PDA

View Full Version : Will Kindle App Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance?




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 30, 2011, 11:06 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/30/will-kindle-survive-apples-deadline-for-ios-content-purchasing-compliance/)


Earlier this year, Apple rolled out In App Subscriptions (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/15/apple-debuts-app-store-subscriptions/) for App Store applications, offering content providers a way to provide ongoing content within their applications. As part of that rollout, Apple required that providers offer their content via In App Subscriptions at at least the same rates as other purchasing mechanisms and also barred apps from including links to those alternative external mechanisms, such as "buy" buttons linking out to web-based stores. The regulations were set to apply to both purchased and subscribed content, and would go into effect on June 30th (today) for existing applications.

But with just a few weeks to go before the deadline, Apple backpedaled somewhat (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/), adjusting its App Store terms to allow developers to provide content in their applications without also requiring that the content be made available through In App Purchases/Subscriptions. The company did, however, maintain its exclusion of "buy" buttons linking to external purchasing mechanisms, and presumably continued to demand a June 30th compliance date for existing apps.

Last week, Hulu Plus became one of the highest-profile apps to comply with Apple's new rules (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/hulu-complies-with-apples-new-ios-in-app-subscription-rules/), simply removing an external link for signing up for the Hulu Plus service. The revised app complies with Apple's rules by playing outside subscription content without offering an In App Subscription option while also not providing users with a way to subscribe to the service linked from directly within the app.

At the time, it was noted that a number of other high-profile apps had yet to comply with Apple's terms and that some such as Amazon's Kindle app might have significant difficulties doing so given their focus on offering individual eBook purchases. Offering access to a catalog of eBook content with no way to link out for external purchases would mark a relatively significant inconvenience for users trying to make new purchases.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/kindle_app_store_link.jpg


CNN Money reports (http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/29/technology/apple_app_store_kindle/) that Kindle does indeed appear to be in Apple's crosshairs, along with similar eBook services from Barnes & Noble and Borders.The new rules explicitly prohibit apps that include "external mechanisms for purchases ... such as a 'buy' button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book."

Amazon's Kindle app prominently features a "Shop in Kindle Store" link, which takes shoppers to Amazon's website. That's verboten under the rules set to take effect Thursday.Apple and the digital booksellers have remained silent on exactly what is expected to happen today as the new rules take effect, but none of the high-profile applications have yet received updates that would bring them into compliance with the rules.

Apple is not averse, however, to rejecting or removing such applications for non-compliance, as the company demonstrated by rejecting a Sony Reader application (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/01/apple-rejects-sony-reader-from-app-store-kindle-removal-next/) earlier this year for its ability to purchase external content (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/01/apple-now-requiring-ebook-applications-with-external-purchases-to-also-offer-in-app-purchasing/) without also offering In App Purchasing.

Article Link: Will Kindle Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/30/will-kindle-survive-apples-deadline-for-ios-content-purchasing-compliance/)



supmango
Jun 30, 2011, 11:11 AM
Clearly Amazon is not afraid to push Apple's buttons. But I suspect Apple is not afraid to push back. Could Apple actually use their kill switch for this kind of thing?

shartypants
Jun 30, 2011, 11:13 AM
Aw, come on Amazon, pay the 30%, hehe.

Morod
Jun 30, 2011, 11:14 AM
Aw, come on Apple, don't be messing with my Kindle stuff.

LarryC
Jun 30, 2011, 11:19 AM
I hardly think that Amazon needs Apple.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 11:20 AM
The rules are pretty clear, if they don't pull the button Apple have to pull the app from the store.

And, by the way, the title is a little misleading. I highly doubt Kindle as a whole will suffer from pulling Kindle iOS app from the App Store

Rodimus Prime
Jun 30, 2011, 11:22 AM
Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

stockscalper
Jun 30, 2011, 11:23 AM
The irony of it all ... once upon a time the Apple flew a pirate flag and led a revolt against uptight corporate types like IBM. Now, Apple has become IBM. Orwell would be pleased.

nwcs
Jun 30, 2011, 11:23 AM
Clearly Amazon is not afraid to push Apple's buttons. But I suspect Apple is not afraid to push back. Could Apple actually use their kill switch for this kind of thing?

They wouldn't do that. They would only take the app offline for new downloads.

The Phazer
Jun 30, 2011, 11:24 AM
Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

Yup. I'd almost like for it to happen just for the almighty kicking that Apple would get in court if Amazon followed it up.

Phazer

nwcs
Jun 30, 2011, 11:24 AM
Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

Not in the slightest. They are not disallowing kindle. They are disallowing kindle with a link to their book store. Not saying whether this is a good or bad policy but it's not antitrust.

malnar
Jun 30, 2011, 11:26 AM
I hardly think Amazon is shaking with worry about this. If anything, they're probably excited at the possibilities - millions of angry Apple customers suddenly left in the lurch. I know I'll be voting with my money and buying a Kindle, not going the route Apple hopes - by using iBooks. This will only hurt Apple - it could seriously influence my decision to buy an iPad in the future, as reading on it is one of the things that made it worthwhile.

LarryC
Jun 30, 2011, 11:27 AM
The irony of it all ... once upon a time the Apple flew a pirate flag and led a revolt against uptight corporate types like IBM. Now, Apple has become IBM. Orwell would be pleased.

Well said, and very true.

yg17
Jun 30, 2011, 11:27 AM
Not in the slightest. They are not disallowing kindle. They are disallowing kindle with a link to their book store. Not saying whether this is a good or bad policy but it's not antitrust.

Apple is forcing Amazon (whose Kindle store competes directly with iBooks) to give them a 30% cut of all sales. Sounds like antitrust to me.

KaneBaker
Jun 30, 2011, 11:28 AM
The irony of it all ... once upon a time the Apple flew a pirate flag and led a revolt against uptight corporate types like IBM. Now, Apple has become IBM. Orwell would be pleased.

I know, Apple is not the big brother form their 1984 ad.
"Don't you dare think different." Would kind of work better these days.

Happens to every mega company though.

akatsuki
Jun 30, 2011, 11:31 AM
I'd sort of love it if they got nailed for antitrust violations.

But realistically - Amazon is working on a web app and could just remove the button and be done with it. A stupid result from the consumer point of view, but Apple is not as worried about that nowadays.

Docrjm
Jun 30, 2011, 11:31 AM
I currently use Kindle app Kobo app and iBooks on my iPad. I shop around to see which has the content that I want at the best price and buy accordingly. Will have no probs with just opening the web browser if needed. Its all about the content.

nwcs
Jun 30, 2011, 11:32 AM
Apple is forcing Amazon (whose Kindle store competes directly with iBooks) to give them a 30% cut of all sales. Sounds like antitrust to me.

Uh, no. They are only doing that if they have a link to their store from the app. Remove the button and all is OK. Not antitrust in the slightest. People on these forums should leave legal situations to lawyers.

chelsel
Jun 30, 2011, 11:32 AM
The iPhone and iPad provide lousy e-book reading experiences anyway, IMHO. The Kindle and e-ink excel for reading books. I own 3 iPads and 2 Kindles so I think I'm pretty qualified to make that statement.

walnuts
Jun 30, 2011, 11:33 AM
Clearly Amazon is not afraid to push Apple's buttons. But I suspect Apple is not afraid to push back. Could Apple actually use their kill switch for this kind of thing?

No- they would just remove it from the app store. They weren't violating Apple's rules until today.

So, get it while you can...

roadbloc
Jun 30, 2011, 11:34 AM
Amazon wouldn't be effected much if they were to move off the iOS devices, however, I will be losing some potential sales if they do. Thank goodness my publishers are putting me on iBooks within the next month.

nwcs
Jun 30, 2011, 11:35 AM
The iPhone and iPad provide lousy e-book reading experiences anyway, IMHO. The Kindle and e-ink excel for reading books. I own 3 iPads and 2 Kindles so I think I'm pretty qualified to make that statement.

I have both and both work well in different situations. Lousy in your opinion maybe but not in everyone's.

kiljoy616
Jun 30, 2011, 11:36 AM
The irony of it all ... once upon a time the Apple flew a pirate flag and led a revolt against uptight corporate types like IBM. Now, Apple has become IBM. Orwell would be pleased.

Once a pun a time, people did not sue each other for one line of code, they do now, so what is your point?

thunderclap
Jun 30, 2011, 11:41 AM
It's a game of chicken, as it's not just Apple vs Amazon. It's Apple vs 3rd Party Apps Who Have Buy Buttons. If Apple pulls ones, but not another, that would be questionable. I think each side is waiting to see who blinks first.

jayfehr
Jun 30, 2011, 11:42 AM
My guess is everything will remain as is. However, when Amazon posts the next update for the app if the button is still there it will be rejected. But I don't believe Apple will pull the current version.

kiljoy616
Jun 30, 2011, 11:42 AM
The iPhone and iPad provide lousy e-book reading experiences anyway, IMHO. The Kindle and e-ink excel for reading books. I own 3 iPads and 2 Kindles so I think I'm pretty qualified to make that statement.

Oh your so funny, you own 3 ipads and you do what with them? Can't wait to hear the come back.

I read books on the iPad perfectly and without any issue. I read magazines on the ipad and have never looked back at buying regular magazines. Considering how few if any advertising there is on the digital version I for one am very happy with the product vs the Kindle with that lame washed out technology and lag.

Sure not in direct sunlight but I stay away from direct sunlight as much as I can.

Considering Apple sells books, I see no big deal if Kindle App's goes bye bye.

kiljoy616
Jun 30, 2011, 11:45 AM
Apple is forcing Amazon (whose Kindle store competes directly with iBooks) to give them a 30% cut of all sales. Sounds like antitrust to me.

They are not forcing anyone to do anything. Amazon does not have to play in the iOS world. Amazon does not get a free pass, take the button down and they are fine, get over it.

lordj4000
Jun 30, 2011, 11:48 AM
Am I really the only one that loves this idea? I can't stand that i have to use Amazon's terrible mobile site to buy a book. Its the same reason that i don't use Amazon's mp3 store. The only reason i haven't already switched to iBooks is that I had a kindle first and already have 15 or so books with Amazon.

CalBoy
Jun 30, 2011, 11:51 AM
Not in the slightest. They are not disallowing kindle. They are disallowing kindle with a link to their book store. Not saying whether this is a good or bad policy but it's not antitrust.

They are using their dominant position in the market to either coerce transfers of money to their coffers, or to outright exclude competitors. Even if Amazon were to agree to pay 30%, it would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the iBookstore, and that competitive disadvantage is only caused by Apple's coerce policy. That smells like anti-trust to me.

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.

Nebulance
Jun 30, 2011, 11:53 AM
Sure not in direct sunlight but I stay away from direct sunlight as much as I can.


Makes sense.

It's like sunglasses -- they're not made for staring directly into the sun. They're made to protect your vision due to all the reflections and refractions of sunlight.

[somewhat irrelevant, but still]

firestarter
Jun 30, 2011, 11:53 AM
eBooks are a 'killer app' for my iPad and iPhone, and Apple's solution is too limited in it's platform support.

Pulling Kindle completely would seriously affect my long term commitment both to iPad and to Kindle.

ericvmazzone
Jun 30, 2011, 11:54 AM
If Apple does flip the kill switch on the Kindle App removing it from my iOS devices, I will be wiping them to base line specs and returning both my iPhone 3GS (purchased on day one) and iPad (last September) to the Apple Store. I WILL NOT take no returns for an answer.

Not allowing updates, okay. Killing the App entirely, I WILL destroy Apple.:mad:

dethmaShine
Jun 30, 2011, 11:54 AM
Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

Do you understand what Anti-trust is? Apple isn't hurting Amazon and Amazon only. These rules have been made for all the publishers and all developers of apps on the App Store.

On another note, what if these rules weren't there in the first place and Amazon would have decided to abandon the app store in favour of the Amazon tablet? What would you have set up then?

Get your facts right.

autrefois
Jun 30, 2011, 11:54 AM
Considering Apple is suing Amazon over their use of "app store (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/21/apple-sues-amazon-over-app-store-trademark/)", Amazon might not be too inclined to play by Apple's rules at this point, especially a rule that a lot of developers and companies are adverse to to begin with.

