Amazon's 'Kindle' App Updated to Remove Direct Kindle Store Links

[InfernoShade]

That may apply for some, but I personally already had a Kindle before I bought an iPad. The Kindle app for iPad is simply a convenience for me (i.e., gives me one more place to read my books), and Apple is not bringing any additional revenue to Amazon thru providing the "platform" (which I've already paid for, thank you very much).

I'm a big Apple supporter, but this particular action is stupid, self-serving, short-sighted and anti-customer - bad call.

Hi jhwalker. Did you read my whole post? I did point out that some people were already Kindle users - like me, I already had one. But this was certainly creating new revenue. And it was exposing new people to the Kindle.

The reason all these developers and publishers are making apps is because this is new revenue. Another new channel for them to sell their product. So even if it's a small amount of money, it's still something.

So while you may have not purchased thru this app, others did. Some of these others already had Kindles, and some were totally new to Kindle. So some money was being made.

Yes, this is obviously self serving of Apple. It's business. They want to make money off sales. Just like Android wants to make money off sales. Just like Macy's wants to make money off sales. And Amazon itself on its site. Just like these entities, Apple wants to make sure it gets a cut of the sales in its store. Get it?

[Captainobvvious]

Why does Apple deserve any compensation for this?

By this logic, buying things in Team Fortress 2 on the Mac would require Apple to get some compensation for providing the "userbase". This is ridiculous.

Must every device and OS maker now get paid for "providing a market" to software developers? Why it this lunacy even being considered?

Next thing you know, TV dinner makers will have to cut checks to Sharp, because they make microwaves that provide a market for microwavable food.

If you sell something through Amazon.com they will charge you a fee based on the sale price of the item.

Why is it OK for Amazon to charge people for taking advantage of their visibility but it isn't OK for Amazon to pay for the same thing?

[dmhirschfeld]

Defenders' posts about Apples new policy make the argument that Apple reserves the right to charge rent for their apps since they have created a market to distribute published material to over 200K devices. However, Opponents say that it's wrong to deny apps with external links to book stores because Apple doesn't share in the revenue, and because external links don't cost Apple anything. I agree with the defenders position about rent, but how can anyone justify Apple's policy of charging 30% of the sales price of published material? Yes, online book sellers currently pay monthly for software, hardware, bandwidth and personnel to maintain their online bookstores. However, the cost for these web-stores is a tiny fraction of what Apple is charging. Hypothetically, if some book seller sells $1bil in books, much of which results from $200mil in marketing and advertising, why should apple earn $300mil for those sales? They made money from selling the device. Everyone agrees that inApp Purchase is so easy and helps facilitate new sales, but how can Apple justify 30%? Visa and MC could make a similar claim that since they spent billions to market their services and establish a worldwide merchant infrastructure, they have the right to charge 30% merchant fees for anything purchased on a credit card. They don't charge this much because it's so obviously unfair to consumers and resellers. Anything that is obviously unfair creates bad public opinion, and opens the doors to competitors who trumpet the injustice of unfair policies like these. That's exactly what's going to happen to Apple if they don't rethink this policy and show support for fair business practices. The iPhone and iPad are amazing. I hope Apple doesn't blow it by continuing to be so overtly greedy.

[Chwisch87]

Your analogy is totally off base.

The analogy should be that Microsoft would take a cut of anything sold on their website. You can buy Amazon books from Safari just not through the app.

Amazon CAN have in app purchasing without issue but Apple should get a cut of that.

If Amazon sells something on their site even if its a third party seller they DO charge a fee. Its the same thing.

Amazon is NOT apples product?? the iPad is just the device that gets you there. So why does apple have ANY claim to their revenue? Should Ford get 30% of the revenue of the speakers I bought at best buy because it drove it there? Of course not. Should Apple get 30% of amazons revenue simply because I am using an iPad to get there? No.

[WiiDSmoker]

And? They created a new revenue stream for Apple. Did Apple got more customers when they created Windows iTunes app? If so, according to infernoshade they deserve a cut.

One can easily argue that Microsoft allowing Apple and the iPod to be on Windows is why Apple is in the current financial situation they are in right now. So going by the logic of the fanboys around here, Microsoft deserves a cut of every single iPod, iPhone, purchase within iTunes, iPad, and even Mac sales.

[Captainobvvious]

Defenders' posts about Apples new policy make the argument that Apple reserves the right to charge rent for their apps since they have created a market to distribute published material to over 200K devices. However, Opponents say that it's wrong to deny apps with external links to book stores because Apple doesn't share in the revenue, and because external links don't cost Apple anything. I agree with the defenders position about rent, but how can anyone justify Apple's policy of charging 30% of the sales price of published material? Yes, online book sellers currently pay monthly for software, hardware, bandwidth and personnel to maintain their online bookstores. However, the cost for these webstores is a tiny fraction of what Apple is charging. Hypothetically, if some book seller sells $1bil in books, much of which results from $200mil in marketing and advertising, why should apple earn $300mil for those sales? They made money from selling the device. Everyone agrees that inApp Purchase is so easy and helps facilitate new sales, but how can Apple justify 30%? Visa and MC could make a similar claim that since they spent billions to market their services and establish a worldwide merchant infrastructure, they have the right to charge 30% merchant fees for anything purchased on a credit card. They don't charge this much because it's so obviously unfair to consumers and resalers. Anything that is obviously unfair creates bad public opinion, and opens the doors to competitors who trumpet the injustice of unfair policies like these. That's exactly what's going to happen to Apple if they don't rethink this policy and show support for fair business practices. The iPhone and iPad are amazing. I hope Apple doesn't blow it by continuing to be so overtly greedy.

A 30% cut on the sale is equivalent to a store buying a product at wholesale price and marking it up 30%.

[Oletros]

but it isn't OK for Amazon to pay for the same thing?

Because it's not the same thing. Apple isn't making visible Kindle books, it isn't hosting the books, it isn't distributing the books and it isn't taking the transaction.

[The Phazer]

While I do believe Apple does deserve something for opening up such a large database of users.

Lets make this quite clear - Apple have not opened up a "large database of users". Apple have not opened up a *single* user.

What Apple have done is restricted access to a group of users with code signing, and are using it to block competition.

When Apple is providing the actual payment processing, *then* they provide users. And companies should be free to pick if to use it and if Apple's cut is justified.

When they're not, they've done nothing - *nothing*. Amazon would be overjoyed to distribute the iOS Kindle App via their own site rather than the App Store. It'd be an all round better experience with superior exposure.

But they can't, not because Apple provides users, but because they hide them away.

Phazer

[ChazUK]

If you sell something through Amazon.com they will charge you a fee based on the sale price of the item.

Why is it OK for Amazon to charge people for taking advantage of their visibility but it isn't OK for Amazon to pay for the same thing?

Amazon doesn't charge you up to £659.00 (the cost of a 3G iPad) to look at their store.

[Oletros]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



I don't understand why amazon does not give it's nooks away for cost.

Because Nooks are made and sold by B&N?

[InfernoShade]

If you sell something through Amazon.com they will charge you a fee based on the sale price of the item.

Why is it OK for Amazon to charge people for taking advantage of their visibility but it isn't OK for Amazon to pay for the same thing?

I hear you. You're right on target. But these people don't see these situation as the same thing. Somehow they see it as different. Just like they can't seem to understand when they buy a DKNY shirt at Macy's, that both entities are making money from this transaction. Instead they get hung up on the product or the location. It makes no sense. Of course I'll be seen as being mean by saying they just don't get it.

[Oletros]

Of course not I'm being mean by saying they just don't get it.

My God, can you stop saying other people is stupid?

[InfernoShade]

Amazon is NOT apples product?? the iPad is just the device that gets you there. So why does apple have ANY claim to their revenue? Should Ford get 30% of the revenue of the speakers I bought at best buy because it drove it there? Of course not. Should Apple get 30% of amazons revenue simply because I am using an iPad to get there? No.

Hi Chwishch87. I hate to say this but clearly you're another person who doesn't understand business. It's ok, you're not alone.

You do know that Android take 30% like Apple? And that MS/Xbox takes cuts of its sales too? And ALL other stores ON THE PLANET. If not, then please go research. If you sell your stuff in my store I get a cut. This is how ALL business is done. Your example of your car speakers it totally wrong. But the store from where you bought those speakers split the sales money with the speaker maker. Get it? Probably not. Please go research.

Sadness overwhelms me.

[Oletros]

You do know that Android take 30% like Apple?.

Half truth.

Google Market takes a 30% if you want to distribute a piad app with them, but you can USE your own distribution model and not pay anything.

You don't have to use Google in app purchase system and you can use your own.

Get it? Probably not. Please go research.

[tmarks11]

I think everyone would agree that Apple isn't providing all of Amazon/Kindle's customer base. But you would have to admit that there are a countless number of people who don't own an actual kindle (I did a quick search for numbers, but wasn't successful) that are still purchasing e-books for use on their iPhone, iPad, and iPod. .
The only reason I bought an Ipad is because it had a Kindle app available.

Yes, I use the Ipad for other things, but I wouln't have purchased it to begin with if that feature set wasn't available.

Based upon that (admittedly small, wildly inaccurate, anecdotal) data set, I conclude that Amazon has increased Apple's revenue because a large number of Kindle users have been introduced to Apple's product line for the first time.

Now I own two ipads, an ipod, and a macair. All because of Amazon.

So Apple tryng to kill the golden goose is a big mistake. IMHO.

[Rodimus Prime]

You do know that Android take 30% like Apple? A

It is not the 30% cut that people are upset about. It is the fact that you are required to use Apple distributions system for anything that collect money. If Apple allowed 3rd party App stores then this would be ok.
If Apple did not require you to have to collect money threw the App store then fine.
if Apple allowed you to link to outside the App like it was then it was OK.
It is the forced to go threw Apple system and pay the 30% cut that is the issue.

[InfernoShade]

Lets make this quite clear - Apple have not opened up a "large database of users". Apple have not opened up a *single* user.

What Apple have done is restricted access to a group of users with code signing, and are using it to block competition.

When Apple is providing the actual payment processing, *then* they provide users. And companies should be free to pick if to use it and if Apple's cut is justified.

When they're not, they've done nothing - *nothing*. Amazon would be overjoyed to distribute the iOS Kindle App via their own site rather than the App Store. It'd be an all round better experience with superior exposure.

But they can't, not because Apple provides users, but because they hide them away.

Phazer

By that logic you can say the same about Android. So you don't think Android has created any users? That Android should charge 30% to sell apps, as it does? Or maybe look at Xbox or PS? They didn't bring any users to the gaming industry?

After reading articles from real business analysts, it's clear that Apple, Android, Xbox are all example of platforms that have provided users in their markets. And you sure are confusing the issues with this fake open vs closed argument. That's all I'll say to this. Good night.

[gkpm]

If people are claiming the Android Market is much more open than this, why do they have this legal clause in the developer agreement?

4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market.

-- http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html

Google is just keeping quiet because they don't have much to loose yet, and as usual let Apple take the blame first and then go on to do the very same a few weeks later.

When Google do feel they are losing out guess who'll remember this little line....

[RollTide1017]

Amazon is NOT apples product?? the iPad is just the device that gets you there. So why does apple have ANY claim to their revenue? Should Ford get 30% of the revenue of the speakers I bought at best buy because it drove it there? Of course not. Should Apple get 30% of amazons revenue simply because I am using an iPad to get there? No.

Exactly! Just like many people use Windows PCs to shop on Amazon. Should MS get 30% of every thing sold on Amazon through a Windows PC? The Apple app store does not bring people to the Kindle Store, the Kindle app does. Once it is downloaded from the app store, it no longer use any apple resources to get you to the Kindle store.

[Oletros]

If people are claiming the Android Market is much more open than this, why do they have this legal clause in the developer agreement?

