I love Apple products, but this concerns me. Cutting off access to the Kindle App means I might be compelled to get a different device. If that happens, I'll be looking at the color Nook.
That’s one of two reasons I think we’re not getting the whole story. Does Apple want to focus on selling HW or books? How many books will need to be sold to equal the same profit from a lost iPad sale?
The other reason is that they’ve already opened this up so putting the kibosh on all those Kindle app users for iPhone and iPad now, thus making their purchases useless on iDevices, goes against all smart business practices.
Thats safari. Colour is not the same as the tab in the other screenshot ( which is not allowable in one app), and the bottom toolbar items are the same as safari - although the modern middle bookmark button is an action button, not (+) as there.
If Apple wanted to set up its iTunes store to sell songs on the PSP, would Sony allow that to happen for free!? Do Amazon or EBay allow stuff to be sold by third parties on their websites without a cut?
Just curious, so the downloaded book becomes part of the app?
No, but you had to leave the app to make the purchase. Much like if you purchase a pdf and view it in Good Reader. As long as the purchase is made outside the app(i.e. some external website) I believe that's OK. It's the seamless experience, like the itunes app, that is pretty much being talked about here.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by docyoast
This really p*sses me off; I thought the App Store was a means to sell more hardware.
Apple, don't be evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw
Apple wouldnt put their stores on another platform. Can you imagine itunes on android? The problem here is that apple are more closed that communist russia and we all know what happened to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
What they are doing is a anti-trust violation. It depends on whether people sue, or not.
Apple thinks it can monopolize books and dominate eBooks and kill Barnes& Noble and Amazon now. This will backfire - I can see the new Amazon commercial now- "Available on ALL devices except Mac App Store!"
If Apple wanted to set up its iTunes store to sell songs on the PSP, would Sony allow that to happen for free!? Do Amazon or EBay allow stuff to be sold by third parties on their websites without a cut?
If Apple are seeing the iPad as a fully curated device ( like the PSP) then it is doomed. Courts will probably see it as a computer OS.
Nevertheless there is no justification for stopping the user having content he bought elsewhere on a computer OS. I would move to an Android OS, and I buy 90% APple stuff.
If I have something I have bought and can read on an E-Reader, on a website ( as a pdf) and on an Android tablet, but have to buy again on the iPad then I quit the platform.
You must have a monopoly before you can be accused of anti-trust violations.
They must be hoping to not be a monopoly sometime, then.
YOu are right, which is why the courts have nothing to say about curation on the iPhone. As it stands Apple is the monopoly provider of the standard Tablet OS.
This is bogus. Right now, I can buy content on Amazon and open it in iBooks or iTunes. Right now I can buy content at a brick and mortar shop and open it in iBooks or iTunes. I can buy a PDF online and open it in any number of apps, including iBooks. Will Apple restrict the adding of any content to all these apps, iBooks and iTunes included? I think not. I think this story is just FUD from someone who didn't like the reasoning behind the rejection of the Sony app.
This is bogus. Right now, I can buy content on Amazon and open it in iBooks or iTunes. Right now I can buy content at a brick and mortar shop and open it in iBooks or iTunes. I can buy a PDF online and open it in any number of apps, including iBooks. Will Apple restrict the adding of any content to all these apps, iBooks and iTunes included? I think not. I think this story is just FUD from someone who didn't like the reasoning behind the rejection of the Sony app.
Why would sony generate this FUD? If their app was rejected in a way that could fix it they would fix it and re-submit.
Also, take a look at the screenshots.
People dont want to believe this - because it sounds crazy. It is crazy. But it is true.
If I have something I have bought and can read on an E-Reader, on a website ( as a pdf) and on an Android tablet, but have to buy again on the iPad then I quit the platform.
Apple is not stopping you reading your pdf you bought elsewhere on the iphone.
It's (maybe - we're not even sure yet) only stopping app developers writing apps that can access them over the air. If I buy a pdf on a website I can still access/open/view it inside safari or mail. I doubt they're going to remove the pdf reading abilities.
A compromise would be for Apple to only disallow free apps from accessing content purchased elsewhere, and allow paid-for apps to do so. But that would mean too many changes to itunesconnect and the review process to be sensible.
Personally I don't blame Apple - I was surprised this was ever possible (in-app purchases outside Apple's system) and expected this move to happen at some point in time.
Hopefully, they'll also ban ad networks other than iAds.
Me thinks a lot of people moan and say they would quit the platform, but in reality never would - as we know the alternatives are so rubbish.