I don't know if I blame Amazon if that's the reason for their non-compliance. But if this means the Kindle app will be removed from the/Apple's App Store, I think everyone will lose out: Amazon, consumers, and Apple. I doubt Apple will activate the "kill switch" on these apps to remove/disable them for people who already have them, but there would be no more updates and no new downloads of the Kindle app. There'd be one more reason for people on the fence to not buy an i-device: no Kindle app, and no way to know what popular app may be the next to be kicked out when Apple decides to change its rules again.

spazzcat
Jun 30, 2011, 11:55 AM
Apple is forcing Amazon (whose Kindle store competes directly with iBooks) to give them a 30% cut of all sales. Sounds like antitrust to me.

No they are not, they are not allowing the to link to their web site...

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 11:56 AM
In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.
I must be missing the legal ruling that States that Apple has a monopoly and is considered a trust. Care to point that Out. I am sure that Google is perfectly willing to show that they have more devices. Not to mention that Amazon still sells their own device.

belsokar
Jun 30, 2011, 11:56 AM
They are not forcing anyone to do anything. Amazon does not have to play in the iOS world. Amazon does not get a free pass, take the button down and they are fine, get over it.

It's not about "forcing" people to do anything...it's about creating an atmosphere that is anti-competitive. Apple is essentially saying to compete with us, you have to give us 30% of your revenue, or else you aren't allowed to "compete" with us...

I'm a huge apple fanboy (in my recent past owning everything Apple and loving it)...I make a living developing apps for iPhone and iPad...and this smells alot like Microsoft to me...I know many people more well versed in microsoft antitrust history may say it's a huge difference...and I'm not saying it's apples and apples, but it just feels wrong to me...and I recall all the Microsoft supporters in their day claiming "Windows" was a Microsoft product, and they were free to make whatever rules they wanted, and didn't have to allow more competitive behavior because it was their product...but that never stood up in the courts...and I think eventually some people may make the argument that since iOS is the ONLY OS that can run on the iPhone platform, and since there's no alternatives for someone like Amazon, then they are forced to compete with Apple's e-bookstore and Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage by allowing itself a "Buy" link and not allowing competitors a "Buy" link unless they pony up some cash, thus putting their products at a disadvantage...once again, creating an atmosphere that is limiting competition...

just my two cents...

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 11:58 AM
If Apple does flip the kill switch on the Kindle App removing it from my iOS devices, I will be wiping them to base line specs and returning both my iPhone 3GS (purchased on day one) and iPad (last September) to the Apple Store. I WILL NOT take no returns for an answer.

Not allowing updates, okay. Killing the App entirely, I WILL destroy Apple.:mad:


Why would you assume they would do that? They never have used the kill switch on other apps that they have pulled for rule violation.

*LTD*
Jun 30, 2011, 11:58 AM
Clearly Amazon is not afraid to push Apple's buttons. But I suspect Apple is not afraid to push back. Could Apple actually use their kill switch for this kind of thing?

Who stands to lose the most? Amazon.

We use our iPads and iPhones for lots of things. Reading using the Kindle app is just one of them, and not a major one overall.

spazzcat
Jun 30, 2011, 11:59 AM
They are using their dominant position in the market to either coerce transfers of money to their coffers, or to outright exclude competitors. Even if Amazon were to agree to pay 30%, it would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the iBookstore, and that competitive disadvantage is only caused by Apple's coerce policy. That smells like anti-trust to me.

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.

Expect the part where companies that have started selling subs through the app store have seen big gains in new subs...

Rocketman
Jun 30, 2011, 12:00 PM
It's not personal, it's business. I bet Apple gives them 30 days leeway from the start date if they hear they intend to comply.

Rocketman

http://communities.intel.com/thread/1111

roadbloc
Jun 30, 2011, 12:02 PM
Who stands to lose the most? Amazon.
Very unlikely since Amazon's Kindle device is selling excellently well and Kindle is still available on Mac, PC, Android, Gameboy Colour etc. The Kindle is the most popular, largest and arguably the best eBook store, Amazon is in no trouble.

The only losers here are the iOS users. Which, to be honest, isn't brilliant.

ULFoaf
Jun 30, 2011, 12:03 PM
I don't know what will happen, but using the Kindle app on the iPhone has been a pleasure ,one of the best things about owning an iPhone. Good selection, good service, nice, usable app. Of course, you don't really purchase in the app. It takes you to a webpage to pay and downloads to your iPhone.

B&N doesn't even come close, unless there are great improvements in the last year. Bad selection, bad service, bad, slow app.

I haven't tried to look for much on iBooks, but it seems a little slow on the iPhone 3G. Selection didn't appear to be as good as for Kindle.

I haven't bought a book in several years, except used for under $5.

BobVB
Jun 30, 2011, 12:05 PM
I took 's policy change to now make it about individual items - if there were a button by a list of books to buy it = violation, but just a web link to the generic store, at one spot in the program? No, what would be the point? They could ju8st replace it with the in app web browser and then the person would type in kindle.com and get to the same place.

Apple would be an idiot to make a big deal about this when all it would do is make a slight change and give them massive negative pr.

a.gomez
Jun 30, 2011, 12:12 PM
good luck with that, just going to take a feature away from people who will not dump their Amazon collection anyway.

I moved over to a galaxy tab 7 for e-books after my old Kindle (iphone screen was to small) - so not an issue for me really.

I see people on the train trying to read off their ipads on the train standing up sometimes - it just looks ridiculous.

Mak47
Jun 30, 2011, 12:18 PM
They are using their dominant position in the market to either coerce transfers of money to their coffers, or to outright exclude competitors. Even if Amazon were to agree to pay 30%, it would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the iBookstore, and that competitive disadvantage is only caused by Apple's coerce policy. That smells like anti-trust to me.

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.


It's Apple's store, they have a right to dictate what is sold in it and their position is reasonable. They're not killing the app, they're simply saying that if Amazon wants to profit from Apple's store, Apple ought to get something out of the deal.

Think of it this way, if you open a store that sells physical books you choose what to sell in that store. You probably also have a competitor down the street who does the same. If that competitor came into your store and asked to sell books in your space--and give you nothing in exchange-- you would laugh them out the door.

It would not be in your interest to let someone else use your valuable space to sell items that you already offer. No, not just not in your interest...completely and utterly ridiculous.

No one is stopping Amazon from selling books, nor are they stopping Kindle users from reading them in iOS. They're simply saying that if you want a shelf in Apple's shop, you need to pay for that. Otherwise your customers can use the less convenient option of going to your store on their own to buy.

Hopefully they do pull the buy button. Maybe more people will try iBooks as a result. It's a vastly superior app and the store offers a ton of easily accessible free titles. I only use Kindle now if iBooks doesnt have what I'm looking for, pulling the buy button wouldn't bother me in the least.

Bubba Satori
Jun 30, 2011, 12:19 PM
The irony of it all ... once upon a time the Apple flew a pirate flag and led a revolt against uptight corporate types like IBM. Now, Apple has become IBM. Orwell would be pleased.

+1

Every rebel secretly desires to lead an empire.
It's an historic inevitability.

marksman
Jun 30, 2011, 12:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

The rules are pretty clear, if they don't pull the button Apple have to pull the app from the store.

And, by the way, the title is a little misleading. I highly doubt Kindle as a whole will suffer from pulling Kindle iOS app from the App Store

Yeah because there are more kindles than iOS devices

Lagmonster
Jun 30, 2011, 12:24 PM
Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

^^^ This. They are in the cross-hairs, push a little more and it's going to get ugly.

NoNothing
Jun 30, 2011, 12:24 PM
The In App purchase is a cool technology for developers to be able use if the want to. Period. If they want to. It makes sense for some things and not for others.

Magazines? Makes 100% sense. Vouge pays the distribution channels about the same.

Distributers of goods? 30% for being the middle man? Crazy talk. Apple needs to wake up and realize the difference between original content publishing and re-distribution of content.

NoNothing
Jun 30, 2011, 12:25 PM
Yeah because there are more kindles than iOS devices

Really. >210,000,000 kindles have been sold? Are you sure about that number?

klamse25
Jun 30, 2011, 12:25 PM
Once a pun a time, people did not sue each other for one line of code, they do now, so what is your point?

I can guarantee you the button in the app is more than "one line of code."

waldobushman
Jun 30, 2011, 12:26 PM
Okay, this month Apple changed their hardnosed policy from "need to give me 30%" to "need to give me 30% only if you have button".

Apple has clout but certainly nothing that could sway a Amazon or Barnes and Noble so it was obvious from the beginning they would never be able to enforce their original policy. They clearly didn't think their initial position through.

I know I have no idea of how Apple will respond to applications which fail to comply with their latest licensing requirements. I also do not know how Amazon and Barnes and Noble will respond either.

None of the companies, however, can legally effectively deny customers access to the books they have purchased. I cannot imagine any company will want to take on the multiple lawsuits that will be filed by customers against all of them. If the US Supreme Court's recent decision on class action lawsuits applies to this issue, then these companies could be swallowed up responding to millions of small claims actions in every county in the US.

And would any of them want governments in general dictating policy in this area? Congress would love nothing more than not having to deal with the US budget and debt ceiling issues, and instead delve into areas they even know less about (if that is possible).

shartypants
Jun 30, 2011, 12:29 PM
Ultimately I think Amazon would just pull the button and leave the app, they would piss off a lot of their customers if they pulled their app (its bound to need updates at some point).

Its crazy how all this works, there is an Amazon app where you can buy products from A to Z, as long as Apple doesn't sell any of those its ok I guess, interesting. At the same time I can understand Apple's desire to protect their ebook business. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

terrymr
Jun 30, 2011, 12:29 PM
The rules are pretty clear, if they don't pull the button Apple have to pull the app from the store.

And, by the way, the title is a little misleading. I highly doubt Kindle as a whole will suffer from pulling Kindle iOS app from the App Store

Do we know for sure that the big players like amazon have to agree to the same terms & conditions as everybody else ? They could have negotiated a different deal with apple for all we know ?

TallGuy1970
Jun 30, 2011, 12:32 PM
Apple better not mess with my Kindle app. It is superior to iBooks in one very important aspect. Using Kindle I can view and sync all of my Kindle books on my phone, my iPad, AND MY COMPUTER!

Until Apple updates iBooks to allow me to read my books purchased at the iBook store on my computer (at home or the office), I will stick with Amazon and Kindle!

marksman
Jun 30, 2011, 12:32 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Who stands to lose the most? Amazon.
Very unlikely since Amazon's Kindle device is selling excellently well and Kindle is still available on Mac, PC, Android, Gameboy Colour etc. The Kindle is the most popular, largest and arguably the best eBook store, Amazon is in no trouble.

The only losers here are the iOS users. Which, to be honest, isn't brilliant.

You forget the part where as of now it us likely most kindle ebooks are consumed on iOS devices. As for people saying that the iPad is horrible for books then why would you care if the kindle app went away

Lennholm
Jun 30, 2011, 12:34 PM
It's Apple's store, they have a right to dictate what is sold in it and their position is reasonable. They're not killing the app, they're simply saying that if Amazon wants to profit from Apple's store, Apple ought to get something out of the deal.

Funny thing, Microsoft lost in court because they had their own browser pre-installed on THEIR OS. They didn't even prevent any other browser to be installed or demand a 30% cut when it was.

In-app subscriptions is entirely a matter between the app and the content providers servers. Apple doesn't host or deliver the content, all they do is handle the money transaction, and a 30% cut for just that is rediculous.

Liquorpuki
Jun 30, 2011, 12:39 PM
If Apple kill the Kindle App, I now have a reason to actually buy a Kindle

iBooks is crap

marksman
Jun 30, 2011, 12:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)


Yeah because there are more kindles than iOS devices

Really. >210,000,000 kindles have been sold? Are you sure about that number?

