"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.
Well, Sony Reader Android app doesn't use in-app purchasing and iPhone app screenshots show Safari browser for the store, not in-app purchasing.
What evidence do you have about using in-app purchasing?
Only a complete idiot would conclude that Apple will pull the Kindle app. Never going to happen. Use common sense for chrsts sake. It was one of the first apps in the app store!
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.
This is a great analogy.
It's nice to see at least some people get it and realise that this whole thing is yet another tempest in a teapot generated by blog writers to get hits.
Another aspect to think about for those calling Apple "evil" this morning ...
Since Apple is perfectly okay with an app sending it's users to a web site to get content, it's the same thing as letting "Hanks Hammers" all have a big sticker on them that tells the prospective customer about "Hanks Hardware" down the street and how much better it is than the store they are currently shopping in! What more do people what them to do?
I dare anyone to find an instance of a real life bricks and mortar store that allows another competing store to stock products on it's shelves, and let's each one having a big advertisement for the second competing store. With iOS it's almost like giving the customers a free ride to the competitions store. And yet "Apple is evil" etc. WTF?
The screenshots don't prove Sony didn't use in-app purchasing.
No one have any evidence so far, including you. If you have iPhone and the app then please give us more detail. Google pictures without knowing anything mean nothing.
It's nice to see at least some people get it and realise that this whole thing is yet another tempest in a teapot generated by blog writers to get hits.
Another aspect to think about for those calling Apple "evil" this morning ...
Since Apple is perfectly okay with an app sending it's users to a web site to get content, it's the same thing as letting "Hanks Hammers" all have a big sticker on them that tells the prospective customer about "Hanks Hardware" down the street and how much better it is than the store they are currently shopping in! What more do people what them to do?
I dare anyone to find an instance of a real life bricks and mortar store that allows another competing store to stock products on it's shelves, and let's each one having a big advertisement for the second competing store. With iOS it's almost like giving the customers a free ride to the competitions store. And yet "Apple is evil" etc. WTF?
These examples are not making sense. Apple doesn't own the store, I own the store, I bought the iPad and it is mine. It now has become my store. I now invite Amazon into my store to sell its books. How does Apple have anything to do with it? Amazon purchased the rights to give away its app in the App Store so Apple got its cut there but after that they should have no say.
Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.
As well... "By doing so", Apple would open itself up to issue with apps decimating content that it may not want app to distribute (like pornography). Everything is a slippery slope.
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 mkwilson68
Apple, seriously, this is a step too far. Stop app developers from *linking out* to the internet to purchase things? iTunes doesn't stop you listening to music digitised from a CD - that you bought elsewhere. Pages doesn't stop you opening a research report purchased from a third party. You can even import a commercially purchased PDF in iBooks.
Seriously - I've owned everything from Apple for 20 years. Kindle accounts for 50% plus of the time I spend on my iPad. If that app goes, I won't trash my iPad, but I certainly won't be so keen to upgrade - and I know a stack of people who will simply not buy one and buy a kindle instead: a debate many people are having right now, and the kindle app is a big part of that decision.
Please Apple, I'm a big fan of the controlled experience, but don't do something *this* obnoxious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
And why Apple has to be paid? Is delivering the content, is storing the content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
The only excuse I think they have is that - maybe - tomorrow there will be a new model announced with the Daily and they are rejecting apps for now, so they can re-tool. As usual Apple is being secretive.
None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.
Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!
I was going to say that Kindle doesn't actually do in-app purchases, but relies on Amazon web site, from which you sync, but looking at it on my iPhone now see that you can actually buy in-app. Waddayaknow?
Still, I don't see Apple shutting off the Kindle spigot. The uproar would be too big.
Nevertheless, I did tell my wife to download Kindle App now just in case.
Too bad Amazon and Apple don't just get together to let iBook read Kindle format. I still can't believe this is that big of a money maker for AMZN compared to the content itself. And iBook is so much better that it would be a match made in heaven.
Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it, resulting in the rejection of an eBookstore application from Sony, a new report claims.
The Cupertino, Calif., company has told applications developers, including Sony, that it will no longer allow developers to sell content and provide access to purchases outside the iOS App Store, The New York Times reports.
According to the report, Apple rejected a Sony Reader iPhone application that would let users buy and read e-books from the Sony Reader Store. Steve Haber, president of Sony's digital reading division, said that Apple told Sony that from now on, in-app purchases must go through Apple.
?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.?
Rival ebook vendor Amazon could stand to lose. Amazon currently offers its Kindle e-book app on Apple's App Store, despite the fact that its Kindle e-reader competes with the iPad and iBookstore. The Kindle got an early start in the e-reading market, but has since lost significant ground to the iPad.
In December of last year, Amazon announced that the third-generation Kindle had become the best-selling product in the online retailer's history. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos also noted at the time that many Kindle purchasers already own an LCD tablet, such as an iPad.
