Really Apple? Come on. Don't hate on other digital stores. Just innovate. Think different. Lower your revenue sharing for digital content to 25%. Keep working those content deals in favor of the consumer and people will continue buying your hardware and will drive more sales to your digital storefronts. Don't screw this up!!!
If you have in-app purchasing that bypass Apple system then it will be rejected, period. "Out of" is irrelevant and is just speculated at the moment. There is no concrete evidence pointing this is one of the problem.
Quote:
[UPDATE: A representative of Sony's PR company wrote to tell me that the functionality of the rejected iPhone app is "essentially the same" as the Reader app for Android--which, like other companies' iPhone apps, launches a browser for book buying. I hope there's some explanation here other than Apple intentionally changing the rules that other e-reader apps have played by until now. We'll see. Maybe...]
This is a poor analogy. Cable, Satellite, and Netflix are content providers, you are paying them for the content they deliver to the device that you have already paid for. This is more like the company that made your television asking for a 30% cut from your cable company or Netflix for the privilege of delivering content to your television even though you bought it outright and the content delivery happens without any involvement from the TV manufacturer.
Cable, satellite, Netflix, etc., are most certainly NOT content providers. They are access providers. Content providers are the like of Warner Brothers, Disney, Universal, NBC, CBS, ABC, and etc.
Access providers charge money for providing you access to contents. Apple's app store work exactly the same way except they managed to charge the content providers instead of the consumers.
The only reason you find it hard to understand in this case is Apple is both hardware maker and the access provider. Think if DishNetwork makes your TV, and still charge you money to watch it, you may have the same confusion.
You haven't supplied any evidence of that. Nothing in the story indicates that this is anything other than a misunderstanding by the reporter.
Yup, the reporter did not quote Sony directly regarding 'out of app' purchases. The reporters words infered Sony told him that 'out of app' material is no longer usable. However there is the info ASDASD provided. Time will tell.
Cable, satellite, Netflix, etc., are most certainly NOT content providers. They are access providers. Content providers are the like of Warner Brothers, Disney, Universal, NBC, CBS, ABC, and etc.
Access providers charge money for providing you access to contents. Apple's app store work exactly the same way except they managed to charge the content providers instead of the consumers.
The only reason you find it hard to understand in this case is Apple is both hardware maker and the access provider. Think if DishNetwork makes your TV, and still charge you money to watch it, you may have the same confusion.
Rubbish, the rights are agreed between the content providers and the content owners. Not Apple. Apple is skimming for no value.
Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.
You mean the article where the proof is 'Sony says so'
You can sit there all day and tell us that Apple rejected your app For whatever reason and could lying about even making an app. Why would you do that, cause you enjoy making Apple look bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by depannist
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.
Apple doesn't have to wait. The rule is they can pull whenever they want, if there is cause
Well if that's the case then it's really simple, isn't it? Someone just post the rule saying "out of" purchasing is now prohibited then we're all done.
Nothing in this thread proves the opposite despite the over-eager defence of Apple.
...
Apple's resounding success with the consumer tells the story better than self-serving pundits partnering with frustrated one-shot wonders Ã* la Sony do. The former has quality written all over it. The latter carries water for hidden agendas.
I do enjoy listening to a good story, especially when I feel like being the central character in its unfolding plot line. Apple carries my own story spanning twenty years of increasing productivity. No Stockholm Syndrome, no Google, no Sony, nor any other free rider for me; in no way would I plead with the truth abuser to grant me facts amnesia in return for subservience and my scamming duplicity.
It comes down to a very simple proposition: you always give the benefit of the doubt to whom has deserved it. Apple scratched my back over the years, I gladly scratch theirs even without 20/20 vision. With all due respect, your "drama queen" soliloquy is to me a non sequitur, and pure Blog entertainment.
You mean the article where the proof is 'Sony says so'
Yes, and their following update.
I am not getting the conspiracy story. Because it means that Sony were spending money on an iPhone app, and designed a website, just to embarrass Apple.
Besides all that I have an email which proves the point. But nobody is going to believe that and I cannot post it.