Haha. Then there are 10s of billions if iOS devices out there. 210 million kindles? Really? Thanks for a good laugh.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 12:41 PM
Do we know for sure that the big players like amazon have to agree to the same terms & conditions as everybody else ? They could have negotiated a different deal with apple for all we know ?

There is no evidence of this however. We need proof first.

Funny thing, Microsoft lost in court because they had their own browser pre-installed on THEIR OS. They didn't even prevent any other browser to be installed or demand a 30% cut when it was.

Have you actually *read* US versus Microsoft? I did since I wanted to understand what was going on. Bundling IE was only one of many, many things that MS was doing. For starters MS had 95% of the Desktop OS market. They were legally classified as a monopoly!

marksman
Jun 30, 2011, 12:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)


Yeah because there are more kindles than iOS devices

Really. >210,000,000 kindles have been sold? Are you sure about that number?

Oops double check I was being sarcastic. The mobile interface does not allow multiquote

DrSQL
Jun 30, 2011, 12:44 PM
I bought the new Nook, that is how I got around it.

sishaw
Jun 30, 2011, 12:47 PM
The rules are pretty clear, if they don't pull the button Apple have to pull the app from the store.



No, actually, they don't. They're a corporation, they have to do what's best for their shareholders, that's it. If they want to make an exception for certain companies, they can. It's not like they're a government and have to comply with Equal Protection principles.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 12:47 PM
I hardly think Amazon is shaking with worry about this. If anything, they're probably excited at the possibilities - millions of angry Apple customers suddenly left in the lurch. I know I'll be voting with my money and buying a Kindle, not going the route Apple hopes - by using iBooks. This will only hurt Apple - it could seriously influence my decision to buy an iPad in the future, as reading on it is one of the things that made it worthwhile.

They are two different devices. If you can't read your Amazon books on your iPad you're not going to automatically give it up. You get a broader range of experience on the iPad - you don't buy it just to read books. You'd might consider also buying a Kindle but not getting one to replace the iPad. That thinking makes no sense. And if you are a huge reader, like I am, you already have a Kindle for reading.

rmatthewware
Jun 30, 2011, 12:48 PM
Access to my Kindle library is one of the major reasons I bought and use my iPad. I wish Apple would back off. There are some people that will buy an iPad in part to have an e-reader. That benefits Apple. But now they want a cut because they say that Apple is bringing Amazon sales. Nope. I'm buying Kindle books because I like Amazon's system.

I'm sure iBooks is great, but are they going to give me free copies of everything I bought through Amazon to compensate me?

If Amazon removes their Kindle Store link from their app, that makes it more difficult to buy Kindle books. I can still do it through Amazon's website, but isn't the point of Apple to make the user experience better?

sishaw
Jun 30, 2011, 12:49 PM
If Apple kill the Kindle App, I now have a reason to actually buy a Kindle

iBooks is crap

The new Kindle is a very decent little e-Book reader (I have one), and the new Nook got good reviews in the press. I don't think Apple pulling the Kindle app will really hurt Amazon--if anything, Amazon will sell more hardware.

BC2009
Jun 30, 2011, 12:50 PM
They are using their dominant position in the market to either coerce transfers of money to their coffers, or to outright exclude competitors. Even if Amazon were to agree to pay 30%, it would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the iBookstore, and that competitive disadvantage is only caused by Apple's coerce policy. That smells like anti-trust to me.

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.

That is not quite right. One could argue that Apple's practice is anti-competitive, but for anti-trust Apple would have to hold a monopoly first. Secondly, there is the fact that you can simply sell your content outside of Apple's ecosystem.

If Apple does flip the kill switch on the Kindle App removing it from my iOS devices, I will be wiping them to base line specs and returning both my iPhone 3GS (purchased on day one) and iPad (last September) to the Apple Store. I WILL NOT take no returns for an answer.

Not allowing updates, okay. Killing the App entirely, I WILL destroy Apple.:mad:

I doubt you could "destroy" Apple -- 10s of millions of folks who agree with you could put a dent in their profits though. But let's face it, they are not going to use the "never-been-used" kill switch. They would simply either pull the app or deny future updates, leaving the current app on the store as-is.



Haha. Then there are 10s of billions if iOS devices out there. 210 million kindles? Really? Thanks for a good laugh.

First off, you should re-read that post. He was saying there are 210M iOS devices and that Kindle does not come close to that. And if you really think there are 10s of Billions of iOS devices you should go count again -- it's actually closer to 200M devices. Although your assumed ratio of iOS devices to Kindles is probably correct.

Liquorpuki
Jun 30, 2011, 01:00 PM
The new Kindle is a very decent little e-Book reader (I have one), and the new Nook got good reviews in the press. I don't think Apple pulling the Kindle app will really hurt Amazon--if anything, Amazon will sell more hardware.

That's what I'm thinking too. Most people who use the iPad as an E-reader rely on the Kindle App and already have a huge collection of Kindle e-books. They also know that iBooks sucks, both in terms of book selection and because it lacks a ton of features that the Kindle app has like desktop reading, community highlighting, etc.

Apple forcing the Kindle app off iOS will just make Kindle users migrate their library to another device.

.11
Jun 30, 2011, 01:02 PM
Really. >210,000,000 kindles have been sold? Are you sure about that number?

He probably means the Kindle App. Which is available almost everywhere.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:05 PM
Think of it this way, if you open a store that sells physical books you choose what to sell in that store. You probably also have a competitor down the street who does the same. If that competitor came into your store and asked to sell books in your space--and give you nothing in exchange-- you would laugh them out the door.

It would not be in your interest to let someone else use your valuable space to sell items that you already offer. No, not just not in your interest...completely and utterly ridiculous.

No, they are not using Apple space to sell books, the correct analogy is a catalog distributed through a store.

dr Dunkel
Jun 30, 2011, 01:06 PM
I guess it's busy times over in North Kore... sorry, Cupertino; keep the borders to our supreme and promised land closed, and don't you dare THINK DIFFERENT.

:D

thejadedmonkey
Jun 30, 2011, 01:06 PM
I must be missing the legal ruling that States that Apple has a monopoly and is considered a trust. Care to point that Out. I am sure that Google is perfectly willing to show that they have more devices. Not to mention that Amazon still sells their own device.

I can guarantee you the button in the app is more than "one line of code."

You don't need a monopoly to have an anti-trust case. And in this case, where Apple artificially limits its competors in the app store so that they can gain, leads me to believe Amazon, B&N, and Borders could sue Apple for anti-trust.


Here's the wikipedia article on US anti-trust laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law), for all you armchair lawyers :p

The United States antitrust law is the body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior (monopoly) and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. [1] These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both, or generally to violate standards of ethical behavior. Government agencies known as competition regulators, along with private litigants, apply the antitrust and consumer protection laws in hopes of preventing market failure. The term antitrust was originally formulated to combat "business trusts", now more commonly known as cartels. Other countries use the term "competition law".

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Yeah because there are more kindles than iOS devices

So, because there is more iOS devices than Kindles if Apple pulls Kindle App from Apple Store Kindle could disappear as the title (before changing it) said?

sishaw
Jun 30, 2011, 01:09 PM
You don't need a monopoly to have an anti-trust case. And in this case, where Apple artificially limits its competors in the app store so that they can gain, leads me to believe Amazon, B&N, and Borders could sue Apple for anti-trust.

I don't think so, because they can sell their books on other devices. It's not as if the iPad is the only venue for them to sell their books, so there's no restraint of trade.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 01:15 PM
I don't think so, because they can sell their books on other devices. It's not as if the iPad is the only venue for them to sell their books, so there's no restraint of trade.
Indeed - and as I pointed out - they all have their own devices that they sell as well as many other mobile platforms.

A monopoly may not be required for antitrust, but not having said monopoly makes your case a steep uphill battle. Especially when the government has not been particularly aggressive about anti-trust. All Apple needs to do is point out the huge number of Google devices and the first party devices out there that can read Amazon (or other retailer books) that sell very well and making an anti-trust case is going to be very hard.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 01:17 PM
It's sort of incredible how people who are tech savvy have no business sense. I sometimes am annoyed at Apple, but what they are doing makes sense.This is the deal, as simply as I can put it.

With iPhone/iPad, Apple opened a new revenue stream for businesses - a new way to make money they were not able to before. They sell an app (say for $1) and Apple gets 30% of that sale. This is pretty standard. Now these companies can make millions they would not have made before. And of course Apple makes money too.

Then with certain apps, companies can sell other items inside the app, say books. So once again they have a new way to make more money, again money they were not getting before. With the in-app sales, Apple gets nothing. A company might sell a finite number of the apps, but the in-app sales is infinite. Apple comes along and says, hey, we should get a cut, as we were the ones who created the new revenue stream for you. And guess what, that's standard for any business! They would be stupid to say no to Apple because they would then give up all this new money. As said many times over, 70% of some is way better than 100% of nothing.

It may sound like greed to some people, but that's good business. And it's common in all industries! Just as those companies selling in-app items can have expanding business, Apple business needs to expand too. If they did not take a cut, they would be silly, and losing out on huge growth opportunities. All app stores will do this. Andriod also does the 70-30 split. I'm not 100% sure about in-app purchases, but if not now, they certainly will. Business, people! Business!

Piggie
Jun 30, 2011, 01:19 PM
I would like to see Kindle stand firm, and let Apple decide if they wish to remove their App.

Apple changed the rules.

Unless someone stands firm, companies like Apple will feel they can get away with anything.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:19 PM
It's sort of incredible how people who are tech savvy have no business sense. I sometimes am annoyed at Apple, but what they are doing makes sense.This is the deal, as simply as I can put it.

With iPhone/iPad, Apple opened a new revenue stream for businesses - a new way to make money they were not able to before. They sell an app (say for $1) and Apple gets 30% of that sale. This is pretty standard. Now these companies can make millions they would not have made before. And of course Apple makes money too.

Then with certain apps, companies can sell other items inside the app, say books. So once again they have a new way to make more money, again money they were not getting before. With the in-app sales, Apple gets nothing. A company might sell a finite number of the apps, but the in-app sales is infinite. Apple comes along and says, hey, we should get a cut, as we were the ones who created the new revenue stream for you. And guess what, that's standard for any business!

It may sound like greed to some people, but that's good business. And it's common in all industries! Just as those companies selling in-app items can have expanding business, Apple business needs to expand too. If they did not take a cut, they would be silly, and losing out on huge growth opportunities. All app stores will do this. Andriod also does the 70-30 split. I'm not 100% sure about in-app purchases, but if not now, they certainly will. Business, people! Business!

Which in app purchase? Because nor Kindle, nor B&N nor Netflix had or has any in app purchase system.

So you think that Apple deserves a cut from anything sold through ebay, Best Buy or Amazon Store apps?

And no, Android doesn't force to use their in app system or ban a link to a browser like Kindle App does.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:21 PM
I don't think so, because they can sell their books on other devices. It's not as if the iPad is the only venue for them to sell their books, so there's no restraint of trade.

But Apple is making impossible to sell from an iOS device without taking a cut

Sodner
Jun 30, 2011, 01:25 PM
Which in app purchase? Because nor Kindle, nor B&N nor Netflix had or has any in app purchase system.

So you think that Apple deserves a cut from anything sold through ebay, Best Buy or Amazon Store apps?

And no, Android doesn't force to use their in app system or ban a link to a browser like Kindle App does.

That's what I do not get. Apple sales books via iTunes so they want 30% of anyone selling books through an app. But what about eBay? Will apple next want 30% of everything bought or sold that was originally listed or had a winning bid placed from an iOS device?

jontech
Jun 30, 2011, 01:27 PM
The rules are pretty clear, if they don't pull the button Apple have to pull the app from the store.

And, by the way, the title is a little misleading. I highly doubt Kindle as a whole will suffer from pulling Kindle iOS app from the App Store

No App for IOS no Kindle books for me. Reading Kindle books on the iPad is one of the reasons I got an iPad, cause I hate the Kindle.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 01:29 PM
Which in app purchase? Because nor Kindle, nor B&N nor Netflix had or has any in app purchase system.

So you think that Apple deserves a cut from anything sold through ebay, Best Buy or Amazon Store apps?