No, people are claiming that Android is more open, not that Android Market is more open.

And this clause doesn't affect Amazon Kindle, Hulu or an hypothetical iTMS Android app. It affects Amazon App Store application

The difference is that you can install apps from different sources

[cmwade77]

Hey, if it means that I can now read magazines on my iPhone, I am happy....I thought it was stupid that Amazon wasn't allowing that.

[InfernoShade]

Half truth.

Google Market takes a 30% if you want to distribute a piad app with them, but you can USE your own distribution model and not pay anything.

You don't have to use Google in app purchase system and you can use your own.

Get it? Probably not. Please go research.

Dude, don't try and confuse the issues by your usual talking in circles.

If you sell your app on the Android Market, Google take 30% of the sales. Says it right on the dev center. THAT IS 100% FACT. And that's what we are talking about. Of course if you sell an app from your site you don't share sales. Newsflash: I'm a iOS and Android developer, and I contract at times with AT&T. So believe me, I get it WAY better than you EVER will.

[Sandman1969]

Putting a button in the app is free advertising, it has nothing to do with Safari.

The button directs users to a place where only Amazon makes money; why should Apple not be allowed to be compensated for providing Amazon with the traffic (and, thus, revenue) to their site in the first place?

Maybe Apple should make some money when I use an app to purchase anything online. You know since they made OSX and the browser I use for these purchases, they shouldn't be left out in the cold when I use their application to buy something. Should they? :rolleyes:

[Oletros]

Dude, don't try and confuse the issues by your usual talking in circles.

If you sell your app on the Android Market, Google take 30% of the sales. Says it right on the dev center. THAT IS 100% FACT. And that's what we are talking about. Of course if you sell an app from your site you don't share sales. Newsflash: I'm a iOS and Android developer, and I contract at times with AT&T. So believe me, I get it WAY better than you EVER will.

Exactly what I said, if you sell it on Android Market. You have said You do know that Android take 30% like Apple? and no, Android doesn't take a cut, Google Android Market takes anything but you can sell or distribute you app by other means and not taking anything

I'am also an iOS and Android developer so stop saying I don't know nothing and get your facts right because half the time you say wrong things.

[ChazUK]

If people are claiming the Android Market is much more open than this, why do they have this legal clause in the developer agreement?



Google is just keeping quiet because they don't have much to loose yet, and as usual let Apple take the blame first and then go on to do the very same a few weeks later.

When Google do feel they are losing out guess who'll remember this little line....
That is in reference to distributing other Android app stores within the market.

Amazon can have their Amazon mp3 store (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.amazon.mp3) or Kindle (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.amazon.kindle) store in the market. What thet can not do is distribute the Amazon Appstore (http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011) within Android Market (which is why it isn't avaiable in the Market).

[gkpm]

Maybe Apple should make some money when I use an app to purchase anything online. You know since they made OSX and the browser I use for these purchases, they shouldn't be left out in the cold when I use their application to buy something. Should they? :rolleyes:

Well Apple also make iOS and Safari and don't charge anything for sales through those channels right?

They're different things.

[gkpm]

That is in reference to distributing other Android app stores within the market.

Amazon can have their Amazon mp3 store (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.amazon.mp3) or Kindle (https://market.android.com/details?id=com.amazon.kindle) store in the market. What thet can not do is distribute the Amazon Appstore (http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011) within Android Market (which is why it isn't avaiable in the Market).

Read again the actual clause for the Android market: "Non-compete: You may not use the Market to distribute or make available Products whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market."

Their definition of Products: "Software, content and digital materials created for Devices in accordance with the Android SDK and distributed via the Market."

Clearly more than just apps.

[Oletros]

Read again the actual clause for the Android market: "Non-compete: You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market."

Clearly more than just apps.

Well, if you can show how can I distribute a book or an mp3 from the market I will be very glad.

[ChazUK]

Read again the actual clause for the Android market: "Non-compete: You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market."

Clearly more than just apps.
Products: Software, content and digital materials created for Devices in accordance with the Android SDK and distributed via the Market.


EDIT:
Emphasis on the bold text.

Are people now writing/creating eBooks and music in accordance with the Android SDK?

[Lennholm]

A 30% cut on the sale is equivalent to a store buying a product at wholesale price and marking it up 30%.

Such a flawed analogy. The store you're talking about will have to cover expenses such as logistics, shelf space and in some cases even marketing. When it comes to in-app subscriptions, Apple does none of these things, all they do is process the payment.
Apple taking 30% is not equivalent to a real book store marking up 30%, it's equivalent to Visa or Mastercard demanding a 30% cut when you use your credit card to buy the book

[JAT]

Thanks for your concern. :)

I am an extremely voracious reader, and I read everywhere, including the bath (waiting for shower gizmo to support my iPhone and allow me to turn pages).

I download several samples at a time, and having to bookmark 'em all or leaving numerous browser windows open on the phone... it's just inconvenient, dammit! :mad:




It is a minor inconvenience, but a wonderful feature while it lasted. I probably will buy it for Kindle because choice (as far as I am aware), and the performance of the app on my aging 3G, is better than iBook. I have the Amazon app on my phone anyhow...
Well, first: http://www.amazon.com/Overboard-Waterproof-iPhone-Touch-Droid/dp/B004H68VCC/ref=pd_sbs_sg_3 (not the only one)

Next, unless I'm totally missing some page in the Kindle iPhone app (and I have not upgraded today), you already have to go to the web to get all these downloads, the app itself does not download. So your personal methodology will not change at all.
off the top of my head.
Google, MS, Cisco, HEB, sanuk
Lets see MS has a very strong university support system in place were they give away a lot of their software for cheap to even free. ...

**snip philanthropy discussion**
That is the most idiotic series of posts I have seen. A little philanthropy means a company isn't trying to maximize profits? Really? As others have said, you've picked some of the most money-conscious companies on the planet, as well. Why don't you just add Walmart next time? LOL!
Perhaps, before telling the others they don't know nothing, you can get the facts betters. Amazon wasn't selling NOTHING through the Kindle app.
Actually, Amazon has sold precisely NOTHING through the Kindle app. Ever. For all time. And apparently, they've chosen to continue that legacy. (on iOS, I'm not familiar with Kindle apps on other platforms, they may be different) You may have missed it, but the iOS Kindle app does not sell anything. It did maintain a link to the Kindle webstore, and that is gone.

[Rodimus Prime]

Read again the actual clause for the Android market: "Non-compete: You may not use the Market to distribute or make available Products whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market."

Their definition of Products: "Software, content and digital materials created for Devices in accordance with the Android SDK and distributed via the Market."

Clearly more than just apps.

You missed a key word of PRIMARY PURPOSE.

Amazon Kindles primary purpose is not to link to the kindle store but to read kindle books.

Amazon App store no one has an issue with that being blocked from the Android market.
If Apple allowed 3rd party app stores to be installed, or side loading apps then it would be a non issue as well. I am willing to bet Amazon would pull it app if it could just allow side loading.

[Oletros]

Actually, Amazon has sold precisely NOTHING through the Kindle app. Ever. For all time. And apparently, they've chosen to continue that legacy. (on iOS, I'm not familiar with Kindle apps on other platforms, they may be different) You may have missed it, but the iOS Kindle app does not sell anything. It did maintain a link to the Kindle webstore, and that is gone.

And that's what I have said, perhaps you quoted the wrong person :)

[Moyank24]

The only reason I bought an Ipad is because it had a Kindle app available.

Yes, I use the Ipad for other things, but I wouln't have purchased it to begin with if that feature set wasn't available.

Based upon that (admittedly small, wildly inaccurate, anecdotal) data set, I conclude that Amazon has increased Apple's revenue because a large number of Kindle users have been introduced to Apple's product line for the first time.

Now I own two ipads, an ipod, and a macair. All because of Amazon.

So Apple tryng to kill the golden goose is a big mistake. IMHO.

How is Apple trying to kill the golden goose?

And honestly, do you believe that the Amazon/Kindle App has brought more users to Apple or Vice Versa?

My mom originally purchased a Nook, but i talked her into an iPad. She's been using the Kindle App ever since. So not only did Apple give Amazon her business, their competition lost a customer as well.

Everyone has their own anecdote, but we have to look at the overall numbers. And as I said, if being in iOS wasn't profitable for Amazon they could have pulled the app without a second thought.

[Rodimus Prime]

How is Apple trying to kill the golden goose?

And honestly, do you believe that the Amazon/Kindle App has brought more users to Apple or Vice Versa?

My mom originally purchased a Nook, but i talked her into an iPad. She's been using the Kindle App ever since. So not only did Apple give Amazon her business, their competition lost a customer as well.

Everyone has their own anecdote, but we have to look at the overall numbers. And as I said, if being in iOS wasn't profitable for Amazon they could have pulled the app without a second thought.

Catch is Apple is more or less demanding a 30% cut for being a payment processor that is it. Credit card companies on the HIGH end charge 5%. For amazon I would not be surprised in the least to see that number down to under 2% for even the worse cards (discover and AMEX)
Also on the book Amazon sells they only are getting a 30% cut so now they would have to hand all that over to Apple plus house everything.

Apple demand is high no way around that argument.
Also I would say Amazon has brought more people to Apple than the other way around in terms of money. 500 bucks per person is going to be pretty hard to catch that up to Amazon in terms of the kindle.

Add to it Apple marketing talked about how it could get apps like the kindle in the pass.

[Moyank24]

Catch is Apple is more or less demanding a 30% cut for being a payment processor that is it. Credit card companies on the HIGH end charge 5%. For amazon I would not be surprised in the least to see that number down to under 2% for even the worse cards (discover and AMEX)
Also on the book Amazon sells they only are getting a 30% cut so now they would have to hand all that over to Apple plus house everything.

Apple demand is high no way around that argument.
Also I would say Amazon has brought more people to Apple than the other way around in terms of money. 500 bucks per person is going to be pretty hard to catch that up to Amazon in terms of the kindle.

Add to it Apple marketing talked about how it could get apps like the kindle in the pass.

Apple isn't demanding anything. They offered Amazon a choice, and Amazon chose which direction to go in. It wasn't an all or nothing proposition. And Amazon certainly had the right to refuse. After all, if Apple is bringing nothing to the table why stick around?

And the ability to purchase securely through an iTunes account is a bit more than being a credit card processor.

[dethmaShine]

Apple provide the user base - which means more hardware sales, which means more applications, which means more attractive platform for users. Goes around in a full circle. Success brings more users - more sales for Apple and developers.

I bought some stuff off Amazon using Firefox on OSX. Should Apple, or Mozilla get 30% of the sale price just by using their software?

Well, lets first get rid of the baseless arguments. :rolleyes:

I can see how Apple is being ridiculous when charging 30% even though they don't process payments for Paypal, saying that Windows should charge Apple and Mozilla should charge XYZ for buying stuff on Mozilla is like missing the entire point.

Mozilla doesn't promote any application.
There's no Mozilla store which stores/advertises/sells those applications.

All I'm saying that instead of saying that a fricking ISP or Windows or Firefox or XYZ should charge the related company for product sales is totally not the point.

Apple doesn't charge anyone using Safari for any content. And iOS is not an open-application platform. You're only allowed to install Apple approved applications.

Here's the thing:

- For selling your stuff, you need to get the application approved by Apple. Why? Because there's no other way for a user to install this application. Why didn't Apple allow that? It's a different story relating to Apple monopoly, consumer experience, security, etc.

- Now why does Apple want a 30% cut and not less? For that the sellers shouldn't be discriminating against In-app-purchases and these subscriptions.
****

What I really think is that Apple set a higher limit on the In-app-purchases department. I am no one to say anything but Apple should've been charging less for those; somewhere on the lines of 10% I would say and everything would have been all right.

