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)
Didn't someone call for you to post about the new rule a couple of pages ago yet you're still here playing with hint and assumption.
Come on. I want to know it so I can plan my purchases in advance.
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.
Yea it is confusing. They are saying that my Sony TV(bad choice) should be able to charge a fee to Comcast for Comcast cable sending content through the TV, but not to Time/Warner etc. That makes no sense. (think basic internet neutrality issues)
However, if Sony wants to charge Netflix a fee for hosting a Netflix app on the TV... and that fee was a % cut of revenue etc... well, they have the right. This is probably how Apple views it...$$$$(think premium content etc).
Muddled enough?
Competition, we (the consumers) need 'good' competition.
Right now this is of concern but of no reason to panic. If they start pulling already approved apps like kindle, nook, or google books, then it will be time to chastise them.
Agreed.
When people bought an iPad/iPhone they accepted the terms that Apple offered. Some users may not have understood the details pre-purchase, however, most on this forum were reasonably well informed prior to making their purchase.
The obvious restrictions with iOS devices are that they only allow certain file types, have no user accessible file system and require iTunes/App Store to transfer files to an from them. If you agree with that scenario then all is good with the Apple walled garden. If you decide that you no longer want to abide by Apple's rules, then you can jailbreak or buy a different device.
If Apple changes the rules and pisses off enough people then they will lose market share and mind share. The Apple think tank has already given due consideration to everything average joe user can possibly think of, off the top of his head, and then spout out in a web forum.
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)
Not true.
The Sony app uses WebKit to do in-app purchases. It doesn't kick you out to Safari like the Kindle app does. That's the difference. Sony violated the rule as it already stands. This is not a new interpretation at all.
Apple’s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. “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.”
Despite what she is saying that is a change in guidelines. As opposed to what people are saying here, it seems that you have to offer an in-app purchasing now ( re-directing to the website is not enough). That means Kindle need to update next rev.
My app re-directed. We are still in appeal. Lets see if they accept purchasing on the website getting into the app, they were unclear in the rejection.
if that is all it is, it is not a big deal. It is, however, a change in the guidelines.
The Sony app uses WebKit to do in-app purchases. It doesn't kick you out to Safari like the Kindle app does. That's the difference. Sony violated the rule as it already stands. This is not a new interpretation at all.
Right now it looks like Apple has another PR issue like antennagate on their hands. Personally I can't tell if there is a real issue or not but I will postpone my ipad purchase until this is resolved.
Apple’s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. “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.”
So they need to have an option for in-app purchasing. What's the big deal about it?
Long live Jailbreaking. If Apple does block Amazon and others, wouldn't it be great to have their apps made available on Cydia? Probably wouldn't happen - but it should.
Wow, it only took a few short years for Apple to become completely evil. If this turns out to be true, I will never buy another iPad again. I use my Kindle and Nook apps all the time. If Apple shuts them out, I will shut Apple out forever.
So yeah. Were these apps the only reason you bought the iPad in the first place, then your statement of intent makes sense. Otherwise you need to explain how finally enforcing compliance with a long-standing requirement to be an app on the iOS platform is "completely evil".
Given the overhead of running the curated App Store, and the low amount of revenue actually realized against these costs, why is this completely evil? On the flip side, if you are only using those two apps you potentially could have saved yourself some money and bought a Nook and a Kindle instead of the iPad. In which case you are a temporary customer anyway and the logic of you shutting Apple forever (which must be driving some heavy soul-searching in One Infinite Loop right now) is moot at best.
Maybe I'm a bit thick here - help me understand your reasoning.
So they will pull Kindle unless it actually gives Apple it's 30%.
( is it clear that you can also re-direct outside the app via a button, or is that not allowed, and do people have to search the web for kindle urls?).
Even if they did allow two buttons, the buttons would be.
Comments
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)
Didn't someone call for you to post about the new rule a couple of pages ago yet you're still here playing with hint and assumption.
Come on. I want to know it so I can plan my purchases in advance.
Didn't someone call for you to post about the new rule a couple of pages ago yet you're still here playing with hint and assumption.
Come on. I want to know it so I can plan my purchase in advance.
I cant post Apple rejection emails. However that is not my only argument. Deal with the other two.
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.
Yea it is confusing. They are saying that my Sony TV(bad choice) should be able to charge a fee to Comcast for Comcast cable sending content through the TV, but not to Time/Warner etc. That makes no sense. (think basic internet neutrality issues)
However, if Sony wants to charge Netflix a fee for hosting a Netflix app on the TV... and that fee was a % cut of revenue etc... well, they have the right. This is probably how Apple views it...$$$$(think premium content etc).
