Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store - Page 5

When I sell products through Amazon or eBay, they definitely take their cut. This is no different.

Amazon is not selling books through Apple Store

The question is, what proportion of those sales came from the iPad?

C.

You sell products through Amazon, or eBay and they take their cut because they are providing a service, which involves cataloging and distribution, credit card fees etc.

Amazon can do all that. They dont need Apple. They dont need the App Store.

How do we know this.

we know this, because on Kindle.app ( on all devices) they handle your credit card, the digital storage, the distribution, the download costs and everything else when you are redirected to their website.

How will this change with in-app purchasing?

It wont.

There will be an extra step. Kindle will be forced to use Apple's in-app purchasing. All that means is that the app presents a dialog ( using a framework called storekit) and takes the users details. StoreKit then tells the kindle app whether the transaction failed, succeeded, or was canceled.

It helps with no UI.

Then the Kindle app has to call their webservice to talk to the server which handles the thedigital storage, the distribution, the download costs and everything else. It downloads from Amazon's server.

The 30% is for the credit card transaction. The app store stores no content. It doesnt own this content to sell. It downloads no content. That happens from Amazon's servers. It does some credit card transactions which Amazon are pretty good at. ( And if Apple want to make it seamless for Kindle and everybody else so we have one password for everything they can port KeyChain to iOS).

This is theft. Pure and simple.

The cost, if passed onto the iPad user ( and Amazon might as well) will be 43% extra.

Good luck with that one.

Kindle could easily embed their store in the app, or (less easily) re-do the store UI in-app as native code and handle their own credit card transactions. That is banned under App Store rules.

Calm down dear.

Of course they don't need any sales at all.

But they very much like the additional sales they are getting from Apple devices.

So, how much is that worth to Amazon?


C.

This post deserves repeating.
I'm going with "d" as my answer.

What you fail to understand is, Apple will do what APPLE think is the best value proposition for all parties involved, not you the consumer, not Amazon/Sony the providers, but APPLE. You may find it strange, or believe it's unsustainable in the long term, but that doesn't mean Apple is wrong. You don't know how Amazon and Sony and etc. operate, and what their profit margins are, and also what incentives they might come up to minimize impact of this change, so you have no idea what they will do in the future.

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

I would never have bought an Ipad (actually two) if it hadn't been for the kindle reader.

I am looking forward to ipad2, but if the kindle reader is affected by this nonsense, then I will start looking at some other brand of tablet.

Why should apple get any direct benefit from someone's app being popular? Apple gets hardware sales out of the deal. You are allowing yourself to be brainwashed into believing that Apple has some moral right to continuous revenue streams for everything.

If Apple changes the value proposition of their product to the point where customers don't think it's worth spending $XXX on, then they won't buy it. That hurts Apple too. That's how the free market works.

Bad Apple rears it's very ugly head again. So if I understand this correctly, the Kindle app will be required to give the user two options - buy from the Amazon web page at Amazon prices, or buy from an in-app store with 30% higher prices just so Apple can steal some money from something which doesn't concern them in the slightest.

It's nauseating stuff and I really hope some sort of regulatory body steps in and gives Apple a thoroughly good slapping for it. Microsoft wouldn't be able to behave like this anymore so Apple shouldn't be allowed to either. Play fair Apple, once an iPad is sold it belongs to the user, not to you. So keep your filthy hands off it.

It seems I need to repeat the question:

Is Amazon capable of distributing the same volume of that Kindle app through their own systems without involving Apple at all? Why or why not?

But you aren't going to be affected, unless Amazon choose to withdraw it.

Apple isn't going to get anything, if Amazon can find incentive for customers to continue use their own web store front.

If people choose to use in-app payment system for some reason, it's still the choice of consumer. Which is actually the great thing, is it not?

That's not the point being made. Kindle already have a successful Kindle App. All the purchasing is done externally from the App. Why does Apple now need to be involved in this process? Perhaps more importantly, why are the now suddenly construing the full ambit of the clause in question?

The fact they haven't exercised their rights under the agreement is interesting, if the right was there all along (Apple are assuming it must have been because they haven't changed the agreement, but have stated they are enforcing it). At what point can a person who has entered a contract with Apple say: you have never relied on this clause before, and you haven't for some time. Why are you now enforcing the contract after letting innumerate apps on the apps store which are no longer (and arguably, never) were compliant with the developer agreement? At what stage can a developer claim an estoppel on Apple?

When sales figure reflects that, then Apple will change course. If they can't change fast enough, they go back been the Apple of the 90's. That's how free market works.

As for now, if sony/Amazon wants to be on a popular platform, they have to pay. That's how free market works too.

Why should Sony benefit from someone else's game being popular?
How about Microsoft and XBox games?
How about Amazon and it's Kindle device being closed to all, and allowing Amazon to profit from other people's successful books.

Were you asleep, or did you not notice that this is how all electronics companies make money these days?

C.

Yes, Amazon can distribute ALL the content on iTunes (apps, music, video) withouth any problem

Oh Amazon will certainly withdraw Kindle if the 30% level is maintained. They can sell on many devices, rather than one with no margins for them unless they increase costs by 43%.

(we may get new pricing models tomorrow).

Is anyone forcing you to use App store? For god sake, jailbreak if you have to.

You don't understand this correctly. As usual, you have it wrong. (It happens so often with you, one might almost think it was intentional.) No one is dictating to Amazon or Sony or Barnes & Noble that they must charge more for books bought through in-app purchasing.

And like I said, if Apple decides it doesn't want to confuse the idiot consumer by allowing a price differential between in-app and external purchases, then ALL prices will go up. They have to, as Apple is charging 30% for what is essentially a payment service.