So, it all comes around where the consumers have to suffer just because Apple couldn't figure out the best way to sell content through their store.
For all I understand, Apple should charge 10% for all kinds of in-app-purchases and subscriptions. It should sort that all out.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple has every right to do what it wants with its platform; it seems perfectly reasonable to me for them to want to get in on the action from apps that are taking advantage of the platform's userbase (meaning, apps like Kindle that direct the user to the Kindle Store, in which case Apple gets nothing, despite providing Amazon with the customer in the first place via the iOS device).

Honestly, the way some of you talk, if you don't like what Apple's doing with iOS in regards to content and 30% cuts, why not just ditch them entirely the next time around and spare yourselves the frustration?

This is an inconvenience, sure, but if you look at it from Apple's point of view, it's only fair. And if Amazon really was upset by this change, they could've pulled out of the App Store. But they didn't, because they're still going to be making mad money.

The App Store isn't a charity, folks.

/rant

i see it the complete other way, apple should be glad and appreciate that the developers even bother making apps and make the whole iOS experience what it is

Yes the shopping mall should be happy that the stores attract people. Lol. People are so naive and lack such fundamental understanding of business it us disheartening at times.

[Lennholm]

And the ability to purchase securely through an iTunes account is a bit more than being a credit card processor.

No it's not, it's pretty much the same thing as PayPal, and I'd much rather use my banks own secure payment system which uses an alternating security code which only I and my bank have access to than having my full cc details stored at Apples servers. There's no guarantee Apple's system will never get hacked liked PSN was.
Pretty much all e-commerce businesses support these proprietary secure payment methods in addition to regular cc payment so there's no reason why Apple could not.

[SIZE=1]Yes the shopping mall should be happy that the stores attract people. Lol. People are so naive and lack such fundamental understanding of business it us disheartening at times.

Um, yes, they ARE. Successful stores make the shopping mall attractive to other businesses¨which increases the value for the owner and opens the possibility for expansion. The shopping mall owner gets the agreed rent from the stores, not a cut from the sales.

[Rodimus Prime]

Apple isn't demanding anything. They offered Amazon a choice, and Amazon chose which direction to go in. It wasn't an all or nothing proposition. And Amazon certainly had the right to refuse. After all, if Apple is bringing nothing to the table why stick around?

And the ability to purchase securely through an iTunes account is a bit more than being a credit card processor.

How is it more than a credit card processor?

If you use the inApp billing threw Apple you the dev are required to have built into the App a way to unlock the stuff or you have to provide the servers to host the download for the update and other services from.
InApp billing if you read the agreement is nothing more than a payment collection system. Think of it like paypal. They take a small fee for handling the money transfer. Even Paypal does not take 30% cut. They are under a 5% cut. To use in App billing you are paying apple 30% gross to be a payment processor.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/25/amazons-kindle-app-updated-to-remove-direct-kindle-store-links/)


Following reports that The Wall Street Journal and eBook company Kobo have pulled (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/25/wall-street-journal-and-kobo-pull-direct-content-sales-from-ios-apps/) direct content sales from their iOS apps in order to comply with Apple's new rules regarding in-app subscriptions and purchases, Amazon has followed suit with an update to its Kindle (http://appshopper.com/books/kindle-for-iphone) app for iOS.While the Kindle app has always redirected users to a Safari web app for purchasing, it has until now prominently featured a button to allow users to quickly navigate to the store from the app. Users will now have to manually load the store in Safari when they wish to purchase new content.

Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/kindle_app_store_removed.jpg)
Kindle app before (left) and after (right) update

Amazon has attempted to soften the blow of the new inconvenience for getting to the Kindle Store by enhancing support for newspapers and magazines on the iOS app. Users can now read over 100 newspapers and magazines through the app after subscribing via the Kindle Store website. Kindle users who are already subscribed to newspapers and magazines can now quickly access the content on their iOS devices via the "Archived Items" section.

Given the number of apps that have been updated or removed to address Apple's in-app subscription and purchases policy, it certainly appears that Apple has finally closed the door and begun enforcing the new rules that were to have gone into effect on June 30th.

Article Link: Amazon's 'Kindle' App Updated to Remove Direct Kindle Store Links (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/25/amazons-kindle-app-updated-to-remove-direct-kindle-store-links/)

This is stupid and anti-customer. Apple is asking a *large* cut for sales that have no reliance whatsoever on the Apple infrastructure.

I can see if Apple were providing payment processing services . . . but in this case, they are not. This was simply a button in the app that led to the *Amazon* web site to make purchases!

Sure, I can go directly to the Amazon web site to shop (and I will) but it was nice to have the button in the app. It's no longer there because Apple is being intransigent and greedy.

This is because apple spends 100s of millions of dollars to maintain the app store and someone Luke amazon gives away a free app and uses that to make money.

Why anyone with an iOS device thinks that is a good idea is dumbfounding. The net result would be all companies making their apps free circumventing the store to make billions of dollars and ultimately the app store would cease to exist. It is like people don't even think about the actual ramifications of the positions they support before the blindly label apple as greedy.

Amazon pays commissions to millions of affiliates every single day in every single item they sell. Yet some of you believe it makes sense for apple to get nothing for the products they sell on behalf of amazon. It is silly.

[Lennholm]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



This is because apple spends 100s of millions of dollars to maintain the app store and someone Luke amazon gives away a free app and uses that to make money.

Why anyone with an iOS device thinks that is a good idea is dumbfounding. The net result would be all companies making their apps free circumventing the store to make billions of dollars and ultimately the app store would cease to exist. It is like people don't even think about the actual ramifications of the positions they support before the blindly label apple as greedy.

Amazon pays commissions to millions of affiliates every single day in every single item they sell. Yet some of you believe it makes sense for apple to get nothing for the products they sell on behalf of amazon. It is silly.

Well you can't say that Apples policy is working out when content providers are circumventing the whole thing by not offering in-app subscriptions at all, they simply don't think it's worth 30% and now Apple gets nothing and things are becoming complicated for customers.
If Apple had settled on a reasonable fee, like 5%, I'm sure most content providers think it would be fair and worth it.

[The Phazer]

By that logic you can say the same about Android. So you don't think Android has created any users?

Nope. Unless technology has become capable of creating human life, they've not created any users at all.

That Android should charge 30% to sell apps, as it does?

Yeah. As I've said, I really don't care much what Apple do on their store. It's their store. Or Google do with Android market. The problem comes when customers are blocked from using other stores. Apple is blocking other stores, thus they either have to behave very well or stop, because they're acting to restrict competition because Apple's own product isn't good enough to stand on it's own two feet.

Google are not blocking that. I can install any alternative app store I want on an Android handset.

Or maybe look at Xbox or PS? They didn't bring any users to the gaming industry?

Nope. And their behaviour is absolutely just as bad, though neither of them have anywhere like the same market share as the iPad does.

After reading articles from real business analysts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authority

There's no such thing as a uniform business analyst consensus. I know because I've worked as one. You keep citing this, because you have no good logical arguments.

Phazer

[gkpm]

Products: Software, content and digital materials created for Devices in accordance with the Android SDK and distributed via the Market.
EDIT:
Emphasis on the bold text.

Are people now writing/creating eBooks and music in accordance with the Android SDK?

Absolutely. The eBook reader and music players are applications written using the SDK and thus any content they carry is in accordance with the SDK.

Plus it's debatable if that discussion even matters, since it would be impossible to distribute apps outside the Market via the market. The non-compete clause would be irrelevant. IMHO the definition of products rests only on "Software, content and digital materials created for Devices"
You missed a key word of PRIMARY
PURPOSE. Amazon Kindles primary purpose is not to link to the kindle store but to read kindle books.

Read again the non-compete clause: "whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market."

This is exactly what the Kindle app does so IMHO the Kindle app is not complying with Android Market rules. It may just be a matter of time until Google pulls that plug.

Amazon App store no one has an issue with that being blocked from the Android market.

If Apple allowed 3rd party app stores to be installed, or side loading apps then it would be a non issue as well. I am willing to bet Amazon would pull it app if it could just allow side loading.


Well they don't have an issue now. Apple also didn't appear to have an issue since the Kindle app came out in March 2009 until January 2011.

You must be joking if you think the typical Kindle reader will know how to sideload apps on Android, especially the tablets that are available.

You could also say Amazon will pull the app because they'll do fine with just jailbroken iOS devices. Clearly that's not the case.

[Oletros]

Yet some of you believe it makes sense for apple to get nothing for the products they sell on behalf of amazon. It is silly.

And what has been sold in behalf of Amazon? Nothing.

[Oletros]

If Apple had settled on a reasonable fee, like 5%, I'm sure most content providers think it would be fair and worth it.

It's not only the amount of cut, IAP system has serious limitations for business like Amazon or B&N in the number of items and in the way they are introduced in the system.

And how can they link Amazon accounts with iTunes accounts? How can they sync content purchased through iTunes to other devices or viceversa?

[Oletros]

Absolutely. The eBook reader and music players are applications written using the SDK and thus any content they carry is in accordance with the SDK.

Nop, because this content can't be distributed by the Market.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Because you have it backwards. I don't go to Amazon to buy a kindle book because of Apple. I go to Amazon to buy a kindle book because of Amazon. If i want to support Apple, I'll buy an iBook which it seems not many are doing, thus the real root of this policy. After all I paid Apple for the "rent" when I paid them for my devices. All of them.

Many more people are now buying from Amazon because of the Kindle iOS app, people who didn't necessarily buy from Amazon before, but now they are because they want to read on their iOS devices.

Whether or not they choose to buy from Apple is irrelevant. The point is that Amazon is in all likelihood making more money in the year 2011 than they were in 2007, and you could definitely attribute some of that (of course, not all of it, that would be ridiculous) to their evergrowing presence on devices like the iPhone and iPad.

Undoubtedly way more kindle book pages are read on iOS devices than kindle devices.

[Oletros]

Undoubtedly way more kindle book pages are read on iOS devices than kindle devices.

Any source for this afirmation?

[heisetax]

his is one of the reasons I do not like all of my app purchases to go through the Apple anything store. What I purchase & put on my purchased equipment is none of their business.

I'll start erasing any of the free iBooks I have as soon as I can download it straight from Kindle. I would never want to download a Kindle Book through Apple. Apple has only made it harder for me to use my iToys. And to think they're starting to do the same thing with my Macs. Kindle Books an be read on my Android Phone from Sprint, my iToys (iPod Touch & iPad) & my many Macs. I can even read them through Fushion & Parallel's DeskTop for the Mac & Steve Jobs & Apple's now recommended Windows OS.

Give me Kindle or give me death.

[gkpm]

Nop, because this content can't be distributed by the Market.

You can distribute the content if the content is wrapped in an application complying with the SDK.

That's what an eBook reader does, such as the one included in the Kindle app.

Look, I'm not going to point this out any more. I'll let Google do the talking in a few months.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Microsoft has every right to do what it wants with its platform; it seems perfectly reasonable to me for them to want to get in on the action from apps that are taking advantage of the platform's userbase (meaning, apps like iTunes that direct the user to the iTunes Store, in which case Microsoft gets nothing, despite providing Apple with the customer in the first place via the Windows device).

Fixed your post. Still fair enough?

Of course it isn't. And we're not even getting into the point that MS could never dream of signing all the code on Windows to exclude any competitors who didn't agree to their demands.

Apple being the exclusive source of code signing on iOS was always a terrible idea, that could only be justified if they treated it with the highest principles of only using it to block malware. They have not (quite the opposite). It can no longer be justified. There is no "built ecosystem" - there is merely the long term practice of restricting the ecosystem that would otherwise exist to favour themselves as they don't want to compete on quality of offering.

Honestly, the way some of you talk, if you don't like what Apple's doing with iOS in regards to content and 30% cuts, why not just ditch them entirely the next time around and spare yourselves the frustration?

