Its not that simple. Its also a breach in security.
If Apple allowed 3rd party developers to build their own purchasing stores. It allows nefarious software developers free reign to cause mischief and grief.
To avoid all of that its better for Apple to handle the money transaction.
That's a myth. There are mischievous apps that phish for your information and sneak unwarranted features on your device, like a game that farms your entire contacts database or a flashlight app that enables tethering. The idea that trusting Apple to vet the app doesn't guarantee security in the slightest. Wasn't there an iTunes account breech a few months ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This is completely false.
If you purchase your book directly from Amazon, Apple does not get the 30%.
Correct. But now you must make that same book directly available in the app store (probably for the same price, since the language is vague), in which case Apple does get 30%. They don't manage the transactions, they don't serve up the content, yet they're going to charge 10x what a typical POS system does for the exact same content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu
So now providing the choice of using a payment method is equivalent to REQUIRING you to use it? If you feel so strongly about not giving Apple 30%, then just choose to use the outof-app payment method when facing the choice.
And you said it yourself Apple's App store is the platform that everyone turns to. But they should just provide it for free? That businesses that benefit from apple's platform shouldn't pay for using that platform?
Your logic, or lack thereof, is astounding.
Apple doesn't provide it for free. You have to pay to enter the developer program and tune your app to comply with Apple's strict, and ever-changing, policies. Had this been the case since the app store's inception, I could follow your argument, but a *major* change like this can dramatically change or even destroy business that are currently relying on Apple's hardware who otherwise have been playing by the rules for years.
If Amazon has to suddenly make every kindle book they sell available for purchase on iOS, that requires renegotiation with every content provider, since the agreements they had before were only involving splitting money with Amazon. If publishers don't want to go along, suddenly the app you're running on your device today could stop functioning all together, and that vast library of books that you've been purchasing for years on Kindle becomes useless if your only used iOS devices.
This hurts consumers and publishers. Again, if Apple had planned it this way from the start, the tone of the conversation might be different. But to me, this is classic bait and switch. Exploit your developers to create amazing services and content on your platform, and then when it hits big, start forcing yourself into the equation and start taking your cut.
Apples locked platform allows for free apps to be attained through their system. With this choice they have opened themselves up for funding the bandwidth to supply these pieces of software, including those who make money for the programmers -outside of- apples channel (advertising, out of app purchasing).
Said free apps allow people to purchase books via a web browser outside of apples channel, servers, bandwidth.
Said browser can be on any platform.
Saying apple is ok taking 30% of revenues forever, to fund the initial deployment of the free app is taking the piss. If apple doesnt like it, remove the free applications from the app store. Otherwise they are costing apple money.
The app store on the iPad is creating tens of millions of Kindle sales for Amazon.
How much is that worth to Amazon?
a) Zero?
b) Nothing.
c) Not a penny
d) A tidy sum
I'd argue that Apple is certainly entitled to something. And of course, having control of the platform means that Apple is entitled to demand it.
Is Apple entitled to 30% of the retail value?
Nope. No way. That would be unsustainable. It would leave Apple making more money from a sale than Amazon.
But who said anything about 30%?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called a negotiating position.
It's not about yay, or nay. It's about how much.
C.
Precisely. Unlike application sales, in-app purchases are essentially POS transactions. You are responsible for tracking the purchases and serve and maintain your own delivery systems (servers, bandwidth, etc). Apple has *nothing* to do with in-app sales other than the transaction itself.
The idea that Apple can get away charging 10x what a typical POS system does is laughable at best, especially when they have zero to do with the actual service that runs on their device THAT THEY WERE PERFECTLY CONTENT WITH ALLOWING BEFORE. (I hate typing in caps, btw xD)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Apples locked platform allows for free apps to be attained through their system. With this choice they have opened themselves up for funding the bandwidth to supply these pieces of software, including those who make money for the programmers -outside of- apples channel (advertising, out of app purchasing).
Said free apps allow people to purchase books via a web browser outside of apples channel, servers, bandwidth.
Said browser can be on any platform.
Saying apple is ok taking 30% of revenues forever, to fund the initial deployment of the free app is taking the piss. If apple doesnt like it, remove the free applications from the app store. Otherwise they are costing apple money.