Apple's resounding success with the consumer tells the story better than self-serving pundits partnering with frustrated one-shot wonders Ã* la Sony do. The former has quality written all over it. The latter carries water for hidden agendas.
I do enjoy listening to a good story, especially when I feel like being the central character in its unfolding plot line. Apple carries my own story spanning twenty years of increasing productivity. No Stockholm Syndrome, no Google, no Sony, nor any other free rider for me; in no way would I plead with the truth abuser to grant me facts amnesia in return for subservience and my scamming duplicity.
It comes down to a very simple proposition: you always give the benefit of the doubt to whom has deserved it. Apple scratched my back over the years, I gladly scratch theirs even without 20/20 vision. With all due respect, your "drama queen" soliloquy is to me a non sequitur, and pure Blog entertainment.
And yet, Sony remain banned, and cant muster up the engineering talent to just add a link to their ( already designed ) website and remove their in-app version ( if they have one).
I was going to comment on this story, but realized that it's rather pointless since we don't really have any facts about anything involved. I'll just wait till the dust settles and see what's actually going on.
I was going to comment on this story, but realized that it's rather pointless since we don't really have any facts about anything involved. I'll just wait till the dust settles and see what's actually going on.
You just summed everything up nicely in a couple of sentences.
You assumed too much. Again, you should spend your time with what you know best rather than...
The Sony PR said the app was designed like the Android app, which exits the app to purchase.
WE have a screenshot (from the iPhone app) showing the purchasing in Safari.
As to why Sony would add to their iPhone app only a self designed in-app purchasing mechanism which would be in breach of the guidelines as they were then policed, I leave as an excercise to the user.
Comments
If you have in-app purchasing that bypass Apple system then it will be rejected, period. "Out of" is irrelevant and is just speculated at the moment. There is no concrete evidence pointing this is one of the problem.
[UPDATE: A representative of Sony's PR company wrote to tell me that the functionality of the rejected iPhone app is "essentially the same" as the Reader app for Android--which, like other companies' iPhone apps, launches a browser for book buying. I hope there's some explanation here other than Apple intentionally changing the rules that other e-reader apps have played by until now. We'll see. Maybe...]
http://technologizer.com/2011/01/31/sony-reader-iphone/
Except a screenshot of the Sony E-Reader with the store being visible in safari.
Huh? the guy just said the app had in-app and out of purchasing. Of course there will be screenshots with it in Safari.
The more you talked, the less you're making sense.
This is a poor analogy. Cable, Satellite, and Netflix are content providers, you are paying them for the content they deliver to the device that you have already paid for. This is more like the company that made your television asking for a 30% cut from your cable company or Netflix for the privilege of delivering content to your television even though you bought it outright and the content delivery happens without any involvement from the TV manufacturer.
Cable, satellite, Netflix, etc., are most certainly NOT content providers. They are access providers. Content providers are the like of Warner Brothers, Disney, Universal, NBC, CBS, ABC, and etc.
Access providers charge money for providing you access to contents. Apple's app store work exactly the same way except they managed to charge the content providers instead of the consumers.
The only reason you find it hard to understand in this case is Apple is both hardware maker and the access provider. Think if DishNetwork makes your TV, and still charge you money to watch it, you may have the same confusion.
the guy just said the app had in-app and out of purchasing.
Where did said that?
You haven't supplied any evidence of that. Nothing in the story indicates that this is anything other than a misunderstanding by the reporter.
Yup, the reporter did not quote Sony directly regarding 'out of app' purchases. The reporters words infered Sony told him that 'out of app' material is no longer usable. However there is the info ASDASD provided. Time will tell.
BTW, still looking for someone to post 11.2 text.
http://technologizer.com/2011/01/31/sony-reader-iphone/
What is "essentially the same"? Isn't it Sony who's making noise for this to be news in the first place.
Where did said that?
Checks post 177.
What is "essentially the same"? Isn't it Sony who's making noise for this to be news in the first place.