YOu are right, which is why the courts have nothing to say about curation on the iPhone. As it stands Apple is the monopoly provider of the standard Tablet OS.
There are plenty of other tablet computers and OSs on the market. In fact, tablet computers have been around for over 10 years. Nobody buys them because they suck - not because Apple has a monopoly. Consumers have a choice, and they choose the iPad because they think it's better. That is not even remotely the definition of a monopoly.
While there is room for disagreement about Apple's business strategies, to date I have not seen them do anything I personally consider outlandish. If anything, they're among the most consumer-friendly corporations on the planet.
This story, at first glance, seems like Apple going off the deep end. As this is not consistent with Apple's history, I suspect we're getting only half the story, out of context. Within a matter of days or weeks I'll bet the full facts will come out and this story will die out just like all the other crazy Apple rumors.
Look, Amazon couldn't care less about selling physical Kindles compared to how much they want to sell the book titles themselves. They already allow the Kindle environment to run on any device that isn't made by a competing bookstore. Suppose they want to sell a billion $10 books - if selling $139 physical carriers works, they'll do it. If giving the app away to anyone who already has a device works - they'll do that too. Whether the physical iPad is unit-by-unit competition for the physical Kindle is almost moot. The Kindle app for the iPhone iPT, Mac and PC, all launched before the iPad shipped.
It's the "Gillette" model - the razors are free - the blades will cost you.
iBooks are well-implemented, but I don't see them as a Kindle-killer, partially due to their later rollout. I would have to believe Apple will work something out with Amazon and if so, also with Sony. They might have to, as I'd predict Sony will be the first device to fold. Lord knows Sony has supported some pretty marginal products for longer than would be respectable to do so, but I can't imagine they're making a lot with the books. They were the sacrificial 1.0 for eBooks, history has not been kind to 1.0 (OK I admit to being one of the Stephen King "The Plant" subscribers, Palm version too - but that was pre-columbian in this sense And that goes double for the stillborn, uber-DRM'd Adobe Digital Editions)
I would bet that Kindle is the brand that will endure, and everyone else will just serve them up on any platform available.
There are plenty of other tablet computers and OSs on the market. In fact, tablet computers have been around for over 10 years. Nobody buys them because they suck - not because Apple has a monopoly. Consumers have a choice, and they choose the iPad because they think it's better. That is not even remotely the definition of a monopoly.
Yeah, it is. All that matters is that you sell more than a certain number. 70+ %
I think what happened is that Sony wanted users to buy books within the app. All IN APP purchase must go through Apple. That is not new. Amazon and B&N redirect users to Safari to buy books.
Comments
I love Apple products, but this concerns me. Cutting off access to the Kindle App means I might be compelled to get a different device. If that happens, I'll be looking at the color Nook.
That’s one of two reasons I think we’re not getting the whole story. Does Apple want to focus on selling HW or books? How many books will need to be sold to equal the same profit from a lost iPad sale?
The other reason is that they’ve already opened this up so putting the kibosh on all those Kindle app users for iPhone and iPad now, thus making their purchases useless on iDevices, goes against all smart business practices.
Oh, you are correct. i saw that as their own tabs. TOuche.
Yep. Smoking gun.
No, I was asking because I didn't know
No, I was asking because I didn't know
Thats safari. Colour is not the same as the tab in the other screenshot ( which is not allowable in one app), and the bottom toolbar items are the same as safari - although the modern middle bookmark button is an action button, not (+) as there.
Just curious, so the downloaded book becomes part of the app?
No, but you had to leave the app to make the purchase. Much like if you purchase a pdf and view it in Good Reader. As long as the purchase is made outside the app(i.e. some external website) I believe that's OK. It's the seamless experience, like the itunes app, that is pretty much being talked about here.
Do Amazon or EBay allow stuff to be sold by third parties on their websites without a cut?
What is sold on Apple website?
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.
This really p*sses me off; I thought the App Store was a means to sell more hardware.
Apple, don't be evil.
Apple wouldnt put their stores on another platform. Can you imagine itunes on android? The problem here is that apple are more closed that communist russia and we all know what happened to them.
What they are doing is a anti-trust violation. It depends on whether people sue, or not.
Apple thinks it can monopolize books and dominate eBooks and kill Barnes& Noble and Amazon now. This will backfire - I can see the new Amazon commercial now- "Available on ALL devices except Mac App Store!"
Bad Apple.
All these cockblocking by Apple is getting annoying. For what? Just so they can milk every dollar they can?
Yes- all these cool device are basically conduits for the iTunes store content. The devices don't even work without iTunes installed.
