or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Amazon Kindle Cloud Reader uses Safari to bypass Apple's App Store rules
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amazon Kindle Cloud Reader uses Safari to bypass Apple's App Store rules

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
After changes to Apple's App Store policies prompted Amazon to remove a link from its Kindle application to buy new books, the online retailer has launched a new browser-based "Cloud Reader."

The Kindle Cloud Reader works in the Mobile Safari Web browser on an iPad running iOS 4 and up. It's also compatible with Apple's Safari browser on Mac and PC, as well as Google Chrome across a range of devices.

The new Web application allows users to read their Kindle books, and also includes links allowing users to purchase and download new books. Users can also enable an offline mode that allows titles to be read when a connection is not available.

The "Buy Once, Read Everywhere" Kindle Cloud Reader is highlighted by Amazon as having the following features:
post #2 of 59
It's very well implemented, well done Amazon!

Apple is welcome to their 30%, it is their store after all. Having said that they need to look at their rules, how is someone like Amazon supposed to implement the 30% rule across millions of books that all have different price points!

Now if only some nice jailbreaker could work out a way to add the store link back to Kindle apps.....
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #3 of 59
No Firefox?

EditL Wow! and who said Kindle books are cheaper than iBooks? I just check Game of Thrones on Kindle and it's a buck more than mine.
Edit again: A Clash of Kings is also more expensive than in iBook store.
post #4 of 59
I can't believe how well this works. It really does feel like a native app.

Kudos to Amazon.

I wonder how many others will follow this route.
post #5 of 59
I don't like the verbiage in these stories about web apps "bypassing" Apple, Apple has always been in favor of web applications for the iPhone and later iPad, they put their store's rules in place and encouraged people to take the development path that best suited them. Now, that said, I don't agree with a lot of the rules so, I love stuff like this.
post #6 of 59
Queue outraged stock holders bleating about being cheated.
.
In
.
3
.
2
.
1
post #7 of 59
Why is this being reported everywhere as a "bypass", or some way of cheating the system. Web Apps were core to iPhone prior to the App Store, and though they've taken a bit of a back seat they're very much alive and kicking.
post #8 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

No Firefox?

I may be wrong here, but Chrome and Safari are both webkit based so I would assume it relies on some webkit html 5 implementations that firefox just doesn't have yet. Same probably goes for the lack of IE support too.
post #9 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iandanger View Post

I don't like the verbiage in these stories about web apps "bypassing" Apple, Apple has always been in favor of web applications for the iPhone and later iPad, they put their store's rules in place and encouraged people to take the development path that best suited them. Now, that said, I don't agree with a lot of the rules so, I love stuff like this.

Buy a native app and increase your lock-in into iOS (the money would be lost if switching to a different platform), use a web-app and no lock-in exists. That is why Apple prefers native apps. Naturally, for free apps this lock-in does not apply but some apps can switch their business model from paid app to free app + some sort of 'in-app' purchase. Those are the apps Apple would be loth to lose by them converting to web-apps.
The other element is the general platform appeal, any web app is immediately available to all 'tablet' devices (more or less), native apps will first appear on the most popular platform, ie, for iPads, web apps will erode that advantage.
post #10 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

Web Apps were core to iPhone while the App Store SDK was not yet ready

Here, corrected it for you.
post #11 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcM76 View Post

I may be wrong here, but Chrome and Safari are both webkit based so I would assume it relies on some webkit html 5 implementations that safari just doesn't have yet. Same probably goes for the lack of IE support too.

Ah I see. And I thought Firefox (4 up) is fully compliant with HTML5.
post #12 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Ah I see. And I thought Firefox (4 up) is fully complaint with HTML5.

I have some full complaints about Firefox, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #13 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Here, corrected it for you.

Nonsense! Web app is fully supported on all iOS devices.
post #14 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I have some full complaints about Firefox, that's for sure.

Sorry. Typed too quick.
post #15 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Nonsense! Web app is fully supported on all iOS devices.

Does 'supported' not mean what I used to think it meant?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #16 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Does 'supported' not mean what I used to think it meant?


Yeah, it's really weird. Noticed the "Download.. Safari below"
Does it just work on iPad?

Edit: I see it only works on iPad. So it's Amazon restriction?
post #17 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

any web app is immediately available to all 'tablet' devices (more or less), native apps will first appear on the most popular platform, ie, for iPads, web apps will erode that advantage.

and by all tablet devices, you of course mean iPad only.

