PDA

View Full Version : Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines




MacRumors
Jul 1, 2011, 01:42 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/apple-not-yet-pulling-apps-helping-developers-meet-in-app-guidelines/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/05/in_app_purchase_icon.jpg

Yesterday, we noted (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/30/will-kindle-survive-apples-deadline-for-ios-content-purchasing-compliance/) that Apple's new rules for in-app purchases and subscriptions for iOS were going into effect, and certain high-profile apps such as Amazon's Kindle app had yet to be updated to comply with the new terms. But with the calendar now having rolled over to July 1st and Kindle and other similar apps still apparently out of compliance, some have been wondering what Apple's plans are.

Macworld now reports (http://www.macworld.com/article/160905/2011/07/apple_inapp_content_policy.html) that Apple is indeed planning to enforce the requirements, but has provided some additional time as it works with some high-profile developers to ensure that their apps are updated.Macworld's sources can confirm that Apple has been working with various prominent developers to help them ensure their apps comply with the in-app content policies; expect to see updates to these apps in the near future.

Some less prominent apps will likely be pulled from the App Store as Apple starts to enforce the rule changes, but developers ought to be able to return to the store simply by updating their apps to comply.Last week, Hulu updated (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/hulu-complies-with-apples-new-ios-in-app-subscription-rules/) its Hulu Plus application to comply with Apple's new rules by removing an external link to sign up for the subscription service. And Macworld notes that Netflix appears to have complied by leaving in a notice about visiting Netflix.com to sign up for the service but formatting it as plain text rather than a link. And earlier today, The New York Times activated in-app subscriptions (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/new-york-times-offers-in-app-subscriptions/) for its content.

Article Link: Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/apple-not-yet-pulling-apps-helping-developers-meet-in-app-guidelines/)



Eduardo1971
Jul 1, 2011, 01:45 PM
I really doubt that some of the major player like Amazon will have their applications pulled from the store. Image the publicity that Apple would receive if they were to do this?

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 01:47 PM
I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.

nwcs
Jul 1, 2011, 01:47 PM
So the armageddon people have predicted to result from all this won't happen after all? Geez, now what do we do with all the angst over Apple's business decisions?

nwcs
Jul 1, 2011, 01:48 PM
I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

Small White Car
Jul 1, 2011, 01:51 PM
And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

Exactly.

If Target doesn't want to sell JIF peanut butter then they don't have to sell JIF peanut butter. You can't sue Target to make them carry certain products.

baleensavage
Jul 1, 2011, 01:53 PM
It will be interesting to see what both Apple and Facebook do in this respect as both have a deadline of today for developers to use their payment methods or "get punished." Are we going to see a mass removal of games and apps or is the "deadline" just going to slide while Apple and Facebook "work with" the devs?

dustinsc
Jul 1, 2011, 01:55 PM
And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

There might be an antitrust case in there. You can't use your market power in one area to influence competition in another area. So, in other words, a court could find that Apple used its power as an OS developer to drive software sales at the expense of other software developers. But it would have to be proven that these are substantially different areas of their business. It's messy, but it would be like the case against Microsoft related to IE.

lkrupp
Jul 1, 2011, 01:57 PM
And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

The "major players" could decide to pull everything from the app store all together, let iOS users twist in the wind, and concentrate on that other mobile operating system.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 01:58 PM
And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

dethmaShine
Jul 1, 2011, 02:01 PM
The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

Again that stupid anti-trust B.S.

:rolleyes:

marksman
Jul 1, 2011, 02:01 PM
I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.

You really should refrain from using the letters "l-a-w" near each other in any of your posts. It is pretty clear you have little to no understanding how the law works.

NebulaClash
Jul 1, 2011, 02:03 PM
Antitrust? Amazon has their own Appstore, so what's the problem? Aren't they the ones insisting that consumers won't confuse the Apple App Store with the Amazon Appstore? So what antitrust can there be if Apple isn't the only way to reach the consumer?

Either Apple's App Store is so dominant as to trigger antitrust issues, in which case Amazon loses their Appstore name because it is confusing.

Or Apple's App Store is merely one of many ways for the consumer to get apps, in which case Amazon can call it Appstore and there is no antitrust.

nwcs
Jul 1, 2011, 02:03 PM
No chance of an antitrust suit. Apple's store isn't the only game in town. Consumers aren't locked to only using one device or means to access Amazon (or other company) content. No restraint of trade because there are MANY channels Amazon currently uses as well as can potentially use.

Also, iTunes has not been declared a trust or monopoly which sets the bar at a successful suit very high.

A judge will say: Amazon, you're selling your stuff in 30 (for example) markets and 1 wants to not sell your stuff. Tough luck. Hope it works out for you later. It's not the same as Amazon coming to the judge and saying, "This is our one and only sales channel because no other sales channels exist and if they refuse to let us sell through their channel then we are out of business." HUGE difference.

As for DRM stuff, who knows? I doubt any of us really know with any reasonable degree of certainty.

Small White Car
Jul 1, 2011, 02:03 PM
The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

Don't you have to have something close to a monopoly for ANY of this to apply?

Or does that not matter in Europe? It does in the U.S.

nwcs
Jul 1, 2011, 02:05 PM
The "major players" could decide to pull everything from the app store all together, let iOS users twist in the wind, and concentrate on that other mobile operating system.

Of course that could happen. But it's unrelated to antitrust or anything legal. That's just business. If something like that happened, it would suck for us consumers but nothing illegal about it.

*LTD*
Jul 1, 2011, 02:06 PM
I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.

Apple isn't required to carry anyone's app. It's Apple's store and their rules.

Amazon can take their business elsewhere.

WiiDSmoker
Jul 1, 2011, 02:16 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

Again that stupid anti-trust B.S.

:rolleyes:

It's only stupid when it applies to Apple right?

*LTD*
Jul 1, 2011, 02:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)



It's only stupid when it applies to Apple right?

Except it doesn't apply at all in this case.

NebulaClash
Jul 1, 2011, 02:29 PM
Yeah, there's a weird effect that occurs here whenever a story involving the law crops up. Those posters who are predominantly anti-Apple (though they will assure you they use lots of Apple products as if that counters their anti-Apple propaganda) will assume immediately that Apple is in legal trouble. Even if it makes no sense.

Apple fans, of course, assume immediately that Apple should use the law against its competitors.

Typically neither side has a clue about the actual laws in question.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 02:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)



It's only stupid when it applies to Apple right?
Bingo point out that fact and the apple worshipers jump all over you as the neg. Rating that my post have.
They have provide no reason why apple has not thrown out yet.
Go look at the group saying not going to happen then look at the ones defending the vs amazon in the app store case and you noticed they are the same.

*LTD*
Jul 1, 2011, 02:39 PM
Bingo point out that fact and the apple worshipers jump all over you as the neg. Rating that my post have.
They have provide no reason why apple has not thrown out yet.
Go look at the group saying not going to happen then look at the ones defending the vs amazon in the app store case and you noticed they are the same.

People are just pointing out the reality re your antitrust claim. It has nothing to do with being pro or anti-Apple.

What would be the basis for such a lawsuit?

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 02:40 PM
There might be an antitrust case in there. You can't use your market power in one area to influence competition in another area. So, in other words, a court could find that Apple used its power as an OS developer to drive software sales at the expense of other software developers. But it would have to be proven that these are substantially different areas of their business. It's messy, but it would be like the case against Microsoft related to IE.

Dude, in the Kindle related thread some guy made a nice long post why this antitrust thing is way off. Go read it. This person had some legal experience, which you most likely do not. This is no where near antitrust.

dethmaShine
Jul 1, 2011, 02:41 PM
Bingo point out that fact and the apple worshipers jump all over you as the neg. Rating that my post have.
They have provide no reason why apple has not thrown out yet.
Go look at the group saying not going to happen then look at the ones defending the vs amazon in the app store case and you noticed they are the same.

So anybody that does not agree with your opinion is an Apple worshiper?

Is that against the forum rules, mods?

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 02:45 PM
Don't you have to have something close to a monopoly for ANY of this to apply?

Or does that not matter in Europe? It does in the U.S.

Do not need to be a monopoly or even close to one to be busted for antitrust. Just have to have enough market power to really hurt competition which there is no denying that Apple has that power. Amazon for example can point to ibooks coming out and Apple changing the rules to reflect it.

gkpm
Jul 1, 2011, 02:49 PM
Do not need to be a monopoly or even close to one to be busted for antitrust. Just have to have enough market power to really hurt competition which there is no denying that Apple has that power. Amazon for example can point to ibooks coming out and Apple changing the rules to reflect it.

LOL Amazon pointing to ibooks as power to hurt them?

This is a new low in logic for you Rodimus. I think your circuits have finally fried.

Time for a full circuit board replacement. Hope you got RodimusCare.

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 02:52 PM
You really should refrain from using the letters "l-a-w" near each other in any of your posts. It is pretty clear you have little to no understanding how the law works.

Marksman, you alone today have restored my faith in humanity. I can now go to my weekend and rest easier than I have in days. Thanks you.

Over and out.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 02:54 PM
LOL Amazon pointing to ibooks as power to hurt them?

This is a new low in logic for you Rodimus. I think your circuits have finally fried.

Time for a full circuit board replacement. Hope you got RodimusCare.

No Apple would want to kick out competitors like kindle so iBook store can get a huge leg up.
It is another item to use against Apple. iBooks hurts Apple's defense against anti trust. Sure as hell does not help them in any way shape or form in this matter. The more services Apple offers the harder it will be for them to defend themselves because they are using there power in Tablet market to effect all the others.

Small White Car
Jul 1, 2011, 02:54 PM
Do not need to be a monopoly or even close to one to be busted for antitrust. Just have to have enough market power to really hurt competition which there is no denying that Apple has that power. Amazon for example can point to ibooks coming out and Apple changing the rules to reflect it.

Ok, and Amazon can also be sued for not including iBooks or a Barnes and Noble app on their Kindle? Right?

Do you expect those lawsuits to happen soon?

firewood
Jul 1, 2011, 02:54 PM
You can't use your market power in one area to influence competition in another area.

One or two devices does not constitute a market. Given that Android phones currently outsell Apple's, and that PCs still outsell Macs and iPads together, where is this "market power" of which you speak?

