Oh, can you buy an ebook from Fictionwise and put it on iBooks? Really?
I've never heard of Fictionwise, but mostly I use iBooks to read stuff I buy from O'Reilly. Issues of DRM may limit things of course and that may be a problem with Fictionwise.
But yes, you can buy an ebook from somewhere else and put it in iBooks.
Lol. I love the childish posters calling people childish.
1) If a a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should not be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying why should iTunes piggy back on Windows?
2) Apple changed the guidelines. They said they didnt, but they did. Now you have to offer in-App purchasing if you also had out of app purchasing. Sony followed the rules as we all understand them. In fact people on here were stating that they must have been rejected because they did not have an external website.
Thats what they had. They also had to add an IAP button. They decided the cost was too high.
Nice try, but no. And no amount of weaseling about the requirements changes that fact. They are what they are, and the handful of devs that I have contacted since this "broke" that are putting apps in the App Store agree with the fundamental understanding of that section.
I've never heard of Fictionwise, but mostly I use iBooks to read stuff I buy from O'Reilly. Issues of DRM may limit things of course and that may be a problem with Fictionwise.
But yes, you can buy an ebook from somewhere else and put it in iBooks.
O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks
No matter what Apple does - if it had decided to ban all external sellers ( or cost them out as here) - the people who should be pissed are just getting in there defending them.
Why is saying that a 30% margin will see all these vendors flee "simplistic".
maybe I know business, and am working in a company which cant afford that tax. Maybe you know nothing.
They're a company who sold books at a loss for a great period of time without any sweat. I'm sure they will make a business decision based on a lot more things than that.
O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks
silly me, here I thought I had simply to pay and download books to read them at will on whatever platform I wanted. I wonder if I ran the Fictionwise books through a conversion utility it would ignore the DRM? After all I bought and paid for them...
No matter what Apple does - if it had decided to ban all external sellers ( or cost them out as here) - the people who should be pissed are just getting in there defending them.
madness.
to acknowledge and agree to this very simple and straight-forward disclaimer at the end of the general guidelines you linked to:
Quote:
Nothing herein is intended to modify the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, the iPhone Developer Program Enterprise License Agreement, the iPhone Developer Program University Agreement, and/or the iPhone Developer Program University Student License Agreement ("Agreement"), as they may be modified by Apple from time to time.\tIn the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the Agreement and this document, the Agreement shall govern. Apple may at any time, and from time to time, with or without prior notice to You modify this document as well as any features, functionality or services described herein.\tYou understand that any such modifications may require You to change or update Your Applications at Your own cost. Apple shall not be liable for any losses, damages or costs of any kind incurred by You or any other party arising out of or related to any modification or discontinuation of this document or any of the features, functionality or services described here.
if you are in business as you have claimed earlier - how did you overlook this? It is for all intents and purposes standard disclaimer boilerplate used by a myriad of businesses.
In there you will see it is forbidden to buy physical stuff using in-app purchasing.
( they may be allowed to use their own, I dont know).
Thanks for the link. Saved me having to go find it. Looks like they do forbid real world items. The Freshdirect description said you can make a cart either on the web or in the app and complete the order either on web or in app or visa versa. I haven't used this particular app but it looks like they should only do checkout on the web site in order to comply with the rules specified in your linked document from Apple.
No the screaming has been from you and your repeated spamming about this topic in nearly every single thread you post in. WTF are you going to say after your app does get approved due to your appeal? Are you actually going to come back and say "sorry, I was overreacting like an idiot"?
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 by your argument - any app that allows a purchase to be made - such as a grocery shopping app, ebay app, amazon app (not sure if you can/cannot purchase through this) then apple should take 30%.
Hell lets go all the way and say MS should take 30% for online shopping in IE. Apple should take 30% for everything bought in Safari. etc.
Hell lets take it even further. Buy anything using apple software whatsoever and you pay 30%.
Do you think that Apple should also be charging 30% on all software installed on a mac? What about the Steam game store that not long ago launched on mac.
The Kindle does not allow the purchase of content, except from Amazon.
Nook does not allow the purchase of content, except from Barnes and Noble.
The Reader does not allow the purchase of content, except from Sony.
iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch support the direct purchase of content from Apple or from anyone else, but with a 30% hosting fee.