Sorry, but making a web-app does not mean you're not locked into a single platform. Remember all the "web-apps" that would only run on IE6 on Windows?

In fact, even this web-app seems to be locked into WebKit.

Web-apps may be able to replace some apps, but certainly not all apps, especially those that need access to system resources.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #18 of 59
How long until apple decides that html5 uses too much battery and drops it

in favor of an apple proprietary language that can't be used to make web apps.
post #19 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

How long until apple decides that html5 uses too much battery and drops it

in favor of an apple proprietary language that can't be used to make web apps.

And how can Apple or other company blovk HTML?
post #20 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

How long until apple decides that html5 uses too much battery and drops it

in favor of an apple proprietary language that can't be used to make web apps.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

How long until apple decides that html5 uses too much battery and drops it

in favor of an apple proprietary language that can't be used to make web apps.

Heard a rumor of Apple banning Safari on iPad3.
post #22 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Queue outraged stock holders bleating about being cheated.
.
In
.
3
.
2
.
1


So far your off by an hour.

This is a well done app and shows the power of the web apps on iOS. A fully supported application platform developed by Apple...
post #23 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Buy a native app and increase your lock-in into iOS (the money would be lost if switching to a different platform), use a web-app and no lock-in exists. That is why Apple prefers native apps.

First of all, the developer creates the lock-in not Apple... If a developer wanted, they could give their users a free version for other platforms if the user switched platforms.

Apple prefers native apps, because they provide for a better user experience and make more efficient use of system resources. Plain and simple.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #24 of 59
deleted
post #25 of 59
Nice job. I"m an Apple fanboy, but iBooks doesn't hold a candle to Kindle. This Web-based implementation is sweet!
post #26 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Buy a native app and increase your lock-in into iOS (the money would be lost if switching to a different platform), use a web-app and no lock-in exists. That is why Apple prefers native apps. Naturally, for free apps this lock-in does not apply but some apps can switch their business model from paid app to free app + some sort of 'in-app' purchase. Those are the apps Apple would be loth to lose by them converting to web-apps.
The other element is the general platform appeal, any web app is immediately available to all 'tablet' devices (more or less), native apps will first appear on the most popular platform, ie, for iPads, web apps will erode that advantage.


You haters just don't get it. Apple created the Web Apps for the iPhone first. This is how they wanted to do apps because it was more secure than giving native access to the phone. Everyone complained so they invested a ton of cash into creating the app store. Then they marketed the hell out of it. It worked and became an immediate success. Apple would prefer competitors like amazon use web apps. If they are on the if they want to use Apples marketing they pay 30% or offer the the product for free. In the case of amazon the product is ebooks, not the free app. Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. Apple doesn't care if you buy from then or Amazon on your IOS device. They just want to insure that anyone using their ad dollars is paying their part to increase the platform to take from it.
post #27 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

You haters just don't get it. Apple created the Web Apps for the iPhone first. This is how they wanted to do apps because it was more secure than giving native access to the phone. Everyone complained so they invested a ton of cash into creating the app store. Then they marketed the hell out of it. It worked and became an immediate success. Apple would prefer competitors like amazon use web apps. If they are on the if they want to use Apples marketing they pay 30% or offer the the product for free. In the case of amazon the product is ebooks, not the free app. Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. Apple doesn't care if you buy from then or Amazon on your IOS device. They just want to insure that anyone using their ad dollars is paying their part to increase the platform to take from it.

I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
post #28 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Queue outraged stock holders bleating about being cheated.
.
In
.
3
.
2
.
1

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Heard a rumor of Apple banning Safari on iPad3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.

The trolls are out in force on this one. I know a lot of you have trouble wrapping your heads around simple concepts, but lets review.

The App Store/SDK, one of Apples iOS application platforms, runs on a revenue sharing basis. Thirty percent, is, as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.

The other iOS application platform, Safari/WebKit is an entirely open platform for which no developer agreement or revenue sharing is required, and which you are encouraged to use as an alternative to the App Store/SDK when it better suits your purposes.

See, it's very simple, so, read, comprehend, don't look foolish.
post #29 of 59
ROFL Apple got own at is own game and to top it off it's in HTML5 code. Maybe we will see the birth of a different "appstore" on ios devices.

Very clever move by Amazon.
post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.