Looking very hard at doing exactly that. With sadness, but this is completely beyond the pale.

Looking even harder at formal complaints to regulatory authorities - given Apple's market share of the tablet market this is simply not something that should be allowed to exist. It's not "fair" in the slightest. Apple are using market dominance in some areas to force through their own inferior offerings and control pricing. That's the very textbook definition of anti-competition.

Phazer

If Microsoft had anything to do with the delivery and installation of the iTunes app you might have a point.

The amount if critical logic failure in this thread is amazing.

[Oletros]

Read at least a full paragraph before commenting on my posts. Thanks.

I have read and you're wrong, Kindle doesn't get affected because kindle books can't be distributed through Androi Market so even if the primary function of Kindle app was only buying books they are not affected by 5.2 clause because the products "distributed" (books) doesn't compete with any Android Market product.

You can distribute the content if the content is wrapped in an application complying with the SDK.

That's what an eBook reader does, such as the one included in the Kindle app.

Noooooo, and the books aren't wraped to the application, you can sideload them.

[ChristianJapan]

Don't need that link. If Apple is now a happy and I can still read my purchased books ... I don't care.
Normally buy via my iMac and just sync to iPad for reading on the road and on the bed

[Lennholm]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



If Microsoft had anything to do with the delivery and installation of the iTunes app you might have a point.

The amount if critical logic failure in this thread is amazing.

So in other words, if a company has nothing to do with the delivery and presentation of content it wouldn't make sense that they should get a cut...

[nextdimension]

Apple needs to extend their in app purchase consistently to every app. For example I can purchase things within the EBay, Amazon, or Fandango apps. Apple is essentially allowing these companies access to 200 million potential customers so they should pay up. So if I buy a movie ticket in Fandango then Apple should take the 30% cut because they are also giving the user a unified secure payment system. The added revenue for Apple is good for the customer because Apple can spend more on making iOS better. Win-win for the customer.

[Popeye206]

Apple needs to extend their in app purchase consistently to every app. For example I can purchase things within the EBay, Amazon, or Fandango apps. Apple is essentially allowing these companies access to 200 million potential customers so they should pay up. So if I buy a movie ticket in Fandango then Apple should take the 30% cut because they are also giving the user a unified secure payment system. The added revenue for Apple is good for the customer because Apple can spend more on making iOS better. Win-win for the customer.

If you buy through iTunes, Apple should get their cut. Companies can raise the price on iTunes purchases if they need to cover the margin and, if they offer a link to their site for direct purchase, the customer can choose. Honestly, I don't see the problem with any of that. And, I don't think the 3rd parties to Apple do either.

Then what is the problem? It's NOT THE 30%. It's the customer information.

Apple (and it's their right) does not have to share customer information with the 3rd party. And this is what Amazon, and the others are not happy with and they know that most customers will use the in App purchase route because it's easy and it's trusted. So they get the sale... but they don't know who to for future marketing and this is the long term value. Sales without knowing your customer in the on-line world has zero long term value.

So this is the issue. Not the 30%.

Amazing how may crazy statements are being made here.

[Vegasman]

Apple needs to extend their in app purchase consistently to every app. For example I can purchase things within the EBay, Amazon, or Fandango apps. Apple is essentially allowing these companies access to 200 million potential customers so they should pay up. So if I buy a movie ticket in Fandango then Apple should take the 30% cut because they are also giving the user a unified secure payment system. The added revenue for Apple is good for the customer because Apple can spend more on making iOS better. Win-win for the customer.

Ah... But Apple does not compete in those spaces. But they do compete in books.

And now we see where the anti competitive behavior could be argued.

[The Phazer]

If you buy through iTunes, Apple should get their cut. Companies can raise the price on iTunes purchases if they need to cover the margin and, if they offer a link to their site for direct purchase, the customer can choose. Honestly, I don't see the problem with any of that. And, I don't think the 3rd parties to Apple do either.

Except Apple is trying to make the purchase route for the latter incredibly hard as their own book store development is lazy.

Then what is the problem? It's NOT THE 30%. It's the customer information.

It's absolutely the 30%. 30% is Amazon's margin on e-books. If they give Apple 30% then they lose money on every single sale.

Phazer

[The Mad Hatter]

Exactly! Just like many people use Windows PCs to shop on Amazon. Should MS get 30% of every thing sold on Amazon through a Windows PC? The Apple app store does not bring people to the Kindle Store, the Kindle app does. Once it is downloaded from the app store, it no longer use any apple resources to get you to the Kindle store.

Then by your analogy, why then do I have to pay MS ~$50 a year for a gold membership on the Xbox, just so I can watch Netfilx? I don't use their resources once I've downloaded the app. However, I'm still having to pay them on top of what I'm paying Netflix.

[reticulate]

I completely understand Apple's philosophy behind requiring the use of their in-app purchasing system.

That said, this strikes me as needlessly anti-consumer.

[dmhirschfeld]

A 30% cut on the sale is equivalent to a store buying a product at wholesale price and marking it up 30%.

The comparison isn't analogous because every retail store can determine what price they can sell their product for, creating competition in the market. Apple's market is selling iPads and selling Apps. This policy doesn't establish their price for selling a book; it cripples book sellers from being able to sell books on their iPad. If Apple had published this policy many years ago when iOS first came out, book sellers could have done whatever they wanted, deciding if it was worth giving up 30% to distribute through Apple devices, allowing the market to determine the natural outcome of Apple's book store. However, Apple waits until they have a strangle hold on the market, and waits until booksellers spend millions on their own apps, and Apple allows the market to do this and sell through external links to ensure booksellers develop survival on the business they developed leveraging iOS devices (which happens to help Apple sell even more devices). After all that, apple changes their policy, forcing bookseller to pay their ridiculous fee, effectively skimming 30% off the electronic book industry. You can say this is fair and reasonable all day long, but you cannot make a cogent argument to support it.

[Rigby]

If you buy through iTunes, Apple should get their cut. Companies can raise the price on iTunes purchases if they need to cover the margin and, if they offer a link to their site for direct purchase, the customer can choose.Well, no, they can't. If the content providers offer a link to their site for direct purchases, Apple demands that they also sell the content via iTunes in-app purchase AND that the iTunes price is no higher than the direct sales price.
Then what is the problem? It's NOT THE 30%. It's the customer information.The 30% is certainly a problem. Access to the customer information is an additional issue (and it also limits the content providers' business models, e.g. if they want to sell bundles like paper + digital newspaper subscriptions).

[Popeye206]

Except Apple is trying to make the purchase route for the latter incredibly hard as their own book store development is lazy.



It's absolutely the 30%. 30% is Amazon's margin on e-books. If they give Apple 30% then they lose money on every single sale.

Phazer

First of all, your first statement is subjective and I disagree. The options are simple for each company and user. If they want to offer external links, they need to offer in-app purchasing. Simple.

Also.... point 2. Apple came out in June and said it was "ok" if the prices on in-app purchases was different. So, Amazon can raise their prices to make up the 30%. You're convinced it's the 30% and I guess don't want to think or read???? The issue is NOT the 30%. That is solvable for any 3rd party.

[jlseattle]

Why does Apple have to be so nitpicky. They should have to follow the same rules they push on the 3rd party apps So take the store links out of iBooks please.

[Popeye206]

Well, no, they can't. If the content providers offer a link to their site for direct purchases, Apple demands that they also sell the content via iTunes in-app purchase AND that the iTunes price is no higher than the direct sales price.
The 30% is certainly a problem. Access to the customer information is an additional issue (and it also limits the content providers' business models, e.g. if they want to sell bundles like paper + digital newspaper subscriptions).

Wrong... that was changed in June! They said the iTunes price DID NOT have to match the best price. They can price it as they see fit.

UGH! I give up. I guess if you're convinced it's the 30% go ahead and believe that. But it's the customer list they want. That has long term value way more than the 30%. Think about it... what if your #1 competitor knows 90% of your customers and YOU DONT! That is what Amazon and other publishers fear.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

So many armchair MBAs on the thread here. I wonder how many of these self righteous statements will survive when they enter the real business world.

Of course not. They are all worker drones who do what they are told and leave the thinking to the men upstairs.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)


No, it's like Wal-Mart taking a percentage of the price for things sold in Wal-Mart.

I know...so unreasonable! Right?

I love how the really simple analogies miss out the huge purchase price of the iDevice. So that Wal-Mart is in a shopping mall I bought.

By your logic Audi should get a cut from the radio stations using "their hardware" in my TT! :rolleyes:

Bottom line - the more Apple does to make the iPad less useful to me, the more likely it is I'll go elsewhere.

I like how you think the app STORE is more analogous to a car than walmart which is a STORE.

The cost of the iOS device is wholly irrelevant. Best Buy does not give me all the software I want for free because I buy the pc that runs it from them.

[Rigby]

Wrong... that was changed in June! They said the iTunes price DID NOT have to match the best price. They can price it as they see fit. I googled a bit and it turns out you are right. I stand corrected. Since June there are apparently no pricing requirements anymore:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-shifts-guidelines-in-tussle-with-media-firms-2011-06-09
UGH! I give up. I guess if you're convinced it's the 30% go ahead and believe that. But it's the customer list they want. That has long term value way more than the 30%. Think about it... what if your #1 competitor knows 90% of your customers and YOU DONT! That is what Amazon and other publishers fear.I already agreed it is an issue, so I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. But a 30% cut is certainly a problem in what is, in many cases, already a low-margin business. For example newspapers haven't figured out a profitable business model for digital distribution as it is, and cutting off another 3rd of their revenue won't make it any easier.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Honestly, do you believe Amazon doesn't get a cut when merchants peddle their goods on its website?

The difference is that no "good" is on Apple servers, bad analogy.

You don't understand how amazon reselling works then. Amazon takes a significant cut from people simply for listing their product on amazons site and processing payment. These issues have been duscussed ad nausem here and are easy enough to research. It seems like some people here are being purposefully ignorant.

[alhedges]

Hi Chwishch87. I hate to say this but clearly you're another person who doesn't understand business. It's ok, you're not alone.



Perhaps someday you will graduate from school, read your old posts, and discover that you are an idiot.

Anyone who understands business would understand what a "profit margin" is. (It's okay to Google it.) Anyone who looked at Amazon's annual reports (you can google them, too) would discover that books are a high-volume, low margin product. Amazon's profit margin is just shy of 5% - which allows them to make a decent profit overall because their volume is so great.

Which is why anyone who knows anything about business would have realized right away that no bookseller would pay 30% to Amazon - that would result in a 25% loss on every book they sold. Or else they would raise prices 30%, which would simply result in very few books being sold...death in a high volume business.

So Apple was *never* going to make any money from Amazon (or Kobo, or Sony, or B&N) with this plan; the only predictable result was that the functionality of the apps would be somewhat reduced with no corresponding benefit to anyone.

So, yeah, anyone who knows anything about business knows that they like to maximize profits. And anyone who knows only slightly more about business would realize that this plan would never and could never have that effect. The only effect it could have would be to make the product less convenient to use, annoy some customers, but not bring in one additional cent of profit.

I suppose it might open the door for competing tablets to showcase how much better their e-book integration works as a selling point, too. Which probably won't have a major effect, but which isn't ideal, either.

[nextdimension]

Ooooh. I can purchase Kindle books in the Amazon Mobile app. Another app that has to comply to in app purchases.

[blahblah100]

Since there have been over 200 million iOS devices sold, Amazon (and others) have the potential to reach a far greater audience. This is all possible because of the platform that Apple built. Why then, should Amazon be allowed to profit on this platform without paying "rent"?

I believe Apple's effective US tax rate was 24.4% last year. Would you still stand behind your logic if the US government imposed a flat 30% effective tax against Apple? After all - because of the United States, Apple was able to sell a lot of those devices and why should Apple be allowed to profit without paying "rent"?

