WSJ, Amazon, Google, Kobo iOS apps affected by Apple's direct sales rules - Page 3

The full Amazon website looks "great?" I wasn't aware it looked good on anything, let alone an iPad.

I find it hard to even think of a more confusing, craptastic, chock-full of ads & BS web site in existence than Amazon. Amazon is the MySpace of commerce websites.

Often I disagree with you Professor, but on this I can only add - Amen brother.

Of course you can freeload, if you saddle Apple with all the distribution costs and none of the revenue. Apple may not expect a big profit on the App Store, but it certainly doesn't want to make a loss.

As for the 'adds value' argument, that's great - try that argument with Amazon and see if they'll let you launch a rival eBook service on the kindle. Apple adds at least as much value to Amazon by providing a huge base of potential eBook customers as Amazon adds to Apple in providing content.

Considering how picayune this restriction is from Apple people are making a ridiculously big deal.

Hmm - are you sure? I know that a lot of claims were ruled invalid in 2007, but Amazon then was able to rephrase them and have them reinstated. The last I heard it was settled and the somewhat modified but still idiotic patent still stood.

Yap, I didn't forgot

Is there a point to this post ??? .... I can hardly wait.

I don't think some people get how higher percentage 30% is for what is essentially a payment gateway. The usual price is around 2.5%!

You also have to remember the app owner is also going to pay out around 20% in tax on these purchases so they only recieve 50% of the selling price. So if you consider the app owner should recieve more than Apple, lets say they get 40% as their profit that means the unit cost has to be around 10% of the selling price. Are you ok paying a 90% markup on products?

Can you explain me how an item sold through Safari is revenue owed by Apple?

This is my post, they no free riding if Safari is used.

Don't confuse credit card transaction fees with "shelf space" in a store that has over 100 million credit approved customers who fall into the "right sales demographic".

Are you really so dense that you cannot tell the difference between a web browser (safari) and an online store (appstore) .... please, say it isn't so .... you're just pretending, right?

Otherwise, Gwydion .... meet Alan Greenspan.

Are you really so dense taht you cannot tell the difference between IAP and using a browser.

Amazon, B&N, Spotify weren't using IAP, they were using a browser.
And stop insulting, please, but I suppose is easy when you're behind a computer.

The Kindle app is 8.2MB in size. What do you think the distributions costs are for that? Maybe 10 cents a download and I'm probably be massively generous with that amount. Amazon would be happy to host the Kindle app on their own site, but that's not allowed for iOS devices. Does the Kindle add 10 cents of value to iOS devices?


That's a ridiculous argument considering that the Kindle device is a single purpose device that derive much of their real value via sales of eBooks. That's hardly comparable to an iOS device where the real value to Apple is simply in the device being sold.


I'm pretty sure the number of registered Amazon.com accounts vastly outnumbers iTunes accounts. Amazon doesn't need Apple. Further, Amazon could never afford to support in-app purchases since 30% is the entire profit of the eBook. At which point it's Apple freeloading off of Amazon since Amazon has to handle those distribution costs you value so much.

You're assuming that this change was aimed at Amazon/B&N etc, but I don't think that's likely. The content sellers while important are actually an edge-case here and they're barely impacted by the change because anybody downloading their app already knows about their content store on the web.

However the creator of a freemium game could indeed free-ride using safari because all he has to distribute from his web-store is his in-game currency/special items. All the big data delivery is being done by Apple, all he has to do is distribute a few unlock codes.

Now a freemium game is far likelier to be discovered from within the App Store, so this rule change is likely to impact them significantly and result in them moving their sales of magic peach trees or whatever into IAP.

Oh and for those who think that Apple's 30% is unreasonable, get a load of Amazon's commission structure - it's far worse.

Developers would still get to say what theyd like to sell their application for, an MSRP if you will. But Amazon does not guarantee thats what its customers will pay. Instead, the retailer may choose to sell the app at a discount just like Amazon does for other items on its site or even give it away for free.

The developer would receive 70% of the selling price, or 20% of the MSRP, whichever is greater. So for example if a developer wants $5 for his or her app, but Amazon sells it for $3, the developer gets $2.10. If Amazon decides it wants to charge nothing for it for whatever reason, the commission drops to $1

Not only does Amazon keep 30%, they can also discount your app without your agreement!

http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/7052...for-developers

If even John Gruber is negative about this move (http://bit.ly/oSo51h), Apple really needs to rethink this.

