - just internal and external content purchase support under the guidelines. What is the issue here?
post #27 of 399
So unless Kindle changes to allow in-app purchases it is in danger then?

Seems ridiculous - like others have mentioned akin to paying a cut to your car manufacturer when you top up its fuel or to your TV manufacturer when you watch a DVD.
post #28 of 399
Leave it up to Dilger to spin this in an innocent way. Requiring in-store iOS purchases as an option in, say, the Kindle app, would wreck Amazon's profit margin on books and would either require that they charge higher prices for in-app purchases (hard to see that innocently) or that they pull out from iOS.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #29 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller: "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."

Which puts the current Kindle app in violation of this rule.
post #30 of 399
Although it seems restrictive, I don't see the strict enforcement of these rules as hindering the proliferation of iOS devices that much. I do see however, that apps providing for in app purchases (or access to services purchased outside of the iOS device) going away however.

I don't really see Amazon, eBay, Netflix, and other retailers giving Apple a 30% cut. I guess if the rules allow for a 30% premium for in app purchases, then it may be possible, but I just don't see that happening.

Would you really give up your iPad, iPhone, or iPod touch if you didn't have access to content purchased elsewhere? Probably not.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #31 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

PR gobblygook. Obviously an app that is referencing a competing store is not going to also sell the same product on apple's iBookstore, it defeats the purpose. In other words "don't sell stuff outside of our store", which is what we knew from the beginning.

What Apple says is "don't push sales to Your store from Our store without giving Our customers the chance to buy it in Our store". Very different from the image you have.

Amazon store have fees for seller too, don't see people complain about that. If you post something for sell on Amazon, and price it at $0.01 to minimize Amazon's cut, but charges the buyer some other way to actually get the product, I don't think Amazon would look too kindly on that kind of behavior either.
post #32 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

from the article:



Note my bold above - they have allowed some exception to the rule until the platform matured a bit and now are requiring an equitable standing by apps with content purchasing outside of the App Store by including the ability to purchase inside the App Store - an also/and situation, instead of an external exclusive. How is it wrong? And Apple requires a 30% piece of the in-store action - call it charge for overhead.

They are NOT requiring in store-only, they are not blocking outside content purchasing - just internal and external content purchase support under the guidelines. What is the issue here?

It will be interesting to see what happens if Amazon, Sony, Borders or Barnes and Noble make the app store purchase available reflecting the cost of the 30% cut that Apple is insisting on. What do you think most consumers would do under those circumstances?

Generally I find the whole thing fascinating. I have no doubt that it is entirely legal, I have no doubt that it is within the contract language of Apple's contract with developers for Itunes, I have no doubt that at the margin it may make the Apple platform less valuable for end users. At the margin such practices will spur more sales of Kindles, Nooks, Sony Readers and Android tablets. The practice would be particularly pernicious if there were no other distribution markets available...but there are.
post #33 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Although it seems restrictive, I don't see the strict enforcement of these rules as hindering the proliferation of iOS devices that much. I do see however, that apps providing for in app purchases (or access to services purchased outside of the iOS device) going away however. [...]

Sure, Apple will be successful even if they drive these services out of iOS. It would be a very big disappointment as a customer, thoughand that's quite upsetting.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #34 of 399
If this is accurate, it's a ridiculous move by Apple.

However, Apple's PR has responded to questions about App Store policy with falsehoods before (or has been reported as such, at least), so I'm not entirely convinced yet.
post #35 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Miller reportedly said. "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."

iOS benefits from having apps that people want, including ones that let you buy stuff. If Apple is handling the overhead of enabling purchases within an app, they deserve a cut. If someone else (e.g., Amazon) is handling this, then Apple doesn't deserve a cut. If I buy a toy from Amazon, there is no reason for Apple to take a cut. If I buy a book that is viewable on the Kindle app (and also in the outside world), there is also no reason for Apple to take a cut.

I can see Apple wanting to take a cut for purchases that have no value outside of iOS (e.g., additional functionality for an app), but they shouldn't take a cut when the item purchased has value in the outside world, and the sale is handled by a third party.
post #36 of 399
Is Amazon's Kindle margin so tight that Apple will eat it up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Leave it up to Dilger to spin this in an innocent way. Requiring in-store iOS purchases as an option in, say, the Kindle app, would wreck Amazon's profit margin on books and would either require that they charge higher prices for in-app purchases (hard to see that innocently) or that they pull out from iOS.
post #37 of 399
It feels like these articles in "Apple Insider" come straight from Apple HQ. If they don't then the writers are either under a lot of pressure from Apple to make Apple sound good, or they are under some sort of trance that makes them see Apple as the eternal benevolent dictator of what we want and what we can do. I think that Apple does a good job designing their products and an outstanding job making their customers believe that Apple products are the best, most innovative products ever designed. I used an Iphone for years, and I liked it, but it wasn't at all innovative, one could do more with an early Windows smart phone than you could do with an early Iphone, and it didn't work perfectly either. When I switched to an Android phone 6 months ago I was shocked to find that there were phones out there that were actually better in every way than an Iphone, but the real eye opener was the fact that the Android system was available to anyone, and free from controls from Google.

I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.
post #38 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

If this is accurate, it's a ridiculous move by Apple.

However, Apple's PR has responded to questions about App Store policy with falsehoods before (or has been reported as such, at least), so I'm not entirely convinced yet.

The problem is the T&C of the store are written in legaleses, and as such definite people can read them and come to different conclusion depending on their slant or what they hope it to say. Some time it written very clearly and other it vague and broad so the writer and interrupt how they like. Just because someone said the Read the agreement and said it said this does not mean it legally means that.
post #39 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Sure, Apple will be successful even if they drive these services out of iOS. It would be a very big disappointment as a customer, thoughand that's quite upsetting.

if Apple decide to sell iTune content through Amazon store, would not Amazon demand a cut of the proceed, 6-25% as stated by Amazon's policy?

So what's so surprising about Apple demanding sellers in its market not circumventing their policy?
post #40 of 399
This is totally unfair to Sony, because Amazon and B&N don't have to play by these same rules, and that will bring extra development cost to Sony. This is definitely a change in Apple's policy, regardless of what Apple claims. Ridiculous.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store