They also allow import of content, without any fee, over a browser. This is how Kindle works, and how Sony, supposedly, chose not to.
The horrifying, scary, anti-trustworthy restriction is that content for iOS devices, offered outside the app, must also be available for in-app purchase.
Unlike the Kindle, Nook, or Reader, the i-devices let anyone buy content anywhere they like.
Apple?s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it?s simply enforcing a rule that?s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. ?We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,? company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. ?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.?
Despite what she is saying that is a change in guidelines.
No it isn't. The rule was always the rule. Apple gave folks a grace period to make the adjustment on their own. That period is over. But developers knew how the rule stood from the start and that Apple had the right to reject if you didn't follow the rule.
Sony tried to not follow the rule, got dinged and is trying to paint Apple as the big bad evil because they aren't willing to treat Sony as special.
O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks
Nothing a little Googling (can I recommend that here) won't resolve. DRM doen't really protect anything it just turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
The Kindle does not allow the purchase of content, except from Amazon.
Nook does not allow the purchase of content, except from Barnes and Noble.
The Reader does not allow the purchase of content, except from Sony.
iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch support the direct purchase of content from Apple or from anyone else, but with a 30% hosting fee.
They also allow import of content, without any fee, over a browser. This is how Kindle works, and how Sony, supposedly, chose not to.
The horrifying, scary, anti-trustworthy restriction is that content for iOS devices, offered outside the app, must also be available for in-app purchase.
Unlike the Kindle, Nook, or Reader, the i-devices let anyone buy content anywhere they like.
Either block them completely or let them develop an app how they want. Don't start dictating their prices.
So by your argument - any app that allows a purchase to be made - such as a grocery shopping app, ebay app, amazon app (not sure if you can/cannot purchase through this) then apple should take 30%.
Hell lets go all the way and say MS should take 30% for online shopping in IE. Apple should take 30% for everything bought in Safari. etc.
Hell lets take it even further. Buy anything using apple software whatsoever and you pay 30%.
Do you think that Apple should also be charging 30% on all software installed on a mac? What about the Steam game store that not long ago launched on mac.
You are another victim of apple bullshit rhetoric
Except that Apple has not made any such demand. You can buy software via the Mac store or anywhere else. On the Mac store, 30% of the cost is known to be for the store cut. Anywhere else, the cut is whatever it is--traditionally more than 30%.
On iOS the user is not constrained at all. He can buy books from a web site. He can buy them from the iBookstore. He can buy them as an in-app purchase.
But an app developer cannot link to them ONLY at his for-pay web site. If he expects Apple to host the data, he must also, as one option, provide them directly in the app.
I'm not aware of anyone buying groceries or eBay office supplies for iPad streaming.
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?
There are a couple of points I don't think you are taking into account...
1. I would be happy to buy from the iBookStore if only Apple would provide the selection of titles that are available from Amazon. I have over a hundred titles on the Amazon Kindle App. The vast majority are technical topics, of which almost none can be found on the iBookStore. So if I lose the Kindle App on the iPad, I am suddenly downgrading the range of available titles for future purchase.
2. This brings me to the second point... Today, I have a vast collection of ebooks on the iPad, which were basically bought long before there ever was an iPad. If the Kindle App gets the boot, I am no longer going to have the benefits of those pre-iPad purchases, for which I paid for before Apple was even in the eBook business. It may be that Apple allows installed Kindle Apps to remain on the iPad even though Amazon may be prohibited from distributing future Apps on the AppStore. It will only be a matter of time before the present day Kindle App gets deprecated with the release of a new IOS. So eventually the App will go away, along with my ability to read my legitimately purchased ebooks (which pre-date the existence of the iPad) on the iPad device.
Comments
Fixed it for ya!
Only a mental imbecile "fixes" things like that.
Feel free to answer why Sony owes Apple a tax, if iTunes does not owe Windows a tax.
Oh, can you buy an ebook from Fictionwise and put it on iBooks? Really?
I've never heard of Fictionwise, but mostly I use iBooks to read stuff I buy from O'Reilly. Issues of DRM may limit things of course and that may be a problem with Fictionwise.