Come back when the iPhone is the dominant majority of all smartphones in use, or iPads start vastly outselling all PCs. (And that's not impossible.)

*LTD*
Jul 1, 2011, 02:56 PM
No Apple would want to kick out competitors like kindle so iBook store can get a huge leg up.

Apple is not bound to to host any app on their own App Store. Besides, this isn't about kicking anyone out, it's about letting everyone know that they need to bring themselves into compliance with a particular rule. It appears Apple is trying to help folks do that.

dustinsc
Jul 1, 2011, 03:00 PM
Dude, in the Kindle related thread some guy made a nice long post why this antitrust thing is way off. Go read it. This person had some legal experience, which you most likely do not. This is no where near antitrust.

You're right, I don't have a ton of legal experience since I haven't finished law school yet. Having said that, a lot of it depends on things like market power and market definitions (are iOS users a separate market, or are they just part of a larger market) and there are a lot of technicalities. I'm certainly not saying Amazon would win or even has a good case. I'm just saying a lawsuit wouldn't be totally off the wall.

JAT
Jul 1, 2011, 03:17 PM
So the armageddon people have predicted to result from all this won't happen after all? Geez, now what do we do with all the angst over Apple's business decisions?
Have to fall back on an old standard for bad days: eat ice cream.
The "major players" could decide to pull everything from the app store all together, let iOS users twist in the wind, and concentrate on that other mobile operating system.
You mean Kindle??
I'm just saying a lawsuit wouldn't be totally off the wall.
An antitrust lawsuit would.

bsolar
Jul 1, 2011, 03:17 PM
I doubt there will be any successful Anti-Trust lawsuit anywhere, but actually in the EU it's not so unrealistic. In any case there is no need of any lawsuit, people should trust the free market more.

Apple is free to decide whatever rules it likes for its App Store, and the customers will then decide if they like the way apps work for them or if it's worth to focus development in the platform. Otherwise, there are other options.

In short, if Apple really wants it would probably win the "my rules, or out of my store" war, but winning it like this would hurt Apple far more than it's worth. It's not like they backed off from the original IAP rules because they suddenly became compassionate...

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 03:39 PM
Apple is not bound to to host any app on their own App Store. Besides, this isn't about kicking anyone out, it's about letting everyone know that they need to bring themselves into compliance with a particular rule. It appears Apple is trying to help folks do that.

you can make that your argument all you want but tell me how the hell do you expect Amazon to turn a profit with the kindle App on iOS with Apple demanding 30% gross considering Amazon that would mean everything sold threw the kindle app would be sold at a loss since Amazon only gets 30% of the gross to cover all its cost plus make profit.

Apple changed the rules all of a sudden.
I would agree with your argument in some sense if Apple would allow 3rd party App stores or side loading Apps. Both of which Apple does not do. Only way to get on iOS is to go threw Apple. This is a lot like MS anti trust case back in the day as something that is like it.

Plutonius
Jul 1, 2011, 03:40 PM
No Apple would want to kick out competitors like kindle.

Apple just wants Amazon to remove a single button from their app. How is that kicking Amazon out ?

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 03:42 PM
Apple just wants Amazon to remove a single button from their app. How is that kicking Amazon out ?

And like I said before Amazon will tell Apple to "go pound sand" before that happens.
Amazon has both the balls and the power to tell Apple off.

charlituna
Jul 1, 2011, 04:13 PM
For the record, Hulu is NOT in compliance. The rules are that they remove outside links AND add IAP.

What likely happened is that they asked for more time to make the IAP work and 'in the meantime we have removed the external link and submitted that update' which Apple was happy to take as a sign of good faith


There might be an antitrust case in there. You can't use your market power in one area to influence competition in another area.

Antitrust? Market? These do not mean what you think they do.

The AppStore is to support one group of devices in a market of devices. Just as HP has their WebOS market to support that group, Microsoft theirs etc.

For what Apple is doing to be anti-trust they would have to show that they are crossing markets, not just groups within a market. The AppStore isn't doing that.

Now where they could perhaps be hit is in development. If I want to be an iOS developer I must get/own a Mac. I can't write apps on a Windows machine, Apple won't give me the tools. So one could argue that they are using the power of iOS to push their hardware sales. And THAT would be anti-trust because you are dealing with two markets



No Apple would want to kick out competitors like kindle so iBook store can get a huge leg up.


Trouble with that idea is that Kindle etc were allowed in and allowed to stay after iBooks was released. AND said companies signed a list of rules they agreed to follow that contained a rule that Apple is free to change the rules and they agree to change also or get out.

So basically Amazon etc sold their souls to Satan and they will have to pay for it.

dejo
Jul 1, 2011, 04:26 PM
I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.
Noted for future claim chowder.

bsolar
Jul 1, 2011, 04:28 PM
Apple just wants Amazon to remove a single button from their app. How is that kicking Amazon out ?
Ok, but why? Did they really expect Amazon to embrace IAP? That was a war Apple could not win, it was not going to happen with that pricing and whoever thought otherwise was just delusional. Thankfully Apple's management regained sanity pretty quickly and backed down from the original IAP rules.

Now they are trying to make less convenient for Kindle App's user to buy Amazon's content. I can understand them, and probably they can do that too, technically speaking. But I doubt this will steer Amazon's customers to iBooks or whatever. In the end this will just mean the Kindle App in iOS will be less convenient to me end-user compared to the same app in other devices, thanks to Apple's rules.

My old 3GS is pretty battered and I am eagerly waiting for the iPhone5's specifications, but I'm an Amazon customer too and I use the Kindle App a lot. Suddenly Apple made me interested in looking at their competition's devices...

marksman
Jul 1, 2011, 04:43 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)

Apple is not bound to to host any app on their own App Store. Besides, this isn't about kicking anyone out, it's about letting everyone know that they need to bring themselves into compliance with a particular rule. It appears Apple is trying to help folks do that.

you can make that your argument all you want but tell me how the hell do you expect Amazon to turn a profit with the kindle App on iOS with Apple demanding 30% gross considering Amazon that would mean everything sold threw the kindle app would be sold at a loss since Amazon only gets 30% of the gross to cover all its cost plus make profit.

Apple changed the rules all of a sudden.
I would agree with your argument in some sense if Apple would allow 3rd party App stores or side loading Apps. Both of which Apple does not do. Only way to get on iOS is to go threw Apple. This is a lot like MS anti trust case back in the day as something that is like it.

Amazons business model has nothing to do with the app stores right to 100% determine what products they sell in their store. There is no law out there that relates to this topic at all. Feel free to cite US,EU,Zimbabwe or any other law that requires a retailer to not only carry and sell a product they may not want to sell but also do it with terms and conditions they don't accept. Instead of just dancing around and
pretending like there is legal relevance actually cite a single relevant example. Here is a hint anything to do with
Microsoft is not a relevant example. Unless you have some legal ruling
that allows apple to sell macs and Mac os in microsoft stores.

It is like Charlie browns reacher saying "wan wan legal wan wan law wan wan wan anti trust"

Actually say something pertinent and relevant about these perceived legal issues for once.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 04:53 PM
you can make that your argument all you want but tell me how the hell do you expect Amazon to turn a profit with the kindle App on iOS with Apple demanding 30% gross considering Amazon that would mean everything sold threw the kindle app would be sold at a loss since Amazon only gets 30% of the gross to cover all its cost plus make profit.

Apple changed the rules all of a sudden.
I would agree with your argument in some sense if Apple would allow 3rd party App stores or side loading Apps. Both of which Apple does not do. Only way to get on iOS is to go threw Apple. This is a lot like MS anti trust case back in the day as something that is like it.

Yeah. Not happening. Apple can do whatever the market lets them get away with - the fact that they had to back off the original version of the rule is evidence that Apple doesn't have sufficient market power to significantly affect competition.

Inkling
Jul 1, 2011, 04:54 PM
A good case can be made that Apple has engaged in false and misleading advertising. They've released several well-publicized "There's an App for That" ads bragging about how open iOS is and mentioning all the third-party apps that run on it. In the public mind, that would include popular ereaders from Amazon and B&N. Yanking those apps would constitute 'bait-and-switch.' Buy an iPad, perhaps instead of a Kindle, to get the Kindle app and then have that app yanked away. Not good.

It's a bit like buying a car that comes with two-years of free satellite radio and then having that satellite service yanked by the automaker because they're in a dispute with the satellite radio company. You promise, you have to deliver. If you don't you're likely to face the wrath of both the FTC and class actions lawsuits. I suspect there are law firms already preparing for action the minute the Amazon app gets yanked.

The same isn't true of Amazon. It's been careful to position Kindles as a way to read books from their own store. They've promised much less, but they're delivering everything they've promised.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 04:57 PM
Yeah. Not happening. Apple can do whatever the market lets them get away with - the fact that they had to back off the original version of the rule is evidence that Apple doesn't have sufficient market power to significantly affect competition.

That or another option. Apple back off knowing that they would be facing some major trouble with the courts. Question comes up on why the all of a sudden did such a major rule changed demanding a huge cut were none was before. 30% of a payment processor is a huge rip off no matter how you cut it.

Apple back off the DRM on iTMS not because they felt good about it but because the writing was on the wall and chances were getting pretty good that they would be facing some major lawsuits that they could not win. Dropping fairplay from iTMS caused those to back off.


Honestly anyone that does remove the links I would think they should point the finger at APple in the App wiht something like
"We are sorry that we can not provide you a link to our site due to Apple restrictions and demanding an insane amount of money but feel free to go there on your computer"

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 05:05 PM
That or another option. Apple back off knowing that they would be facing some major trouble with the courts. Question comes up on why the all of a sudden did such a major rule changed demanding a huge cut were none was before. 30% of a payment processor is a huge rip off no matter how you cut it.

Apple back off the DRM on iTMS not because they felt good about it but because the writing was on the wall and chances were getting pretty good that they would be facing some major lawsuits that they could not win. Dropping fairplay from iTMS caused those to back off.


Honestly anyone that does remove the links I would think they should point the finger at APple in the App wiht something like
"We are sorry that we can not provide you a link to our site due to Apple restrictions and demanding an insane amount of money but feel free to go there on your computer"

You seem to think that every competitive action is legally-actionable. This is simply not the case. Apple isn't even close to the line. Maybe in some backwater country where they have a 32-hour workweek and you can't be fired without a court hearing, but in industrialized countries it's simply not against the law to compete so long as you don't violate certain rules (for example leveraging a monopoly in one market to injure competition in another). Despite what you claim, there is no generalized prohibition on "injuring competition." Everything every business does is supposed to injure the competition - that's the point of being in business.