Apple should have never allowed it from the beginning, then. The part that angers me the most is Apple was perfectly fine allowing this to go on while iOS and the App Store was growing. This change is a classic bait-and-switch. Developers who were following the rules and playing nice with Apple are now suddenly supposed to pay more, which in some cases, could completely destroy a business.
I just don't think that it costs them that much for Amazon's app alone. For everyone's apps yes, we are talking millions upon millions of dollars, but not just Amazon alone. If they were delivering the actual content (in this case the ebooks themselves) that would be different, but that's not the case as far as I can tell.
There is no way that the process of distributing the Kindle app costs Apple as much as 30% of every book that is sold in the Kindle store through iOS, unless the books themselves were being directly distributed through Apple's channels. Which raises a valid question to which I don't know the answer: if Amazon sells books in the app itself, is the content delivered through Amazon or Apple?
Amazon shouldn't have to foot the bill for all of the devs that are selling cheap/free apps.
Apple didn't just hang a sign on the Internet one day that said app store. They had to design phones and tablets that stood out. And boy did they do that. Now they are charging third parties for access to their customers. The determination of what amazon has to foot the bill for is a product of what they are able to negotiate not some calculation you make as to what it costs apple to to host amazons app. I use the word negotiate but in this case apple has a standard policy-30%.
Apple didn't just hang a sign on the Internet one day that said app store. They had to design phones and tablets that stood out. And boy did they do that. Now they are charging third parties for access to their customers. The determination of what amazon has to foot the bill for is a product of what they are able to negotiate not some calculation you make as to what it costs apple to to host amazons app. I use the word negotiate but in this case apple has a standard policy-30%.
That's a myth. There are mischievous apps that phish for your information and sneak unwarranted features on your device, like a game that farms your entire contacts database or a flashlight app that enables tethering. The idea that trusting Apple to vet the app doesn't guarantee security in the slightest. Wasn't there an iTunes account breech a few months ago?
Its a myth because it cannot happen.
No the alert of the breach itself was a phishing scam.
Quote:
Correct. But now you must make that same book directly available in the app store (probably for the same price, since the language is vague), in which case Apple does get 30%. They don't manage the transactions, they don't serve up the content, yet they're going to charge 10x what a typical POS system does for the exact same content.
How does Apple get 30% if Amazon is selling the same book for the same price and Apple gets none of the money?
I have no clue of how you came up the 10X figure. Seeing as books on Kindle are typically $3-$5.
Quote:
Apple doesn't provide it for free. You have to pay to enter the developer program and tune your app to comply with Apple's strict, and ever-changing, policies.
You really think that $99 developer fee really covers the costs of doing any of this?
Its simply a barrier to keep some of the riff raff out.
Quote:
If Amazon has to suddenly make every kindle book they sell available for purchase on iOS, that requires renegotiation with every content provider, since the agreements they had before were only involving splitting money with Amazon.
No they don't the 30% comes out of Amazon's end. The publisher isn't involved in that.
Apple is hosting the Sony app. It costs Apple money to have the Sony Reader app on their store.
The reason Apple hosts free apps is because it makes their hardware more attractive. A lot of people buy an iPad and not a Kindle because the iPad can also be a Kindle. Apple shouldn't drive away third party content, which helps it sell devices.
First, Amazon would not allow Apple to sell its competing services (e.g. digital books or digital music) through their store. Second, if Amazon demanded their standard cut in such a scenario, it would make it unprofitable for Apple to do so (and they wouldn't). When you're dealing with third-party content which you are already selling at a personal cut you have to completely remake your business model in order to participate in another layer (i.e. a third party selling a third-party's content through another party's service). Margins in digital music and digital books don't allow for this with these kind of cuts.
Let's get this straight, Amazon wouldn't sell anything from competitor's store, Apple does while charging a fee. And you find problem with what Apple is doing?
Whether Amazon can make it profitable doing business on Apple's store is NOT Apple's concern. Just like it's not really the mall owner's duty to let you setup your shop for free because otherwise your business can't turn a profit.
