Does anybody know if this will apply to the iPhone Amazon, Best Buy, etc apps that allow you to make physical purchases from their stores directly? If so , then this is the end of the line for me. I will only buy a Mac henceforth - no Apple IOS 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.
Seems pretty relevant to the article to me.
No, Sony or Amazon aren't bypassing anything. They have a store where they sell books and they can be read on a bunch of platforms.
You know, people not only use iPhones or iPads to read Kindle books.
So, why is relevant a subscription model for publications in this case?
This reeks of the same stuff back in the 80s when Microsoft tied IE to the operating system. Now iBookstore is tied to iOS and damn you if you want to use something else.
This is a terrible move. If apple doesn't want to allow competing stores I don't necessarily see a problem with that, but at the very least you should be able to make an app that lets you view content from other stores. Killing off the kindle app or sony will just force people who bought books on those platforms to seek devices other then apple's.
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.
Not the amazon app for physical books. Is that next? Apple wants a cut of everything?
This is interesting for me because the last Sony DVD with a digital copy that I tried to download to one our Macs in the house, I wasn't able to do it. Sony had it locked down to its own devices or a PC. Maybe Apple is trying to use this as a bargaining chip to get Sony to open up and allow its content from a digital copy to play on a Mac. Maybe for Sony, what goes around comes around.
Not quite sure how I feel about all of this but I will wait until I hear the full story before I pass judgement. But Sony is a company that at present, I have very little sympathy for. My last several dealings with Sony have not been very good ones. I am not sure that we are getting the correct story at the present time, especially if the info is coming from Sony.
Apple was paid something -- they were paid when the user purchased the iDevice. Why does Apple deserve a cut of every other financial transaction made with the device? If I use an iPad's browser to pay my credit card bill, should Apple get a cut?
Stop being such a blind fanboy. Apple is way out of line on this one.
Stop being so stupid. Apple doesn't and shouldn't get a cut of all financial transactions. Apple should get a cut of any financial transaction (purchase) that results from Apple having and maintaining a webstore.
Stop being so stupid. Apple doesn't and shouldn't get a cut of all financial transactions. Apple should get a cut of any financial transaction (purchase) that results from Apple having and maintaining a webstore.
And which webstore is maintaining Apple when someone purchases an ebook from Amazon?
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.
You keep saying you have knowledge of this practice occurring elsewhere. Seriously, I will sell my iPad if I can't use Kindle on it - Amazon's notes/annotation engine is critical to my work - but I'd like to see some evidence of what you claim, rather than insinuations.
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?
No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.
Hank might have rented the display and display space (the app), but he can't reasonably expect to never pay a cut to the store owner.
Or, it's a bit like you setting up a Coca Cola stand for an event, getting the whole setup with soda fountain and tanks and hoses and illuminated signs and cups and whole nine yards, but then stocking it with your own syrup. Coca Cola allows you to use all their stuff to make money selling concessions, but expects to make money on the syrup in every drink you sell. The user license would not allow you to put Pepsi Cola syrup in the drinks.
Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.
Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.
I don't know, but you said it had an in-app purchasing system, so I'm asking about which in-app purchase system was using.
"I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing."
Read the first sentence.
"Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it"
All in-app purchase require a 30% cut. If Sony doesn't want to pay then stop using it. all other apps that doesn't use in-app purchasing, like Amazon, still functioning on my iPod Touch so if you have any hands-on experience contrary to what I have then please provide.
No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.
So should iTunes pay Windows?
Quote:
Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.
Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.
The content is not in iTunes. The content is owned and distributed by Sony. Apple have nothing to do with the eReader content ( i.e. digital books). They neither have the rights or the distribution.
This is a seperate argument to Apple's banning any content outside the app store anyway. but in-app purchasing is a rip off. Anyway,
"Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it"
All in-app purchase require a 30% cut. If Sony doesn't want to pay then stop using it. all other apps that doesn't use in-app purchasing, like Amazon, still functioning on my iPod Touch so if you have any hands-on experience contrary to what I have then please provide.
The problem here is they are banning content outside the app.
Comments
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.
No, Sony or Amazon aren't bypassing anything. They have a store where they sell books and they can be read on a bunch of platforms.
You know, people not only use iPhones or iPads to read Kindle books.