The going rate is 30/40 freaking percent to resell items in retail. If you buy retail you pay 100 freaking percent and the store keeps the 30/40 percent that they have to use to pay employees, rent, insurance, lawyers, etc. This is the AMERICAN AND WORLDLY WAY MY FRIEND.

If Amazon wants to add to its sales and expand its eyeballs... there is no free lunch. I think Apple is fair in their percent scheme. Very similar to the rest of the WWW.
post #31 of 59
[QUOTE=genovelle;1918275]Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. [QUOTE]

Actually Barns and Nobles would let you setup a table in the middle of their store to sell books from another bookstore - if they're allowed to get a big enough cut out of it. The problem right now is that Apple is not getting a cut at all out of the other companies using the App Store. Now 30% is likely too much for a lot of stuffs so Apple just have to figure out a way, right now a flat 30% is simple to implement but doesn't make sense to be applied to everything. They need to start offering different kinds of packages (e.g. for ebooks they charge like 3-5% of the sale price of each ebook, separated from App sales).
post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardLiquer View Post

The going rate is 30/40 freaking percent to resell items in retail. If you buy retail you pay 100 freaking percent and the store keeps the 30/40 percent that they have to use to pay employees, rent, insurance, lawyers, etc. This is the AMERICAN AND WORLDLY WAY MY FRIEND.

The expenses to sell hardware on retail is not in the same league of the expenses to sell eThings online. 30% is a rip off for resellers of content like Kindle, netflix, hulu, and its very expensive even for authors.
post #33 of 59
I saw this the other day. I don't think we are there just yet but this does seem to be the direction we are heading.

post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.

Yes we have already argued it. The most reasonable and knowledgeable contributors to the argument made the case that it was actually quite reasonable for an electronic distribution model when the chain follows as such... publisher - Apple - Subscriber. It turned out to be less of a deal for Amazon and others when the chain was publisher - Amazon - Apple - User. In this case there was an extra middle man in the chain. I don't believe Apple ever intended to provide and infrastructure for companies like Amazon, hence the reason they supported web Apps from the beginning. Wb Apps make it easy for companies with their own infrastructure to "sell their wares" and not have to rely on Apple. Conversely, the App store is generally for smaller companies that don't necessarily have their own infrastructure (ecommerce, marketing etc) hence; revenue sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

ROFL Apple got own at is own game and to top it off it's in HTML5 code. Maybe we will see the birth of a different "appstore" on ios devices.

Very clever move by Amazon.

Don't open your mouth again until you learn what's going on.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #35 of 59
[QUOTE=drobforever;1918313][QUOTE=genovelle;1918275]Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing.
Quote:

so Apple just have to figure out a way, right now a flat 30% is simple to implement but doesn't make sense to be applied to everything. They need to start offering different kinds of packages (e.g. for ebooks they charge like 3-5% of the sale price of each ebook, separated from App sales).

Agreed, the cost for selling a 1 gig movie is not the same has selling a 20k book. The two should not have the same % cut.
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Don't open your mouth again until you learn what's going on.

Hodor !?
post #37 of 59
Any idea why this does work in the mobile safari on iPhone?
post #38 of 59
I like this move by Amazon. It shows that you can have an app in the store and still maintain your sell margins even playing within Apple's rules. ( I sure Apple will find a way to kill this however )....

The best part of the Amazon store is that you can read books across diffferent platforms. The Apple stuff only works on Apple hardware. Well over 1/2 of the word is on Other platforms. That is why I use Zino over any of the Apple media as I have other hardware and it is nice to have a truly cross platform cloud. It is also why I sync everything through Google and will most likely not use iCloud.
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The App Store/SDK, one of Apples iOS application platforms, runs on a revenue sharing basis. Thirty percent, is, as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.


Sort of depends on the industry. Since there are no other iOS App Stores thus no competition, thirty percent would seem just low enough to keep people from feeling totally ripped off, but in the retail books industry the margins are much lower. There are all kinds of retail environments. I, for example mark up my vendors services 100% where as a grocery store only makes 1-2%. Banks charge 4-5% for many loans. I just don't get your comments 'as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.' as having any logical basis.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Any idea why this does work in the mobile safari on iPhone?

This is a strange part. Does it need to be coded differently between desktop and mobile browser?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Amazon Kindle Cloud Reader uses Safari to bypass Apple's App Store rules
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Amazon Kindle Cloud Reader uses Safari to bypass Apple's App Store rules