You rail against the 30% cut, but publishers in other industries frequently demand 70% (I know. I was involved in such a deal). I reckon Microsoft and Sony take at least 30% of game sales for 360 and PS3. This is the way business is done, and if a company doesn't want to pay the 30% they can go to other outlets. There's no inherent right to make money off of someone else's platform.

Doctor Q
Jul 1, 2011, 05:25 PM
If a developer updates their app to be in compliance, how long does approval take? Are they ever in a Catch-22 waiting for Apple approval when they are trying to meet Apple's own deadlines?

dejo
Jul 1, 2011, 05:39 PM
Honestly anyone that does remove the links I would think they should point the finger at APple in the App wiht something like
"We are sorry that we can not provide you a link to our site due to Apple restrictions and demanding an insane amount of money but feel free to go there on your computer"
Apple would almost certainly reject any app with such a "finger".


If a developer updates their app to be in compliance, how long does approval take? Are they ever in a Catch-22 waiting for Apple approval when they are trying to meet Apple's own deadlines?
Approval for updates can take a few days or it can take a few weeks. So, yes, I think they could possibly be in a Catch-22.

bsolar
Jul 1, 2011, 06:28 PM
You rail against the 30% cut, but publishers in other industries frequently demand 70% (I know. I was involved in such a deal). I reckon Microsoft and Sony take at least 30% of game sales for 360 and PS3. This is the way business is done, and if a company doesn't want to pay the 30% they can go to other outlets. There's no inherent right to make money off of someone else's platform.
You are confused, Apple in these cases is not publishing anything, it's just processing a payment. Actual publishers might require a 30% fee or whatever, but this can be justified with the need to cover the costs of hosting the media, uploading it to the customers and the whole publishing infrastructure in general.

Apple publishes only the application itself, but this is already taken into account and paid by the developer's license. It does not publish any of the application's contents, so it's unreasonable to ask the same fee as an actual publisher for that.

They can try this only because they basically decided there is only one way for an iOS application to process a payment directly, and that's through Apple's IAP, meaning there is no competition and whatever fee they decide, it's the only option (I don't consider manually navigating to the actual publisher's web store to be a comparable option). If there were other companies handling electronic payments allowed to manage IAPs, Apple would have to lower the fee to stay competitive.

In my opinion Apple's "vision" from the user's point of view is the correct one: every application makes use of the same system to handle payments. No need to give credentials to different companies and such... it would be very interesting. But they messed up the pricing.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 06:38 PM
You are confused, Apple in these cases is not publishing anything, it's just processing a payment. Actual publishers might require a 30% fee or whatever, but this can be justified with the need to cover the costs of hosting the media, uploading it to the customers and the whole publishing infrastructure in general.

Apple publishes only the application itself, but this is already taken into account and paid by the developer's license. It does not publish any of the application's contents, so it's unreasonable to ask the same fee as an actual publisher for that.

They can try this only because they basically decided there is only one way for an iOS application to process a payment directly, and that's through Apple's IAP, meaning there is no competition and whatever fee they decide, it's the only option (I don't consider manually navigating to the actual publisher's web store to be a comparable option). If there were other companies handling electronic payments allowed to manage IAPs, Apple would have to lower the fee to stay competitive.

In my opinion Apple's "vision" from the user's point of view is the correct one: every application makes use of the same system to handle payments. No need to give credentials to different companies and such... it would be very interesting. But they messed up the pricing.

I'm not at all confused. Apple does indeed publish something - apple publishes the app.

bsolar
Jul 1, 2011, 06:52 PM
I'm not at all confused. Apple does indeed publish something - apple publishes the app.
As I said, the App is indeed published by Apple, but Apple is not demanding any compensation for this publishing (developer's license apart). In this they are on-par with the competition which rarely makes expensive to develop and publish for it's own ecosystem, after all the more apps the better.

Apple is demanding compensation for processing In-App Payments for content which is published by other companies. It's a completely different game in which Apple does not play the publisher role, but the payment processing role, for which a fee of 30% is just ridiculous considering what companies in this business usually charge for the same operation.

csjcsj
Jul 1, 2011, 07:42 PM
If Apple pulls the Kindle app from the iPad, I'm selling mine and buying an Android tablet.

This is as bad as windows and the browser wars.

divad1978
Jul 1, 2011, 08:02 PM
Exactly.

If Target doesn't want to sell JIF peanut butter then they don't have to sell JIF peanut butter. You can't sue Target to make them carry certain products.

People like you make me sick. Sure Target doesn't have to sell JIF peanut butter. However if they sold you a plate to eat food off of that had some microchips in it that only allowed food sold from Target to be ate on the plate and then told JIF that if they want to allow their customers to put peanut butter on that plate then they have to get it from Target and the customer can't get it anywhere else then that is a huge problem, especially if Target controlled 50% of the market for plates and that other plates were crap. So JIF complies and sells their peanut butter at Target. To top it off if JIF wanted to sell you bread using their own shipping method for your peanut butter and they told you where you can get bread but Target stepped in and said you can't tell them where to get bread unless you sell that bread at Target where they take a 30% cut I'm sure you'd go along with it.

You the customer wouldn't put up with this anti consumer crap nor would JIF ever go along with these stupid rules. Why are we doing it with Apple? If tomorrow Microsoft tried imposing these same rules that Apple does on Windows there would be an uproar and our government would intervene. Why can Apple do this with the iPhone?

I have no problem with Apple having the App Store and developers having to comply with the rules. However secondary markets should be completely legitimate without jail breaking the phone such that you can purchase/manage other applications from other app stores or even directly from the developers site and get them installed to the phone.

*LTD*
Jul 1, 2011, 08:07 PM
People like you make me sick. Sure Target doesn't have to sell JIF peanut butter. However if they sold you a plate to eat food off of that had some microchips in it that only allowed food sold from Target to be ate on the plate and then told JIF that if they want to allow their customers to put peanut butter on that plate then they have to get it from Target and the customer can't get it anywhere else then that is a huge problem, especially if Target controlled 50% of the market for plates and that other plates were crap. So JIF complies and sells their peanut butter at Target. To top it off if JIF wanted to sell you bread using their own shipping method for your peanut butter and they told you where you can get bread but Target stepped in and said you can't tell them where to get bread unless you sell that bread at Target where they take a 30% cut I'm sure you'd go along with it.

You the customer wouldn't put up with this anti consumer crap nor would JIF ever go along with these stupid rules. Why are we doing it with Apple? If tomorrow Microsoft tried imposing these same rules that Apple does on Windows there would be an uproar and our government would intervene. Why can Apple do this with the iPhone?

I have no problem with Apple having the App Store and developers having to comply with the rules. However secondary markets should be completely legitimate without jail breaking the phone such that you can purchase/manage other applications from other app stores or even directly from the developers site and get them installed to the phone.

Whoa. :eek:

Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave out analogies altogether and just discuss the situation on its own particular merits.

divad1978
Jul 1, 2011, 08:25 PM
Whoa. :eek:

Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave out analogies altogether and just discuss the situation on its own particular merits.

Yeah well sorry but I didn't bring up the analogy. I just made it more accurately depict what is going on. I probably shouldn't of made the comment that "people like you make me sick" but this whole topic just really infuriates me that anyone could possibly side with Apple on this especially when they change the rules in the middle of the game. Kindle app should be grandfathered in if they are going to make these new subscription rules.

I have an iPhone and an iPad. They are great products. And I really don't want to switch to what I feel is still an inferior product in Android devices but wow this is really pissing me off. Every time one of these things happen I get closer and closer. I have tons of friends in the IT business and a lot of them simply will not purchase an iPhone while openly saying that they know the iPhone is the better device however they can't do business with Apple due to the way they conduct manage the App Store.

Consumers should be the ones that say what Apps suck. Not Apple. If an app sucks then it isn't going to sell. If it doesn't then who cares what it does. That is what the rating system is for. Apple can't and shouldn't be trying to protect all their consumers to give them the best user experience possible. However I seriously doubt that is the reason for the subscription rules in place.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 08:30 PM
As I said, the App is indeed published by Apple, but Apple is not demanding any compensation for this publishing (developer's license apart).

Sure they are. They take 30% of the sale price of the app.


In this they are on-par with the competition which rarely makes expensive to develop and publish for it's own ecosystem, after all the more apps the better.

Really? How come Amazon charges a comparable % for kindle apps? How come MS and Sony charge more?


Apple is demanding compensation for processing In-App Payments for content which is published by other companies.

You calling it that doesn't make it so. They are charging for the privilege of using Apple's platform to obtain and serve subscribers.

divad1978
Jul 1, 2011, 08:36 PM
You calling it that doesn't make it so. They are charging for the privilege of using Apple's platform to obtain and serve subscribers.

Which is perfectly fine if they company wants to use Apple's platform. However if they have their own platform to do so and serve their customers just fine they shouldn't be forced to use Apple's platform.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 08:39 PM
Which is perfectly fine if they company wants to use Apple's platform. However if they have their own platform to do so and serve their customers just fine they shouldn't be forced to use Apple's platform.

They're not "forced" to use Apple's platform. Amazon can sell its books on Kindles and other devices. But if they want to sell their books on Apple's platform, Apple has a right to set the rules. Just as Sony can set the rules for PS3 development, and Amazon can (and does!) set the rules for Kindle development.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 08:42 PM
They're not "forced" to use Apple's platform. Amazon can sell its books on Kindles and other devices. But if they want to sell their books on Apple's platform, Apple has a right to set the rules. Just as Sony can set the rules for PS3 development, and Amazon can (and does!) set the rules for Kindle development.

but as far as I know only Apple has done a major bait and switch in the rule changes.
As far as I can tell this was bait and switch on big players like Amazon. It gets them on iOS ingrains them in and now Apple pulls the switch and more or less screws them. To me that has a lot of things wrong with it. Like predatory pricing.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 08:45 PM
but as far as I know only Apple has done a major bait and switch in the rule changes.
As far as I can tell this was bait and switch on big players like Amazon. It gets them on iOS ingrains them in and now Apple pulls the switch and more or less screws them. To me that has a lot of things wrong with it. Like predatory pricing.