Quote:
Anyway, back to your point. The disgrace here is that this that any strategic value behind a move like this would have to be great to warrant making a decision which is terrible for so many Apple customers. The only way I can even begin to wrap my head around why Apple would be consider this is if this was a huge hangup in negotiation for magazine subscriptions. Aside from this, it diminishes the value of the platform to users, comes across as anti-competitive while generating bad PR, and doesn't really bring in a worthwhile revenue increase (relative to their currently existing coffers). Normally a company would make special arrangements in cases like this to come up with a solution which is viable to both parties.
What would really maximize value for Apple's users is for Amazon and the like to offer their books for free. Then they don't have to pay Apple 30%, and you get whatever you want. It would probably kill Apple's iBook if it still charge money for books. Users would be real happy, and Apple's platform should be real popular then, wouldn't it? So why aren't you crying to Amazon/Sony asking when free books are coming?
Who cares? Just buy a kindle. If you can afford an iPad, you can afford a Kindle.
I agree 100%, my reading experience is better with a kindle, it's made for reading... Plus it's much lighter and certain models have 3G (believe it's currently not in stock)
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.
This is more akin to the commonplace slotting fees paid by manufacturers to retailers for (premium) shelf space. Apple wants a shot at being compensated for providing the shopping venue as well as recovering their costs for providing infrastructure.
Apple should have never allowed it from the beginning, then. The part that angers me the most is Apple was perfectly fine allowing this to go on while iOS and the App Store was growing. This change is a classic bait-and-switch. Developers who were following the rules and playing nice with Apple are now suddenly supposed to pay more, which in some cases, could completely destroy a business.
Apple have built a empire working closely with content creators, and providing them with platforms to profitably sell their content.
But it has to be profitable for both parties.
I suspect something has happened which demands a slightly more forthright negotiating tactic.
If they are using apple to get customers then apple should get a cut. Otherwise they are free to develop their own app store and charge what they want.
You're missing the point. When you buy a kindle book, you're not Apple's customer, you're Amazon's. Imagine buying an iPad, knowing how wonderful it is that you can buy your books through Amazon's vast library and enjoy reading them on your device, and suddenly that application changes dramatically so that only select books that have been authorized to use Apple's in-app purchase can be allowed, you might find you are now unable to read most of your library. Or worse, what if Apple demanded all or nothing, and suddenly the Kindle application disappeared. You would be upset, no?
That's the type of situation we could find ourselves in if we take this statement from Apple at face value.
The original report was based on comments from Sony, which said its ebook Reader app had failed to pass Apple's approval process because its in-app sales weren't going through Apple.
Writing for the New York Times, Claire Cain Miller and Miguel Helft wrote the Apple is "further tightening its control of the App Store," and then speculated that this might spell the last days for similar apps, including Amazon's Kindle ebook title, which like Sony Reader, competes against Apple's own iBook app.
However, Wall Street Journal blogger John Paczkowski has reported official comment from Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller, who said the company has not "changed our developer terms or guidelines," while noting that "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."
That would be the reverse of the situation reported by the Times, and also makes more sense. Pulling popular titles such as Kindle, and similar content-access apps including Dropbox, Hulu+, Netflix and Pandora, would do little to benefit Apple.
In-app option required, but not exclusive
Instead, as Paczkowski explained, "Apple wants its cut on sales enabled by its iOS devices, it has an established guideline that allows it to take it and that?s what it?s doing.
"Developers are still free to send customers to their own Web stores, but they must also offer them the option of purchasing content within their apps themselves, and they must route those sales through Apple which will then take its percentage."
The U.S. Department of Justice is watching for any ANTITRUST violations from Apple.
Freedom of choice is important to create competition between sellers and lower prices for consumers.
It's great to know that the U.S. Department of Justice is watching so that we can get better prices when we buy from Apple.
Comments
How much is that worth to Amazon?
a) Zero?
b) Nothing.
c) Not a penny
d) A tidy sum
I'd argue that Apple is certainly entitled to something. And of course, having control of the platform means that Apple is entitled to demand it.
Is Apple entitled to 30% of the retail value?
Nope. No way. That would be unsustainable. It would leave Apple making more money from a sale than Amazon.
But who said anything about 30%?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called a negotiating position.
It's not about yay, or nay. It's about how much.
C.
Its not that simple. Its also a breach in security.
If Apple allowed 3rd party developers to build their own purchasing stores. It allows nefarious software developers free reign to cause mischief and grief.