And no, Android doesn't force to use their in app system or ban a link to a browser like Kindle App does.

I'm not sure what you mean. And I may be missing something or used the proper terminology. Sorry. Let me try and explain again.

When in these apps you hit "buy" or "go to store" and it kicks you to the web browser, they are circumventing the 7-30 deal. So again, they are making money they would not have in the past. Apple is saying hey, where's our 30%. So yeah, I'm saying it's standard business practice to ask for that.

Any and all other industries do that. But this is new evolving tech. I'm sure at some point they had not thought of in-app purchases. Also good business would be to allow them to see the stream of money, so they see it's viable, and then negotiate the cut. As I said, all app stores will do this, as they need their business to be infinite as the customers they work with.

janitor1999
Jun 30, 2011, 01:29 PM
good luck with that, just going to take a feature away from people who will not dump their Amazon collection anyway.

I moved over to a galaxy tab 7 for e-books after my old Kindle (iphone screen was to small) - so not an issue for me really.

I see people on the train trying to read off their ipads on the train standing up sometimes - it just looks ridiculous.

And also Amazon are apparently going to release their own tablet pc. I'm sure that will have it's own kindle app.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:31 PM
I'm not sure what you mean. And I may be missing something or used the proper terminology. Sorry. Let me try and explain again.

When in these apps you hit "buy" or "go to store" and it kicks you to the web browser, they are circumventing the 7-30 deal. So again, they are making money they would not have in the past. Apple is saying hey, where's our 30%. So yeah, I'm saying it's standard business practice to ask for that.

What are circumvecting? Tell me the difference from buying a book from Mobile Safari Browser and Os X Safari Browser.

Tell me the difference from buying a book for Kindle from Safari Browser and buying a physical book inside the Amazon iOS app.

azurebat
Jun 30, 2011, 01:37 PM
Geesh, next apple will want a cut if you just open safari and buy something online without using an app. apple provided the access via safari to go online and make the purchase afterall.

Yes I know that is ridiculous, but you never know.

lilo777
Jun 30, 2011, 01:45 PM
The rules are pretty clear, if they don't pull the button Apple have to pull the app from the store.

And, by the way, the title is a little misleading. I highly doubt Kindle as a whole will suffer from pulling Kindle iOS app from the App Store

While the rules are clear, up until now, in situations like this when the push came to shove, Apple always backed off and changed the rules.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 01:46 PM
What are circumvecting? Tell me the difference from buying a book from Mobile Safari Browser and Os X Safari Browser.

Tell me the difference from buying a book for Kindle from Safari Browser and buying a physical book inside the Amazon iOS app.

Dude, I don't have all day to teach you business. :) But Apple, like any company would, expects a cut of the transactions that take place on their device. So if you use the full true in-app purchasing system, Apple gets a cut, but if you are kicked to the browser, they don't. If I am understanding this correctly, this is the heart of the issue.

In the Kindle app for example, when you click on the store button it takes you to the web browser. Any purchases here, Apple does not get a cut of.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:51 PM
Dude, I don't have all day to teach you business. :) But Apple, like any company would, expects a cut of the transactions that take place on their device. So if you use the full true in-app purchasing system, Apple gets a cut, but if you are kicked to the browser, they don't. If I am understanding this correctly, this is the heart of the issue.

In the Kindle app for example, when you click on the store button it takes you to the web browser. Any purchases here, Apple does not get a cut of.

Yes, I know the rules.

So, can you explain me the difference between buying a physical book from inside the Amazon app a buying a book from Safari Browser?

Why in the first case Apple doesn't owe a cut and the second is circumvecting something?

BJMRamage
Jun 30, 2011, 01:51 PM
What about if the button just said "visit the Kindle Homepage"
Then on that home page you could also see you can buy/purchase books?
Would that work as it doesn't specifically through you right int a purchase?

Also what about Amazon App purchases? Does Apple get a cut of them? I suppose those are purchases that aren't then used right within the app that might be the difference.

SvenSvenson
Jun 30, 2011, 01:52 PM
The iPhone and iPad provide lousy e-book reading experiences anyway, IMHO. The Kindle and e-ink excel for reading books. I own 3 iPads and 2 Kindles so I think I'm pretty qualified to make that statement.

Funny that - I think that it's a pretty decent book reader. I've got 2 iPads and 2 iPhones so am equally qualified.

Steve

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 01:52 PM
But Apple is making impossible to sell from an iOS device without taking a cut

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Yeah, Apple expects to make a percentage off any transaction on its device. Any and all businesses would expect that. It's standard business. But Apple is the first in the app market so they are the guinea pig. (BTW, see my other post.)

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:54 PM
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Yeah, Apple expects to make a percentage off any transaction on its device. Any and all businesses would expect that. It's standard business. But Apple is the first in the app market so they are the guinea pig. (BTW, see my other post.)

So, Apple expects to make a percentage when you buy a pizza or a air ticket from Mobile Safari browser?

fifthworld
Jun 30, 2011, 01:55 PM
Dude, I don't have all day to teach you business. :) But Apple, like any company would, expects a cut of the transactions that take place on their device. So if you use the full true in-app purchasing system, Apple gets a cut, but if you are kicked to the browser, they don't. If I am understanding this correctly, this is the heart of the issue.

In the Kindle app for example, when you click on the store button it takes you to the web browser. Any purchases here, Apple does not get a cut of.

Their device? Are you forgetting that they sold the device and doesn't belong to them anymore? LOL

diamond.g
Jun 30, 2011, 01:56 PM
What are circumvecting? Tell me the difference from buying a book from Mobile Safari Browser and Os X Safari Browser.

Tell me the difference from buying a book for Kindle from Safari Browser and buying a physical book inside the Amazon iOS app.

According to the rules, the physical book is the difference.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 01:58 PM
According to the rules, the physical book is the difference.

Yes, there is no difference

vartanarsen
Jun 30, 2011, 01:58 PM
I wonder if Amazon will ever get Lodsysed for their link to their book store within iOS?

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 01:58 PM
Clearly Amazon is not afraid to push Apple's buttons. But I suspect Apple is not afraid to push back. Could Apple actually use their kill switch for this kind of thing?

No. Consider the number of iOS consumers using the Kindle App. Consider how many would blame Apple and how many would blame Amazon if Apple used the kill switch.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 01:58 PM
Yes, I know the rules.

So, can you explain me the difference between buying a physical book from inside the Amazon app a buying a book from Safari Browser?

Why in the first case Apple doesn't owe a cut and the second is circumvecting something?

That's a good question. Who knows that might change - they might eventually be considered the same. I can't answer it all, and I'm sure people brighter than me are working on it. It's an evolving scenario and Apple is trying to make it work for all parties. Some decisions might be wrong and be changed later. This has already happened a number of times. We'll just have to wait and see.

But at least you seem to understand it better than most. Some people are still complaining about the 70-30, which is good standard business. As I said, most of the people posting in tech forums are technophiles but have very little business sense.

wovel
Jun 30, 2011, 02:00 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Pretty sure they just need to make the change before submitting an update... Apple is not going to comb the app store looking for things to pull. Who comes up with these waco theories..

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 02:01 PM
They wouldn't do that. They would only take the app offline for new downloads.

Which may or may not hamper consumers choosing iOS. Hopefully Apple has done enough polling to be sure that it won't do something it regrets.

Is the Kindle app as important today for new customers as it was before?

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:03 PM
That's a good question. Who knows that might change - they might eventually be considered the same. I can't answer it all, and I'm sure people brighter than me are working on it. It's an evolving scenario and Apple is trying to make it work for all parties. Some decisions might be wrong and be changed later. This has already happened a number of times. We'll just have to wait and see.

But at least you seem to understand it better than most. Some people are still complaining about the 70-30, which is good standard business. As I said, most of the people posting in tech forums are technophiles but have very little business sense.

No, I'm not complaining about the 70/30, I complain about FORCING it.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 02:04 PM
Their device? Are you forgetting that they sold the device and doesn't belong to them anymore? LOL

Really? You're not going to open that crazy can of worms again are you?:)

As far as "their" device, lets just say the device they created that allows all the business access to a new revenue stream. Hope that covers it. :p

KnightWRX
Jun 30, 2011, 02:04 PM
Which may or may not hamper consumers choosing iOS. Hopefully Apple has done enough polling to be sure that it won't do something it regrets.

Is the Kindle app as important today for new customers as it was before?

Every app in the eco-system is important. All iOS device commercials are based around what the 3rd party developers are doing. The devices themselves are only a small part of the reason people buy iOS stuff.

Apple needs to realise this and start treating the devs better. This is a symbiotic relationship.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 02:05 PM
No, I'm not complaining about the 70/30, I complain about FORCING it.

Dude, now you really have lost me.

cozmot
Jun 30, 2011, 02:11 PM
These little Apple piggees need to be taught a lesson. They're getting pretty greedy. It's very clear what they're trying to do. I'll just buy my Kindle books from Amazon, have them delivered to my iPad and then boycott iBooks. There also may be a Xoom in my future. Apple can't keep up this arrogant behavior forever.

EricNau
Jun 30, 2011, 02:12 PM
I think Apple is going to far, because this doesn't benefit the customer.

This isn't the first time, either. Apple's insistence that Random House comply with an agency model of pricing directly lead to an increase of prices in all ebook stores. Random House controls a huge percentage of the ebook market, and their ebook prices went up 30 to 50% the day they changed their pricing model for Apple.

What Apple did is bad for the customer and bad for education. It's one market I truly wish they would have kept their hands off of.

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 02:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Yeah because there are more kindles than iOS devices

There are more devices on which you can buy and read Kindle books than there are devices on which you can buy and read iBooks books.

diamond.g
Jun 30, 2011, 02:14 PM
Yes, there is no difference

Well from Apples perspective if you are selling a physical good they do not take 30%. If it is a digital good, they want their 30%

repeters
Jun 30, 2011, 02:17 PM
Apple is starting to make noises like the (former) Micro$oft bully. If they are smart they'll back off.:mad:

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 02:18 PM
Access to my Kindle library is one of the major reasons I bought and use my iPad. I wish Apple would back off. There are some people that will buy an iPad in part to have an e-reader. That benefits Apple. But now they want a cut because they say that Apple is bringing Amazon sales. Nope. I'm buying Kindle books because I like Amazon's system.

I'm sure iBooks is great, but are they going to give me free copies of everything I bought through Amazon to compensate me?

If Amazon removes their Kindle Store link from their app, that makes it more difficult to buy Kindle books. I can still do it through Amazon's website, but isn't the point of Apple to make the user experience better?

Good point, consumers will compare the cost of re-buying all books through iBooks with buying a Kindle.

If Apple actually pulls the Kindle app, then I'm certain former Kindle app users will get a nice offer from Amazon with a discount if they buy a Kindle.

RebeccaL
Jun 30, 2011, 02:18 PM
I don't see what's the big deal.

And at worst Amazon will simply remove the link and replace it with some text like "To buy books visit Amazon.com on your browser" Simple.


And most people that have kindle on iPhone already have Kindle on their PC or a real Kindle.

nwcs
Jun 30, 2011, 02:19 PM
This thread reminds me of an old joke. What do you call a 20 year old democrat? A 40 year old republican. Perspectives change when you have to support yourself and/or a family. It's easy to be idealistic when you're young and other people are supporting you financially.

People want Apple to be idealistic but they are just another business out there doing what businesses do: making money. Appealing to altruism is a misguided effort. Great when it happens but don't expect it.

Again, I don't have a particular preference when it comes to the whole subscription model stuff Apple is doing. But the level of angst here is comical.

StyxMaker
Jun 30, 2011, 02:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

The iPhone and iPad provide lousy e-book reading experiences anyway, IMHO. The Kindle and e-ink excel for reading books. I own 3 iPads and 2 Kindles so I think I'm pretty qualified to make that statement.

Speak for yourself, I own a Kindle 2 and haven't touched it since getting the iPhone 4 and iPad 2. I prefer them to the Kindle 2.

