Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store

2456720

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 398
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post


    Well this is certainly a sad state of affairs. Apple's pissed that competitors are skirting around their 30% cut by offering purchases outside the App Store, so now they're enforcing a rule that they were keen to ignore earlier. Talk about bait and switch. Let's have all these successful models enjoy freedom on iOS for a year, then suddenly impose the keeper's fee.



    This is a shakedown if you think about it. Apple doesn't like people selling products on their turf, so now they want their cut.



    It's not shakedown because it's not turf. It's Apples store, their actual property. Sony would be using apples property to advertise and then telling the consumer to purchase elsewhere. If I owned a store, digital or otherwise, i wouldn't let someone use my retail space to convince my customers to go elsewhere.
  • Reply 22 of 398
    n42n42 Posts: 34member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Do you feel its fair for Amazon and B&N to directly profit from the App Store while contributing nothing back to the App Store?



    exactly -- free apps help Apple by keeping people involved with their products. free apps with ads pay for the service Apple provides by giving them a cut of ad revenue. free apps that make money and do nothing to support Apple?



    why is Apple supposed to supply a user base, platform, servers to host the app, bandwidth for the thousands of people downloading the Kindle app -- and let Amazon/Sony/etc profit directly?



    I do feel very conflicted about this.
  • Reply 23 of 398
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjw View Post


    Because it is common courtesy. Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.



    Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.



    You are a victim of apple marketing. Why should the mobile platform be so so different?



    Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day.



    They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.



    They should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.



    Is your thought process really as disjointed as this post, or do you just copy and paste random criticisms from a list you keep?
  • Reply 24 of 398
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Most of you guys have no idea what anti-trust means.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ianmac47 View Post


    If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.



  • Reply 25 of 398
    from the article:



    Quote:

    applications that support the purchasing of content from elsewhere must also provide users the option to buy it within the application. In-application purchases made through App Store software grant Apple a 30 percent cut of sales.



    "We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Miller reportedly said. "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."



    Note my bold above - they have allowed some exception to the rule until the platform matured a bit and now are requiring an equitable standing by apps with content purchasing outside of the App Store by including the ability to purchase inside the App Store - an also/and situation, instead of an external exclusive. How is it wrong? And Apple requires a 30% piece of the in-store action - call it charge for overhead.



    They are NOT requiring in store-only, they are not blocking outside content purchasing - just internal and external content purchase support under the guidelines. What is the issue here?
  • Reply 26 of 398
    So unless Kindle changes to allow in-app purchases it is in danger then?



    Seems ridiculous - like others have mentioned akin to paying a cut to your car manufacturer when you top up its fuel or to your TV manufacturer when you watch a DVD.
  • Reply 27 of 398
    Leave it up to Dilger to spin this in an innocent way. Requiring in-store iOS purchases as an option in, say, the Kindle app, would wreck Amazon's profit margin on books and would either require that they charge higher prices for in-app purchases (hard to see that innocently) or that they pull out from iOS.
  • Reply 28 of 398
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller: "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."



    Which puts the current Kindle app in violation of this rule.
  • Reply 29 of 398
    Although it seems restrictive, I don't see the strict enforcement of these rules as hindering the proliferation of iOS devices that much. I do see however, that apps providing for in app purchases (or access to services purchased outside of the iOS device) going away however.



    I don't really see Amazon, eBay, Netflix, and other retailers giving Apple a 30% cut. I guess if the rules allow for a 30% premium for in app purchases, then it may be possible, but I just don't see that happening.



    Would you really give up your iPad, iPhone, or iPod touch if you didn't have access to content purchased elsewhere? Probably not.
  • Reply 30 of 398
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by enjourni View Post


    PR gobblygook. Obviously an app that is referencing a competing store is not going to also sell the same product on apple's iBookstore, it defeats the purpose. In other words "don't sell stuff outside of our store", which is what we knew from the beginning.



    What Apple says is "don't push sales to Your store from Our store without giving Our customers the chance to buy it in Our store". Very different from the image you have.



    Amazon store have fees for seller too, don't see people complain about that. If you post something for sell on Amazon, and price it at $0.01 to minimize Amazon's cut, but charges the buyer some other way to actually get the product, I don't think Amazon would look too kindly on that kind of behavior either.
  • Reply 31 of 398
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post


    from the article:







    Note my bold above - they have allowed some exception to the rule until the platform matured a bit and now are requiring an equitable standing by apps with content purchasing outside of the App Store by including the ability to purchase inside the App Store - an also/and situation, instead of an external exclusive. How is it wrong? And Apple requires a 30% piece of the in-store action - call it charge for overhead.



    They are NOT requiring in store-only, they are not blocking outside content purchasing - just internal and external content purchase support under the guidelines. What is the issue here?