[FrozenTomato]

Happy now Apple? So much for ease of use. This is pathetic. :rolleyes:

their store. their rules. you don't like it? use an Android phone. it's really simple.

[lilo777]

their store. their rules. you don't like it? use an Android phone. it's really simple.

Agree. Android is the way to go. It's getting really hard not to realize that.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

2) Apple wasn't making money off the Kindle purchases thru that iOS app.

Perhaps, before telling the others they don't know nothing, you can get the facts betters. Amazon wasn't selling NOTHING through the Kindle app.


3) This is how all business is done. In ALL industries. If one party creates a new revenue stream for another party, the creator gets a cut. Read some business books. Ask some business people. Learn about it. It's very interesting.

Ack, Direct got me started!

So Apple pays a cut to Microsoft for any purchase made from iTunes on Windows, no?

Did you buy iTunes from the windows store? No. Come on people stop making a mockery of this.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Your analogy is totally off base.

The analogy should be that Microsoft would take a cut of anything sold on their website. You can buy Amazon books from Safari just not through the app.

Amazon CAN have in app purchasing without issue but Apple should get a cut of that.

If Amazon sells something on their site even if its a third party seller they DO charge a fee. Its the same thing.

Amazon is NOT apples product?? the iPad is just the device that gets you there. So why does apple have ANY claim to their revenue? Should Ford get 30% of the revenue of the speakers I bought at best buy because it drove it there? Of course not. Should Apple get 30% of amazons revenue simply because I am using an iPad to get there? No.

No but best buy should get 30% for selling you the speakers. In this case apple is best buy not ford.

When you buy a dozen eggs at the store should the store keep a part of the sale?


Yes.

If you give an item to a consignment shop and agree to let them keep 30% of the sale price when they sell it should they be able to keep it?

Yes

If you sell your speakers through amazon and they keep 30% of the sale price and give you 70% should they be able to do so?

Yes

These are all real world comparable examples to amazon and the app store. Not ridiculous and inappropriate analogies about cars driving to the store or the ISP or ant other dumb analogies people have made up in this thread.

This is like 5th grade business stuff people need to catch on faster than this.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)


You do know that Android take 30% like Apple? A

It is not the 30% cut that people are upset about. It is the fact that you are required to use Apple distributions system for anything that collect money. If Apple allowed 3rd party App stores then this would be ok.
If Apple did not require you to have to collect money threw the App store then fine.
if Apple allowed you to link to outside the App like it was then it was OK.
It is the forced to go threw Apple system and pay the 30% cut that is the issue.

So people prefer the crappy android app store enviroment to the apple app store? I suspect most people would not agree with that. There is actual consumer value to the apple app store that google does not provide.

Plus I am sure googles app store is going to be in trouble for ant trust issued in Europe soon and closed down.

[KingCrimson]

Next thing you know Apple will want 30% for in-Safari purchases made on iOS device. Why not?

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

A 30% cut on the sale is equivalent to a store buying a product at wholesale price and marking it up 30%.

Such a flawed analogy. The store you're talking about will have to cover expenses such as logistics, shelf space and in some cases even marketing. When it comes to in-app subscriptions, Apple does none of these things, all they do is process the payment.
Apple taking 30% is not equivalent to a real book store marking up 30%, it's equivalent to Visa or Mastercard demanding a 30% cut when you use your credit card to buy the book

You should open up your own app store since you think it costs apple zero dollars to run their app store.

Stop the ignorance

[Oletros]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



You don't understand how amazon reselling works then. Amazon takes a significant cut from people simply for listing their product on amazons site and processing payment. These issues have been duscussed ad nausem here and are easy enough to research. It seems like some people here are being purposefully ignorant.

I know how Amazon works, I think you want to be purposefully ignorant on what Kindle app was doing and what Apple tried to force.

[KingCrimson]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



You should open up your own app store since you think it costs apple zero dollars to run their app store.

Stop the ignorance

The datacenters that store the apps cost money, the R&D money that goes into improving the app store itself. But that is beside the point. Even if Apple had ZERO expense in running the app store, they are the landlord and can charge whatever RENT they want. Unless it's in San Francisco and you have RENT control. :D

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

How is Apple trying to kill the golden goose?

And honestly, do you believe that the Amazon/Kindle App has brought more users to Apple or Vice Versa?

My mom originally purchased a Nook, but i talked her into an iPad. She's been using the Kindle App ever since. So not only did Apple give Amazon her business, their competition lost a customer as well.

Everyone has their own anecdote, but we have to look at the overall numbers. And as I said, if being in iOS wasn't profitable for Amazon they could have pulled the app without a second thought.

Catch is Apple is more or less demanding a 30% cut for being a payment processor that is it. Credit card companies on the HIGH end charge 5%. For amazon I would not be surprised in the least to see that number down to under 2% for even the worse cards (discover and AMEX)
Also on the book Amazon sells they only are getting a 30% cut so now they would have to hand all that over to Apple plus house everything.

Apple demand is high no way around that argument.
Also I would say Amazon has brought more people to Apple than the other way around in terms of money. 500 bucks per person is going to be pretty hard to catch that up to Amazon in terms of the kindle.

Add to it Apple marketing talked about how it could get apps like the kindle in the pass.

Amazon charges 30% for people to sell their books on amazon and all they do is process the payments. Amazon charge comparable fees to third party resellers and all they do is process the payment. There literally could not be a worse company for some of you to try and defend in this scenario.

Heck amazon pays people 10% plus just for linking to their website someone who buys something. It is pretty clear most of you who oddly upset by this non issue have no understanding of how amazon operates their own business or these wild assertions would stop.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

And the ability to purchase securely through an iTunes account is a bit more than being a credit card processor.

No it's not, it's pretty much the same thing as PayPal, and I'd much rather use my banks own secure payment system which uses an alternating security code which only I and my bank have access to than having my full cc details stored at Apples servers. There's no guarantee Apple's system will never get hacked liked PSN was.
Pretty much all e-commerce businesses support these proprietary secure payment methods in addition to regular cc payment so there's no reason why Apple could not.

[SIZE=1]Yes the shopping mall should be happy that the stores attract people. Lol. People are so naive and lack such fundamental understanding of business it us disheartening at times.

Um, yes, they ARE. Successful stores make the shopping mall attractive to other businesses¨which increases the value for the owner and opens the possibility for expansion. The shopping mall owner gets the agreed rent from the stores, not a cut from the sales.

That is not true. It is very common for retail leases to have variable rent based on store sales.

Come on

[Vegasman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



You should open up your own app store since you think it costs apple zero dollars to run their app store.

Stop the ignorance

If I did, how would I be able to sell anything to ios users with my new app store?

[lilo777]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



You should open up your own app store since you think it costs apple zero dollars to run their app store.

Stop the ignorance

I would open my own App Store... but Apple does not allow this. Do you really think Amazon needs or cares about Apple app store and servers? They would manage perfectly to sell their app and their books from their own web site (I suspect Apple is actually using Amazon services for content distribution anyways). However, Apple tells them where to sell, what to sell and how much to pay to Apple. Ridiculous. It's as if car manufacturers allowed car buyers/owners to buy tires only from them (because they came up with the "ecosystem") and pay the price they decided to charge. People like you (and probably you personally) argued hard that Apple would never change their original stupid policy of not allowing to sell the content for in-app consumption anywhere but in App Store. Apple had to back track on this stupidity. And they will be force to remove the current stupid policy too. Just a matter of time.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



If Microsoft had anything to do with the delivery and installation of the iTunes app you might have a point.

The amount if critical logic failure in this thread is amazing.

So in other words, if a company has nothing to do with the delivery and presentation of content it wouldn't make sense that they should get a cut...

Correct, like in this case apple was directly responsible for the vetting, delivery and installation of the kindle app. In app purchases are part of that app.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

A 30% cut on the sale is equivalent to a store buying a product at wholesale price and marking it up 30%.

The comparison isn't analogous because every retail store can determine what price they can sell their product for, creating competition in the market. Apple's market is selling iPads and selling Apps. This policy doesn't establish their price for selling a book; it cripples book sellers from being able to sell books on their iPad. If Apple had published this policy many years ago when iOS first came out, book sellers could have done whatever they wanted, deciding if it was worth giving up 30% to distribute through Apple devices, allowing the market to determine the natural outcome of Apple's book store. However, Apple waits until they have a strangle hold on the market, and waits until booksellers spend millions on their own apps, and Apple allows the market to do this and sell through external links to ensure booksellers develop survival on the business they developed leveraging iOS devices (which happens to help Apple sell even more devices). After all that, apple changes their policy, forcing bookseller to pay their ridiculous fee, effectively skimming 30% off the electronic book industry. You can say this is fair and reasonable all day long, but you cannot make a cogent argument to support it.

Amazon is a book reseller not s publisher. Apple forced amazon to change the way they resold books because the book sellers (publishers) did not like Amazons model.

You are arguing that I should be able ti buy a tv at Wal mart ANC then sell it at target and have to make them give me a profit on it.

It doesn't make any sense. Businesses who are resellers are always in a poor position when they compete directly with their own suppliers in a retail channel.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Hi Chwishch87. I hate to say this but clearly you're another person who doesn't understand business. It's ok, you're not alone.



Perhaps someday you will graduate from school, read your old posts, and discover that you are an idiot.

Anyone who understands business would understand what a "profit margin" is. (It's okay to Google it.) Anyone who looked at Amazon's annual reports (you can google them, too) would discover that books are a high-volume, low margin product. Amazon's profit margin is just shy of 5% - which allows them to make a decent profit overall because their volume is so great.

Which is why anyone who knows anything about business would have realized right away that no bookseller would pay 30% to Amazon - that would result in a 25% loss on every book they sold. Or else they would raise prices 30%, which would simply result in very few books being sold...death in a high volume business.

So Apple was *never* going to make any money from Amazon (or Kobo, or Sony, or B&N) with this plan; the only predictable result was that the functionality of the apps would be somewhat reduced with no corresponding benefit to anyone.

So, yeah, anyone who knows anything about business knows that they like to maximize profits. And anyone who knows only slightly more about business would realize that this plan would never and could never have that effect. The only effect it could have would be to make the product less convenient to use, annoy some customers, but not bring in one additional cent of profit.

I suppose it might open the door for competing tablets to showcase how much better their e-book integration works as a selling point, too. Which probably won't have a major effect, but which isn't ideal, either.

Amazon used to regularly sell ebooks 30% below their cost. Guess it is back to business school for you.

Apples job is not to make their reseller business model work. Apple prefer that the book publishers sell the content directly. That is apples desire with content creators in all mediums. This is not new or a surprise. If amazons position as a reseller does not match up with apples very content producer friendly model so be it. Amazon won't make any additional sales on Apples back. The other option is to let amazon do it for free and encourage all developers to try and circumvent the system. You might learn about that in business 301.

[Arreouw]

Apple has every right to do what it wants with its platform; it seems perfectly reasonable to me for them to want to get in on the action from apps that are taking advantage of the platform's userbase (meaning, apps like Kindle that direct the user to the Kindle Store, in which case Apple gets nothing, despite providing Amazon with the customer in the first place via the iOS device).

Am I missing something here? This sounds like maybe Toyota ought to get a percentage of everything I spend whenever I go shopping since they created my truck that I drive when I go to the store. Apple never provided Amazon with me as a customer. I had my Kindle long before I had an iPhone. They weren't even out yet (I bought a Kindle through the very first offer), for heavens' sakes. In fact, I may just decide not to bother with Apple's store any more over this mess. I bought the phone and I pay for my monthly fees for service... do I have to keep paying Apple every month? I'm glad Dell isn't making me do that for my other computer, too. Or my ex for building the other ones I have. Geez. How ridiculous is that argument above?