DudeDad
Jun 30, 2011, 02:25 PM
I have not read all the responses, so this may have been stated already:

Amazon can just update it's IOS shopping app to add a Kindle store button. Go there, buy the book, open the Kindle App. Not a big deal...

charlituna
Jun 30, 2011, 02:25 PM
Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

Nope. Apple can, like all stores, set rules for what their stores sell. It's not antitrust at all.

Making it so that you have to buy a Mac to use an iPhone etc. That is likely anti-trust

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 02:27 PM
.

Porchland
Jun 30, 2011, 02:27 PM
These little Apple piggees need to be taught a lesson. They're getting pretty greedy. It's very clear what they're trying to do. I'll just buy my Kindle books from Amazon, have them delivered to my iPad and then boycott iBooks. There also may be a Xoom in my future. Apple can't keep up this arrogant behavior forever.

You want to stick it to Apple by reading books on your iPad. OK.

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 02:28 PM
I don't see what's the big deal.

And at worst Amazon will simply remove the link and replace it with some text like "To buy books visit Amazon.com on your browser" Simple.


And most people that have kindle on iPhone already have Kindle on their PC or a real Kindle.

If I recall correctly, you're not allowed mentioning that you can buy through a website. No link, no texts, nothing.

sishaw
Jun 30, 2011, 02:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)



Speak for yourself, I own a Kindle 2 and haven't touched it since getting the iPhone 4 and iPad 2. I prefer them to the Kindle 2.

I go back and forth depending on which device I have with me at the time. I detect no major difference in the overall comfort of the reading experience between the 2 devices.

charlituna
Jun 30, 2011, 02:29 PM
Apple is forcing Amazon (whose Kindle store competes directly with iBooks) to give them a 30% cut of all sales. Sounds like antitrust to me.

Nope. No more so than a brick and mortar getting a cut.

Antitrust isn't just what you think is unfair. It's about very particular situations and actions

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 02:30 PM
.

Shabach!
Jun 30, 2011, 02:31 PM
If Amazon does nothing, Apple would perhaps just remove the Kindle app from the App Store. Given the popularity of Kindle/Amazon in general, surely news of the removal will not be relegated to just the tech blogs. Thus, the media will report Apple removing the app, which could potentially be bad press for Apple, and good press for Amazon. Maybe it's not a bad strategy for Amazon to stand firm....

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:33 PM
Amazon can just update it's IOS shopping app to add a Kindle store button. Go there, buy the book, open the Kindle App. Not a big deal...

Doing that is forbidden by Apple rules

sishaw
Jun 30, 2011, 02:33 PM
Actually, no. That's what they do now. They don't have a shopping app, the button launches amazon.com in Safari. The new rules state:

A. You use in-app purchases.
B. You don't provide users with any way of buying something in the app, not even a link to your web store.

Better than the original proposal, which was: You offer in-app purchases or you can't provide any way for users to access purchased digital goods or services.

Amazon can just make the Kindle app a plain reader with no purchase option. It's really no big deal. I'd guess that most Kindle customers buy their books either on the actual Kindle or on the Web site, because the experience is better.

DudeDad
Jun 30, 2011, 02:34 PM
Actually, no. That's what they do now. They don't have a shopping app, the button launches amazon.com in Safari. The new rules state:

A. You use in-app purchases.
B. You don't provide users with any way of buying something in the app, not even a link to your web store.

Better than the original proposal, which was: You offer in-app purchases or you can't provide any way for users to access purchased digital goods or services.

Amazon does have a shopping app. I have it and use it all the time! It even has a bar code scanner so when you are shopping in a store, you can easily compare prices. All they have to do is put the Kindle Store button in that app and avoid Safari altogether.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:34 PM
Nope. Apple can, like all stores, set rules for what their stores sell. It's not antitrust at all.

Making it so that you have to buy a Mac to use an iPhone etc. That is likely anti-trust

What Apple store is using Safari Browser?

Lennholm
Jun 30, 2011, 02:34 PM
Really? You're not going to open that crazy can of worms again are you?:)

As far as "their" device, lets just say the device they created that allows all the business access to a new revenue stream. Hope that covers it. :p

With that logic, are you saying that Apple should get a cut from all records that were produced with Logic Pro? From all movies produced in FCP? Should Adobe get a cut from all sales boosted by marketing made in CS5? Should Linus Thorvalds get a cut from all e-comerce on sites powered by Linux servers?
It doesn't work like that, you get your license, then you're even with the sw maker until the license runs out.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:36 PM
All they have to do is put the Kindle Store button in that app and avoid Safari altogether.

No, they can't according to Apple rules. Purchasing of physical goods is OK, purchasing digital goods is not OK

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 02:36 PM
However it's pretty unprecedented for the creator of a software platform to get a cut of all transactions that take place on that platform.

Unprecedented? Xbox. Kindle. Most mobile phones ever made?

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 02:37 PM
.

DudeDad
Jun 30, 2011, 02:39 PM
No, they can't according to Apple rules. Purchasing of physical goods is OK, purchasing digital goods is not OK

Probably right....I was thinking that you are buying it for a different app from the one you are in...technically, safari is an app....

iSee
Jun 30, 2011, 02:39 PM
If I have to choose between my books or my iPhone and iPad, I'm going to keep my books.

In the short term I'll crack the DRM on my books so I can continue to access the ones I have. But I won't be buying any more content for my iOS devices and longer term I'll switch to Android, which I hear is pretty good.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:40 PM
Nope. No more so than a brick and mortar getting a cut.

No, the brick and mortar analogy is not correct.

If B&N distributes Ikea catalogs, it owes a cut from anything bought through this catalog?

If you have a public phone on your store, do you owe a cut from any thing bought through this phone?

andrewlgm
Jun 30, 2011, 02:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/9A5248d Safari/6533.18.5)

Definitely a bad move. I use my iPad almost exclusively for reading kindle books and web reading. Kindle more than web. If kindle's dead I'll be putting iPad for sell. Man this sucks.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 02:42 PM
I think Apple is going to far, because this doesn't benefit the customer.

This isn't the first time, either. Apple's insistence that Random House comply with an agency model of pricing directly lead to an increase of prices in all ebook stores. Random House controls a huge percentage of the ebook market, and their ebook prices went up 30 to 50% the day they changed their pricing model for Apple.

What Apple did is bad for the customer and bad for education. It's one market I truly wish they would have kept their hands off of.

How did Apple raise all the prices?

Way before iPad or iBooks came along RandomHouse and all the other publishing companies raised the prices of ebooks drastically.

I had the first Kindle. When it was first released, Jeff Bezos and Amazon promised all cheap ebooks. Most all of them were around $5 for about a year. Then, publishers started pushing, and they went up to around $10. Publishers continued to push and now you even have ebook at around $15 (though most have gone back to around $10). That's why you see that little chart on Amazon that says "Price set by publisher." This shows how the publishers decided to rip us off.

Plutonius
Jun 30, 2011, 02:42 PM
If Amazon does nothing, Apple would perhaps just remove the Kindle app from the App Store. Given the popularity of Kindle/Amazon in general, surely news of the removal will not be relegated to just the tech blogs. Thus, the media will report Apple removing the app, which could potentially be bad press for Apple, and good press for Amazon. Maybe it's not a bad strategy for Amazon to stand firm....

That is true for the short run but it would be bad for Amazon in the long run (especially if B+N ends up cooperating with Apple).

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 02:42 PM
.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:44 PM
Unprecedented? Xbox. Kindle. Most mobile phones ever made?

Amazon doesn't prevent buying books from Kindle browser or tries to get a cut from them

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:45 PM
That is true for the short run but it would be bad for Amazon in the long run (especially if B+N ends up cooperating with Apple).

And why B&N would cooperate with Apple?

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 02:47 PM
Every app in the eco-system is important. All iOS device commercials are based around what the 3rd party developers are doing. The devices themselves are only a small part of the reason people buy iOS stuff.

Apple needs to realise this and start treating the devs better. This is a symbiotic relationship.

Good point. But on the other hand, those apps got tens of millions of dollars of free advertising. This is something people seem to forget - Apple is giving all the app from the TV commercials all the way down to the lists of the week, free marketing and advertising.

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 02:49 PM
Why would a serious book buyer move from Kindle books to iBooks books? And I'm not talking about the the Kindle reader vs the iPad. I'm talking about the fact that you can't read iBooks books on anything else than iOS devices. Why would anyone restrict themselves like that? You would be forced to always buy iOS devices.
Buying from iTunes doesn't have that problem.
And a book buyer will never spend as much money on apps as on books.

(Not saying that Amazon isn't going to decide in the future to restrict accessing Kindle books to Amazon devices. That might happen.)

Glideslope
Jun 30, 2011, 02:51 PM
Good point. But on the other hand, those apps got tens of millions of dollars of free advertising. This is something people seem to forget - Apple is giving all the app from the TV commercials all the way down to the lists of the week, free marketing and advertising.

Can you imagine the whining of Developers if they had to shell out for a 30 sec spot on a Sat eve. ;)

mazz0
Jun 30, 2011, 02:51 PM
I'm not sure about the suggestion this is anti-trust/anti-competative. What is Apple's share of the e-reader market (things like Kindles, iPad, iPhones, iPods etc)? For this to be a similar situation to Microsoft's they'd have to have a virtual monopoly, which with competition from Kindle (on which, as far as I know, all purchases go through Amazon) and Android I don't think they do, but I don't know the figures so I may be wrong.

I do think Apple are being very greedy though. How long before they DO start demanding a cut when you order your groceries through an iPhone app?

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 02:53 PM
I'm not sure about the suggestion this is anti-trust/anti-competative. What is Apple's share of the e-reader market (things like Kindles, iPad, iPhones, iPods etc)? For this to be a similar situation to Microsoft's they'd have to have a virtual monopoly, which with competition from Kindle (on which, as far as I know, all purchases go through Amazon) and Android I don't think they do, but I don't know the figures so I may be wrong.

I do think Apple are being very greedy though. How long before they DO start demanding a cut when you order your groceries through an iPhone app?

You don't need to be a monopoly to have a anti competitive trial, at least here in Europe

Gasu E.
Jun 30, 2011, 02:55 PM
I own 3 iPads and 2 Kindles ...

Wow... are you a juggler? :confused:

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 02:55 PM
Good point. But on the other hand, those apps got tens of millions of dollars of free advertising. This is something people seem to forget - Apple is giving all the app from the TV commercials all the way down to the lists of the week, free marketing and advertising.

Apple should just have made commercials showing the iPad and not any of the third party apps available? That really would have sold lots of iPads... Apple isn't stupid...

Apple wasn't gracious and giving them free commercials.

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 02:56 PM
That is true for the short run but it would be bad for Amazon in the long run (especially if B+N ends up cooperating with Apple).

Why would B+N cooperate with Apple?

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 02:59 PM
Yes, their motivation is understandable. However it's pretty unprecedented for the creator of a software platform to get a cut of all transactions that take place on that platform.

Apple doesn't expect 30% of Kindle books sold through the Kindle app for OSX. I really don't see why there's such a difference. OSX and iOS are made by the same company, and both run on only proprietary hardware. I'm not sure why iOS being an OS for phones and tablets means Apple is reasonable to expect 30% of all transactions.

The real issue here is that Apple controls what apps can and can't run on iOS. They can't tell Amazon not to make Kindle for OSX, because users can install whatever apps they want on OSX without the App Store. They can ban apps from the Mac App Store, but that's it.

Without Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution, they couldn't get away with this. Had they stuck with their original plan of taking 30% regardless of whether there was a link to the store, Kindle, Hulu, etc. would have pulled their apps from the store and distributed them via their web site - if they were *able* to distribute apps themselves.

There's a flawed idea out there that developers owe Apple for giving them this great platform to work on. In reality, it's a two-way street. Developers need a platform, a platform needs developers. iOS wouldn't be nearly as popular without third-party apps. It's not just mobile platforms - can you imagine Windows or OSX without third-party software?

How can you install apps on you iPhone without the app store? Other than jailbreaking?

Sure there's a symbiotic relationship between Apple and the devs. Apple knows that, has stated it, and has treated them well. This is not a case of treating devs badly.