Analysts were taken aback by Apple's new restrictions, as they represent a shift away from recent attempts to be more collaborative.
Last fall, after receiving criticism for App Store restrictions that were viewed as "anti-competitive," Apple removed its ban on third-party development tools. With the more open licensing terms, Adobe resumed development of its Packager for iPhone tool for porting Flash to iOS.
Rival Google also gained from the changes, as its Google Voice application was accepted into the App Store. After Apple pulled Google Voice-enabled iPhone apps from the App Store, the US FCC launched an investigation of Apple and AT&T.
?This sudden shift perhaps tells you something about Apple?s understanding of the value of its platform,? said Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. ?Apple started making money with devices. Maybe the new thing that everyone recognizes is the unit of economic value is the platform, not the device.?
Later this week, News Corp, in direct partnership with Apple, will unveil The Daily, an experimental iPad-only digital newspaper. Apple's new restrictions could be a preemptive move ahead of the launch of a new subscription feature for the iPad.
Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.
You say Apple "has told" and then link to a completely un-researched New York Times article that simply accepts Sony's claim at face value. Perhaps you should rethink that sentence. It did a good job of creating an uproar in a completely non-story story.
Good Job.
Unless you truly believe Apple plans on dropping their top 10 apps..
None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.
Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!
So what about Windows demanding a 30% charge on all iTunes purchases?
the iPAd is an OS, not a "retail shop". For digital content owned by other people they dont own, store, sell, or distribute the product. What they sell is the credit card processing which any large distributor can handle on their own.
I guess this cuts out in app purchases from Marvel. iBooks would be interesting if they had a better reading selection but they don't. As a long time Mac user the fanaticism of some of you nuts jobs are hilarious. Not everything Apple does is good and they have realized that in time as was the case with the use of Flash conversion tools.
Comments
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.
Well, Sony Reader Android app doesn't use in-app purchasing and iPhone app screenshots show Safari browser for the store, not in-app purchasing.
What evidence do you have about using in-app purchasing?
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.
Does your car take ALL gas offered on the market, such as E15, or pure ethanol for that matter?
Do your, content providers, or your TV service provider decide what package of content to offer?
Yes, my analogy does indeed work. Just you haven't thought about it.
Does your car take ALL gas offered on the market, such as E15, or pure ethanol for that matter?
Do your, content providers, or your TV service provider decide what package of content to offer?
Yes, my analogy does indeed work. Just you haven't thought about it.
My car manufacturer doesn't require a cut of the profits from Exxon, and my TV manufacturer doesn't require a cut from Comcast.
Well, Sony Reader Android app doesn't use in-app purchasing and iPhone app screenshots show Safari browser for the store, not in-app purchasing.
That's speculation. The app got rejected. Nobody knows for sure what it use or doesn't use but the message from Apple is all about in-app purchasing.
Sony Reader Android app is irrelevant.
You will have a better use of your time by speculating something you know about, like Android.
That's speculation. The app got rejected. Nobody knows for sure what it use or doesn't use but the message from Apple is all about in-app purchasing.
You will have a better use of your time by speculating something you know about, like Android.
So, you don't have any evidence
And no, the screenshots are not speculation.
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.
This is a great analogy.
It's nice to see at least some people get it and realise that this whole thing is yet another tempest in a teapot generated by blog writers to get hits.
Another aspect to think about for those calling Apple "evil" this morning ...
Since Apple is perfectly okay with an app sending it's users to a web site to get content, it's the same thing as letting "Hanks Hammers" all have a big sticker on them that tells the prospective customer about "Hanks Hardware" down the street and how much better it is than the store they are currently shopping in! What more do people what them to do?
I dare anyone to find an instance of a real life bricks and mortar store that allows another competing store to stock products on it's shelves, and let's each one having a big advertisement for the second competing store. With iOS it's almost like giving the customers a free ride to the competitions store. And yet "Apple is evil" etc. WTF?
So, you don't have any evidence
And no, the screenshots are not speculation.
The screenshots don't prove Sony didn't use in-app purchasing.
No one have any evidence so far, including you. If you have iPhone and the app then please give us more detail. Google pictures without knowing anything mean nothing.
This is a great analogy.
It's nice to see at least some people get it and realise that this whole thing is yet another tempest in a teapot generated by blog writers to get hits.
Another aspect to think about for those calling Apple "evil" this morning ...
Since Apple is perfectly okay with an app sending it's users to a web site to get content, it's the same thing as letting "Hanks Hammers" all have a big sticker on them that tells the prospective customer about "Hanks Hardware" down the street and how much better it is than the store they are currently shopping in! What more do people what them to do?