First, how does this "screw" Amazon? Let's say they were kicked off of idevices tomorrow - do you really think they didn't more than make back the money they spent developing the app? And everyone knew going in what they were getting into - Apple had a history of changing the rules, competing with its third party developers, etc.

And what the heck does this have to do with "predatory pricing?" Predatory pricing is when you sell something at a very low price to drive out competition - how is Apple doing THAT? (Though I'm sure Apple would like to be associated with LOW prices for once :) )

*LTD*
Jul 1, 2011, 08:45 PM
but as far as I know only Apple has done a major bait and switch in the rule changes.
As far as I can tell this was bait and switch on big players like Amazon. It gets them on iOS ingrains them in and now Apple pulls the switch and more or less screws them. To me that has a lot of things wrong with it. Like predatory pricing.

Terms and Conditions are subject to change. I believe it's covered in the Developer TOS.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 08:48 PM
First, how does this "screw" Amazon? Let's say they were kicked off of idevices tomorrow - do you really think they didn't more than make back the money they spent developing the app? And everyone knew going in what they were getting into - Apple had a history of changing the rules, competing with its third party developers, etc.

And what the heck does this have to do with "predatory pricing?" Predatory pricing is when you sell something at a very low price to drive out competition - how is Apple doing THAT? (Though I'm sure Apple would like to be associated with LOW prices for once :) )

Not really sure on that 2nd part but the bait and switch is pretty bad.

If Amazon is kick off the one thing that is pretty safe to say is Amazon would file a law suit against Apple and drag them threw the court system. I do not know if Amazon would win the Anti trust case but I am willing to bet Amazon would file the law suit and force Apple to fight it and justify everything in court.
Apple has to know that and I think the last thing they would want is be forced release a lot of things into public court.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 08:54 PM
If Amazon is kick off the one thing that is pretty safe to say is Amazon would file a law suit against Apple and drag them threw the court system.

You keep saying that kind of thing, but the law requires what is called a "cause of action" for a lawsuit - you can't just sue because your feelings are hurt, or because someone decided to exercise their rights to stop doing business with you. There is no contract breached. There is no antitrust cause of action. What, exactly, would Amazon sue about?


I do not know if Amazon would win the Anti trust case but I am willing to bet Amazon would file the law suit and force Apple to fight it and justify everything in court.

How much would you like to bet?


Apple has to know that and I think the last thing they would want is be forced release a lot of things into public court.
huh?

*LTD*
Jul 1, 2011, 09:03 PM
How much would you like to bet?



Your hourly rate. ;)

divad1978
Jul 1, 2011, 09:38 PM
They're not "forced" to use Apple's platform. Amazon can sell its books on Kindles and other devices. But if they want to sell their books on Apple's platform, Apple has a right to set the rules. Just as Sony can set the rules for PS3 development, and Amazon can (and does!) set the rules for Kindle development.

I believe the person was talking about the subscription model platform. Not the App store platform. Why can't anyone just admit that they are going too far in forcing apps to sell products through their model when there is no reason to do it in a lot of situations.

I can definitely understand a situation where a company finds it easier to let Apple take care of the subscription or in app purchases for them as it would be a great service Apple is providing to those developers. However does it really make since for netflix where a bulk of their business is not on the iPad or iPhone to have to use Apple's subscription model when they already have one in place, why can't they simply point users from within the app to their website or even set it up from within the app? Think about it, Netflix is putting their app on the App store not because it is making them more business. They are doing it because their customers are asking for it. While doing so they are making Apple's product BETTER for Apple customers. They aren't selling this app. They aren't increasing my subscription cost. So they aren't even making a profit off of, it's just an extra service they are going out of their way to provide and Apple has the audacity to tell them that they can't even send business from this free app they provide to their website?

So let's face it Apple clearly doesn't have their consumers in mind when they are making these rules. Here is one pissed off customer right here that if Amazon/Netflix/Hulu are forced to change will finally give up on Apple.

Before the Sony PS3 issue removing the "install other OS" I was a huge loyal Sony consumer. Every TV, receiver and home stereo system I ever owned came from Sony along with purchasing their PS2 and PS3. I am never buying another Sony product again because of this issue.

FearNo1
Jul 1, 2011, 09:46 PM
I agree with what you are saying. This is similar to what happened with MS and the default icons on windows desktop. Actually it may be worse since apple has control as to what is offered on the iOS desktop. I think it may be time for the courts to step in this...

Bingo point out that fact and the apple worshipers jump all over you as the neg. Rating that my post have.
They have provide no reason why apple has not thrown out yet.
Go look at the group saying not going to happen then look at the ones defending the vs amazon in the app store case and you noticed they are the same.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 09:54 PM
I believe the person was talking about the subscription model platform. Not the App store platform. Why can't anyone just admit that they are going too far in forcing apps to sell products through their model when there is no reason to do it in a lot of situations.

Because we don't agree its true.


I can definitely understand a situation where a company finds it easier to let Apple take care of the subscription or in app purchases for them as it would be a great service Apple is providing to those developers. However does it really make since for netflix where a bulk of their business is not on the iPad or iPhone to have to use Apple's subscription model when they already have one in place, why can't they simply point users from within the app to their website or even set it up from within the app? Think about it, Netflix is putting their app on the App store not because it is making them more business. They are doing it because their customers are asking for it.


Huh? Of course it is bringing them more business.



While doing so they are making Apple's product BETTER for Apple customers.
They aren't selling this app. They aren't increasing my subscription cost. So they aren't even making a profit off of, it's just an extra service they are going out of their way to provide and Apple has the audacity to tell them that they can't even send business from this free app they provide to their website?

Netflix, like any other business, does things to make money. If they didn't make money off of the iphone app they wouldn't have one. They make money because people who otherwise wouldn't pay for the service do so. Netflix isn't doing anything out of the goodness of their heart.

Look, if no one was going to subscribe to anything through the in-app link, then nothing is harmed by removing it. If, on the other hand, people WERE going to subscribe via the in-app link, then Apple has a right to ask for a cut of that money. If the customers and/or app-providers don't like it, there are plenty of other platforms out there.


So let's face it Apple clearly doesn't have their consumers in mind when they are making these rules.

Maybe, maybe not. But neither does Amazon, Netflix, etc.

Prallethrin
Jul 1, 2011, 10:01 PM
Amazon is unlike to win an anti-trust suit if they file one IMO

Apple has <50% of the smartphone market in the US, even less of the entire mobile phone market.

You would be hard pressed to prove they have undue influence that is causing "restrain of trade", especially when there are other highly popular and widely available platforms, eg. Android, Amazon's own Kindle ebook reader, in which to deliver your products and services.

It's like suing DHL for anti-trust just because they refuse to deliver/handle your products.
There is always Fedex or the USPS. Your trade is not "restrained".

Not to mention, Amazon really shouldn't be throwing stones.

Their stores have "restrictions" as well and they have the same right to not carry your books/ebooks in their online store.

And as one of the bigger book retailers - with most of their competition dying (eg. borders) or barely surviving (eg. Barnes and Nobles) - Amazon is way closer to having a retail monopoly on books than Apple is in the mobile phone market.

My 2c.


Before the Sony PS3 issue removing the "install other OS" I was a huge loyal Sony consumer. Every TV, receiver and home stereo system I ever owned came from Sony along with purchasing their PS2 and PS3. I am never buying another Sony product again because of this issue.

Sony removed it because it was used to hack and bypass the PS3's security system. They have an implicit obligation to the developers to keep the platform piracy free and to gamers to keep online games as free of hacks as possible.

Lets see ...

Piss of a handful of homebrewers who don't really give you much income.
Or.
Piss of developers and gamers who are their bread and butter.

Decisions. Decisions.

Seriously. What would you do? Leaving it and let the platform turn into another PSP, then have everyone blame you because you did nothing?

Maybe they should have done what MS did and not include homebrew capability at all in the first place. Would you be happy then?

Prallethrin
Jul 1, 2011, 10:18 PM
I agree with what you are saying. This is similar to what happened with MS and the default icons on windows desktop. Actually it may be worse since apple has control as to what is offered on the iOS desktop. I think it may be time for the courts to step in this...

One is a monopoly, one isn't.

Different rules for each.

divad1978
Jul 1, 2011, 10:21 PM
Because we don't agree its true.



Huh? Of course it is bringing them more business.




Netflix, like any other business, does things to make money. If they didn't make money off of the iphone app they wouldn't have one. They make money because people who otherwise wouldn't pay for the service do so. Netflix isn't doing anything out of the goodness of their heart.

Look, if no one was going to subscribe to anything through the in-app link, then nothing is harmed by removing it. If, on the other hand, people WERE going to subscribe via the in-app link, then Apple has a right to ask for a cut of that money. If the customers and/or app-providers don't like it, there are plenty of other platforms out there.



Maybe, maybe not. But neither does Amazon, Netflix, etc.

Believe it or not some companies like to go out of their way and maybe lose some money short term to create what is called customer satisfaction. Which is what Netflix is doing with the netflix app. Sure they realize in the long run the customer satisfaction they are building will keep their customers loyal and faithful by not canceling their subscription but they are most definitely taking a loss right now on the development/support of the apps and probably netting next to zero new business.

Case in point, look at Apple Stores. How many stories have you heard where someone takes something in after warranty is expired and Apple fixes it anyway? They are temporarily taking a loss with no guarantee to ever make it up. Why? Customer satisfaction.

And I'm at a loss for words if you truly believe Amazon/Netflix doesn't have customer satisfaction in mind. As many people have pointed out both of these companies don't really truly need to have their apps in the app store to make money.

What would happen if these companies complied and now Apple starts taking a cut of their business that they truly aren't needed to be a middle man for? PRICES will go up. I'm sorry but selling a book for $9.99 when they are already paying close to $9.99 for the rights to sell each book and now they are going to have to actually end up paying $12.99 to sell that same book for no reason at all just won't cut it. They will have to raise prices. You do realize Amazon makes next to nothing on digital books? It's not like they are printing money off of Apple's back and Apple is simply asking for a cut.