And I agree with you in this case

Fixed that for you

Post reported. Although, AI doesn't seem to be interested in ad hominens defending APple.

Anyway, he is hardly "that dense". As has been pointed out to you about 100 times, the Kindle app store runs in safari. That is still the case. It doesn't need Apple's credit card transactions. There is no "shelf" space issue, either. The only Apple related shelf space is the App Store which vends apps. In this case thefree Kindle app store, hosted in Safari vends books. Once downloaded Apple should get nothing, unless people want to use IAP.

The content within any app is their own "store", similar to the iTunes store on a windows machine. . There is absolutely no difference, except that Apple force apps on the iPad to be sold through the app store.

I know the counter argument is that the iPad is not an OS. Thats an argument not made that much when we are trying to work out where iOS is compared to Android, or windows, or if Apple 's OS PC market share is being calculated to include the iPad. In that case a lot of people suggest that we could iPad as a computer and work out Apple's computer share using iPad figures.

You are comparing a paid app, with a free retailer app. For a standard paid for app, it is totally legitimate to demand payment for hosting, credit cards etx; however Apple have decided to allow free apps be costless for the app provider. 30% is not insignificant either - Amazon's margins are 30% which leaves it with a profit of 0%. Its a reseller not a creator of content. It needs to pay the content providers.

The Kindle app can handle it's own retail and credit card transactions, and does that now. It used to direct to Safari. Now you have to go there.

For that reason - and the fact that iAP allows only about 999 different product ids - Kindle was never going to get an iAP button. However Apple have managed to reduce the Kindle app's functionality, in order to promote their own (inferior) product. Result: misery. 1 star reviews. An agry Gruber. About the only defenders are the Apple can do no wrong cabal of AI, but here is 0.001% of Apple's market.

I suppose it could be argued that the new Kindle Amazon Tablet will not have iBooks. True. However Apple may be cutting off their nose to spite their face here. If Amazon advertises that their Android Tablet is fully functional with a Kindle app which allows you to buy inside the app - and points out that Apple prohibits this is the iPad, it will not work in Apple's long term favour.

Will the Amazon tablet have iBooks? We will never know, since Apple does not write apps for other companies' platforms (with the exception of iTunes for Windows - any others?). Otherwise, it would have been a way cool scenario to watch from the sidelines. Would Amazon block or handicap the iBooks app? Would they even allow it? Alas, we will never see this one battle materialize.

But then, this may be Apple's rationale - I don't bring my dog onto your lawn; so ....

No, I'm saying that the 30% in general isn't onerous. Would it be reasonable for content resellers? No it wouldn't, but Apple stepped back from requiring Amazon to sell their content on IAP. All that is required now is that the user be able to bring up safari. For content creators 30% is reasonable.


Misery? People have to open safari and select a bookmark? Oh the humanity! Won't somebody think of the children? Seriously people give 1 star app reviews for any reason at all, which is the reason nobody in their right mind looks at the star rating anymore. My position is that Apple never aimed this at Kindle, if they wanted to drive Kindle off iOS they could have but they didn't. This lack of a link is less than a gnat bite. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - this policy isn't aimed at Kindle, it's aimed at things like freemium games or 'demo versions'. In those cases the App Distribution becomes in effect free advertising, and Apple isn't in the business of delivering that.


And Apple can point out that unlike Kindle they support multiple generic e-reader apps. Being tied to a single e-reader will not work in Amazon's long term favour. Sorry but 'we've got a button that brings up chrome' isn't deep integration or a huge selling point. If Amazon want to integrate better on iOS they could start with better support for collections, which I've found no way to organize on the iPhone reader. One of the few things that makes me consider iBooks is the ease of organizing shelves.

Who knows what they'll allow on their tablet but e-readers are not allowed on their limited 3rd party app support for Kindle. Hmm, other software Apple provides for non-Apple platform - Safari & Quicktime I guess would be the only ones.

So far I have yet to see anything that indicates Apple is serious about iBooks. The prices are uncompetitive with Kindle, the selection is smaller, the device support is less. Personally I don't think iBooks is intended as a Kindle killer. I think it's intended as a warning shot across Amazon's bow, and as a way to ensure that Amazon doesn't pull kindle support from iOS.