[Oletros]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



Correct, like in this case apple was directly responsible for the vetting, delivery and installation of the kindle app. In app purchases are part of that app.

No, Apple is nor delivering nor vetting not installing the content to Kindle app or Nook app.

You can say what you want and call other ignorants but you're wrong on this.

[SIZE=1]These are all real world comparable examples to amazon and the app store. Not ridiculous and inappropriate analogies about cars driving to the store or the ISP or ant other dumb analogies people have made up in this thread.

Ridiculous and dumb is the defense you're doing with incorrect facts. Apple is not selling a fracking book in behalf of Amazon. They stored, distributed, sold and publicited by Amazon, not by Apple.

[Oletros]

duplicated

[bsolar]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



Did you buy iTunes from the windows store? No. Come on people stop making a mockery of this.

The core issue is that Apple allows no choice: either you are in iOS under their rule or you are out. iTunes in Windows has the chance to be installed from third party sources and basically it can do whatever it wants, which cannot happen in iOS unless you jailbreak.

Apple has the right to do so, it's their platform, but the end result is that competition and choice in iOS suffers. Currently iOS users have an inferior experience in the apps affected by this rule and most likely users of apps which embraced IAP have higher prices overall due to the costs of Apple's cut.

[bminata]

You have to be an iRobot to justify Apple on this one.

There are a lot of them out there..

[JediZenMaster]

There are a lot of them out there..

I find it rather sad that if someone has a PRO-apple point of view then that person is instantly called a sheep or something. If you do not like what apple is doing then don't buy their products.

[Winni]

Since there have been over 200 million iOS devices sold, Amazon (and others) have the potential to reach a far greater audience. This is all possible because of the platform that Apple built. Why then, should Amazon be allowed to profit on this platform without paying "rent"?

I wonder why this nonsense argument keeps popping up all the time. Do you think AT&T is entitled to 30% of all the profits that are being made with business phone calls? Should UPS get a 30% share on all the items that they ship daily? Should your government get 30% on all goods that are being transported on public roads? Maybe farmers should also get 30% revenue on all french fries sold by McDonald's?

Now why should Apple be entitled to 30% on items that they do NOTHING for? Apple already received money for their product - selling the iOS device was Apple's business, and they received their end. If they want money for storing the Kindle app in the iTunes store, they should charge Amazon for that service. But since Apple also wins by having the free Kindle app in the iTunes store, they are smart enough to not charge for free apps. Whatever is done with or through that app is NONE of Apple's business and they also do not have any costs when people use the Kindle app - after all, the content comes from Amazon's servers through the Internet, not from Apple's servers and not from a connection provided by Apple.

So where does that completely wrong sense of entitlement come from?

[Lennholm]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



You should open up your own app store since you think it costs apple zero dollars to run their app store.

Stop the ignorance

The automated payment process is hardly a big cost of the app store and would easily be covered by a 5% cut.
Maintaining the SDK, the approval process (which Apple chose to impose themselves), hosting and delivery of APPS (not IAP or IAS) is an expense for the app store, and this is covered by the developers fee and the 30% cut of the price of the app. I have no problem with Apple getting 30% from app purchases.

Just so you know, I'm ignoring all your lame attempts at belittling the rest of us, ofcourse you THINK you know better than us, doesn't make it so. Stop the self-deception.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



Amazon charges 30% for people to sell their books on amazon and all they do is process the payments. Amazon charge comparable fees to third party resellers and all they do is process the payment. There literally could not be a worse company for some of you to try and defend in this scenario.

Heck amazon pays people 10% plus just for linking to their website someone who buys something. It is pretty clear most of you who oddly upset by this non issue have no understanding of how amazon operates their own business or these wild assertions would stop.

If you're suggesting that Amazon doesn't host and deliver the books then you're wrong. Amazon is not only a payment processor.

[bsolar]

Apples job is not to make their reseller business model work. Apple prefer that the book publishers sell the content directly. That is apples desire with content creators in all mediums. This is not new or a surprise. If amazons position as a reseller does not match up with apples very content producer friendly model so be it. Amazon won't make any additional sales on Apples back. The other option is to let amazon do it for free and encourage all developers to try and circumvent the system. You might learn about that in business 301.

Neither is Amazon's job to make Apple's IAP service successful. If you have to force your service down the throat of third parties maybe your service is not that great or your pricing is not that interesting.

The other option is to actually allow true competition in iOS, which would improve many things IAP included. Currently Apple's IAP is competing against not having the service at all, and it's actually still failing... if there were competing services allowed Apple's IAP would need to have a far lower pricing to make sense. That would mean developers could choose the service offering they find more interesting (or implement their own) and end-users could potentially get lower prices.

Despite companies in general (and Apple here in particular) don't like it, competition usually is a good thing in business. You might learn about that in business 101.

[Popeye206]

I wonder why this nonsense argument keeps popping up all the time. Do you think AT&T is entitled to 30% of all the profits that are being made with business phone calls? Should UPS get a 30% share on all the items that they ship daily? Should your government get 30% on all goods that are being transported on public roads? Maybe farmers should also get 30% revenue on all french fries sold by McDonald's?

Now why should Apple be entitled to 30% on items that they do NOTHING for? Apple already received money for their product - selling the iOS device was Apple's business, and they received their end. If they want money for storing the Kindle app in the iTunes store, they should charge Amazon for that service. But since Apple also wins by having the free Kindle app in the iTunes store, they are smart enough to not charge for free apps. Whatever is done with or through that app is NONE of Apple's business and they also do not have any costs when people use the Kindle app - after all, the content comes from Amazon's servers through the Internet, not from Apple's servers and not from a connection provided by Apple.

So where does that completely wrong sense of entitlement come from?

Yawwwwn.... you're right... this argument is getting old. Apple's policies are clear... but it seems you're not.

All they have said is, if you're going to offer external links to sell product, you must also offer a "in-app" option for purchase that Apple get's it's 30%. It's a connivence thing for the end user who prefer to use their iTune accounts to purchase.

The only BIG issue was pricing in the past. Apple before said that the iTunes price had to be the same or lower. But they changed that in June. So any developer can charge more for the in-app purchase and make up the 30% that Apple wants for this sale. So problem solved for the 3rd parties and let the consumer make their choice.

So, given this, it's NOT THE 30% that is the issue. Get it????

It's the customer data they loose if the customer buys through iTunes.

Yeah... I underlined it so maybe you'll read it twice... think about it some and realize what the real issue is. Just put the 30% aside... and think about it if your Amazon. If you're selling books to the single largest manufacture of tablets and phones and they are getting 20% to 40% of your sales through their store... that means that Amazon does not have access to these customers. They bought from Amazon through iTunes, but they are Apple's customers.

In business today, knowing your customers and being able to communicate to them is a valuable part of your business. And this is what they are upset about. Not the 30%. That is workable.

[Oletros]

All they have said is, if you're going to offer external links to sell product, you must also offer a "in-app" option for purchase that Apple get's it's 30%. It's a connivence thing for the end user who prefer to use their iTune accounts to purchase.


No, even if you have IAP you CAN'T provide a link to purchase outside the app


Yeah... I underlined it so maybe you'll read it twice... think about it some and realize what the real issue is. Just put the 30% aside... and think about it if your Amazon. If you're selling books to the single largest manufacture of tablets and phones and they are getting 20% to 40% of your sales through their store... that means that Amazon does not have access to these customers. They bought from Amazon through iTunes, but they are Apple's customers.

In business today, knowing your customers and being able to communicate to them is a valuable part of your business. And this is what they are upset about. Not the 30%. That is workable.

So. you're saying that Kindle books purchased through iTunes can only be read on Apple devices?

And not talking that current IAP item limits makes impossible to Amazon to provide IAP

[RobDee]

Ooooh. I can purchase Kindle books in the Amazon Mobile app. Another app that has to comply to in app purchases.

Hm, interesting.

[marksman]

Neither is Amazon's job to make Apple's IAP service successful. If you have to force your service down the throat of third parties maybe your service is not that great or your pricing is not that interesting.

What are you talking about? Amazon can't do it because their business model does not allow for it. For real content producers the 30% is a steal. It is a great bargain. Look at the success of the App store if you do not believe me.

I have a lot of business experience, and I know how much it costs to market products from beginning to end. I also know how most of the cross-commission and affiliate programs work on the internet and how Amazon does most of their business.

Amazon will be back at some point. They can not afford not to be.

The other option is to actually allow true competition in iOS, which would improve many things IAP included.

What are you talking about again?


Currently Apple's IAP is competing against not having the service at all, and it's actually still failing...

Failing at what? Amazon is the one who is losing business not Apple. In fact Apple is probably making more as people just go buy the same products on iBooks. Hundreds of millions of people have iOS devices and millions of people have Kindles.

if there were competing services allowed Apple's IAP would need to have a far lower pricing to make sense. That would mean developers could choose the service offering they find more interesting (or implement their own) and end-users could potentially get lower prices.

That doesn't make sense in the context of the Apple ecosystem. If you want a horrible mishmash of multiple vendor app stores, go buy an android device. If you want a professionally run and managed app store for your mobile device where they actually try to vet software and create the best user experience, then get an iOS device. I don't want the crappy experience Android presents. Either do most people who have iOS devices. That is where some of you go astray.

I don't want another App Store so developers can make 5 more cents on the dollar. The current system works great for developers and consumers. It works way better than the Android model does, for everyone involved. Developers, Consumers and Apple make out better than the related parties in the Android dynamic.


Despite companies in general (and Apple here in particular) don't like it, competition usually is a good thing in business. You might learn about that in business 101.

There is competition. For people who want a crappy ecosystem they can buy an android device. Why should Apple allow second-tier app stores into the iOS environment? How would that benefit me as the consumer? Would I be able to put porn on my phone? Oh boy.

You are taking a model that is miles more successful than anything comparable and saying it needs competition to be better. Yet the greatly inferior models that do allow competition are just that, greatly inferior.

Plus you may want to sign up for remedial business school. No business wants competition. They deal with it, they manage it. If you tell them it does not have to be there, nobody is going to complain. Where did you learn about business?

If you're suggesting that Amazon doesn't host and deliver the books then you're wrong. Amazon is not only a payment processor.

Amazon has tens of thousands of resellers who sell products that Amazon does nothing but process the payment and forward the order.

Also on the e-books they just let people download a file. How is that different than someone downloading the Kindle App from the App store. It is the exact same thing.


The core issue is that Apple allows no choice: either you are in iOS under their rule or you are out. iTunes in Windows has the chance to be installed from third party sources and basically it can do whatever it wants, which cannot happen in iOS unless you jailbreak.

Apple has the right to do so, it's their platform, but the end result is that competition and choice in iOS suffers. Currently iOS users have an inferior experience in the apps affected by this rule and most likely users of apps which embraced IAP have higher prices overall due to the costs of Apple's cut.

Yes the thousands of developers who have built entire businesses on the back of the Apple App Store and the hundreds of millions of iOS users all feel so very cheated by the iOS APP Store ecossystem.

The closed ecosystem is part of the benefit of iOS for the majority of people. It is simple and it can be relied upon.


The automated payment process is hardly a big cost of the app store and would easily be covered by a 5% cut.
Maintaining the SDK, the approval process (which Apple chose to impose themselves), hosting and delivery of APPS (not IAP or IAS) is an expense for the app store, and this is covered by the developers fee and the 30% cut of the price of the app. I have no problem with Apple getting 30% from app purchases.

Just so you know, I'm ignoring all your lame attempts at belittling the rest of us, ofcourse you THINK you know better than us, doesn't make it so. Stop the self-deception.

Like I said you should open up your own app store. Go do it for Android if all your costs are simply the processing fees. With the volumes I am sure you could generate you would be under 1.5% and you could charge like 10% for your services and you will be filthy rich.