I can understand the situation where the business didn't exist prior to Apple creating this new market and now they can sit there and print money by charging for in app purchases of .99 cents to get an eagle bird in Angry Birds that it isn't going to kill them to give Apple a cut for providing the service making that work. However this is not the situation with Kindle or Netflix at all.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 10:27 PM
Believe it or not some companies like to go out of their way and maybe lose some money short term to create what is called customer satisfaction. Which is what Netflix is doing with the netflix app. Sure they realize in the long run the customer satisfaction they are building will keep their customers loyal and faithful by not canceling their subscription but they are most definitely taking a loss right now on the development/support of the apps and probably netting next to zero new business.

Case in point, look at Apple Stores. How many stories have you heard where someone takes something in after warranty is expired and Apple fixes it anyway? They are temporarily taking a loss with no guarantee to ever make it up. Why? Customer satisfaction.

And I'm at a loss for words if you truly believe Amazon/Netflix doesn't have customer satisfaction in mind. As many people have pointed out both of these companies don't really truly need to have their apps in the app store to make money.

What would happen if these companies complied and now Apple starts taking a cut of their business that they truly aren't needed to be a middle man for? PRICES will go up. I'm sorry but selling a book for $9.99 when they are already paying close to $9.99 for the rights to sell each book and now they are going to have to actually end up paying $12.99 to sell that same book for no reason at all just won't cut it. They will have to raise prices. You do realize Amazon makes next to nothing on digital books? It's not like they are printing money off of Apple's back and Apple is simply asking for a cut.

I can understand the situation where the business didn't exist prior to Apple creating this new market and now they can sit there and print money by charging for in app purchases of .99 cents to get an eagle bird in Angry Birds that it isn't going to kill them to give Apple a cut for providing the service making that work. However this is not the situation with Kindle or Netflix at all.

Thataway to misrepresent what I said. To be clear: neither Netflix, Apple, Amazon, or any other company is primarily concerned with anything other than making money. The reason Amazon, Netflix, etc. would like to be able to sell things from within their apps is to make money. The reason they don't want to pay Apple for the privilege is to make money.

In the end, iOS is Apple's platform, and Apple can set whatever rules it would like. Just like Sony can with the PS3, Amazon can with its storefront and the Kindle store, etc.

iOS is not an open ecosystem like Mac OS X or Windows. It only runs the software Apple decides to let it run, same as XBOX, PSP, iPod, etc.

FearNo1
Jul 1, 2011, 10:30 PM
If MS is a monopoly, then so is apple with the app store, actually apple is worse because they can blatantly block an app if it competes with theirs. IOW apple is just as bad, if not worse, than MS. I know its painful for some of the iFans to admit this...

One is a monopoly, one isn't.

Different rules for each.

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 10:32 PM
If MS is a monopoly, then so is apple with the app store, actually apple is worse because they can blatantly block an app if it competes with theirs. IOW apple is just as bad, if not worse, than MS. I know its painful for some of the iFans to admit this...

I don't think monopoly means what you think it means. :)

Prallethrin
Jul 1, 2011, 10:34 PM
If MS is a monopoly, then so is apple with the app store, actually apple is worse because they can blatantly block an app if it competes with theirs. IOW apple is just as bad, if not worse, than MS. I know its painful for some of the iFans to admit this...

Apple <50% of smart phone market share worldwide - around that from the stats I have seen; probably less to be honest.

MS >90% of desktop OSs worldwide.

Difference rules are applied depending on whether you are determined to have a monopoly in the market.

And whether you have a monopoly is determined by the courts, not hearsay on the Internet.
I know it's painful for some of you to admit to this...

JAT
Jul 1, 2011, 10:35 PM
So basically Amazon etc sold their souls to Satan and they will have to pay for it.
Satan means opposer. Devil means deceiver. You should have said Devil.
You are confused, Apple in these cases is not publishing anything, it's just processing a payment.
The problem is in media apps only that are selling new media content in IAP. What Apple needs to do (to appease people) is set up two versions of IAP. (but they won't) Their system is necessary for other kinds of apps, that mainly sell app upgrades via IAP. Otherwise, devs would simply make nothing but free apps, with all payments through IAP.
If Apple pulls the Kindle app from the iPad, I'm selling mine and buying an Android tablet.

This is as bad as windows and the browser wars.
This is nothing like the MS IE antitrust case. Not similar at all. And you realize that you already have the Kindle app, yes?
I probably shouldn't of made the comment that "people like you make me sick"
Ya think?

but this whole topic just really infuriates me that anyone could possibly side with Apple on this especially when they change the rules in the middle of the game.
If they hadn't, there would be no IAP at all. So, you want new features, but not rules for how they work? People like you....make me wonder what the **** they teach in school these days.
I don't think monopoly means what you think it means. :)
I don't think he's even in the same language.

FearNo1
Jul 1, 2011, 10:37 PM
Actually, I was just about to say that: the courts will decide this not the fans of a company...

Apple <50% of phone market share worldwide - around that from the stats I have seen; probably less to be honest.

MS >90% of desktop OSs worldwide.

Difference rules are applied depending on whether you are determined to have a monopoly in the market.

And whether you have a monopoly is determined by the courts, not hearsay on the Internet.
I know it's painful for some of you to admit to this...

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 10:38 PM
Actually, I was just about to say that: the courts will decide this not the fans of a company...

But you're wrong. The courts won't decide this. This will never see a court.

FearNo1
Jul 1, 2011, 10:39 PM
OK Mrs Cleo...

But you're wrong. The courts won't decide this. This will never see a court.

Prallethrin
Jul 1, 2011, 10:41 PM
Actually, I was just about to say that: the courts will decide this not the fans of a company...

Yupe.

And from current available data, it's unlikely they will rule Apple having a monopoly in the smartphone market, despite what haters like to think.

JAT
Jul 1, 2011, 10:42 PM
Which one of you guys is bringing this mythical court case?

cmaier
Jul 1, 2011, 10:44 PM
OK Mrs Cleo...

It doesn't take psychic powers to understand the law.

DanMacApple
Jul 2, 2011, 12:29 AM
The Kindle app is too popular, I dont think apple will remove it.

djrobsd
Jul 2, 2011, 02:14 AM
Here's the bottom line... If Apple does not back down on this, they will loose all the major apps that help them sell products. For example, when the iPad first came out, there were like 10 apps available for it, and one of those was NetFlix... And that was one of the reasons I stood in line at Best Buy on launch day to buy it.

If you take these apps away, people will go elsewhere, guaranteed. Apple needs to stop being greedy and continue focusing on making innovative products, and cooperate with those partners like Amazon and Netflix who help them be successful rather then trying to strong arm them into giving away 30% of their revenue, which last time I checked equaled MORE then their profit margin, which means if they give Apple 30% they will be loosing money.

bsolar
Jul 2, 2011, 03:39 AM
Huh? Of course it is bringing them more business.
You forget that these apps are bringing more business to Apple too. I for sure would never have bought an iPhone without the Kindle App available. Apple needs these apps to make their ecosystem rich. Both Apple and Amazon would be hurt if the Kindle App is removed from the store, that's why Apple is not enforcing the rules strictly (yet).

Look, if no one was going to subscribe to anything through the in-app link, then nothing is harmed by removing it. If, on the other hand, people WERE going to subscribe via the in-app link, then Apple has a right to ask for a cut of that money. If the customers and/or app-providers don't like it, there are plenty of other platforms out there.
Agreed, but the fact that Apple can demand this money doesn't mean it's reasonable. Even Apple recognized it was not reasonable and backed down from the original plan. The new plan is just trying to harm the competition in their ecosystem making less convenient for customers to buy through third-parties.

Most likely they can do this too, again, their garden. But the drawback is that if apps are less convenient in iOS, people will look at alternatives. Apple knows this well, I doubt they will keep fighting this battle for much longer. There is simply a too small chance of actually gaining IAP adopters or iBook/whatever customers than simply losing people to competing platforms.

hans1972
Jul 2, 2011, 05:14 AM
What would happen if these companies complied and now Apple starts taking a cut of their business that they truly aren't needed to be a middle man for? PRICES will go up.

It seems you have misunderstood the new rules.

It is very easy for Amazon to avoid Apple getting any cut: Just donīt make it possible to buy books in the iOS app or provide links to other ways to do it. Just let the customers buy books on amazon.com.

Basically all that is required by Amazon is to remove an URL link.

roadbloc
Jul 2, 2011, 05:24 AM
In appstore rebellion. Reminds me of a book called Animal Farm I'm reading at the moment on the Kindle App.

Oletros
Jul 2, 2011, 06:01 AM
Don't you have to have something close to a monopoly for ANY of this to apply?

Or does that not matter in Europe? It does in the U.S.

No, it doesn't apply, at least in Spain. You can have 10% of the marketshare and be fined for anticompetitive practices

Yeah. Not happening. Apple can do whatever the market lets them get away with

Market AND laws

They're not "forced" to use Apple's platform. Amazon can sell its books on Kindles and other devices. But if they want to sell their books on Apple's platform, Apple has a right to set the rules. Just as Sony can set the rules for PS3 development, and Amazon can (and does!) set the rules for Kindle development.

So, Amazon can put a link to Safari Mobile?

Look, if no one was going to subscribe to anything through the in-app link, then nothing is harmed by removing it. If, on the other hand, people WERE going to subscribe via the in-app link, then Apple has a right to ask for a cut of that money. If the customers and/or app-providers don't like it, there are plenty of other platforms out there.

And Apple has a right to ban a link to a browser?

It seems you have misunderstood the new rules.

It is very easy for Amazon to avoid Apple getting any cut: Just donīt make it possible to buy books in the iOS app or provide links to other ways to do it. Just let the customers buy books on amazon.com.

Basically all that is required by Amazon is to remove an URL link.

They can't provide links to other ways

bsolar
Jul 2, 2011, 06:56 AM
It is very easy for Amazon to avoid Apple getting any cut: Just donīt make it possible to buy books in the iOS app or provide links to other ways to do it. Just let the customers buy books on amazon.com.

And the net result would be? Kindle App in iOS would be worse than the same app in other platforms. The only way this favors Apple is if Kindle App's customers switch to iBooks, which I don't think is so likely. I actually considered iBooks but they did lack content compared to Amazon so the choice was clear.