    It will be interesting to see what happens if Amazon, Sony, Borders or Barnes and Noble make the app store purchase available reflecting the cost of the 30% cut that Apple is insisting on. What do you think most consumers would do under those circumstances?



    Generally I find the whole thing fascinating. I have no doubt that it is entirely legal, I have no doubt that it is within the contract language of Apple's contract with developers for Itunes, I have no doubt that at the margin it may make the Apple platform less valuable for end users. At the margin such practices will spur more sales of Kindles, Nooks, Sony Readers and Android tablets. The practice would be particularly pernicious if there were no other distribution markets available...but there are.
  • Reply 32 of 398
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freddych View Post


    Although it seems restrictive, I don't see the strict enforcement of these rules as hindering the proliferation of iOS devices that much. I do see however, that apps providing for in app purchases (or access to services purchased outside of the iOS device) going away however. [...]



    Sure, Apple will be successful even if they drive these services out of iOS. It would be a very big disappointment as a customer, though?and that's quite upsetting.
  • Reply 33 of 398
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    If this is accurate, it's a ridiculous move by Apple.



    However, Apple's PR has responded to questions about App Store policy with falsehoods before (or has been reported as such, at least), so I'm not entirely convinced yet.
  • Reply 34 of 398
    normmnormm Posts: 653member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Miller reportedly said. "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."



    iOS benefits from having apps that people want, including ones that let you buy stuff. If Apple is handling the overhead of enabling purchases within an app, they deserve a cut. If someone else (e.g., Amazon) is handling this, then Apple doesn't deserve a cut. If I buy a toy from Amazon, there is no reason for Apple to take a cut. If I buy a book that is viewable on the Kindle app (and also in the outside world), there is also no reason for Apple to take a cut.



    I can see Apple wanting to take a cut for purchases that have no value outside of iOS (e.g., additional functionality for an app), but they shouldn't take a cut when the item purchased has value in the outside world, and the sale is handled by a third party.
  • Reply 35 of 398
    Is Amazon's Kindle margin so tight that Apple will eat it up?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post


    Leave it up to Dilger to spin this in an innocent way. Requiring in-store iOS purchases as an option in, say, the Kindle app, would wreck Amazon's profit margin on books and would either require that they charge higher prices for in-app purchases (hard to see that innocently) or that they pull out from iOS.



  • Reply 36 of 398
    It feels like these articles in "Apple Insider" come straight from Apple HQ. If they don't then the writers are either under a lot of pressure from Apple to make Apple sound good, or they are under some sort of trance that makes them see Apple as the eternal benevolent dictator of what we want and what we can do. I think that Apple does a good job designing their products and an outstanding job making their customers believe that Apple products are the best, most innovative products ever designed. I used an Iphone for years, and I liked it, but it wasn't at all innovative, one could do more with an early Windows smart phone than you could do with an early Iphone, and it didn't work perfectly either. When I switched to an Android phone 6 months ago I was shocked to find that there were phones out there that were actually better in every way than an Iphone, but the real eye opener was the fact that the Android system was available to anyone, and free from controls from Google.



    I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.
  • Reply 37 of 398
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by poke View Post


    If this is accurate, it's a ridiculous move by Apple.



    However, Apple's PR has responded to questions about App Store policy with falsehoods before (or has been reported as such, at least), so I'm not entirely convinced yet.



    The problem is the T&C of the store are written in legaleses, and as such definite people can read them and come to different conclusion depending on their slant or what they hope it to say. Some time it written very clearly and other it vague and broad so the writer and interrupt how they like. Just because someone said the Read the agreement and said it said this does not mean it legally means that.
  • Reply 38 of 398
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post


    Sure, Apple will be successful even if they drive these services out of iOS. It would be a very big disappointment as a customer, though?and that's quite upsetting.



    if Apple decide to sell iTune content through Amazon store, would not Amazon demand a cut of the proceed, 6-25% as stated by Amazon's policy?



    So what's so surprising about Apple demanding sellers in its market not circumventing their policy?
  • Reply 39 of 398
    This is totally unfair to Sony, because Amazon and B&N don't have to play by these same rules, and that will bring extra development cost to Sony. This is definitely a change in Apple's policy, regardless of what Apple claims. Ridiculous.
  • Reply 40 of 398
    Kindle does not allow the sale of iBooks on the Kindle, nor does it allow you to read iBooks on Kindle.



    Apple is simply returning the favor. Unfortunately for those of us who installed the Kindle app and bought books to read on the iPad, it looks like we may be hosed in the near future.



    I don't think it's particularly unfair, it just sucks.



    I am curious to see whether they apply the restrictions to the different e-commerce apps such as eBay or other retailers that sell physical goods through purchases made in app. I actually believe that Apple will simply turn a blind eye to Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu Plus and allow them to exist outside of the rules.
Sign In or Register to comment.