You're trying to argue the chicken and the egg - which came first. Well I can see that. Though Apple clearly created this new revenue stream for devs first. But relationship will always be evolving as new scenarios develop. Apple has changed it's stance before. They might change again.

And your word "monopoly" is misplaced. A company really doesn't have a monopoly over their own products. And Apple doesn't have an monopoly on anything. Maybe you meant control. And it's expected that a company should have control over their own products.

Stella
Jun 30, 2011, 02:59 PM
Let the user decide!

if user user wants the convenience of in app-purchase they can pay 30%( which the provider will add on, to cover the Apple 30% charge ) extra.

However, if they wish to save 30% then let them click out to the provider's website and buy them from there!

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:01 PM
.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:03 PM
With that logic, are you saying that Apple should get a cut from all records that were produced with Logic Pro? From all movies produced in FCP? Should Adobe get a cut from all sales boosted by marketing made in CS5? Should Linus Thorvalds get a cut from all e-comerce on sites powered by Linux servers?
It doesn't work like that, you get your license, then you're even with the sw maker until the license runs out.

Dude, I was just over simplifying. There are many was to paid.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:03 PM
.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:05 PM
Under Apple's rules, developers aren't allowed to charge more for in-app purchases. They must charge the same as they do on their web site or on other platforms. Developers are required to either keep their prices as they are (which means taking a loss for some businesses like Kindle or Pandora), or raise prices for all of their customers.

Now they can charge more, but they can't provide a way to buy outside the app

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:08 PM
No, the brick and mortar analogy is not correct.

If B&N distributes Ikea catalogs, it owes a cut from anything bought through this catalog?

If you have a public phone on your store, do you owe a cut from any thing bought through this phone?

Now you're just going a bit nuts. Obviously there are going to be different deals for different scenarios. But likening it to the brick & mortar store is good, if rough example - you wanna sell your stuff in my store, I get a piece of the action. Simple.

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 03:09 PM
Let the user decide!

if user user wants the convenience of in app-purchase they can pay 30%( which the provider will add on, to cover the Apple 30% charge ) extra.

However, if they wish to save 30% then let them click out to the provider's website and buy them from there!

You're not allowed to point out that there is an extra cost for buying from the app.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:10 PM
Now you're just going a bit nuts. Obviously there are going to be different deals for different scenarios. But likening it to the brick & mortar store is good, if rough example - you wanna sell your stuff in my store, I get a piece of the action. Simple.

Amazon IS NOT SELLING anything on Apple Store.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:11 PM
Unprecedented? Xbox. Kindle. Most mobile phones ever made?

Exactly correct! Ignore Viz's other comment.

Skolvikings
Jun 30, 2011, 03:11 PM
Just imagine if Microsoft decided that no software could ever be installed on a Windows PC unless it comes from the Windows Software Store. Now imagine that Microsoft decided they deserved 30% of all the revenue from the Windows Software Store. Not only that, but if users could make additional purchases from within that software, Microsoft is going to take a 30% cut of that too.

You don't think that would draw close scrutiny from antitrust regulators?

Remember, Microsoft got busted 10 years ago for antitrust violations because they bundled Internet Explorer into the Windows OS. At that time, you could still install alternative web browsers if you wanted, and you could have used a Mac or Linux box instead. It didn't matter. The DOJ and EU came down hard on Microsoft.

I love my iPhone... I really do... but the way things are going, Apple is asking for a DOJ/EU beat down. It may or may not be over this specific issue, but rest assured it's coming.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:13 PM
.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:14 PM
Amazon doesn't prevent buying books from Kindle browser or tries to get a cut from them

I hate to say this, but you are hopeless. You keep missing the point. These are just other examples of similar (NOT exactly the same) scenarios. This is a new frontier with app stores, and they look to past ways of doing business. It's natural. Stop getting hung up on random junk. You keep misinterpreting and missing the point. Geesh!

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:15 PM
.

Gasu E.
Jun 30, 2011, 03:16 PM
Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

I'm not sure that's true. It seems Kindle is actually more restrictive than Apple; not only do they not allow in-app purchase of books from other than Amazon, but they don't allow you to even download books purchased elsewhere.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 03:16 PM
True, video game systems are another example of this. The difference is that video game systems aren't marketed as being computers. The iPad is very heavily marketed as being a general computing platform. Earlier mobile phones which ran Java games also weren't marketed as general computing platforms.

The Kindle isn't like iOS. You can load mobipocket books from any source onto the Kindle, not just Kindle Store books.

I'm not sure what marketing has to do with this issue, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Apple marketing that refers to the iPad as a computer, let alone a general purpose computer.

Amazon doesn't prevent buying books from Kindle browser or tries to get a cut from them

Apple "doesn't prevent buying books from [Safari] browser or tries to get a cut from them."

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:17 PM
I've sat on this for a little while, but given the looming deadline I think it's fine now.

The Kindle App has ALWAYS violated the rules of the App Store:

"Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected"


From the description of the App on the App Store:

"You can also read your Kindle books on your Kindle, Kindle 3G, Kindle DX, PC, Mac, BlackBerry, Android-based device, and Windows Phone 7-based device."

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/kindle/id302584613?mt=8#

Obviously this is a pretty minor violation and could easily be corrected by Amazon, but other, smaller Apps have been rejected from the store because they mentioned other platforms.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:17 PM
I hate to say this, but you are hopeless. You keep missing the point. These are just other examples of similar (NOT exactly the same) scenarios. This is a new frontier with app stores, and they look to past ways of doing business. It's natural. Stop getting hung up on random junk. You keep misinterpreting and missing the point. Geesh!

The third time I ask you this. Can you explain me why Amazon/Netflix/B&N/Spotify owes anything to Apple when there is a transaction from Safari Browser?

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:18 PM
Apple "doesn't prevent buying books from [Safari] browser or tries to get a cut from them."

Yes since it forbbides any app to link to Safari browser

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:18 PM
I'm not sure that's true. It seems Kindle is actually more restrictive than Apple; not only do they not allow in-app purchase of books from other than Amazon, but they don't allow you to even download books purchased elsewhere.

Yes they do.

I have bought books for my Kindle from companies other than Amazon.

You can even download 3rd party books through the Kindle's web browser (free or paid) - including over the 3G connection that you don't pay for.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 30, 2011, 03:19 PM
All this does is prove what a bunch of [expletives] run Apple. Their GREED (trying for FORCE other companies to pay them 30% of the take for doing NOTHING) is beyond the pale despicable. I consider Steve Jobs and company total SCUM at this point. Products should be sold on MERIT not pushy low-down 'protection money' tactics. But competition is the last thing Apple wants and they prove it time and time again by doing everything in their power to not compete or to compete as little as possible in any given situation (they are clearly afraid others can do it better and especially cheaper). I have no respect for Steve Jobs or Apple as a whole when it comes to morality.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:19 PM
I'm not sure that's true. It seems Kindle is actually more restrictive than Apple; not only do they not allow in-app purchase of books from other than Amazon, but they don't allow you to even download books purchased elsewhere.

Well, Kindle doesn't have in app purchase and yes you can sideload books purchased elsewhere

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:19 PM
Apple should just have made commercials showing the iPad and not any of the third party apps available? That really would have sold lots of iPads... Apple isn't stupid...

Apple wasn't gracious and giving them free commercials.

You missed the point. I wasn't saying Apple was gracious. I was pointing out that the relationship has a very strong give and take. Apple and devs support each other. Someone else was saying it was all about the devs. Please read before you speak.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:19 PM
.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 03:20 PM
Yes since it forbbides any app to link to Safari browser

:confused: No, it doesn't.

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:22 PM
:confused: No, it doesn't.

If the link is to a store where in-app content can be purchased (the sort of link this thread is discussing) then they do.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:22 PM
.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:22 PM
:confused: No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does, you can't put a link to Safari to buy a digital good.

Spotify can't put a link to spotify.com to buy a subscription, can they?

Liquorpuki
Jun 30, 2011, 03:23 PM
It's sort of incredible how people who are tech savvy have no business sense. I sometimes am annoyed at Apple, but what they are doing makes sense.This is the deal, as simply as I can put it.

With iPhone/iPad, Apple opened a new revenue stream for businesses - a new way to make money they were not able to before. They sell an app (say for $1) and Apple gets 30% of that sale. This is pretty standard. Now these companies can make millions they would not have made before. And of course Apple makes money too.

Then with certain apps, companies can sell other items inside the app, say books. So once again they have a new way to make more money, again money they were not getting before. With the in-app sales, Apple gets nothing. A company might sell a finite number of the apps, but the in-app sales is infinite. Apple comes along and says, hey, we should get a cut, as we were the ones who created the new revenue stream for you. And guess what, that's standard for any business! They would be stupid to say no to Apple because they would then give up all this new money. As said many times over, 70% of some is way better than 100% of nothing.

It may sound like greed to some people, but that's good business. And it's common in all industries! Just as those companies selling in-app items can have expanding business, Apple business needs to expand too. If they did not take a cut, they would be silly, and losing out on huge growth opportunities. All app stores will do this. Andriod also does the 70-30 split. I'm not 100% sure about in-app purchases, but if not now, they certainly will. Business, people! Business!

I think most people know the in-app purchase gives Apple a cut.

But even without the cut, Apple benefits from keeping the Kindle app on its iPad through increased hardware sales. Anyone in the market for an e-Reader is more willing to buy an iPad since it has the best e-Reader app / eBook store on the market. Anyone looking to replace their Kindle is more willing to buy an iPad because they can transfer their library over. And Apple doesn't have to spend money on developing that inferior app called iBooks (they can just let it rot like they've been doing) or trying to get all publishers on board (which they stopped trying to do after the hype went away). Instead they can just let Amazon do all the work that makes the iPad a viable e-Reader for them and make money off the hardware.

Basically it would be stupid for them to drop the Kindle app when they have nothing to replace it. iBooks doesn't count.

tlevier
Jun 30, 2011, 03:26 PM
That's exactly my point. Apple has locked down the iPad to only install apps from the App Store. This is not normal for a device marketed as a general computing platform.

I guess since books take up more room, there's not as much of a chance to create an HTML5 web app for Amazon. The beauty of the native app is that it gets the resources of the device including memory.

With regards to what Amazon will do, I'm wondering if they'll just rely on pre-existing customers for a while? Most everyone who would install the Kindle app, already have. Might as well let those users run their course for a while before you update the app to remove the link. If they don't update, the apps will remain on the iOS devices that have them already installed and theoretically there won't be any new installs from the app store. So, the choices are

1) Take a 30% hit from new and existing iOS app sales
2) Take 100% revenue from existing iOS app installations with no new installations.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:26 PM
.

benpatient
Jun 30, 2011, 03:27 PM
It's Apple's store, they have a right to dictate what is sold in it and their position is reasonable. They're not killing the app, they're simply saying that if Amazon wants to profit from Apple's store, Apple ought to get something out of the deal.

Let me help you understand where your argument is falling apart:

It's [Microsoft]'s [OS], they have a right to dictate what is [installed] on it and their position is reasonable. They're not [blocking other browsers], they're simply saying that if [customers] want to [install] [Netscape]'s [software], [Microsoft] ought to get something out of the deal.

Apple currently has 90+ percent of the tablet market in the US.
Microsoft had 90+ percent of the PC operating system market in the 1990s.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:27 PM
It's not free advertising. Apple gets a 30% cut of every app they sell. That's like saying Target is providing Sony free advertising when they put their Blu-Ray players on display, or put them in the weekly mailer.

True, some apps are free. But Apple puts free apps in their ads because they know saying "thousands of great, free apps" entices people to buy iPhones and iPads. They're not doing these app developers any favors.

You could easily turn the argument around and say Apple owes Kindle, Netflix, etc. for making these apps available on the iPhone, making their platform more attractive to customers. Neither of these arguments is correct. Apple needs the developers and the developers need Apple.

OK, Vizin, I hate to say this, but you sir really don't know what you are talking about.

