Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it...
?It?s the opposite of what we wanted to bring to the market,? said Haber. ?We always wanted to bring the content to as many devices as possible, not one device to one store.?
So big deal - Sony can have its Reader but it cannot sell content directly. So buyers have to go somewhere else and upload the Sony books. I don't see this as a problem - why should Apple subsidize Sony's sales?
I assume Sony has not approached Apple about any kind of deal to share the profits.
If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.
The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.
The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.
The story is accurate.
What you have is something that looks like the Safari interface. There's absolutely no guarantee that it is indeed Safari; or if the search function is in Safari, that the actual purchasing part is still inside Safari.
As to why wouldn't Sony resubmit a modified app? That would mean they have to put up actual money and time and effort to make a new app, modify part of their infrastructure, modify someone's powerpoint presentation about how this effort is going to make them money. The reasons are endless. If by complaining you somehow make Apple reverse course, you don't have to do all of that.
Apple has just thrown a huge lifeline to Honeycomb and the fledgling Android tablet industry. The market for tablets will be driven by the applications and the content available for them. If Apple demands 30% of everything we do with devices we already paid them for, the content will leave, and so will consumers and businesses.
They spent months on development for the iOS platform merely to generate FUD? Jesus. Thats a low one.
Bad image for a competitor is not spreading FUD. Maybe you don't have your own business so you don't understand. I bet they're changing their app in the back room while yelling Apple at the front door. All this doesn't mean they'll give up on the app.
What you have is something that looks like the Safari interface. There's absolutely no guarantee that it is indeed Safari; or if the search function is in Safari, that the actual purchasing part is still inside Safari.
As to why wouldn't Sony resubmit a modified app? That would mean they have to put up actual money and time and effort to make a new app, modify part of their infrastructure, modify someone's powerpoint presentation about how this effort is going to make them money. The reasons are endless. If by complaining you somehow make Apple reverse course, you don't have to do all of that.
Who wouldn't complain first?
We are clutching at straws here. Using a different coloured toolbar would results in a rejection in itself.
Mocking up safari makes no sense. They have no infrastructural changes to make. Just link to their existing store ( and possibly link back when bought) . Thats a day's work.
( if they had to do this, which they dont, as they are doing it).
Bad marketing to a competitor is not spreading FUD. Maybe you don't have your own business so you don't understand. I bet they're changing their app in the back room while yelling Apple at the front door. All this doesn't mean they'll give up on the app.
Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.
Apple has just thrown a huge lifeline to Honeycomb and the fledgling Android tablet industry. The market for tablets will be driven by the applications and the content available for them. If Apple demands 30% of everything we do with devices we already paid them for, the content will leave, and so will consumers and businesses.
No really. Content will be where consumers are willing to spend money. So far, Android customers have not shown willingness to spend. So Content providers will indeed put up with Apple's 30% demand to stay in App Store.
As for your ridiculus comment about not wanting to pay Apple 30% for doing things with devices you already paid for, why are you paying cable/satellite/Netflix etc. to watch programs on that TV you already paid for? Why are you paying ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile/others to use that Phone you already paid for? Why are you buying gas to use that car you already paid for?
The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.
The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.
The story is accurate.
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.
Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.
I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing. Your reading doesn't make any sense. if it does, then Apple is really really stupid. I fail to see how having many e-reader apps hurt Apple so far.
I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing. Your reading doesn't make any sense. if it does, then Apple is really really stupid. I fail to see how having many e-reader apps hurt Apple so far.
If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.
What you're saying makes sense, but at the same time it's a little different in this case. In this case the consumer bought the device, so they should have a right to say what apps they want to put on the device.
In your analogy it's kind of like saying you're selling products in a store that someone else owns, and they want to put a competing product next to yours. That actually is how most businesses work... Multiple products that serve the same purpose.
It just gets confusing because Apple runs the App Store. You still own the iPhone/iPad/whatever though, so why wouldn't you be able to choose what you want on your device?
Because the reason Sony and Amazon are currently bypassing the iOS Store for their downloads is to bypass Apple's pricing and any other restrictions Apple may have (eg. content). I don't see the 70/30 split continuing if they want to get serious about recurring subscriptions for the publication industry.
No really. Content will be where consumers are willing to spend money. So far, Android customers have not shown willingness to spend. So Content providers will indeed put up with Apple's 30% demand to stay in App Store.
As for your ridiculus comment about not wanting to pay Apple 30% for doing things with devices you already paid for, why are you paying cable/satellite/Netflix etc. to watch programs on that TV you already paid for? Why are you paying ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile/others to use that Phone you already paid for? Why are you buying gas to use that car you already paid for?
My car takes gas from any gas company around me.
My TV accepts service from any provider in my area.
An iPad should accept content from any provider available as well.
So big deal - Sony can have its Reader but it cannot sell content directly. So buyers have to go somewhere else and upload the Sony books. I don't see this as a problem - why should Apple subsidize Sony's sales?
I assume Sony has not approached Apple about any kind of deal to share the profits.
If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.
except that apple has always said that they make money on the hardware and itunes is a non-profit value added service
kindle/ibooks/B&N may offer the same books but the ibook store sucks compared to amazon in terms of presentation and ease of use
Comments
Why do you assume Sony is a nice guy. They are a direct competitor to Apple. I can see they want to paint Apple in bad light as much as possible.
If this is all about a new policy, why do I still be able to purchase books using Kindle app?
Why would they just not release their app if Apple said to do the purchasing in their ( already existing) website. Thats a simple fix.
Kindle is in the Not Yet Banned position.
Why would they just not release their app if Apple said to do the purchasing in their ( already existing) website. Thats a simple fix.
They want to whine. They want Apple to be a bad guy.
Kindle is in the Not Yet Banned position.