You don't need any employees to design and maintain the app store itself or market the store or related products. You do not need any servers or back ups or network costs to provide access to those servers and to keep them up. You don't need to market or advertise your business in any way shape or form. You don't need any database engineers to manage anything. You don't need anyone to deal with charge backs, stolen credit cards, or billing errors. You do not need anyone to handle customer support when people have problems getting the card to charge or when they have a problem actually downloading the app and getting it to work. You do not need people to actually develop IOS and the SDK that allows the developer applications to work. You do not need to continually update and patch that framework so new applications can be developed. You do not need any staff to review the thousands of application submissions you get on a daily basis to make sure they meet your rules and guidelines and are not going to damage your customers devices. You don't need someone to actually make those rules and guidelines. You do not need any support or administrative staff for all the previous people you obviously do not need. You do not need to pay them benefits either, and you certainly do not need to give them a place to work. Finally you don't need to worry about the millions of "Free" apps that are downloaded that generate zero revenue and still do not require all the above mentioned support staff and services and functions to actually exist.

So all being said, yep, you got it right.. It costs Apple virtually nothing. Should be a breeze for you. By that in that short paragraph above, I probably left of 50 more relevant expenses that would need to be included when doing an actual analysis of the related costs for the App Store.

But your $99 developer fee, credit card processing charge and a bit of SDK development almost cover it.

[mrklaw]

this is a crappy move by apple even if it makes good business sense for them.

Taking kindle specifically, first apple force an agency model to neutralise the competition for ibooks and prevent flexible retailer pricing, then they require in-app purchases to fork over 30% of retail price? So there is no way kindle or other ebook stores on ios can compete on a level playing field with ibooks - its unfair competitive restrictions by Apple.

(which of course is good for apple but ultimately is bad for consumers as we have less choice)

The kindle store button in the ios app was nicely implemented. Yes, technically it was just a web link, but it went to your kindle store page, and returned neatly to the app afterwards. Not completely in-app purchasing smooth, but a damn sight smoother than leaving the app, launching safari, going to a bookmark, quitting safari and relaunching kindle.

[iphonepiephone]

Here's an idea; if you want a Kindle, buy a Kindle. Reading eBooks on anything but e-ink is utter rubbish, and this is where e-ink excels. If you don't get it, you don't get it - carry on as you were, with your "Kindle app" and iBooks...

:rolleyes::D

PS: "iBooks" will fall flat on its' face, sooner or later - just another "me too" idea, without the proper technology to allow eye strain-free reading.

[Lennholm]

Also on the e-books they just let people download a file. How is that different than someone downloading the Kindle App from the App store. It is the exact same thing.
Like I said you should open up your own app store. Go do it for Android if all your costs are simply the processing fees. With the volumes I am sure you could generate you would be under 1.5% and you could charge like 10% for your services and you will be filthy rich.

You don't need any employees to design and maintain the app store itself or market the store or related products. You do not need any servers or back ups or network costs to provide access to those servers and to keep them up. You don't need to market or advertise your business in any way shape or form. You don't need any database engineers to manage anything. You don't need anyone to deal with charge backs, stolen credit cards, or billing errors. You do not need anyone to handle customer support when people have problems getting the card to charge or when they have a problem actually downloading the app and getting it to work. You do not need people to actually develop IOS and the SDK that allows the developer applications to work. You do not need to continually update and patch that framework so new applications can be developed. You do not need any staff to review the thousands of application submissions you get on a daily basis to make sure they meet your rules and guidelines and are not going to damage your customers devices. You don't need someone to actually make those rules and guidelines. You do not need any support or administrative staff for all the previous people you obviously do not need. You do not need to pay them benefits either, and you certainly do not need to give them a place to work. Finally you don't need to worry about the millions of "Free" apps that are downloaded that generate zero revenue and still do not require all the above mentioned support staff and services and functions to actually exist.

So all being said, yep, you got it right.. It costs Apple virtually nothing. Should be a breeze for you. By that in that short paragraph above, I probably left of 50 more relevant expenses that would need to be included when doing an actual analysis of the related costs for the App Store.

But your $99 developer fee, credit card processing charge and a bit of SDK development almost cover it.

What is wrong with you, why do you keep responding to me as if I'm talking about more than in-app subscriptions? I'm not. I'm talking specifically about IAP and IAS and the only expenses Apple has for these functions are payment processing. PayPal doesn't need 30% to offer that service, neither does Apple.
You're insinuating that the developers fee and 30% from app purchases doesn't cover the expenses the app store has associated to this, so I have two questions for you:
1. Does Apple actually lose money on free apps that have no IAS or IAP? Then what value are these apps to Apple?
2. Was the app store constantly losing money for Apple before IAS and IAP was introduced to save the whole catastrophe?

It doesn't even matter what expenses Apple has, they can't charge more than content providers are willing to pay. If content providers aren't prepared to pay Apples fee they will opt out and Apple gets nothing, and this is exactly what we're seeing.
And your notion about people just buying the same books from iBooks instead is ridiculous

[MonkeySee....]

Jeez. 15 pages for a button :rolleyes:

Apple don't want a competitor taking revenue from iBooks. What a surprise! :eek:

[organerito]

I find it rather sad that if someone has a PRO-apple point of view then that person is instantly called a sheep or something. If you do not like what apple is doing then don't buy their products.

It must be very easy to see everything in Black&White. Are you with me or against me?

Have ever thought that some people might like just one Apple product? Have ever thought that some people might like some Apple politics and others don't.

You see, you almost defined what I consider an iRobot.
---------

I'll never buy a book in the ibookstore. I keep buying from the Kindle store. I still like my ipod in spite of Apple's crappy policy.

[NilsO]

let me explain some fundamentals:

A Mac or Windows PC is an "open" device, meaning you can install code and data without asking Apple or Microsoft for permission.
By contrast, an iOS device is a "closed" device. You cannot install anything at all without Apple's permission, unless you jailbreak the device. Thus, you do not really "own" the device. Apple decide what you are allowed to do, and expect to make more money from you, through the Music store, App store, and iBook store.
"Anything at all" applies to both code and data. However, Apple (generously:rolleyes:) permit users do download music, pictures, PDF files, videos, and iBook-compatible eBooks to their device, even if they are not purchased through their online stores.
Other data types (e.g., Kindle eBooks) require an "App" on the device in order to become readable. And here the controversy starts. As previously stated, Apple expect to make more money from you. They get 30% for each sale through the App store. However, as the Kindle App is free, Apple get nothing (30% of nothing is still nothing).
Therefore, Apple try to make money from the content purchases (Kindle eBooks in this example), by requiring "in-app purchases" (where Apple get 30%), instead of letting the users purchase content elsewhere (from the Amazon.com webpage in this example).
Because this policy created a lot of controversy (and in practice made the iOS platform unprofitable for many content providers), Apple relented somewhat, by not requiring in-app purchases, provided the Apps did not in any way link to an external purchasing mechanism.
The downside is less user friendlyness. The users now must figure out by themselves how to purchase content for their apps. As such, this policy is in conflict with Apple's basic philosophy of user friendlyness (but money always win nowadays).
As stated by many of you, Apple own the iOS platform, and can, in principle, set their own rules and charge whatewer they want. However, there are limits to what the users are willing to accept, and Apple are (in my opinion) already overstepping these limits. Total market dominance helps, but when a usable Android tablet appears on the market, new users may flock there, and existing iOS users may also seriously consider to migrate (or, at least, choose not to upgrade to iPad 3).
The App store is a good concept, but also a way for Apple to abuse their power.

The good side is that Apple provide an environment free from malware and virus, with a certain degree of quality control, and a mechanism for App developers to make money (for which Apple deserve their 30% cut).
The bad side is that App developers have to adhere to Apple's strict policies, which (among other bad things) include heavy censorship, anti-competitive practices, and unfair revenue through in-app purchase requirements from content providers. If Apple (for some reason) do not like the App, they can simply reject it. As a liberal European, I am not always comfortable with Apple's censorship policies in "the Land of the Free". The anti-competitive practices is a result of Apple trying to give their own content business (the iBookstore) an unfair advantage over competitors (Amazon and B&N).
But is it unfair? As stated by many, the Kindle device does not support Apple's iBookstore. So why should the iPad support Kindle eBooks? The correct answer is that the Kindle device is a dedicated Kindle eBook reader, whereas we expect the iPad to be a generic consumer device, providing access to all relevant content providers. Sadly, this is not the case today, and is Android's strongest selling argument in the coming Android/iOS war.

Some advice for Apple (not that I expect them to listen):

The huge App library is a huge asset for the iOS platform (as frequently stated by Steve Jobs himself). Revenue through sale of paid Apps is probably more than enough to keep the App store running.
The in-app purchase mechanism is a good concept for some content providers, but not for others. Small content providers may want to use it, but big content providers (Amazon), who have invested heavily in their own purchase and distribution mechanism, and moreover want to be platform independent, definitely do not want to use it. Therefore, use of the in-app purchase mechanism should be optional for the content providers. This is also the case after Apple's recent policy changes, but with some stupid restrictions affecting overall user friendlyness (see above). Apple, please remove these restrictions!
Will this hurt Apple's profit margins? Not by much (at least, not after their recent policy changes). Apple can certainly afford it. And removing the restrictions will improve Apple's image considerably in the non-fanboi user group.
As an aside, what would it really take for Amazon to implement in-app purchases if they were forced to? The in-app purchase mechanism is not really scalable to 1,000,000 items (the approximate size of Amazon's eBook collection). Finding the item you want would be really hard. Try browsing Apple's iBookstore, and compare to Amazon.com's user friendly interface, with personalized recommendations, reviews, sample previews, and so on; and you will see what I mean. Amazon would also have to duplicate their library, give Apple access to their user database, and figure out a mechanism to synchronize iOS in-app purchases to non-Apple devices. Moreover, Apple would get 30% of each sale. Clearly, this would be unprofitable and unacceptable to Amazon.
Apple's iBookstore is a pathetic shadow of Amazon's Kindle store. Moreover, in most countries outside the U.S. there are still no books available from the iBookstore (except the free Gutenberg eBooks, which are also available from the Kindle store). The iBooks App may be slightly nicer looking than the Kindle App, but that is about the only positive thing to say. Apple should realize that they never can compete in the eBook business, quietly withdraw the iBookstore, and actively promote the Kindle app as their preferred eBook product on the iOS platform.

Some final musings: Do Amazon really need to be on the iOS platform? Moreover, do Apple need the Kindle app on their iOS devices? Both questions should be answered with a resounding "YES". This is a mutual dependency between bitter rivals (perhaps more so when the Kindle Tablet is launched later this year).

For Apple, the availability of the Kindle App on iOS is a good sales argument. Current users of Amazon's Kindle device would not consider buying an iPad unless their Kindle eBooks could be migrated there. New users, buying an iPad with the intention of reading eBooks, will probably prefer the Kindle App, even if they are not previous Kindle users.
For Amazon, they aim to make the Kindle eBooks available on all relevant platforms. "Buy once, read everywhere" is one of their slogans. Hardware may change, but your eBooks stay with you indefinitely. Moreover, a large percentage of Kindle eBook customers read their eBooks on an iOS device (perhaps they do not even own a Kindle eBook reader). Amazon do not give numbers, but the iOS platform probably create a huge customer base.

[Flitzy]

Quit complaining, this is a GOOD thing.

I don't use the Kindle app to buy things - I use it to read books I've already purchased. How hard is it to open up Safari and go to Amazon.com? I'd much rather do that then have store links embedded into the app, which allows some developers to add in shady links or put in their own affiliate links.

Good for Apple and good for Amazon for complying.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So there is no way to buy a book in app?

Amazon basically said we don't want to give Apple 30% of content purchases so you can still buy content but need to launch the internet outside the app to get the content?

I guess it's not a huge deal since i usually buy kindle items on my compute rnad whispersnyc them. I don't think i've bought a book through the app before.