If customers don't switch to iBooks, Apple will end up with no actual gain and a less competitive platform, because apps in iOS will be less comfortable than apps in the competitors' platforms, making the competitors' platforms more interesting.

nehemiascr
Jul 2, 2011, 07:23 AM
Well, Amazon has now an excuse to support and make the jailbreak community bigger!!!

hans1972
Jul 2, 2011, 07:31 AM
So, Amazon can put a link to Safari Mobile?
And Apple has a right to ban a link to a browser?


You donīt link to Mobile Safari but create URLs and then iOS launch the standard browser for the device. Of course, unless you jailbreak that is always going to be Mobile Safari.

They are not banning all links, only links that app developers use to avoid IAP.

They can't provide links to other ways

My sentence was unclear. Yes, all that is required is for Amazon to remove all links to web sites where users can buy books.

hans1972
Jul 2, 2011, 07:39 AM
And the net result would be? Kindle App in iOS would be worse than the same app in other platforms.

If customers don't switch to iBooks, Apple will end up with no actual gain and a less competitive platform, because apps in iOS will be less comfortable than apps in the competitors' platforms, making the competitors' platforms more interesting.

Yes, in this particular case the Amazon app will be worse. In other cases the developer will cave in for Appleīs pressure and provide IAP which in many cases benefit the users.

These new rules were not made specifically to pressure Amazon or Netflix because Apple as similar offerings (iBooks, iTunes). It is Appleīs way of testing if they can get away with getting a share of the revenue stream generated on their platform.

As a customer it would be nice if I could do all my purchasing on the platform by only using my Apple ID. I really donīt care how the revenue is divided.

davidlw
Jul 2, 2011, 07:39 AM
OK I can live with the future on this mess but what about the hundreds of Kindle books that I already have on my iphone and ipads? It may take me a couple of years to read all of them, will I still have access to them if this all goes south? Will they sync until I have read them all? Changing horses in the middle of the stream is not a good thing. Will existing book owners be grandfathered in for use of their currently purchased books?

foiden
Jul 2, 2011, 07:52 AM
Of course. Your books are your books. It doesn't matter where or how through Amazon you purchased them. As long as you're running any kindle app or app meant to read those books, you still can read them. So obviously, nobody wants a removal of said app since that would mean removing the primary app for reading said books.

divad1978
Jul 2, 2011, 08:31 AM
iOS is not an open ecosystem like Mac OS X or Windows. It only runs the software Apple decides to let it run, same as XBOX, PSP, iPod, etc.

This right here is the reason I've been a disgruntled Apple customer and simply waiting for something better. However with this latest scam they are pushing me to jump off to something inferior. It is also why most Android users I know refuse to buy Apple.

charlituna
Jul 2, 2011, 09:20 AM
A good case can be made that Apple has engaged in false and misleading advertising.

Nope. Because the rules Amazon etc signed allow Apple to change the rules. If Amazon et al are not complying then they are removing the apps, not Apple.

It's like that retail job you had in high school. You gave them an availability and signed it saying that you would show up for your shifts. the store has a rule that if you don't show up for 3 shifts you will be deemed having quit. If you run off to Vegas and missing a weekend of work, you have no cause to complain when you lost your job.


but as far as I know only Apple has done a major bait and switch in the rule changes.


Are you an iOS developer? Do you work for Amazon's corp office?

I suspect every strongly the answer is no and no. So you don't know the T&C for developers and you have zero proof that Amazon etc were allowed to sign a different T&C.

I am one so I know that "We are allowed to change the rules" is in there. You might call it a 'bait and switch' but everyone agreed that Apple is allowed to do it if they choose. ANd they have the right to remove their own apps if they don't like the new rule.

Fact is that this pricing thing could be more of a PR gig. There's no proof anyone was ever going to not update or was ever going to charge differently. But now they have the choice which might make them feel a little better.

FearNo1
Jul 2, 2011, 09:24 AM
Yep and it is sad that the iTards don't seem to have a problem with that. Good that some see what apple is doing.

This right here is the reason I've been a disgruntled Apple customer and simply waiting for something better. However with this latest scam they are pushing me to jump off to something inferior. It is also why most Android users I know refuse to buy Apple.

charlituna
Jul 2, 2011, 09:33 AM
Apple needs to stop being greedy and continue focusing on making innovative products, and cooperate with those partners like Amazon and Netflix who help them be successful rather then trying to strong arm them into giving away 30% of their revenue, which last time I checked equaled MORE then their profit margin, which means if they give Apple 30% they will be loosing money.
They only have to give Apple 30% if the person buys/subscribes via IAP. All those big boys have major prior customer bases that aren't likely to switch methods of payment so Apple gets nothing from them. In the end, who is to say that this won't offset the 30% they have to give up.

In the general public's eye it is just as possible that they will see the other guys as the greedy ones. Not Apple.

FearNo1
Jul 2, 2011, 09:37 AM
Jailbreak FTW!! :cool:

Well, Amazon has now an excuse to support and make the jailbreak community bigger!!!

bsolar
Jul 2, 2011, 10:00 AM
Yes, in this particular case the Amazon app will be worse. In other cases the developer will cave in for Appleīs pressure and provide IAP which in many cases benefit the users.
It would benefit the user from the usability point of view, but goods would need to have a much higher price to offest the very high fee Apple requires. I would understand a fee which has a small impact to the end price, but 30% will mean the end price will be significantly higher.

These new rules were not made specifically to pressure Amazon or Netflix because Apple as similar offerings (iBooks, iTunes). It is Appleīs way of testing if they can get away with getting a share of the revenue stream generated on their platform.
Apple already realized it cannot get away with such a high fee in many cases, that's why the original rules were retracted in the first place. 30% is simply unreasonable.

As a customer it would be nice if I could do all my purchasing on the platform by only using my Apple ID. I really donīt care how the revenue is divided.
This is something I agree with completely, but in the end even if I don't care how the revenue is divided, I do care if the price is higher. You cannot expect third parties to add a 30% cost to their sales and simply leave the price as it was before, and with IAP rules it means they would need to increase the prices overall even from their own stores, because the rules mandate the same pricing.

Also for me would be even nicer to be able to do all of my purchasing only using an ID, even purchases outside of Apple's ecosystem. Google Checkout was an abitious effort in this direction. In general would be nice to have one single company able to process my payments for whatever I wish to buy from whatever site or app, but we're pretty far from that.

In any case, just to keep everything in perspective, Google Checkout did apply a fee around 2%. PayPal charges around 2%. Credit Card interchange fees are around 2%. Apple's fee for basically the same service in iOS is 30%...

Apple can get away with this overpriced fee only because in iOS they barred any competition. It would simply be a ridiculously inferior offer in a free market.

Oletros
Jul 2, 2011, 10:22 AM
They only have to give Apple 30% if the person buys/subscribes via IAP. All those big boys have major prior customer bases that aren't likely to switch methods of payment so Apple gets nothing from them. In the end, who is to say that this won't offset the 30% they have to give up.

In the general public's eye it is just as possible that they will see the other guys as the greedy ones. Not Apple.

It's not only changing payment method, is changing all their accounts system. They have to link their current accounts to the iTunes ones, sync purchases done between one and another.

Not talking about the current limitations of in-app purchases, there is no automated process to fill the items and there is a limit in the number of items you can register.

chembox
Jul 2, 2011, 07:05 PM
The only way I can see Amazon (and others) circumventing the in-app purchases is to set two different prices.

Ex: If Book A normally costs $5.00 to Amazon, simply sell it on the iOS store for $6.50, then on the Amazon store via browser, make a permanent "discount" so it's 30% off the "original price" of $6.50.

Sounds silly, though.

SactoGuy18
Jul 2, 2011, 07:25 PM
Like I said earlier, Apple may make an exception to Amazon for one reason: the possibility that Amazon could sue Apple under the exclusive dealing arrangement clause in the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act. Apple does not to be sued because that means going through a "discovery" process, and that could dig up some very unsavory business practices of Apple that could lead to additional legal action against the company.

gkpm
Jul 2, 2011, 07:48 PM
Like I said earlier, Apple may make an exception to Amazon for one reason: the possibility that Amazon could sue Apple under the exclusive dealing arrangement clause in the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act. Apple does not to be sued because that means going through a "discovery" process, and that could dig up some very unsavory business practices of Apple that could lead to additional legal action against the company.

You should guest blog for that other guy, what's his name, Florian Mueller.

cmaier
Jul 2, 2011, 09:06 PM
Like I said earlier, Apple may make an exception to Amazon for one reason: the possibility that Amazon could sue Apple under the exclusive dealing arrangement clause in the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act. Apple does not to be sued because that means going through a "discovery" process, and that could dig up some very unsavory business practices of Apple that could lead to additional legal action against the company.

No matter how many times you spout it, it's still nonsense.

manu chao
Jul 3, 2011, 12:35 PM
For example, when the iPad first came out, there were like 10 apps available for it, and one of those was NetFlix... And that was one of the reasons I stood in line at Best Buy on launch day to buy it.
Your process of remembering things seems to be highly biased by the point you are trying to make (if it is a process of remembering things and not just plucking numbers out of thin air):

"Alongside the iPad launch on Saturday was the launch of a several thousand new iPad apps with many more coming."
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/05/ipad-apps-things-square-sketchbook-pro-warpgate-magic-piano/

bsolar
Jul 3, 2011, 02:03 PM
Your process of remembering things seems to be highly biased by the point you are trying to make (if it is a process of remembering things and not just plucking numbers out of thin air):

"Alongside the iPad launch on Saturday was the launch of a several thousand new iPad apps with many more coming."
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/05/ipad-apps-things-square-sketchbook-pro-warpgate-magic-piano/
The point is not the actual number of apps available, but this particular Netflix App and the "role" it had in the sale.

Apple says "every sale you do in an iOS app is thanks to our platform, so you own us 30% of the transaction". Netflix could pretty well argue "this customer was interested in Netflix independently from iOS. Without our app in iOS he would most likely still be our customer, but with a different device. It's us driving your sales and not the other way around".

Both positions make sense and basically every customer might fall in one or the other case, or anywhere in between.

manu chao
Jul 3, 2011, 02:33 PM
The point is not the actual number of apps available, but this particular Netflix App and the "role" it had in the sale.