Really? When? Do you have a date when they will be banned?
They want to whine. They want Apple to be a bad guy.
:
They spent months on development for the iOS platform merely to generate FUD? Jesus. Thats a low one.
Really? When? Do you have a date when they will be banned?
Next submission I guess.
Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it...
?It?s the opposite of what we wanted to bring to the market,? said Haber. ?We always wanted to bring the content to as many devices as possible, not one device to one store.?
So big deal - Sony can have its Reader but it cannot sell content directly. So buyers have to go somewhere else and upload the Sony books. I don't see this as a problem - why should Apple subsidize Sony's sales?
I assume Sony has not approached Apple about any kind of deal to share the profits.
If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.
So why wont Sony just resubmit?
The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.
The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.
The story is accurate.
What you have is something that looks like the Safari interface. There's absolutely no guarantee that it is indeed Safari; or if the search function is in Safari, that the actual purchasing part is still inside Safari.
As to why wouldn't Sony resubmit a modified app? That would mean they have to put up actual money and time and effort to make a new app, modify part of their infrastructure, modify someone's powerpoint presentation about how this effort is going to make them money. The reasons are endless. If by complaining you somehow make Apple reverse course, you don't have to do all of that.
Who wouldn't complain first?
They spent months on development for the iOS platform merely to generate FUD? Jesus. Thats a low one.
Bad image for a competitor is not spreading FUD. Maybe you don't have your own business so you don't understand. I bet they're changing their app in the back room while yelling Apple at the front door. All this doesn't mean they'll give up on the app.
Next submission I guess.
Let see, shall we?
What you have is something that looks like the Safari interface. There's absolutely no guarantee that it is indeed Safari; or if the search function is in Safari, that the actual purchasing part is still inside Safari.
As to why wouldn't Sony resubmit a modified app? That would mean they have to put up actual money and time and effort to make a new app, modify part of their infrastructure, modify someone's powerpoint presentation about how this effort is going to make them money. The reasons are endless. If by complaining you somehow make Apple reverse course, you don't have to do all of that.
Who wouldn't complain first?
We are clutching at straws here. Using a different coloured toolbar would results in a rejection in itself.
Mocking up safari makes no sense. They have no infrastructural changes to make. Just link to their existing store ( and possibly link back when bought) . Thats a day's work.
( if they had to do this, which they dont, as they are doing it).
Bad marketing to a competitor is not spreading FUD. Maybe you don't have your own business so you don't understand. I bet they're changing their app in the back room while yelling Apple at the front door. All this doesn't mean they'll give up on the app.
Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.
Apple has just thrown a huge lifeline to Honeycomb and the fledgling Android tablet industry. The market for tablets will be driven by the applications and the content available for them. If Apple demands 30% of everything we do with devices we already paid them for, the content will leave, and so will consumers and businesses.
No really. Content will be where consumers are willing to spend money. So far, Android customers have not shown willingness to spend. So Content providers will indeed put up with Apple's 30% demand to stay in App Store.
As for your ridiculus comment about not wanting to pay Apple 30% for doing things with devices you already paid for, why are you paying cable/satellite/Netflix etc. to watch programs on that TV you already paid for? Why are you paying ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile/others to use that Phone you already paid for? Why are you buying gas to use that car you already paid for?
So why wont Sony just resubmit?
The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.
The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.
The story is accurate.
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.
Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.
I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing. Your reading doesn't make any sense. if it does, then Apple is really really stupid. I fail to see how having many e-reader apps hurt Apple so far.
I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing. Your reading doesn't make any sense. if it does, then Apple is really really stupid. I fail to see how having many e-reader apps hurt Apple so far.
Which in-app purchasing?
If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.
What you're saying makes sense, but at the same time it's a little different in this case. In this case the consumer bought the device, so they should have a right to say what apps they want to put on the device.
In your analogy it's kind of like saying you're selling products in a store that someone else owns, and they want to put a competing product next to yours. That actually is how most businesses work... Multiple products that serve the same purpose.
It just gets confusing because Apple runs the App Store. You still own the iPhone/iPad/whatever though, so why wouldn't you be able to choose what you want on your device?
Which in-app purchasing?
Do you use iPhone?
And why is related to the article?
Because the reason Sony and Amazon are currently bypassing the iOS Store for their downloads is to bypass Apple's pricing and any other restrictions Apple may have (eg. content). I don't see the 70/30 split continuing if they want to get serious about recurring subscriptions for the publication industry.
Seems pretty relevant to the article to me.
Do you use iPhone?
I repeat, which in-app purchase is using Sony Reader?
No really. Content will be where consumers are willing to spend money. So far, Android customers have not shown willingness to spend. So Content providers will indeed put up with Apple's 30% demand to stay in App Store.
As for your ridiculus comment about not wanting to pay Apple 30% for doing things with devices you already paid for, why are you paying cable/satellite/Netflix etc. to watch programs on that TV you already paid for? Why are you paying ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile/others to use that Phone you already paid for? Why are you buying gas to use that car you already paid for?
My car takes gas from any gas company around me.
My TV accepts service from any provider in my area.
An iPad should accept content from any provider available as well.
The analogy doesn't quite work in this case.
So big deal - Sony can have its Reader but it cannot sell content directly. So buyers have to go somewhere else and upload the Sony books. I don't see this as a problem - why should Apple subsidize Sony's sales?
I assume Sony has not approached Apple about any kind of deal to share the profits.
If I own a store do I really want to give space to a competitor in my store for free. I don't think so.
except that apple has always said that they make money on the hardware and itunes is a non-profit value added service
kindle/ibooks/B&N may offer the same books but the ibook store sucks compared to amazon in terms of presentation and ease of use
I repeat, which in-app purchase is using Sony Reader?
I repeat do you have iPhone?