To avoid all of that its better for Apple to handle the money transaction.
That's a myth. There are mischievous apps that phish for your information and sneak unwarranted features on your device, like a game that farms your entire contacts database or a flashlight app that enables tethering. The idea that trusting Apple to vet the app doesn't guarantee security in the slightest. Wasn't there an iTunes account breech a few months ago?
This is completely false.
If you purchase your book directly from Amazon, Apple does not get the 30%.
Correct. But now you must make that same book directly available in the app store (probably for the same price, since the language is vague), in which case Apple does get 30%. They don't manage the transactions, they don't serve up the content, yet they're going to charge 10x what a typical POS system does for the exact same content.
So now providing the choice of using a payment method is equivalent to REQUIRING you to use it? If you feel so strongly about not giving Apple 30%, then just choose to use the outof-app payment method when facing the choice.
And you said it yourself Apple's App store is the platform that everyone turns to. But they should just provide it for free? That businesses that benefit from apple's platform shouldn't pay for using that platform?
Your logic, or lack thereof, is astounding.
Apple doesn't provide it for free. You have to pay to enter the developer program and tune your app to comply with Apple's strict, and ever-changing, policies. Had this been the case since the app store's inception, I could follow your argument, but a *major* change like this can dramatically change or even destroy business that are currently relying on Apple's hardware who otherwise have been playing by the rules for years.
If Amazon has to suddenly make every kindle book they sell available for purchase on iOS, that requires renegotiation with every content provider, since the agreements they had before were only involving splitting money with Amazon. If publishers don't want to go along, suddenly the app you're running on your device today could stop functioning all together, and that vast library of books that you've been purchasing for years on Kindle becomes useless if your only used iOS devices.
This hurts consumers and publishers. Again, if Apple had planned it this way from the start, the tone of the conversation might be different. But to me, this is classic bait and switch. Exploit your developers to create amazing services and content on your platform, and then when it hits big, start forcing yourself into the equation and start taking your cut.
You stay classy, Apple.
I doubt Apple would (or could) expect 30% from the Dick Tracy secret decoder ring scored on Ebay.
By your logic, there should also be a 30% charge for any purchases made using the Ebay app.
Said free apps allow people to purchase books via a web browser outside of apples channel, servers, bandwidth.
Said browser can be on any platform.
Saying apple is ok taking 30% of revenues forever, to fund the initial deployment of the free app is taking the piss. If apple doesnt like it, remove the free applications from the app store. Otherwise they are costing apple money.
Uhhh.....no....not the same thing.
I doubt Apple would (or could) expect 30% from the Dick Tracy secret decoder ring scored on Ebay.
Why not? ebay is making money through Apple.
The app store on the iPad is creating tens of millions of Kindle sales for Amazon.
How much is that worth to Amazon?
a) Zero?
b) Nothing.
c) Not a penny
d) A tidy sum
I'd argue that Apple is certainly entitled to something. And of course, having control of the platform means that Apple is entitled to demand it.
Is Apple entitled to 30% of the retail value?
Nope. No way. That would be unsustainable. It would leave Apple making more money from a sale than Amazon.
But who said anything about 30%?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called a negotiating position.
It's not about yay, or nay. It's about how much.
C.
Precisely. Unlike application sales, in-app purchases are essentially POS transactions. You are responsible for tracking the purchases and serve and maintain your own delivery systems (servers, bandwidth, etc). Apple has *nothing* to do with in-app sales other than the transaction itself.
The idea that Apple can get away charging 10x what a typical POS system does is laughable at best, especially when they have zero to do with the actual service that runs on their device THAT THEY WERE PERFECTLY CONTENT WITH ALLOWING BEFORE. (I hate typing in caps, btw xD)
Apples locked platform allows for free apps to be attained through their system. With this choice they have opened themselves up for funding the bandwidth to supply these pieces of software, including those who make money for the programmers -outside of- apples channel (advertising, out of app purchasing).
Said free apps allow people to purchase books via a web browser outside of apples channel, servers, bandwidth.
Said browser can be on any platform.
Saying apple is ok taking 30% of revenues forever, to fund the initial deployment of the free app is taking the piss. If apple doesnt like it, remove the free applications from the app store. Otherwise they are costing apple money.