You have no understanding of advertising or marketing. You also have no understanding of business. Did you not read my post about new revenue streams?! Yes some apps make the platform more attractive. But NO, if you are a dev, you CANNOT turn this around. Apple makes the revenue stream, devs pay to be part of it. End of story. Go learn business!

Also, Apple doesn't only put free apps in their ads, it's a mix with some paid apps. Not that has anything to do with anything.

I'm through with you sir!

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 03:27 PM
If the link is to a store where in-app content can be purchased (the sort of link this thread is discussing) then they do.

Yes, it does, you can't put a link to Safari to buy a digital good.

Spotify can't put a link to spotify.com to buy a subscription, can they?

That's not what you said in the post that I replied to.

morespce54
Jun 30, 2011, 03:28 PM
...Distributers of goods? 30% for being the middle man? Crazy talk. Apple needs to wake up and realize the difference between original content publishing and re-distribution of content.

You mean like they do for music with iTMS?
Or like music distrobutors did before them?
...Will it ever stop? ;)

wovel
Jun 30, 2011, 03:28 PM
The third time I ask you this. Can you explain me why Amazon/Netflix/B&N/Spotify owes anything to Apple when there is a transaction from Safari Browser?


Apple's argument would be that they don't. They don't want people originating transactions with Apps from their store without giving them equal opportunity. I don't really agree with Apple on this because companies like Netflix, Kindle, B&N, and Hulu add value to the platform.

It was not a big deal for content owners, since they pay more in affiliate fees then Apple's cut, but the policy hurts middle men, and some of those middle men are very good for iOS.

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:30 PM
That's not what you said in the post that I replied to.

Perhaps not if you read the post out of context, within the context of this thread it should be clear what was meant.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:31 PM
OK, Vizin, I hate to say this, but you sir really don't know what you are talking about.

You have no understanding of advertising or marketing. You also have no understanding of business. Did you not read my post about new revenue streams?! Yes some apps make the plat for more attractive. But NO, if you are a dev, you CANNOT turn this around. Apple makes the revenue stream, devs pay to be part of it. End of story. Go learn business!

Also, Apple doesn't only put free apps in their ads, it's a mix with some paid apps. Not that has anything to do with anything.

I'm through with you sir!

So Apple, Google, MS etc have to pay a cut to AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone, etc for providing a new revenue stream like mobile market?

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:32 PM
You mean like they do for music with iTMS?
Or like music distrobutors did before them?
...Will it ever stop? ;)

At least, with iTMS they store and distribute the content

pyramid6
Jun 30, 2011, 03:33 PM
It doesn't matter what anyone or I thinks. The justice department and FTC are investigating Apple for their subscription model. Removing Kindle is not going to help their cause.

If you define the market as mobile apps, Apple has a monopoly, unquestionably. Just ask any app developer.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:33 PM
That's not what you said in the post that I replied to.

Well, if you follow the prior discussion and read the original blog post it can be implicit

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:34 PM
So Apple, Google, MS etc have to pay a cut to AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone, etc for providing a new revenue stream like mobile market?

Most of them already do.

AaronEdwards
Jun 30, 2011, 03:34 PM
You missed the point. I wasn't saying Apple was gracious. I was point out that the relationship has a very strong give and take. Apple and devs support each other. Someone else way saying it was all about the devs. Please read before you speak.

Apple wasn't showing third party apps to help them grow. Apple was showing third party apps to sell their hardware.

Do you think that if iBooks had been available since 2007 like Kindle books that the ads would have been about the possibility to read Kindle books on the iPad? No, they would have been about iBooks.

stockscalper
Jun 30, 2011, 03:34 PM
I know, Apple is not the big brother form their 1984 ad.
"Don't you dare think different." Would kind of work better these days.

Happens to every mega company though.

Not 1984, but very much Animal Farm.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:35 PM
Most of them already do.

Yes? They pay from every transaction done on their devices?

Schizoid
Jun 30, 2011, 03:36 PM
I for one, absolutely love books.
Got a few on the desk now, they're paper books, I flick through them, scribble in them, smell them, bend them, throw them in the boot of my car and drop them in swimming pools. They're great.

I've got a few on Kindle/iBooks, and as much as I persevere with the ePub revolution, I'm always going back to bloody wonderful paper books.

Anyone with me on this?

...oh just me then!

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:36 PM
Apple wasn't showing third party apps to help them grow. Apple was showing third party apps to sell their hardware.

Do you think that if iBooks had been available since 2007 like Kindle books that the ads would have been about the possibility to read Kindle books on the iPad? No, they would have been about iBooks.

Is there an add with Pandora, Spotify, Netflix or Hulu?

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:36 PM
Yes? They pay from every transaction done on their devices?

Not per transaction, but the model is largely irrelevant. Whether the payment is a general one to support the ecosystem or a cut of each sale.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:36 PM
So Apple, Google, MS etc have to pay a cut to AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone, etc for providing a new revenue stream like mobile market?

Are you brain damaged? Or are you pulling my leg?

Everyone has to make deals with the carriers. And in case you didn't know it's the same in the cable/tv industry.

I can't believe you would even ask such a silly question.

Sir, I am also through with you.

fifthworld
Jun 30, 2011, 03:37 PM
Really? You're not going to open that crazy can of worms again are you?:)

As far as "their" device, lets just say the device they created that allows all the business access to a new revenue stream. Hope that covers it. :p

It's not the device, it's the control of the store. Basically Apple doesn't want to distribute in the App Store other "stores" of digital content unless it gets a cut. Nothing wrong with that, after all those other stores are competitors. Still, Apple is making huge amount of money selling devices (hardware+OS), I'm wondering if trying to control the digital content market as well will be in the long run a winning move for them, surely not for consumers.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 03:38 PM
Perhaps not if you read the post out of context, within the context of this thread it should be clear what was meant.

Maybe you should read the context more carefully. Sometimes a conversation veers tangentially (or worse) from the point of the thread. Oletros is all over the place in his arguments.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:39 PM
Are you brain damaged? Or are you pulling my leg?

Everyone has to make deals with the carriers. And in case you didn't know it's the same in the cable/tv industry.

I can't believe you would even ask such a silly question.

Sir, I am also through with you.

Apart from insulting, can you provide any argument or answer any question?


Perhaps the brain damaged and fanatic are not the ones you're insulting when they doesn't have your opinion

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:40 PM
Not per transaction, but the model is largely irrelevant. Whether the payment is a general one to support the ecosystem or a cut of each sale.

Apple or Google pays the telcos? I don't think so

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:41 PM
Maybe you should read the context more carefully. Sometimes a conversation veers tangentially (or worse) from the point of the thread. Oletros is all over the place in his arguments.

In this case I thought it was exceptionally clear.

You said:

Apple "doesn't prevent buying books from [Safari] browser or tries to get a cut from them."

After quoting you "Oletros" replied:

Yes since it forbbides any app to link to Safari browser

At this point it should be clear to any reader that Apple DOES prevent books being bought from the Safari because they forbid Apps to link to a web page.

IMO there's little room for misunderstanding when someone quotes what they are replying to.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:41 PM
I think most people know the in-app purchase gives Apple a cut.

But even without the cut, Apple benefits from keeping the Kindle app on its iPad through increased hardware sales. Anyone in the market for an e-Reader is more willing to buy an iPad since it has the best e-Reader app / eBook store on the market. Anyone looking to replace their Kindle is more willing to buy an iPad because they can transfer their library over. And Apple doesn't have to spend money on developing that inferior app called iBooks (they can just let it rot like they've been doing) or trying to get all publishers on board (which they stopped trying to do after the hype went away). Instead they can just let Amazon do all the work that makes the iPad a viable e-Reader for them and make money off the hardware.

Basically it would be stupid for them to drop the Kindle app when they have nothing to replace it. iBooks doesn't count.

You make a good point. Though I think if we got actual numbers we'd discover that true readers already have a Kindle. Also that only a small percentage of iPad owners use it for heavy reading.

Due to this, I'm pretty sure, in the current scenario, Amazon would lose much more money from not being on iPad than Apple would. Also think about how there are a limited number of times the Kindle app can be sold (this equaling to the number of devices) the selling of books is unlimited. So certainly Amazon would lose out.

From a personal pole of all my friends and family (about a dozen) who own iPad, only one uses it for heavy reading of Kindle books. I admit it's not real research.

eburr
Jun 30, 2011, 03:44 PM
Do that many people buy apps by linking from the Iphone/Ipad Kindle apps? I have a Kindle, Iphone and Ipad and I much prefer to look at the book selection on a computer, or at least in the browser on My Ipad. It wouldn't bother me at all if they took away the 'Kindle Store' button. Maybe I am in the minority.

Lennholm
Jun 30, 2011, 03:44 PM
Have you actually *read* US versus Microsoft? I did since I wanted to understand what was going on. Bundling IE was only one of many, many things that MS was doing. For starters MS had 95% of the Desktop OS market. They were legally classified as a monopoly!

Well, a recent article on Macrumors suggests that iPad's tablet market share is 97% in the US, so...

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:46 PM
.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 03:47 PM
At this point it should be clear to any reader that Apple DOES prevent books being bought from the Safari because they forbid Apps to link to a web page.

How does that prevent books from being bought from Safari? The conversation that I started with Oletros was in the context of "in browser" purchasing. Apple doesn't "prevent" or "get a cut" from an "in browser" purchase. At best, you could argue that they discourage "in browser" purchases of in app content by not allowing a link.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 30, 2011, 03:49 PM
Amazon can just make the Kindle app a plain reader with no purchase option. It's really no big deal. I'd guess that most Kindle customers buy their books either on the actual Kindle or on the Web site, because the experience is better.

Safe to say Amazon will not do that. They are among the few that have the balls to take Apple on head on and force them to back down.
Amazon forced AT&T to give on their side loading.
Amazon is making a point with its App store.

They will do it here as well and if Apple removes them you can expect a law suit to be slamed against Apple for Antitrust/Anti competitive behavior .

Apple changed the rules when they got themselves ingrained in the market. You can sure bet that if these rules were in place on day one Amazon would of never made the app. But iBookstore comes out, Apple lined up publishers and now they are trying to force everyone else out. That is pretty clear antitrust there.

Apple could be fine if they allowed side loading and 3rd party App stores and then they could say oh look you can go to another store to get those Apps but Apple demand of 30% for a basic payment processor is insane.

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 03:50 PM
How does that prevent books from being bought from Safari? The conversation that I started with Oletros was in the context of "in browser" purchasing. Apple doesn't "prevent" or "get a cut" from an "in browser" purchase. At best, you could argue that they discourage "in browser" purchases of in app content by not allowing a link.

By not allowing the link, they are preventing the sale.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:52 PM
How does that prevent books from being bought from Safari? The conversation that I started with Oletros was in the context of "in browser" purchasing. Apple doesn't "prevent" or "get a cut" from an "in browser" purchase. At best, you could argue that they discourage "in browser" purchases of in app content by not allowing a link.

If you want, change my first comment to "At least Amazon doesn't prevent buying content beginning the transaction from inside a Kindle book"

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 03:53 PM
By not allowing the link, they are preventing the sale.

That is not true in any context.

InfernoShade
Jun 30, 2011, 03:54 PM
Apart from insulting, can you provide any argument or answer any question?


Perhaps the brain damaged and fanatic are not the ones you're insulting when they doesn't have your opinion


I apologize for sounding harsh. But there is no argument to make. I did answer your question. Yes, everyone makes deals with the carriers. So yes, they get a cut of everyone's revenue. But I'm oversimplifying.

It's clear that you really don't understand business at all. I was being snippy because I thought you were being a jerk, but it's just that you really don't know what's up. I do find it amazing though. Really go read a business book or take a class. (Same for Vizin, clearly doesn't get it either.) It'll be enlightening, and maybe fun.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 03:55 PM
If you want, change my first comment to "At least Amazon doesn't prevent buying content beginning the transaction from inside a Kindle book"

And Apple doesn't prevent buying content beginning the transaction from inside an iBook, do they? Or a Kindle book for that matter?

calmwater
Jun 30, 2011, 03:56 PM
I think is it interesting that folks don't believe that a company that invents a technology(billions) and builds hundreds of real "brick and morter" stores to help support clients(more billions), has the right to forbid the competition from using it to steal their customers away. Have we become so important that all companies "owe" us whatever we want them to provide, despite the economic damage that it causes them? I'm not taking sides, but I don't see Amazon advertising Apple's bookstore on their site. Apple has every right to NOT fund/support their competition. Just as I would expect Amazon would do if the tables were turned. Imagine a "buy from Apple" button on the Amazon site.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 03:58 PM
So yes, they get a cut of everyone's revenue. But I'm oversimplifying.