Does AI care about ad hominems at all? Serious question - I've seen so much of it here in threads which had forum moderators active (though they weren't the culprits they must have seen it) that I just assumed that it had to get pretty hot for one to step in.

I've been infracted, for calling a poster with the pseudonym brainless brainless. I thought that a bit rough. Its like calling me asdasd. And once for using the f word. That was fair enough.


Maybe, if so Apple can now go back and make deals with certain providers to get revenue from a link within the provider's app, and exclude the majority of cases. Large providers have the technology, it's called a referral fee. The buying is still done on the Kindle Safari store, but a referral link ( possibly with a special apple rate attached) is run in Safari when a button is clicked on the app, and then re-directs to the purchasing page. Amazon then pays a percentage of the profits, and gets to set it's prices as it does now. Apple gets 30% of profit, of $1 for a free book etc.

Well, I have received an infraction for saying "Are you more than 7?" to a person and I don't think is very hot :P

That's priceless


I think the App Store model is still a work in progress. A referral button would make sense, but how much would Apple charge for it? Arguably it would be a static advert in the App so should be charged at similar rates to their advertising commission. Amazon would probably prefer to just direct consumers via alternative means.

The fact is that for all the sturm und drang this isn't going to impact Amazon at all and it isn't going to seriously worsen the experience of buying a kindle book on the iPhone or iPad. The unpleasant part of that process is dealing with Amazon's web-page and that's not going to change.

Firstly, the "kindle app store" doesn't "run in safari" ...... nor is the "kindle app store" 'hosted in safari' .... the kindle app, as all of the other apps, reside in Apple's app store and were then being linked to the "kindle store" via a web browser. You seem to be missing a link understanding, so here is kindle's own explanation, not that it will do you or Gwidion any good, because it is clear to me that you don't want to understand. Now the question is ..... why ???

"In order to comply with recent policy changes by Apple, weve also removed the Kindle Store link from within the app that opened Safari and took you to the Kindle Store. You can still shop as you always have - just open Safari and go to www.amazon.com/kindlestore. If you want, you can bookmark that URL. Your Kindle books will be delivered automatically to your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, just as before."

As a special favor to Gwidion, please note that when any web browser (including safari, chrome, firefox, whoever) sends you to anyone's store to buy .... Apple receives no commission, has not asked for any, nor should they ..... as long as they don't try to go from the Apple app store first. .... the kindle people get this .... why can't you ????

Kindle people understand that Apple has banned any link, nothing more

Kindle is forced to get it. There was no link from the "Apple app store" to Safari. The link was from the Kindle app, which was on the iPad, and therefore off the App Store.

I think they sell as many or more Kindle books on iPads as they do on Kindle devices.

As a side note, I hope apple ultimately re-thinks this I'll-conceived rule. I understand their logic, but it is bad for users.

I would think that everyone would agree, regardless of their personal belief of the rights/wrongs/morals of this decision, that the outcome for an iDevice owner is a poorer user experience.

There, fixed that for you.

Thanks, it still make my point, not yours.

There is a fairly simple work-around to this.
Since the Kindle store button just took you to the web site, it is a simple matter of going to the website and hitting the "Add to Home Screen" button.
I did this, and placed the resulting icon next to my Kindle App.
This goes to show that Apple does not really achieve anything with this move, other than to make life more difficult for us, the consumers.
We have not seen the end to this issue.

Use iBooks

This is way too simplified. Any of these companies already have fixed costs maintaining a presence elsewhere. This does not change. They do have costs involved developing and maintaining an app. Credit card fees are usually 2.5-3.5% or so. All or most of these retailers do have their own sites as well. 30% is a pretty significant fee to any retailer. I'm not sure many of them can just afford to eat it rather than increase their pricing to compensate. You aren't just accepting a drastically reduced margin on sales you wouldn't otherwise receive. It will displace some existing sales opportunities especially if people continue to become used to the convenience factor.

Post reported. Actually I think you should be banned. You barely understand simple remedial concepts ( in what sense can the Kindle app link from the "app store" - it doesn't run on the app store. Are you confusing the app store with iOS?).

Not being able to understand simple concepts and engaging in ad hominems is lowering the standard of debate here.