Apple should have never allowed it from the beginning, then. The part that angers me the most is Apple was perfectly fine allowing this to go on while iOS and the App Store was growing. This change is a classic bait-and-switch. Developers who were following the rules and playing nice with Apple are now suddenly supposed to pay more, which in some cases, could completely destroy a business.
Uhhh.....no....not the same thing.
I doubt Apple would (or could) expect 30% from the Dick Tracy secret decoder ring scored on Ebay.
why not, ebay and the seller are both making profit from a free app, that requires apples bandwidth and storage.
I just don't think that it costs them that much for Amazon's app alone. For everyone's apps yes, we are talking millions upon millions of dollars, but not just Amazon alone. If they were delivering the actual content (in this case the ebooks themselves) that would be different, but that's not the case as far as I can tell.
There is no way that the process of distributing the Kindle app costs Apple as much as 30% of every book that is sold in the Kindle store through iOS, unless the books themselves were being directly distributed through Apple's channels. Which raises a valid question to which I don't know the answer: if Amazon sells books in the app itself, is the content delivered through Amazon or Apple?
Amazon shouldn't have to foot the bill for all of the devs that are selling cheap/free apps.
Apple didn't just hang a sign on the Internet one day that said app store. They had to design phones and tablets that stood out. And boy did they do that. Now they are charging third parties for access to their customers. The determination of what amazon has to foot the bill for is a product of what they are able to negotiate not some calculation you make as to what it costs apple to to host amazons app. I use the word negotiate but in this case apple has a standard policy-30%.
Apple didn't just hang a sign on the Internet one day that said app store. They had to design phones and tablets that stood out. And boy did they do that. Now they are charging third parties for access to their customers. The determination of what amazon has to foot the bill for is a product of what they are able to negotiate not some calculation you make as to what it costs apple to to host amazons app. I use the word negotiate but in this case apple has a standard policy-30%.
Next Netflix, Hulu, Bank of America, ec.
All of them are making money
That's a myth. There are mischievous apps that phish for your information and sneak unwarranted features on your device, like a game that farms your entire contacts database or a flashlight app that enables tethering. The idea that trusting Apple to vet the app doesn't guarantee security in the slightest. Wasn't there an iTunes account breech a few months ago?
Its a myth because it cannot happen.
No the alert of the breach itself was a phishing scam.
Correct. But now you must make that same book directly available in the app store (probably for the same price, since the language is vague), in which case Apple does get 30%. They don't manage the transactions, they don't serve up the content, yet they're going to charge 10x what a typical POS system does for the exact same content.
How does Apple get 30% if Amazon is selling the same book for the same price and Apple gets none of the money?
I have no clue of how you came up the 10X figure. Seeing as books on Kindle are typically $3-$5.
Apple doesn't provide it for free. You have to pay to enter the developer program and tune your app to comply with Apple's strict, and ever-changing, policies.
You really think that $99 developer fee really covers the costs of doing any of this?
Its simply a barrier to keep some of the riff raff out.
If Amazon has to suddenly make every kindle book they sell available for purchase on iOS, that requires renegotiation with every content provider, since the agreements they had before were only involving splitting money with Amazon.
No they don't the 30% comes out of Amazon's end. The publisher isn't involved in that.
Apple is hosting the Sony app. It costs Apple money to have the Sony Reader app on their store.
The reason Apple hosts free apps is because it makes their hardware more attractive. A lot of people buy an iPad and not a Kindle because the iPad can also be a Kindle. Apple shouldn't drive away third party content, which helps it sell devices.
why not, ebay and the seller are both making profit from a free app, that requires apples bandwidth and storage.
First, Amazon would not allow Apple to sell its competing services (e.g. digital books or digital music) through their store. Second, if Amazon demanded their standard cut in such a scenario, it would make it unprofitable for Apple to do so (and they wouldn't). When you're dealing with third-party content which you are already selling at a personal cut you have to completely remake your business model in order to participate in another layer (i.e. a third party selling a third-party's content through another party's service). Margins in digital music and digital books don't allow for this with these kind of cuts.
Let's get this straight, Amazon wouldn't sell anything from competitor's store, Apple does while charging a fee. And you find problem with what Apple is doing?