Which revenue take Verizon or Vodafone from Apple or Nokia.



It's clear that you really don't understand business at all. I was being snippy because I thought you were being a jerk, but it's just that you really don't know what's up. I do find it amazing though. Really go read a business book or take a class. (Same for Vizin, clearly doesn't get it either.) It'll be enlightening, and maybe fun.

Start to say that nobody but you know when you explain why a company owes a cut from a transaction when they don't publicites the content, doesn't store the content, doesn't delivers the content and it's not used their infrastructure.

And then you can explain the difference between buying a physical book and an electronic book and why in the former they deserve a cut

dBeats
Jun 30, 2011, 03:59 PM
Anti-trust suit in 3, 2, 1....

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 03:59 PM
.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 04:00 PM
And Apple doesn't prevent buying content beginning the transaction from inside an iBook, do they? Or a Kindle book for that matter?

Ah, twisting arguments. Are you comparing Kindle cosystem to iPhone/iPad/iPod ecosystem?

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 04:01 PM
That is not true in any context.

Of course it is.

Amazon is no longer going to be allowed by Apple to sell content in the way it currently does.

How is that anything other than "prevention"?

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 04:01 PM
I'm not taking sides, but I don't see Amazon advertising Apple's bookstore on their site.

You're kidding, don't you?

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 04:03 PM
Ah, twisting arguments. Are you comparing Kindle cosystem to iPhone/iPad/iPod ecosystem?

You've lost me here. You started the comparison between Kindle and iOS. I made an exact apples to apples comparison to your claim. Word for word. No twisting at all.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:03 PM
Well, a recent article on Macrumors suggests that iPad's tablet market share is 97% in the US, so...

That's not a relevant market - iOs covers multiple devices. You cannot just pick and choose your markets here - courts look at the big picture when they look at ant-trust.

Not to mention that it is not going to pass legal muster as far as a court is concerned. The courts are going to look at multiple sources for relevant markets. And you would bet that Apple is going to focus on other full platforms pointing out that there are hundreds of manufacturers selling Android based tablets. There is plenty of choice. Apple will simply argue that any tablet monopoly was obtained by building and selling a better device.

The relevant market is the ebook market. Not the tablet market.

Wyvernspirit
Jun 30, 2011, 04:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

No they are not, I never use the link and either buy the book on my Mac or go directly to the kindle store website on my iPhone to buy it. The link is a convenience for non techie types.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 04:05 PM
You've lost me here. You started the comparison between Kindle and iOS. I made an exact apples to apples comparison to your claim. Word for word. No twisting at all.

No, you started comparing iOS ecosystem to Xbox and Kindle ecosystem.

Kindle doesn't have so many apps, it doesn't have in purchase system, etc.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:05 PM
Of course it is.

Amazon is no longer going to be allowed by Apple to sell content in the way it currently does.

How is that anything other than "prevention"?

Who said Apple is obligated to do anything?

How is Apple preventing people from using their iOS version of safari to buy books from Amazon.com?

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:06 PM
No, you started comparing iOS ecosystem to Xbox and Kindle ecosystem.

Kindle doesn't have so many apps, it doesn't have in purchase system, etc.
That's Amazon's problem though

dBeats
Jun 30, 2011, 04:06 PM
I think is it interesting that folks don't believe that a company that invents a technology(billions) and builds hundreds of real "brick and morter" stores to help support clients(more billions), has the right to forbid the competition from using it to steal their customers away.

If the technology is so good, people won't be stolen away. I think Apple has proven that with the Mac for over ten years.

This is the start of using leverage so your products don't have to be the best anymore. This is just what Microsoft did and it's the "jump the shark" moment for Apple.

EricNau
Jun 30, 2011, 04:07 PM
How did Apple raise all the prices?

Way before iPad or iBooks came along RandomHouse and all the other publishing companies raised the prices of ebooks drastically.

I had the first Kindle. When it was first released, Jeff Bezos and Amazon promised all cheap ebooks. Most all of them were around $5 for about a year. Then, publishers started pushing, and they went up to around $10. Publishers continued to push and now you even have ebook at around $15 (though most have gone back to around $10). That's why you see that little chart on Amazon that says "Price set by publisher." This shows how the publishers decided to rip us off.

Apple refused to sell RandomHouse titles unless RandomHouse switched to agency pricing. Prior to March 1st, RandomHouse distributed book titles to resellers (like Amazon) for a set price and allowed the reseller to sell the ebook for whatever price they chose. Amazon was able to sell Kindle books at little to no profit. Books have been sold this way for decades. This was good for the customer in that ebook prices were MUCH cheaper, and this was better for Amazon because they sold more Kindles (and more books).

The agency model which Apple insisted upon requires the publisher to set the final price and the distributor (Apple, Amazon) always get a standard percentage of the sale, regardless of the title.

When RandomHouse signed with the iBook Store and changed their pricing model, Amazon's prices practically doubled. Titles that were $5 (and there were a lot of them still) went up to $10, and those that were $10 raised to $13 or $15.

It's bad for readers everywhere. Apple apparently wasn't bothered by the fact that they were stabbing their own customers in the back in exchange for marginally higher revenues from book sales.

I can't really find fault with RandomHouse. Their ebook prices are "reasonable" given the suggested retail price of any corresponding print version. Problem is, Amazon has never sold the print versions at the suggested retail price. Now paperback copies are cheaper than ebooks because Apple insisted that ebooks be sold under a different pricing model than print books. It makes no sense.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 04:07 PM
Of course it is.

Amazon is no longer going to be allowed by Apple to sell content in the way it currently does.

How is that anything other than "prevention"?

Preventing the sale of content "in the way it currently does" and preventing the sale of content in browser are two completely different things.

Here is what you said if you forgot.
Apple DOES prevent books being bought from the Safari because they forbid Apps to link to a web page.

Your statement is not true. "Discourage" would apply. "Prevent" does not.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 04:07 PM
.

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 04:08 PM
Who said Apple is obligated to do anything?

Nobody, although if Apple does things that are unduly harmful to other businesses or consumers then ultimately Apple is going to pay one way or another.

How is Apple preventing people from using their iOS version of safari to buy books from Amazon.com?

They aren't, but that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 04:09 PM
Your statement is not true.

AGAIN, in the context of the thread it's entirely true.

Within the domain that Apple controls (the App Store) they do not allow sales through the web browser.

Taking what people say incredibly literally and replying with a reply to your interpretation doesn't progress the thread.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:11 PM
It's not that clear. A hypothetical anti-trust case focused on the tablet market would only deal with iOS on the iPad.

How could they argue that? The Kindle app is available on all iOS devices. How is "tablet" market meaningful to ebooks and software other than Tablets being an easier form factor? I should point out that Amazon has their own first party tablet that pre-dates the iPad and Apple can in no way prevent it's usage!

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 04:12 PM
.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:14 PM
They aren't, but that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.

That's what the whole argument of Anti-trust is based on. If Apple isn't obligated to do business with Amazon for an App, than what possible way is Apple preventing Amazon from selling books or from allowing customers in general from consuming them?

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 04:14 PM
AGAIN, in the context of the thread it's entirely true.

Within the domain that Apple controls (the App Store) they do not allow sales through the web browser.

Taking what people say incredibly literally and replying with a reply to your interpretation doesn't progress the thread.

You are just talking in circles. Apple absolutely allows sales through the web browser.

You just want the words that you are using to mean something that they don't.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 04:16 PM
.

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 04:17 PM
That's what the whole argument of Anti-trust is based on. If Apple isn't obligated to do business with Amazon for an App, than what possible way is Apple preventing Amazon from selling books or from allowing customers in general from consuming them?

You could say the same thing with Microsoft/Windows/Internet Explorer and Netscape.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:17 PM
By banning a link to a web-based store, Apple is using their position as gatekeeper for all iOS apps to favor their transaction processing systems above all others. This is very anti-competitive.

Not if Amazon is bringing in their own customers familiar with the Kindle ecosystem. From day one the only way to actually buy kindle books was through Amazons website.

Apple's POV is that if you have your own customers that you brought in to the platform they have to depend entirely on you (g) to get your content. The minute you want to use our gateways though you pay a toll.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 04:17 PM
You are just talking in circles. Apple absolutely allows sales through the web browser.

Apple absolutely allows some sales though the web browser, better?

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 04:18 PM
Not if Amazon is bringing in their own customers familiar with the Kindle ecosystem. From day one the only way to actually buy kindle books was through Amazons website.

Apple's POV is that if you have your own customers that you brought in to the platform they have to depend entirely on you (g) to get your content. The minute you want to use our gateways though you pay a toll.

Which gateway? Safari browser is a gateway? A web link is a gateway?

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 04:18 PM
You are just talking in circles. Apple absolutely allows sales through the web browser.

It has no choice.

It is doing everything within its power to prevent such sales using its new terms.

You just want the words that you are using to mean something that they don't.

Right back at you. However you write it, Apple is not doing a good thing.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 04:19 PM
By banning a link to a web-based store, Apple is using their position as gatekeeper for all iOS apps to favor their transaction processing systems above all others. This is very anti-competitive.

Or, in a more unbiased interpretation, Apple is leveraging their assets in one market to promote sales in another market. Don't confuse a competitive advantage with being anti-competitive.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:19 PM
You could say the same thing with Microsoft/Windows/Internet Explorer and Netscape.

Except (as I pointed out before) that was a totally different scenario - that the courts said that MS had an artificial monopoly that discouraged competetion. Please read the actual court decision. It's totally different.

Daveoc64
Jun 30, 2011, 04:20 PM
Not if Amazon is bringing in their own customers familiar with the Kindle ecosystem. From day one the only way to actually buy kindle books was through Amazons website.

Apple's POV is that if you have your own customers that you brought in to the platform they have to depend entirely on you (g) to get your content. The minute you want to use our gateways though you pay a toll.

It's less "want to use" and more "are forced to use".

Amazon has no alternative if it wants to be part of the iOS platform.

BaldiMac
Jun 30, 2011, 04:23 PM
It has no choice.

It is doing everything within its power to prevent such sales using its new terms.

Everything within its power? Apple could ban all e-book apps on a whim.

Again, I'd agree with your sentiments if you said Apple's terms discouraged in browser sales of in app content. But you didn't. You said it prevented them. That is not true.

However you write it, Apple is not doing a good thing.

I agree with that statement completely.

pyramid6
Jun 30, 2011, 04:24 PM
That's what the whole argument of Anti-trust is based on. If Apple isn't obligated to do business with Amazon for an App, than what possible way is Apple preventing Amazon from selling books or from allowing customers in general from consuming them?

Apple built a legal monopoly on apps and tablets, and now they are using that legal monopoly to illegally force consumers to buy books on iBooks, music on iTunes and movies on iTunes.

If you define the market as apps or tablets, Apple holds a monopoly. Now Apple is using said monopoly to force consumers to buy iBooks and iTunes music/movies (by forcing competition off out of the app and tablet market.)

This is what got Microsoft in trouble. Microsoft used their legal monopoly (OS) to force consumers to use IE and Office. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, it illegal to use a monopoly unfairly.

pdjudd
Jun 30, 2011, 04:24 PM
Which gateway? Safari browser is a gateway? A web link is a gateway?

The In-app purchase gateway. Safari can be a gateway if of itself - in fact it's one that Apple has no direct control over.

Vizin
Jun 30, 2011, 04:25 PM
.

Oletros
Jun 30, 2011, 04:25 PM
Everything within its power? Apple could ban all e-book apps on a whim.

I don't think it can without facing legal problems in some markets