See, your point was that the Netflix app was one of the main reasons for you to buy the iPad and to underline the importance that single app had for you (and implying also very likely for others), you exaggerate massively the paucity of apps (and thus the importance a single app had).

Is convincing others of the importance of your point so important that playing fast and loose with the facts is allowed?

JAT
Jul 3, 2011, 03:15 PM
These new rules were not made specifically to pressure Amazon or Netflix because Apple as similar offerings (iBooks, iTunes). It is Appleīs way of testing if they can get away with getting a share of the revenue stream generated on their platform.
No, neither. It is their way of making sure they get compensated for the cost of the store. Same as the 30% on straight-up app purchases.

The zero fee alternative offered by so many MacRumors economists would mean that every developer would make their apps free with no functionality. Which could then be purchased via IAP, bypassing any fee whatsoever to Apple, causing Apple to eat all costs of the store, even though they sell very little in it themselves.* Apparently, they decided the best solution was to include IAP purchases in their 30%, which does seem like an obvious solution. (esp considering antitrust issues, which makes all these comments rather hilarious) See, they aren't morons. If anyone else recalls, there was no store at first, Apple started it up by popular demand. A particular aspect of their business where SJ was proved 100% wrong, and changed his mind. But they are going to run it like any other store. Walmart makes money, BestBuy makes money...they know how to run a store. Apple seems to be doing ok, also.

I'd like to hear someone's 3rd option, since everybody knows so much.


* side point: this would likely mean the eventual end of the store, too. I wouldn't want to purchase my apps that way, it would become tiresome and I'd leave/jailbreak/whatever.

divad1978
Jul 3, 2011, 03:43 PM
I'd like to hear someone's 3rd option, since everybody knows so much.


Apple allows apps to be installed directly from developers websites so they don't need the Apple App Store however users that do so have to set a setting in the phone acknowledging no support for any issues on the phone while it is on and apps not downloaded from the official store are installed.

Developers pay significantly more money to access a special developer kit that allows them to install their apps directly onto customer phones. They have to license this each year.

Developers that continue to use the App Store play by Apple IAP rules while companies like Netflix can opt out and rely on their own platforms for subscriptions and distribution of their app.

I will finally because a happy loyal Apple customer.

*LTD*
Jul 3, 2011, 03:50 PM
I'd like to hear someone's 3rd option, since everybody knows so much.



Well you've heard a bona fide legal opinion, for free I might add. We all have in this thread.

That should have been the end of it.

Oletros
Jul 3, 2011, 03:50 PM
No, neither. It is their way of making sure they get compensated for the cost of the store. Same as the 30% on straight-up app purchases.

The zero fee alternative offered by so many MacRumors economists would mean that every developer would make their apps free with no functionality. Which could then be purchased via IAP, bypassing any fee whatsoever to Apple, causing Apple to eat all costs of the store, even though they sell very little in it themselves.*

Which costs are passing to Apple? Free apps with ads are passing fees to Apple?

RalfTheDog
Jul 3, 2011, 04:42 PM
The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

No court in any country will tell any company that they are required to provide free service to their competition and provide in under terms dictated by that competition. "You must give us all free cars, you must also paint all your cars pink (Not just the ones you give us). While you are at it, give us free gas for life." Remember, Amazon is not paying anything for Kindle to be distributed on iOS.

Apple had been fighting DRM from day one. The MPAA demanded Apple put DRM in their music. The DRM did not go away until Apple had the market clout to tell the MP where to shove their AA.

Which costs are passing to Apple? Free apps with ads are passing fees to Apple?

You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

divad1978
Jul 3, 2011, 04:57 PM
No court in any country will tell any company that they are required to provide free service to their competition and provide in under terms dictated by that competition.

I'd agree but Apple is forcing developers to use the App Store when there is no need for it. Every other OS there is allows developers to deliver content through their own means.


You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

So the solution is simple. Don't force developers to use the App Store and let them provide for the cost of bandwidth to deliver their own applications and in app purchases.

Developers that can't afford to do that can put their apps in the App Store and comply by Apple's rules which in my opinion would be fair. Currently it is not fair to force developers to use their delivery method.

RalfTheDog
Jul 3, 2011, 05:03 PM
I'd agree but Apple is forcing developers to use the App Store when there is no need for it. Every other OS there is allows developers to deliver content through their own means.



So the solution is simple. Don't force developers to use the App Store and let them provide for the cost of bandwidth to deliver their own applications and in app purchases.

Developers that can't afford to do that can put their apps in the App Store and comply by Apple's rules which in my opinion would be fair. Currently it is not fair to force developers to use their delivery method.

The solution is, if you don't like Apple's TOS, write for a different platform. Don't force Apple to give it's product away for free to it's competition. What if Apple required Amazon to offer iBooks on the Kindle and to provide that service for free (even if the downloads were coming from Apple's servers?)

hans1972
Jul 3, 2011, 05:05 PM
No, neither. It is their way of making sure they get compensated for the cost of the store. Same as the 30% on straight-up app purchases.

Apple is already making a small profit on the stores they have. IAP have existed for quite some time and it has not really created a large exodus from app purchases to IAP.

The original new rules which also tried to control the prices outside the Apple store seems to me to indicate that at least one of their reasons was to get a cut of the revenue generated by free riders like the Kindle app.

Apple would be foolish not to try to get a cut of everything happening on the iOS platform.

RalfTheDog
Jul 3, 2011, 05:10 PM
Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost. Apple should take Amazon to court on anti trust grounds.

As Amazon is trying to move into the tablet/applications market with the Kindle, they are using one monopoly to provide unfair advantage in another market.

bsolar
Jul 3, 2011, 05:18 PM
See, your point was that the Netflix app was one of the main reasons for you to buy the iPad and to underline the importance that single app had for you (and implying also very likely for others), you exaggerate massively the paucity of apps (and thus the importance a single app had).

Is convincing others of the importance of your point so important that playing fast and loose with the facts is allowed?
I couldn't care less about the Netflix app, I was just giving you my interpretation of another user's argument which I thought you misunderstood.

Talking about myself, before buying my iPhone I did check that the Kindle App was availabe. This is not "massively exaggerating" anything, it's just what I did. Obviously I did buy the iPhone not only because the Kindle App was available, but it being available was a pretty good reason, and it not being availabe would have been a pretty good reason to buy a different device.

cmaier
Jul 3, 2011, 05:28 PM
I couldn't care less about the Netflix app, I was just giving you my interpretation of another user's argument which I thought you misunderstood.

Talking about myself, before buying my iPhone I did check that the Kindle App was availabe. This is not "massively exaggerating" anything, it's just what I did. Obviously I did buy the iPhone not only because the Kindle App was available, but it being available was a pretty good reason, and it not being availabe would have been a pretty good reason to buy a different device.

Great. So amazon should start setting demands for apple while threatening to pull the app.

Won't happen. The reason it won't happen is amazon needs apple more than apple needs amazon.

hans1972
Jul 3, 2011, 05:32 PM
I'd agree but Apple is forcing developers to use the App Store when there is no need for it. Every other OS there is allows developers to deliver content through their own means.

There are two good reasons for the App Store:
1. You donīt trust developers
2. You donīt want the developers to have control

You want the developers to be kings when on the iOS platform they are considered unprincipled prostitutes that will accept and do anything as long as the payment is good enough.

Why do you want the iOS platform to be just like Android or Windows? Diversity is good.


Currently it is not fair to force developers to use their delivery method.

One of the big problems with Windows, OS X, Android etc. is that the developers have to much control and to much power. One of the great things about iOS is that it treats developers as third-rate citizens.

You donīt buy into Apple and iOS unless you trust Apple to make a lot of decisions for you. And Apple can only control the platform if they remove that control and power from the developers.

KnightWRX
Jul 3, 2011, 05:46 PM
You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

They are paid for by the 99$ yearly developer fees and the 30% of the purchase price of apps.

IAP is only a payment processor, and doesn't quite use as much ressources as you hint it does.

RalfTheDog
Jul 3, 2011, 05:53 PM
They are paid for by the 99$ yearly developer fees and the 30% of the purchase price of apps.

IAP is only a payment processor, and doesn't quite use as much ressources as you hint it does.

$99 does not go very far. It is only a fraction of the cost of running the application vetting process (They have real humans look at the apps). 30% of a free app is 0.

roadbloc
Jul 3, 2011, 05:55 PM
Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost. Apple should take Amazon to court on anti trust grounds.

As Amazon is trying to move into the tablet/applications market with the Kindle, they are using one monopoly to provide unfair advantage in another market.

And Apple aren't? :rolleyes:

KnightWRX
Jul 3, 2011, 05:55 PM
$99 does not go very far. It is only a fraction of the cost of running the application vetting process (They have real humans look at the apps). 30% of a free app is 0.

So you're suggesting the App Store was not bringing in money before the introduction of IAP ? Because it was according the Apple's financial earning. Are you suggesting they lied ?

RalfTheDog
Jul 3, 2011, 06:02 PM
So you're suggesting the App Store was not bringing in money before the introduction of IAP ? Because it was according the Apple's financial earning. Are you suggesting they lied ?

Apple was making no money from free applications. They allowed and continue to allow free applications because they feel it creates value for the iOS user. All Apple is saying is, Give something away for free and we will not charge you. Charge for your product or service and we want a cut if you sell it on the App Store.

It is not complicated. Give it away for free and Apple does not charge. Sell it or use it to sell other stuff and Apple wants a cut. You have the choice of following Apples rules on Apples platform or you can move to a platform with rules you like better.

divad1978
Jul 3, 2011, 06:05 PM
There are two good reasons for the App Store:
1. You donīt trust developers
2. You donīt want the developers to have control

You want the developers to be kings when on the iOS platform they are considered unprincipled prostitutes that will accept and do anything as long as the payment is good enough.

Why do you want the iOS platform to be just like Android or Windows? Diversity is good.




One of the big problems with Windows, OS X, Android etc. is that the developers have to much control and to much power. One of the great things about iOS is that it treats developers as third-rate citizens.

You donīt buy into Apple and iOS unless you trust Apple to make a lot of decisions for you. And Apple can only control the platform if they remove that control and power from the developers.

I don't trust Apple to make the right decisions. Censorship should be an obvious reason which they have proven to censor apps due to pressure. I wouldn't give the government control to decide what can be sold and what can't why would I trust Apple to do it?