Whether Amazon can make it profitable doing business on Apple's store is NOT Apple's concern. Just like it's not really the mall owner's duty to let you setup your shop for free because otherwise your business can't turn a profit.
Anyway, back to your point. The disgrace here is that this that any strategic value behind a move like this would have to be great to warrant making a decision which is terrible for so many Apple customers. The only way I can even begin to wrap my head around why Apple would be consider this is if this was a huge hangup in negotiation for magazine subscriptions. Aside from this, it diminishes the value of the platform to users, comes across as anti-competitive while generating bad PR, and doesn't really bring in a worthwhile revenue increase (relative to their currently existing coffers). Normally a company would make special arrangements in cases like this to come up with a solution which is viable to both parties.
What would really maximize value for Apple's users is for Amazon and the like to offer their books for free. Then they don't have to pay Apple 30%, and you get whatever you want. It would probably kill Apple's iBook if it still charge money for books. Users would be real happy, and Apple's platform should be real popular then, wouldn't it? So why aren't you crying to Amazon/Sony asking when free books are coming?
Who cares? Just buy a kindle. If you can afford an iPad, you can afford a Kindle.
I agree 100%, my reading experience is better with a kindle, it's made for reading... Plus it's much lighter and certain models have 3G (believe it's currently not in stock)
Next Netflix, Hulu, Bank of America, ec.
All of them are making money
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.
This is more akin to the commonplace slotting fees paid by manufacturers to retailers for (premium) shelf space. Apple wants a shot at being compensated for providing the shopping venue as well as recovering their costs for providing infrastructure.
Apple should have never allowed it from the beginning, then. The part that angers me the most is Apple was perfectly fine allowing this to go on while iOS and the App Store was growing. This change is a classic bait-and-switch. Developers who were following the rules and playing nice with Apple are now suddenly supposed to pay more, which in some cases, could completely destroy a business.
Apple have built a empire working closely with content creators, and providing them with platforms to profitably sell their content.
But it has to be profitable for both parties.
I suspect something has happened which demands a slightly more forthright negotiating tactic.
C.
If they are using apple to get customers then apple should get a cut. Otherwise they are free to develop their own app store and charge what they want.
You're missing the point. When you buy a kindle book, you're not Apple's customer, you're Amazon's. Imagine buying an iPad, knowing how wonderful it is that you can buy your books through Amazon's vast library and enjoy reading them on your device, and suddenly that application changes dramatically so that only select books that have been authorized to use Apple's in-app purchase can be allowed, you might find you are now unable to read most of your library. Or worse, what if Apple demanded all or nothing, and suddenly the Kindle application disappeared. You would be upset, no?
That's the type of situation we could find ourselves in if we take this statement from Apple at face value.
How exactly is Apple going to charge them 30% for their services?
Like they want to do with Amazon, B&N and Sony?
The original report was based on comments from Sony, which said its ebook Reader app had failed to pass Apple's approval process because its in-app sales weren't going through Apple.
Writing for the New York Times, Claire Cain Miller and Miguel Helft wrote the Apple is "further tightening its control of the App Store," and then speculated that this might spell the last days for similar apps, including Amazon's Kindle ebook title, which like Sony Reader, competes against Apple's own iBook app.
However, Wall Street Journal blogger John Paczkowski has reported official comment from Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller, who said the company has not "changed our developer terms or guidelines," while noting that "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."
That would be the reverse of the situation reported by the Times, and also makes more sense. Pulling popular titles such as Kindle, and similar content-access apps including Dropbox, Hulu+, Netflix and Pandora, would do little to benefit Apple.
In-app option required, but not exclusive
Instead, as Paczkowski explained, "Apple wants its cut on sales enabled by its iOS devices, it has an established guideline that allows it to take it and that?s what it?s doing.
"Developers are still free to send customers to their own Web stores, but they must also offer them the option of purchasing content within their apps themselves, and they must route those sales through Apple which will then take its percentage."
The U.S. Department of Justice is watching for any ANTITRUST violations from Apple.
Freedom of choice is important to create competition between sellers and lower prices for consumers.
It's great to know that the U.S. Department of Justice is watching so that we can get better prices when we buy from Apple.