Essentially the same is essentially the same. If one app has in app purchases and the other not, they're not essentially the same
Cable, satellite, Netflix, etc., are most certainly NOT content providers. They are access providers. Content providers are the like of Warner Brothers, Disney, Universal, NBC, CBS, ABC, and etc.
Access providers charge money for providing you access to contents. Apple's app store work exactly the same way except they managed to charge the content providers instead of the consumers.
The only reason you find it hard to understand in this case is Apple is both hardware maker and the access provider. Think if DishNetwork makes your TV, and still charge you money to watch it, you may have the same confusion.
Rubbish, the rights are agreed between the content providers and the content owners. Not Apple. Apple is skimming for no value.
Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.
You mean the article where the proof is 'Sony says so'
You can sit there all day and tell us that Apple rejected your app For whatever reason and could lying about even making an app. Why would you do that, cause you enjoy making Apple look bad.
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.
Apple doesn't have to wait. The rule is they can pull whenever they want, if there is cause
Checks post 177.
Where Sony said it has in and out app purchases?
Where Sony said it has in and out app purchases?
Well if that's the case then it's really simple, isn't it? Someone just post the rule saying "out of" purchasing is now prohibited then we're all done.
Hurry!
The screaming is from the Apple defenders.
Nothing in this thread proves the opposite despite the over-eager defence of Apple.
...
Apple's resounding success with the consumer tells the story better than self-serving pundits partnering with frustrated one-shot wonders Ã* la Sony do. The former has quality written all over it. The latter carries water for hidden agendas.
I do enjoy listening to a good story, especially when I feel like being the central character in its unfolding plot line. Apple carries my own story spanning twenty years of increasing productivity. No Stockholm Syndrome, no Google, no Sony, nor any other free rider for me; in no way would I plead with the truth abuser to grant me facts amnesia in return for subservience and my scamming duplicity.
It comes down to a very simple proposition: you always give the benefit of the doubt to whom has deserved it. Apple scratched my back over the years, I gladly scratch theirs even without 20/20 vision. With all due respect, your "drama queen" soliloquy is to me a non sequitur, and pure Blog entertainment.
You mean the article where the proof is 'Sony says so'
Yes, and their following update.
I am not getting the conspiracy story. Because it means that Sony were spending money on an iPhone app, and designed a website, just to embarrass Apple.
Besides all that I have an email which proves the point. But nobody is going to believe that and I cannot post it.
Essentially the same is essentially the same. If one app has in app purchases and the other not, they're not essentially the same
You assumed too much. Again, you should spend your time with what you know best rather than...
Apple's resounding success with the consumer tells the story better than self-serving pundits partnering with frustrated one-shot wonders Ã* la Sony do. The former has quality written all over it. The latter carries water for hidden agendas.
I do enjoy listening to a good story, especially when I feel like being the central character in its unfolding plot line. Apple carries my own story spanning twenty years of increasing productivity. No Stockholm Syndrome, no Google, no Sony, nor any other free rider for me; in no way would I plead with the truth abuser to grant me facts amnesia in return for subservience and my scamming duplicity.
It comes down to a very simple proposition: you always give the benefit of the doubt to whom has deserved it. Apple scratched my back over the years, I gladly scratch theirs even without 20/20 vision. With all due respect, your "drama queen" soliloquy is to me a non sequitur, and pure Blog entertainment.
And yet, Sony remain banned, and cant muster up the engineering talent to just add a link to their ( already designed ) website and remove their in-app version ( if they have one).
Nope they ran to the press. Mad bastards.
Besides all that I know this is happening,
I was going to comment on this story, but realized that it's rather pointless since we don't really have any facts about anything involved. I'll just wait till the dust settles and see what's actually going on.
You just summed everything up nicely in a couple of sentences.
You assumed too much. Again, you should spend your time with what you know best rather than...
The Sony PR said the app was designed like the Android app, which exits the app to purchase.
WE have a screenshot (from the iPhone app) showing the purchasing in Safari.
As to why Sony would add to their iPhone app only a self designed in-app purchasing mechanism which would be in breach of the guidelines as they were then policed, I leave as an excercise to the user.
( hint: They didnt)