I dare anyone to find an instance of a real life bricks and mortar store that allows another competing store to stock products on it's shelves, and let's each one having a big advertisement for the second competing store. With iOS it's almost like giving the customers a free ride to the competitions store. And yet "Apple is evil" etc. WTF?
These examples are not making sense. Apple doesn't own the store, I own the store, I bought the iPad and it is mine. It now has become my store. I now invite Amazon into my store to sell its books. How does Apple have anything to do with it? Amazon purchased the rights to give away its app in the App Store so Apple got its cut there but after that they should have no say.
Well, Sony Reader Android app doesn't use in-app purchasing
I missed this.
Does Android have in-app purchasing?
Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.
As well... "By doing so", Apple would open itself up to issue with apps decimating content that it may not want app to distribute (like pornography). Everything is a slippery slope.
~ CB
Sony.
c'mon: you say you've got knowledge of a specific instance other than Sony.
Put up or shut your cake hole.
I missed this.
Does Android have in-app purchasing?
No, it opens the default web browser
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.
Apple, seriously, this is a step too far. Stop app developers from *linking out* to the internet to purchase things? iTunes doesn't stop you listening to music digitised from a CD - that you bought elsewhere. Pages doesn't stop you opening a research report purchased from a third party. You can even import a commercially purchased PDF in iBooks.
Seriously - I've owned everything from Apple for 20 years. Kindle accounts for 50% plus of the time I spend on my iPad. If that app goes, I won't trash my iPad, but I certainly won't be so keen to upgrade - and I know a stack of people who will simply not buy one and buy a kindle instead: a debate many people are having right now, and the kindle app is a big part of that decision.
Please Apple, I'm a big fan of the controlled experience, but don't do something *this* obnoxious.
And why Apple has to be paid? Is delivering the content, is storing the content.
The only excuse I think they have is that - maybe - tomorrow there will be a new model announced with the Daily and they are rejecting apps for now, so they can re-tool. As usual Apple is being secretive.
None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.
Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!
Still, I don't see Apple shutting off the Kindle spigot. The uproar would be too big.
Nevertheless, I did tell my wife to download Kindle App now just in case.
Too bad Amazon and Apple don't just get together to let iBook read Kindle format. I still can't believe this is that big of a money maker for AMZN compared to the content itself. And iBook is so much better that it would be a match made in heaven.
Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it, resulting in the rejection of an eBookstore application from Sony, a new report claims.
The Cupertino, Calif., company has told applications developers, including Sony, that it will no longer allow developers to sell content and provide access to purchases outside the iOS App Store, The New York Times reports.
According to the report, Apple rejected a Sony Reader iPhone application that would let users buy and read e-books from the Sony Reader Store. Steve Haber, president of Sony's digital reading division, said that Apple told Sony that from now on, in-app purchases must go through Apple.
?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.?
Rival ebook vendor Amazon could stand to lose. Amazon currently offers its Kindle e-book app on Apple's App Store, despite the fact that its Kindle e-reader competes with the iPad and iBookstore. The Kindle got an early start in the e-reading market, but has since lost significant ground to the iPad.
In December of last year, Amazon announced that the third-generation Kindle had become the best-selling product in the online retailer's history. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos also noted at the time that many Kindle purchasers already own an LCD tablet, such as an iPad.
Analysts were taken aback by Apple's new restrictions, as they represent a shift away from recent attempts to be more collaborative.
Last fall, after receiving criticism for App Store restrictions that were viewed as "anti-competitive," Apple removed its ban on third-party development tools. With the more open licensing terms, Adobe resumed development of its Packager for iPhone tool for porting Flash to iOS.
Rival Google also gained from the changes, as its Google Voice application was accepted into the App Store. After Apple pulled Google Voice-enabled iPhone apps from the App Store, the US FCC launched an investigation of Apple and AT&T.
?This sudden shift perhaps tells you something about Apple?s understanding of the value of its platform,? said Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. ?Apple started making money with devices. Maybe the new thing that everyone recognizes is the unit of economic value is the platform, not the device.?
Later this week, News Corp, in direct partnership with Apple, will unveil The Daily, an experimental iPad-only digital newspaper. Apple's new restrictions could be a preemptive move ahead of the launch of a new subscription feature for the iPad.
Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.
You say Apple "has told" and then link to a completely un-researched New York Times article that simply accepts Sony's claim at face value. Perhaps you should rethink that sentence. It did a good job of creating an uproar in a completely non-story story.
Good Job.
Unless you truly believe Apple plans on dropping their top 10 apps..
Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity.
You can't be real or you can't be more that 3 years.
No, it opens the default web browser
No. I mean does the Android OS has in-app purchasing?
None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.
Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!
So what about Windows demanding a 30% charge on all iTunes purchases?
the iPAd is an OS, not a "retail shop". For digital content owned by other people they dont own, store, sell, or distribute the product. What they sell is the credit card processing which any large distributor can handle on their own.