Muddled enough?
Competition, we (the consumers) need 'good' competition.
I cant post Apple rejection emails. However that is not my only argument. Deal with the other two.
Just for our(well mine) education - what does 11.2 say? Can that be posted?
I cant post Apple rejection emails.
Well that's a start, so we can talk about fact for a change.
You just summed everything up nicely in a couple of sentences.
Since when has that ever stopped him before?
Right now this is of concern but of no reason to panic. If they start pulling already approved apps like kindle, nook, or google books, then it will be time to chastise them.
Agreed.
When people bought an iPad/iPhone they accepted the terms that Apple offered. Some users may not have understood the details pre-purchase, however, most on this forum were reasonably well informed prior to making their purchase.
The obvious restrictions with iOS devices are that they only allow certain file types, have no user accessible file system and require iTunes/App Store to transfer files to an from them. If you agree with that scenario then all is good with the Apple walled garden. If you decide that you no longer want to abide by Apple's rules, then you can jailbreak or buy a different device.
If Apple changes the rules and pisses off enough people then they will lose market share and mind share. The Apple think tank has already given due consideration to everything average joe user can possibly think of, off the top of his head, and then spout out in a web forum.
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)
Not true.
The Sony app uses WebKit to do in-app purchases. It doesn't kick you out to Safari like the Kindle app does. That's the difference. Sony violated the rule as it already stands. This is not a new interpretation at all.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/d...f-itunes/11175
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ur-guidelines/
Apple’s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. “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.”
Despite what she is saying that is a change in guidelines. As opposed to what people are saying here, it seems that you have to offer an in-app purchasing now ( re-directing to the website is not enough). That means Kindle need to update next rev.
My app re-directed. We are still in appeal. Lets see if they accept purchasing on the website getting into the app, they were unclear in the rejection.
if that is all it is, it is not a big deal. It is, however, a change in the guidelines.
Not true.
The Sony app uses WebKit to do in-app purchases. It doesn't kick you out to Safari like the Kindle app does. That's the difference. Sony violated the rule as it already stands. This is not a new interpretation at all.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/d...f-itunes/11175
wrong. Read my next comment ( and we have posted so many rebuttals to this it is not funny.)
Apparantly Apple have released a statement.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ur-guidelines/
Apple’s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. “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.”
So they need to have an option for in-app purchasing. What's the big deal about it?
So they need to have an option for in-app purchasing. What's the big deal about it?
If that is the case it is not a big deal. It is however
1) Not what you were saying. Quite the opposite. Apps cant just redirect out.
2) Kindle will have to update.
3) It is a change in guidelines.
However, lets see. The real question for Sony is whether their external purchases can appear in the app. That has not been answered.
So they need to have an option for in-app purchasing. What's the big deal about it?
For Amazon, B&N, Sony et al it's a big deal, the in app option is a 30% cut for them
Wow, it only took a few short years for Apple to become completely evil. If this turns out to be true, I will never buy another iPad again. I use my Kindle and Nook apps all the time. If Apple shuts them out, I will shut Apple out forever.
So yeah. Were these apps the only reason you bought the iPad in the first place, then your statement of intent makes sense. Otherwise you need to explain how finally enforcing compliance with a long-standing requirement to be an app on the iOS platform is "completely evil".
Given the overhead of running the curated App Store, and the low amount of revenue actually realized against these costs, why is this completely evil? On the flip side, if you are only using those two apps you potentially could have saved yourself some money and bought a Nook and a Kindle instead of the iPad. In which case you are a temporary customer anyway and the logic of you shutting Apple forever (which must be driving some heavy soul-searching in One Infinite Loop right now) is moot at best.
Maybe I'm a bit thick here - help me understand your reasoning.
1) Not what you were saying. Quite the opposite. Apps cant just redirect out.
What I essentially said is that no one has any fact up to now.
For Amazon, B&N, Sony et al it's a big deal, the in app option is a 30% cut for them
Who care? If you love them so much just take an extra step going through Safari.
( is it clear that you can also re-direct outside the app via a button, or is that not allowed, and do people have to search the web for kindle urls?).
Even if they did allow two buttons, the buttons would be.
1) Buy
2) Buy On Website.
Apple would expect users to click on 1).
Who care? If you love them so much just take an extra step going through Safari.
Are you serious? My God, I can't understand so much blindless and fanaticism.