But yes, you can buy an ebook from somewhere else and put it in iBooks.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fresh...346631494?mt=8
Here are the in-App guidelines from Apple.
http://developer.apple.com/news/ios/...p_purchase.pdf
In there you will see it is forbidden to buy physical stuff using in-app purchasing.
( they may be allowed to use their own, I dont know).
Lol. I love the childish posters calling people childish.
1) If a a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should not be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying why should iTunes piggy back on Windows?
2) Apple changed the guidelines. They said they didnt, but they did. Now you have to offer in-App purchasing if you also had out of app purchasing. Sony followed the rules as we all understand them. In fact people on here were stating that they must have been rejected because they did not have an external website.
Thats what they had. They also had to add an IAP button. They decided the cost was too high.
Nice try, but no. And no amount of weaseling about the requirements changes that fact. They are what they are, and the handful of devs that I have contacted since this "broke" that are putting apps in the App Store agree with the fundamental understanding of that section.
I've never heard of Fictionwise, but mostly I use iBooks to read stuff I buy from O'Reilly. Issues of DRM may limit things of course and that may be a problem with Fictionwise.
But yes, you can buy an ebook from somewhere else and put it in iBooks.
O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks
No matter what Apple does - if it had decided to ban all external sellers ( or cost them out as here) - the people who should be pissed are just getting in there defending them.
madness.
And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.
This response is nonsensical - please clarify your point.
Do I?
Why is saying that a 30% margin will see all these vendors flee "simplistic".
maybe I know business, and am working in a company which cant afford that tax. Maybe you know nothing.
They're a company who sold books at a loss for a great period of time without any sweat. I'm sure they will make a business decision based on a lot more things than that.
O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks
silly me, here I thought I had simply to pay and download books to read them at will on whatever platform I wanted. I wonder if I ran the Fictionwise books through a conversion utility it would ignore the DRM? After all I bought and paid for them...
What a strange thread.
No matter what Apple does - if it had decided to ban all external sellers ( or cost them out as here) - the people who should be pissed are just getting in there defending them.
madness.
to acknowledge and agree to this very simple and straight-forward disclaimer at the end of the general guidelines you linked to:
Nothing herein is intended to modify the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, the iPhone Developer Program Enterprise License Agreement, the iPhone Developer Program University Agreement, and/or the iPhone Developer Program University Student License Agreement ("Agreement"), as they may be modified by Apple from time to time.\tIn the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the Agreement and this document, the Agreement shall govern. Apple may at any time, and from time to time, with or without prior notice to You modify this document as well as any features, functionality or services described herein.\tYou understand that any such modifications may require You to change or update Your Applications at Your own cost. Apple shall not be liable for any losses, damages or costs of any kind incurred by You or any other party arising out of or related to any modification or discontinuation of this document or any of the features, functionality or services described here.
if you are in business as you have claimed earlier - how did you overlook this? It is for all intents and purposes standard disclaimer boilerplate used by a myriad of businesses.
Here are the in-App guidelines from Apple.
http://developer.apple.com/news/ios/...p_purchase.pdf
In there you will see it is forbidden to buy physical stuff using in-app purchasing.
( they may be allowed to use their own, I dont know).
Thanks for the link. Saved me having to go find it. Looks like they do forbid real world items. The Freshdirect description said you can make a cart either on the web or in the app and complete the order either on web or in app or visa versa. I haven't used this particular app but it looks like they should only do checkout on the web site in order to comply with the rules specified in your linked document from Apple.
The screaming is from the Apple defenders.
No the screaming has been from you and your repeated spamming about this topic in nearly every single thread you post in. WTF are you going to say after your app does get approved due to your appeal? Are you actually going to come back and say "sorry, I was overreacting like an idiot"?
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 by your argument - any app that allows a purchase to be made - such as a grocery shopping app, ebay app, amazon app (not sure if you can/cannot purchase through this) then apple should take 30%.
Hell lets go all the way and say MS should take 30% for online shopping in IE. Apple should take 30% for everything bought in Safari. etc.
Hell lets take it even further. Buy anything using apple software whatsoever and you pay 30%.
Do you think that Apple should also be charging 30% on all software installed on a mac? What about the Steam game store that not long ago launched on mac.
You are another victim of apple bullshit rhetoric
The Kindle does not allow the purchase of content, except from Amazon.