So, why is relevant a subscription model for publications in this case?
This is a terrible move. If apple doesn't want to allow competing stores I don't necessarily see a problem with that, but at the very least you should be able to make an app that lets you view content from other stores. Killing off the kindle app or sony will just force people who bought books on those platforms to seek devices other then apple's.
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.
Not the amazon app for physical books. Is that next? Apple wants a cut of everything?
I repeat do you have iPhone?
If I have an iPhone, an iPad or not it's irelevant for the question. Which in-app system was using Sony Reader?
If I have an iPhone, an iPad or not it's irelevant for the question. Which in-app system was using Sony Reader?
It's relevant because if you have, then you wouldn't ask me.
It's relevant because if you have, then you wouldn't ask me.
My God, I'm asking if Sony Read application was using in-app purchasing. Can you understand it? I'm not asking about what is in app purchasing.
Not quite sure how I feel about all of this but I will wait until I hear the full story before I pass judgement. But Sony is a company that at present, I have very little sympathy for. My last several dealings with Sony have not been very good ones. I am not sure that we are getting the correct story at the present time, especially if the info is coming from Sony.
Neal
Apple was paid something -- they were paid when the user purchased the iDevice. Why does Apple deserve a cut of every other financial transaction made with the device? If I use an iPad's browser to pay my credit card bill, should Apple get a cut?
Stop being such a blind fanboy. Apple is way out of line on this one.
Stop being so stupid. Apple doesn't and shouldn't get a cut of all financial transactions. Apple should get a cut of any financial transaction (purchase) that results from Apple having and maintaining a webstore.
Stop being so stupid. Apple doesn't and shouldn't get a cut of all financial transactions. Apple should get a cut of any financial transaction (purchase) that results from Apple having and maintaining a webstore.
And which webstore is maintaining Apple when someone purchases an ebook from Amazon?
My God, I'm asking if Sony Read application was using in-app purchasing. Can you understand it? I'm not asking about what is in app purchasing.
It was out?
And which webstore is maintaining Apple when someone purchases an ebook from Amazon?
Since when Apple get a cut from someone purchasing ebook from Amazon?
It was out?
I don't know, but you said it had an in-app purchasing system, so I'm asking about which in-app purchase system was using.
"I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing."
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.
You keep saying you have knowledge of this practice occurring elsewhere. Seriously, I will sell my iPad if I can't use Kindle on it - Amazon's notes/annotation engine is critical to my work - but I'd like to see some evidence of what you claim, rather than insinuations.
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?
No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.
Hank might have rented the display and display space (the app), but he can't reasonably expect to never pay a cut to the store owner.
Or, it's a bit like you setting up a Coca Cola stand for an event, getting the whole setup with soda fountain and tanks and hoses and illuminated signs and cups and whole nine yards, but then stocking it with your own syrup. Coca Cola allows you to use all their stuff to make money selling concessions, but expects to make money on the syrup in every drink you sell. The user license would not allow you to put Pepsi Cola syrup in the drinks.
Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.
Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.
I don't know, but you said it had an in-app purchasing system, so I'm asking about which in-app purchase system was using.
"I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing."
Read the first sentence.
"Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it"
All in-app purchase require a 30% cut. If Sony doesn't want to pay then stop using it. all other apps that doesn't use in-app purchasing, like Amazon, still functioning on my iPod Touch so if you have any hands-on experience contrary to what I have then please provide.
No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.
So should iTunes pay Windows?
Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.
Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.
The content is not in iTunes. The content is owned and distributed by Sony. Apple have nothing to do with the eReader content ( i.e. digital books). They neither have the rights or the distribution.
This is a seperate argument to Apple's banning any content outside the app store anyway. but in-app purchasing is a rip off. Anyway,
Read the first sentence.
"Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it"
All in-app purchase require a 30% cut. If Sony doesn't want to pay then stop using it. all other apps that doesn't use in-app purchasing, like Amazon, still functioning on my iPod Touch so if you have any hands-on experience contrary to what I have then please provide.
The problem here is they are banning content outside the app.
The problem here is they are banning content outside the app.
You keep saying this yet I don't experience it. Care to give example?
You keep saying this yet I don't experience it. Care to give example?
Sony.