It seems there are a lot of people that think people shouldn't be allowed to make money without Apple getting a cut when in fact the App store is what drives the hardware sells of their phone to begin with. They are getting a cut. I guess everyone here that supports Apple in this would also agree that the ISPs should be allowed to restrict amazon.com and other websites as well and demand 30% of their sells since amazon is getting to make billions of dollars of their backbone network?

You see a problem with Windows, OS X and Android however I don't. I've been using Windows since 3.1 and the openness of the system has been it's greatest attribute. It allows anyone to just start developing apps and getting them to potential customers without having to go have a middle man and that is how it should be. If an app is bad then it won't be successful. If an app is good then it will be and more and more people will find out about it.

KnightWRX
Jul 3, 2011, 06:10 PM
Apple was making no money from free applications.

Except 99$/year per developer.

They allowed and continue to allow free applications because they feel it creates value for the iOS user.

Yes, indeed they do, for 99$/year.

All Apple is saying is, Give something away for free and we will not charge you. Charge for your product or service and we want a cut if you sell it on the App Store.

Except IAP is not selling on the App Store, no app store infrastructure is used beyond payment processing. And if you don't use IAP for processing payment for purchases made through your app, you're not even using App Store infrastructure at all.

Why would Apple be entitled to money then ?

It is not complicated. Give it away for free and Apple does not charge. Sell it or use it to sell other stuff and Apple wants a cut. You have the choice of following Apples rules on Apples platform or you can move to a platform with rules you like better.

Yet Apple themselves relaxed the rules. Seems to me they admitted they went too far. This is simply Apple trying to see how far they can go and get away with it. This is an hostile attitude towards the people that built the eco-system, and it the end, it could hurt this eco-system, and us end-users in the process.

Apple should let IAP stand on its own merit. If it provides enough value to justify the 30% cut they want it to have to simply process payments, then people will use it. If it doesn't, they'll need to adjust.

Thus are the laws of market.

RalfTheDog
Jul 3, 2011, 06:17 PM
I don't trust Apple to make the right decisions. Censorship should be an obvious reason which they have proven to censor apps due to pressure. I wouldn't give the government control to decide what can be sold and what can't why would I trust Apple to do it?

It seems there are a lot of people that think people shouldn't be allowed to make money without Apple getting a cut when in fact the App store is what drives the hardware sells of their phone to begin with. They are getting a cut. I guess everyone here that supports Apple in this would also agree that the ISPs should be allowed to restrict amazon.com and other websites as well and demand 30% of their sells since amazon is getting to make billions of dollars of their backbone network?

You see a problem with Windows, OS X and Android however I don't. I've been using Windows since 3.1 and the openness of the system has been it's greatest attribute. It allows anyone to just start developing apps and getting them to potential customers without having to go have a middle man and that is how it should be. If an app is bad then it won't be successful. If an app is good then it will be and more and more people will find out about it.

No App on any platform should be allowed to connect to a cell network without being vetted. It would be quite easy for a terrorist to write an App that starts dialing 911 every three seconds when a terror strike happens to clog the phone systems. It would also be easy to write an App that makes calls to a 1-900 number at random times to pad someones bank account. That said, even a badly written application can degrade performance for the entire phone. You might run a game in the morning, then that night, have a crash in a weather App. You would think the weather application was the flaw but it was the game.

I will not develop for an open platform because I do not want to take the blame when some moron programmers memory leak kills my App.

Apple has an obligation to it's users to provide any limitations it thinks will improve the quality of it's product. They also have a legal obligation to their shareholders to provide the best platform to make money and they have a legal obligation to implement restrictions that will prevent a risk to public health of safety.

divad1978
Jul 3, 2011, 06:40 PM
No App on any platform should be allowed to connect to a cell network without being vetted. It would be quite easy for a terrorist to write an App that starts dialing 911 every three seconds when a terror strike happens to clog the phone systems. It would also be easy to write an App that makes calls to a 1-900 number at random times to pad someones bank account. That said, even a badly written application can degrade performance for the entire phone. You might run a game in the morning, then that night, have a crash in a weather App. You would think the weather application was the flaw but it was the game.

I will not develop for an open platform because I do not want to take the blame when some moron programmers memory leak kills my App.

Apple has an obligation to it's users to provide any limitations it thinks will improve the quality of it's product. They also have a legal obligation to their shareholders to provide the best platform to make money and they have a legal obligation to implement restrictions that will prevent a risk to public health of safety.

Freedom > Security

Do you really think that Apple's system is blocking a terrorist from doing what you said?

FearNo1
Jul 3, 2011, 07:50 PM
You watch too much Glenn Beck with this "terrorist" talk...;)

No App on any platform should be allowed to connect to a cell network without being vetted. It would be quite easy for a terrorist to write an App that starts dialing 911 every three seconds when a terror strike happens to clog the phone systems. It would also be easy to write an App that makes calls to a 1-900 number at random times to pad someones bank account. That said, even a badly written application can degrade performance for the entire phone. You might run a game in the morning, then that night, have a crash in a weather App. You would think the weather application was the flaw but it was the game.

I will not develop for an open platform because I do not want to take the blame when some moron programmers memory leak kills my App.

Apple has an obligation to it's users to provide any limitations it thinks will improve the quality of it's product. They also have a legal obligation to their shareholders to provide the best platform to make money and they have a legal obligation to implement restrictions that will prevent a risk to public health of safety.

Oletros
Jul 3, 2011, 11:50 PM
No court in any country will tell any company that they are required to provide free service to their competition and provide in under terms dictated by that competition. "You must give us all free cars, you must also paint all your cars pink (Not just the ones you give us). While you are at it, give us free gas for life." Remember, Amazon is not paying anything for Kindle to be distributed on iOS.

Apple had been fighting DRM from day one. The MPAA demanded Apple put DRM in their music. The DRM did not go away until Apple had the market clout to tell the MP where to shove their AA.


They are not providing free service but my question was what fees are passing apps like Kindle to Apple



You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

Do Apple must ban free apps which doesn't provide them revenue? Apple must get a cut from apps which have ads but are free?

Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost.

:eek::eek:


It is not complicated. Give it away for free and Apple does not charge. Sell it or use it to sell other stuff and Apple wants a cut. You have the choice of following Apples rules on Apples platform or you can move to a platform with rules you like better.

So, Best Buy, eBay or Amazon apps must pay a cut to Apple.

AA, Lufthansa must pay a cut to Apple? They are selling stuff and making revenue.

hans1972
Jul 4, 2011, 02:39 AM
I don't trust Apple to make the right decisions. Censorship should be an obvious reason which they have proven to censor apps due to pressure. I wouldn't give the government control to decide what can be sold and what can't why would I trust Apple to do it?

Makes perfect sense. So why would anyone who do not trust Apple be involved in the iOS platform, especially when there are so many good alternatives?

It seems there are a lot of people that think people shouldn't be allowed to make money without Apple getting a cut when in fact the App store is what drives the hardware sells of their phone to begin with.

I donīt really care but Apple seems to try to get a cut anyway they can.
I think Apple basically sees it as this

hardware sales < hardware sales + app sales < hardware sales + app sales + in-app purchases

I guess everyone here that supports Apple in this would also agree that the ISPs should be allowed to restrict amazon.com and other websites as well and demand 30% of their sells since amazon is getting to make billions of dollars of their backbone network?

Here is the problem with that. The ISP market is old and it is somewhat related to the telephone market. There are a lot of history, laws, regulations in that market. People will not accept it in that market. The ISP would not get away with it and they lack the capability to enforce it.

The mobile application market is different. It is new for most people and Apple can set a precedent that it is acceptable that the platform owner gets a large share of the revenue from that platform. Apple wants the iOS platform to be more like the console platforms and less like Windows and OS X.

bsolar
Jul 4, 2011, 04:03 AM
Makes perfect sense. So why would anyone who do not trust Apple be involved in the iOS platform, especially when there are so many good alternatives?

Nobody should blindly trust Apple, or any company for that matter, but this doesn't mean you cannot accept what they do, this depends on how much you care about these issues and how much they affect or annoy you. I don't like Apple's behaviour at all, but the iPhone 3GS was the best option available at that time at least from my point of view, so I bought it and I am still overall very happy with it.

My opinion is that iOS would be a better platform with more freedom in the hands of the end-users and developers, but of course this is just Mr. Nobody's 2 cents.

If the iPhone5 will be a great device compared to the competitors I will most likely buy it, but the way Apple is handling the iOS platform is one reason pushing me towards Android so if their new device will be on-par to competing phones I will most likely switch.

To be honest I think the former will be the most likely outcome...

JAT
Jul 4, 2011, 07:44 PM
Well you've heard a bona fide legal opinion, for free I might add. We all have in this thread.

That should have been the end of it.
Which one was that?
They are paid for by the 99$ yearly developer fees and the 30% of the purchase price of apps.

IAP is only a payment processor, and doesn't quite use as much ressources as you hint it does.
It's a protection, not a huge revenue stream.

JAT
Jul 4, 2011, 08:00 PM
Except IAP is not selling on the App Store, no app store infrastructure is used beyond payment processing. And if you don't use IAP for processing payment for purchases made through your app, you're not even using App Store infrastructure at all.
The Store came about to appease consumers. It seems IAP came about to appease developers. As you say next....

Apple should let IAP stand on its own merit. If it provides enough value to justify the 30% cut they want it to have to simply process payments, then people will use it. If it doesn't, they'll need to adjust.

Thus are the laws of market.
It's up to this group of consumers to decide if it works. People arguing on internet forums are funny. Of course, the battle with Lodsys over their IAP APIs should prove interesting to devs. If Apple wins, that is something else that was paid for by their fee. If not, well....I guess we'll discuss it here.

DiamondMac
Jul 4, 2011, 11:53 PM
Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost. Apple should take Amazon to court on anti trust grounds.

As Amazon is trying to move into the tablet/applications market with the Kindle, they are using one monopoly to provide unfair advantage in another market.
Amen. How DARE Amazon give users a cheaper option!

Apple should make it clear that if ANYONE offers something at a lower price than Apple, IT IS NOT LEGAL!

Rather than lower Apple's price to match Amazon's, Apple absolutely needs to take the court route.

Then we as consumers win! Yeah!