I'm kind of keen on that idea. Are you?

They are not capable of delivering content into the curated part of the iPad.
Not without Apple's consent.

Just as Apple are not capable of delivering iBooks onto the Kindle reader without Amazon's cooperation.

C.

Apple is gaining by the popularity of the Kindle app. Amazon has given them an app which was developed for free, and handles downloads of the biggest library of digital e-books in the world. A position not likely to be challenged anytime soon. This has driven hardware sales.

If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.

It's not just a payment service, it's easy access to a large and growing customer base. Anyway, there are plenty of methods to get your kindle books on an iPad if you want to avoid app store. If Amazon can't make that distinct to the customers, then they are too stupid to deserve that 30% anyway.

Calm down!
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.

This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.

C.

Its worth a lot more to Apple. I wouldn't have an iPad, and I wont have another one, if Kindle is on an Android tablet and not on the iPad. Thats because I own 35 books on the Kindle app. I might think about an Android phone as well ( although I rarely use the phone to read for obvious reasons).

And I have bought one non-Apple electronic product from a competitor in 15 years. And that was a cheap dell for games.

For that reason I think the 30% will not stand. Apple probably told their app testing teams to reject apps without app purchasing without telling them the new price structures. Thats for tomorrow's event.

If I am wrong, sell AAPL. Its as high as it is going to get.

Apple doesn't need to wait for the sales figures. All they have to do is look at the reaction here.


That sounds suspiciously like "if you want to do business in our neighborhood, you'll need to pay for our protection services."

Apple deserves to be paid only for the services which they actually provide to those who choose to use those services. Amazon, Sony, and many others do not need Apple's processing services and have chosen not to make use of them.

Let's put it another way.
"Microsoft has started enforcing a rule that any program that has access to a web sale MUST sell the items through Microsoft TakeOurCut, arguing the sale is only made thanks to its Windows Operating System."
AppleBoyz "ugh, Microsoft sucks, that's a scandal".
Same situation with Apple... Apple boyz: great, wonderful, great service. LOL.

Anyway, Apple will have to desist eventually, there is no way the Feds won't get in play now...
Think about it, they're in effect requiring companies to spend money implementing a feature those companies DO NOT need (since they have web stores), in order to make more money for Apple. Any company complying with these rules should be immediately hit with a lawsuit from their own shareholders for mismanagement...

Carnaphage is right, but you are too except for the first sentence and last paragraph. If apples policies drive customers to the competition, that's business. If masses of people switch apple will likely have to change or suffer the consequences.

This is besides the point. The App Store is the only way to get an app onto apple's iOS devices. If you could buy an app from a 3rd party and put it on your iOS device then it wouldn't effect apple... they wouldn't have store it, market for it, etc. But you cannot install anything other then App Store apps on iOS. So by definition, EVERYTHING goes through apple, even if apple has nothing to do with it (eg the Sony store).

Besides, if you make your app free then why is the app profiting from the app store, other then the storage on apple's servers? Is overhead really worth 30%?

Anyway, so long as apple doesn't kill VIEWING stuff from 3rd party stores on iOS, then I don't think it matters all that much. If you have bought or you are buying stuff from amazon then likely you have a kindle already, and same goes for sony. So long as you can view your bought stuff on iOS (no matter where you bought it from) then it doesn't matter for most people.

Actually, that's even worse. That's selling an inexistent service by force: locking the device up and making people pay for the right to code for it was bad, but it's at least backed up by the decisive security it enforces. so, fine. Taking a cut on any sale that goes through it starts getting overboard.

It's about the same as saying that Nikon should have a cut on any picture taken with a Nikon camera...

They already have access to that customer base by virtue of the App itself.


I quite like the idea of a dialog box in the Sony eReader App:

"We have to give you the option to buy this book through In App Purchasing. It will cost $15 that way. Otherwise, you can go to our website and buy it for $9
[In-App Purchase] [Sony.com website]"

I think that would make it distinct enough.

This is way different. It's like if Firefox took a cut on products you sell through Amazon.

It might be a negotiation, but a better way to negotiate would be to mention to devs - in a press release - that this was going to happen rather than start to fail app submissions without changing the guidelines ( and later when that blows up claiming that you have changed the guidelines when nothing changed).

I mean, this is total incompetence if nothing else.

Also, cut out the calm down nonsense. I am typing in cold blood. Apple have finally pissed me off, if this 30% fee holds I leave the platform for good. I say that, calmly.

Why does everyone keep going on about 30%?

I suspect for an entity like Amazon, shoving hundreds of millions of dollars of product, Apple would be happy with a much lower percentage.

This is the beginning of an entirely new chapter in print publishing. And Apple needs to get their house in order.

C.

It's just a negotiation.

Business is war.

C.

Just to throw this in there. Amazon's margins are very very low.

from RTE.


The company posted a slight dip in operating profit for the Christmas fourth quarter as revenues rose 36%, signaling the high cost of keeping competitive in the highly promotional retail environment. Fourth-quarter operating margin declined to 3.7% from 5% a year earlier.

Digital books have better margins, but they are cheap for a reason.

Clearly Amazon cant afford this.

I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.

Illegal? Anyway, clearly breaks your warranty, so your solution is not one.

Oh lets see. We are going on about the 30% because that is what Apple now charges. The rest is speculation.

Even if Apple change that figure tomorrow this is still an unholy cockup. Apps have been rejected all week based on these new guidelines which were never broadcast to anyone nor in fact was the wording even changed, and a major developer - Sony - has pulled it's app already.

A circus. Muppets. The best executing company in the World better get it's app store submission process under control, properly documented, transparent and fair.