Nook does not allow the purchase of content, except from Barnes and Noble.
The Reader does not allow the purchase of content, except from Sony.
iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch support the direct purchase of content from Apple or from anyone else, but with a 30% hosting fee.
They also allow import of content, without any fee, over a browser. This is how Kindle works, and how Sony, supposedly, chose not to.
The horrifying, scary, anti-trustworthy restriction is that content for iOS devices, offered outside the app, must also be available for in-app purchase.
Unlike the Kindle, Nook, or Reader, the i-devices let anyone buy content anywhere they like.
Apparantly Apple have released a statement.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ur-guidelines/
Apple?s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it?s simply enforcing a rule that?s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. ?We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,? company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. ?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.?
Despite what she is saying that is a change in guidelines.
No it isn't. The rule was always the rule. Apple gave folks a grace period to make the adjustment on their own. That period is over. But developers knew how the rule stood from the start and that Apple had the right to reject if you didn't follow the rule.
Sony tried to not follow the rule, got dinged and is trying to paint Apple as the big bad evil because they aren't willing to treat Sony as special.
O'Reilly ebooks doesn't have DRM. You can't buy DRM ebooks and transfer them to iBooks
Nothing a little Googling (can I recommend that here) won't resolve. DRM doen't really protect anything it just turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
So let me get this:
The Kindle does not allow the purchase of content, except from Amazon.
Nook does not allow the purchase of content, except from Barnes and Noble.
The Reader does not allow the purchase of content, except from Sony.
iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch support the direct purchase of content from Apple or from anyone else, but with a 30% hosting fee.
They also allow import of content, without any fee, over a browser. This is how Kindle works, and how Sony, supposedly, chose not to.
The horrifying, scary, anti-trustworthy restriction is that content for iOS devices, offered outside the app, must also be available for in-app purchase.
Unlike the Kindle, Nook, or Reader, the i-devices let anyone buy content anywhere they like.
Either block them completely or let them develop an app how they want. Don't start dictating their prices.
Explain your view on my post above.
wrong. Read my next comment ( and we have posted so many rebuttals to this it is not funny.)
Okay, well, that is stupid (if accurate).
So by your argument - any app that allows a purchase to be made - such as a grocery shopping app, ebay app, amazon app (not sure if you can/cannot purchase through this) then apple should take 30%.
Hell lets go all the way and say MS should take 30% for online shopping in IE. Apple should take 30% for everything bought in Safari. etc.
Hell lets take it even further. Buy anything using apple software whatsoever and you pay 30%.
Do you think that Apple should also be charging 30% on all software installed on a mac? What about the Steam game store that not long ago launched on mac.
You are another victim of apple bullshit rhetoric
Except that Apple has not made any such demand. You can buy software via the Mac store or anywhere else. On the Mac store, 30% of the cost is known to be for the store cut. Anywhere else, the cut is whatever it is--traditionally more than 30%.
On iOS the user is not constrained at all. He can buy books from a web site. He can buy them from the iBookstore. He can buy them as an in-app purchase.
But an app developer cannot link to them ONLY at his for-pay web site. If he expects Apple to host the data, he must also, as one option, provide them directly in the app.
I'm not aware of anyone buying groceries or eBay office supplies for iPad streaming.
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?
There are a couple of points I don't think you are taking into account...
1. I would be happy to buy from the iBookStore if only Apple would provide the selection of titles that are available from Amazon. I have over a hundred titles on the Amazon Kindle App. The vast majority are technical topics, of which almost none can be found on the iBookStore. So if I lose the Kindle App on the iPad, I am suddenly downgrading the range of available titles for future purchase.
2. This brings me to the second point... Today, I have a vast collection of ebooks on the iPad, which were basically bought long before there ever was an iPad. If the Kindle App gets the boot, I am no longer going to have the benefits of those pre-iPad purchases, for which I paid for before Apple was even in the eBook business. It may be that Apple allows installed Kindle Apps to remain on the iPad even though Amazon may be prohibited from distributing future Apps on the AppStore. It will only be a matter of time before the present day Kindle App gets deprecated with the release of a new IOS. So eventually the App will go away, along with my ability to read my legitimately purchased ebooks (which pre-date the existence of the iPad) on the iPad device.