Didn't you know that?
What they are doing is a anti-trust violation. It depends on whether people sue, or not.
You must have a monopoly before you can be accused of anti-trust violations.
If Apple wanted to set up its iTunes store to sell songs on the PSP, would Sony allow that to happen for free!? Do Amazon or EBay allow stuff to be sold by third parties on their websites without a cut?
If Apple are seeing the iPad as a fully curated device ( like the PSP) then it is doomed. Courts will probably see it as a computer OS.
Nevertheless there is no justification for stopping the user having content he bought elsewhere on a computer OS. I would move to an Android OS, and I buy 90% APple stuff.
If I have something I have bought and can read on an E-Reader, on a website ( as a pdf) and on an Android tablet, but have to buy again on the iPad then I quit the platform.
It sounds like the story may have been blown out of proportion.
You must have a monopoly before you can be accused of anti-trust violations.
They must be hoping to not be a monopoly sometime, then.
YOu are right, which is why the courts have nothing to say about curation on the iPhone. As it stands Apple is the monopoly provider of the standard Tablet OS.
This is bogus. Right now, I can buy content on Amazon and open it in iBooks or iTunes. Right now I can buy content at a brick and mortar shop and open it in iBooks or iTunes. I can buy a PDF online and open it in any number of apps, including iBooks. Will Apple restrict the adding of any content to all these apps, iBooks and iTunes included? I think not. I think this story is just FUD from someone who didn't like the reasoning behind the rejection of the Sony app.
Why would sony generate this FUD? If their app was rejected in a way that could fix it they would fix it and re-submit.
Also, take a look at the screenshots.
People dont want to believe this - because it sounds crazy. It is crazy. But it is true.
If I have something I have bought and can read on an E-Reader, on a website ( as a pdf) and on an Android tablet, but have to buy again on the iPad then I quit the platform.
Apple is not stopping you reading your pdf you bought elsewhere on the iphone.
It's (maybe - we're not even sure yet) only stopping app developers writing apps that can access them over the air. If I buy a pdf on a website I can still access/open/view it inside safari or mail. I doubt they're going to remove the pdf reading abilities.
A compromise would be for Apple to only disallow free apps from accessing content purchased elsewhere, and allow paid-for apps to do so. But that would mean too many changes to itunesconnect and the review process to be sensible.
Personally I don't blame Apple - I was surprised this was ever possible (in-app purchases outside Apple's system) and expected this move to happen at some point in time.
Hopefully, they'll also ban ad networks other than iAds.
Me thinks a lot of people moan and say they would quit the platform, but in reality never would - as we know the alternatives are so rubbish.
YOu are right, which is why the courts have nothing to say about curation on the iPhone. As it stands Apple is the monopoly provider of the standard Tablet OS.
There are plenty of other tablet computers and OSs on the market. In fact, tablet computers have been around for over 10 years. Nobody buys them because they suck - not because Apple has a monopoly. Consumers have a choice, and they choose the iPad because they think it's better. That is not even remotely the definition of a monopoly.
While there is room for disagreement about Apple's business strategies, to date I have not seen them do anything I personally consider outlandish. If anything, they're among the most consumer-friendly corporations on the planet.
This story, at first glance, seems like Apple going off the deep end. As this is not consistent with Apple's history, I suspect we're getting only half the story, out of context. Within a matter of days or weeks I'll bet the full facts will come out and this story will die out just like all the other crazy Apple rumors.
It's the "Gillette" model - the razors are free - the blades will cost you.
iBooks are well-implemented, but I don't see them as a Kindle-killer, partially due to their later rollout. I would have to believe Apple will work something out with Amazon and if so, also with Sony. They might have to, as I'd predict Sony will be the first device to fold. Lord knows Sony has supported some pretty marginal products for longer than would be respectable to do so, but I can't imagine they're making a lot with the books. They were the sacrificial 1.0 for eBooks, history has not been kind to 1.0 (OK I admit to being one of the Stephen King "The Plant" subscribers, Palm version too - but that was pre-columbian in this sense And that goes double for the stillborn, uber-DRM'd Adobe Digital Editions)
I would bet that Kindle is the brand that will endure, and everyone else will just serve them up on any platform available.
There are plenty of other tablet computers and OSs on the market. In fact, tablet computers have been around for over 10 years. Nobody buys them because they suck - not because Apple has a monopoly. Consumers have a choice, and they choose the iPad because they think it's better. That is not even remotely the definition of a monopoly.
Yeah, it is. All that matters is that you sell more than a certain number. 70+ %