Still kind of lame.

No, Apple is kind of lame for making them do it. Would you want to give 1/3 of your sales to Apple for no reason what-so-ever??? Really?

Apple is an overly greedy company that now wants money for nothing and is willing to sacrifice convenience and features for the user in order to get more money. Oh wait. They have already done that time and time again. (e.g. No Blu-Ray support to push crappy iTunes. Got rid of removable batteries on Macbooks. Got rid of matte screens and then made a it pay option later. Refused to support USB2 at first to push FW for the kickbacks. Now refuse to support USB3 for similar reasons. Got rid of DVI and refuse to offer HDMI on notebooks in favor of Mini-DP which almost nothing uses, but allows Apple to offer an array of expensive dongles. They drop iOS support for devices over 2 years old and appear to be doing something similar now for OSX proper. I could go on and on.)

Some of you that just love Apple need to wake up to the fact that Apple doesn't love you, only your money. So pay up or get out. :cool:

[talkin73]

I'm impressed by all the anger and frustration here. So Apple is a "bad guy" because the end result is that convenience features for end users are being removed... but, that's about it :confused: It's amazing how people care so passionately about things only when it affects them and how intense their emotions get over something like in-app subscriptions :eek: How inconvenient is it really to buy the subscription through Safari then enter your info in the app?!??! There are many appalling things about capitalism, what everyone is getting riled up about is merely a by-product of that system. If you don't like it, be a good capitalist and vote with your wallet :cool:

IMHO, the real problem is that most people want the world to be their own little "Burger King" and always have it their way :rolleyes: Seriously? People hurting all over this world, probably in our own back yards and THIS, the loss of in-app subscriptions by companies that won't pay the 30% fee, is what gets everyone all bent out of shape? Wow.

These companies aren't removing the link from their app because they are being "bullied" by Apple... it's because they want to continue making money from what Apple has to offer and this is the only way to do that, by following Apple's rules... love 'em or hate 'em, it's their App Store. So, these poor little companies (from the littlest start up to the largest mega-corp) are doing nothing more than what is in their own financial best interest. American capitalism at it's finest :D It sounds so silly to hear people's pretentious talk of "greed"... that is what ALL of this is about... money! While it's not my favorite part of our country, for all our posturing and false nobility, that's what most decision-making boils down to in a capitalist society. Welcome to America :)

Oh yeah, I love emoticons!

[Lennholm]

I'm impressed by all the anger and frustration here. So Apple is a "bad guy" because the end result is that convenience features for end users are being removed... but, that's about it :confused: It's amazing how people care so passionately about things only when it affects them and how intense their emotions get over something like in-app subscriptions :eek: How inconvenient is it really to buy the subscription through Safari then enter your info in the app?!??! There are many appalling things about capitalism, what everyone is getting riled up about is merely a by-product of that system. If you don't like it, be a good capitalist and vote with your wallet :cool:

IMHO, the real problem is that most people want the world to be their own little "Burger King" and always have it their way :rolleyes: Seriously? People hurting all over this world, probably in our own back yards and THIS, the loss of in-app subscriptions by companies that won't pay the 30% fee, is what gets everyone all bent out of shape? Wow.

These companies aren't removing the link from their app because they are being "bullied" by Apple... it's because they want to continue making money from what Apple has to offer and this is the only way to do that, by following Apple's rules... love 'em or hate 'em, it's their App Store. So, these poor little companies (from the littlest start up to the largest mega-corp) are doing nothing more than what is in their own financial best interest. American capitalism at it's finest :D It sounds so silly to hear people's pretentious talk of "greed"... that is what ALL of this is about... money! While it's not my favorite part of our country, for all our posturing and false nobility, that's what most decision-making boils down to in a capitalist society. Welcome to America :)

Oh yeah, I love emoticons!

From everything I've heard, Apple is supposed to be the company that makes everything much easier and more convenient for their users compared to every on else, not the other way around.
Apple's perceived customer friendliness is their appeal.

[InfernoShade]

Exactly what I said, if you sell it on Android Market. You have said and no, Android doesn't take a cut, Google Android Market takes anything but you can sell or distribute you app by other means and not taking anything

I'am also an iOS and Android developer so stop saying I don't know nothing and get your facts right because half the time you say wrong things.

This is exactly the type of circular talking that makes it impossible to have a conversation with you. It's also clear that English in not your first language, which I don't hold against you.

Great that you are a developer. It seems that you should understand the way the business works. And you would think we would agree. But instead you argue in a confusing way against the business statements I make. We start off talking about how you think it's wrong that Apple want's a percentage of sales and then you take it, sideloading, and to the "open" argument. Then you give examples that are not related. Talking with you is a confusing mess. We're talking about a very simple business idea. It's a shame.

[Lennholm]

It's also clear that English in not your first language, which I don't against you.

English first language, don't is?

[marc.kilian]

Forcing this policy globally would be understandable if Apple wanted at least to redirect sales to iBooks. Wait ... iBooks? One may wonder then how Apple wants to have a quasi-empty iBooks store in the country with the highest market penetration. It could be beneficial if product strategy would be decided upon with the whole picture in mind.

[Oletros]

This is exactly the type of circular talking that makes it impossible to have a conversation with you. It's also clear that English in not your first language, which I don't against you.

Great that you are a developer. It seems that you should understand the way the business works. And you would think we would agree. But instead you argue in a confusing way against the business statements I make. We start off talking about how you think it's wrong that Apple want's a percentage of sales and then you take it, sideloading, and to the "open" argument. Then you give examples that are not related. Talking with you is a confusing mess. We're talking about a very simple business idea. It's a shame.

Perhaps you think it simple when it isn't. And no, I wasn't talking about Apple being wrong for wanting a cut of sales.

[InfernoShade]

let me explain some fundamentals:



Hi NilsO,

I commend you for taking the time to attempt to explain things. But sadly you're very one-sided. (You just cut from your post "Lots and lots of commentators, unfortunately most are stupid, uninformed, or brainwashed by Apple.") Your attempt to educate is muddied by your bias against Apple. In your first sentence you accuse people of being "brainwashed by Apple." There are plenty of people that are just as enamored by Google too. So that's an unfair statement. This thread was about the business practice of taking a slice of sales, involving Apple and Amazon but if you want to go beyond that fine.

Also a lot of your post is editorial and subjective and doesn't help to clear up issues. For example, " the App store is a good concept, but also a way for Apple to abuse their power." That is really a meaningless comment. That could also be said for any store, be it the Andriod Market, BB Store, MS store, or the Xbox Marketplace. Putting statements in like that are just there to incite people. They don't help the discussion. And a number of things you fault Apple for, are also practiced by others, yet you don't mention that.

FYI I work on both iOS and Android platforms and am all for competition. And in my personal life I own, PCs, Macs, iPhones, Kindles, Xboxs, etc. I use whatever works best for me in any situation.

Here are my comments to a few of your comments:

• Open vs closed is mostly perception and buzz:
I agree there are technical differences. But a lot of it is only shades. Certainly Android has the ability to sideload apps, which iOS can't. And there are a couple Andriod stores to choose from. Do you get Angry Birds from the Android Market or Amazon? Sure there's more competition, but the market will dictate prices in the AppStore just as the does in the AndriodMarket and other places. Highly technical people might make their own apps and load them, but the average Joe won't use sideloading in this way. In iOS there is sideloading for businesses. You can make your own apps and create your own custom store and load them on all your company's devices. Also making your own webapps is really another form of sideloading. Yes there are differences, but wouldn't say iOS is completely closed. The biggest difference is the stores - multiple Android stores vs one App Store.

• There really is no "open":
In the big picture, all platforms are walled in by the Carriers. Google made a public joint statement with Verizon. This basically states that Verizon can decide that is legal for your phone. This was the end of the full "open." Ultimately all platforms have to answer to the carriers. They can and will block what they choose be it iOS, Andriod, BB, MS, etc. Factor in data plans, data caps, and throttling and you see we are pretty equally trapped. And it's only going to get tighter.

• Getting a percent of sales is a standard business practice:
It should seem obvious, but many people still don't get this. Apple, Google, RIM, MS, etc, all take a percent of sales from their stores. FYI both Apple/iOS and Google/Android take 30% from each sale. This is accepted by everyone, as it is also standard practice in other industries (banking, retail, etc). Sure the percent may change but in the simplest form, if you sell a product in someones store you're expected to give them a slice. I am SO tired of people saying it's not fair. If you disagree, whatever, it is what it is. But arguing this is unfair is just ignorance.

• The in-app sales or subscriptions issue:
If you disagree with this fine. But again, you're still selling products thru my store, I get a slice. You can argue this all you want. All platforms will have to deal with this. Apple changed some of it's policies, which is good. Each platform may come up with new ways to handle it, but I'm sure all the platforms will want to make a slice of these transactions too. So don't just single out Apple, look at the platforms.

•*We don't own any of our devices,
It's not just Apple. The TOS for all phones are made my the creators in conjunction with the carriers. So NONE of us own our phones. It's not just Apple. Also, as we all know from the SONY PS3 issues, we don't own other devices in our home like our gaming systems. I completely disagree with this, but it's NOT just Apple/iPhone. EVERYONE is trying to stop us from owning our belongings.

•*Everyone censors
Android/Google (also RIM, and BB) censors things like porn, invasive apps, etc. just like Apple. If your worried about censorship, worry about it as a whole, not just because of Apple. Again, the Carriers block things too. Not to mention that net neutrality is going to be wiped out. Again, worry about censorship in the big picture.

• Developing for ANY platforms has strict policies
Developing for iOS is no more strict than developing for any other platform or operating system. (They all have censorship like I mentioned above.) There are tons of technical restrictions. And if you are a serious developer you're going to follow them all. Just like developing for example Xbox, or any other operating system. And if you develop an app, be it for iOS, Andriod, BB, etc, that messes up the experience, it'll be pulled. Also if iOS is more strict why does it have crappy apps just like Android? The ALL have the same strictness on the technical, financial, and subject matter.

• The Kindle only supports one format. That's as "closed" system, just like iOS. (Sure there are hacks, but they are not official.) So you slam Apple but not Amazon? You didn't really share a balanced point of view.

•*You state that iOS was "unprofitable for many content providers" so they . I haven't seen that. Can you share a source? MacRumors (and tons of other sites) has post many positive numbers - like the recent fact that Apple paid out $2billion to devs. And since publishers (like the NYT) all choose to keep their apps in iOS, it seems as it's defiantly worth it. You seem to agree with this. Again, it's not just Apple but all other platforms will have the same issue. Apple is just the first guinea pig.

So in a nutshell, you touch upon important topics, but put most of them thru an anti-Apple filter. Sure Apple has had a lot of growing pains. But ALL the platforms have the same issues. They may each end up dealing with them differently but right now, they are all pretty similar.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

The amount if critical logic failure in this thread is amazing.

You're so right. It is amazing. I really would like to have a good conversation with people, but when we can't even agree or understand the basics it's pretty much impossible.

I'd like to think if we were able to have a good discussion on a topic, maybe the community and even the industry could benefit.

It's my nature to want to help people understand, and maybe learn something myself. But I have to stop. I'm getting to point where I'm pretty sure valuable members of the tech community don't read or participate on this site or any of the others I read.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Stop the ignorance



Marksman, your posts say it all:


"It seems like some people here are being purposefully ignorant."

"You might learn about that in business 301."

"Stop the ignorance."


It's impossible to get through to these people. I'm giving up on these forums.

[charlituna]

So there is no way to buy a book in app?

Not at the moment. However I do believe the requirement to have one, that goes through Apple, is still there. Removing the links/embedded websites, is just a way to show good faith so the apps won't be removed from the store all together.


Bravo!! With Kindle, that's four (WSJ, Kobo and Nook)!

And will you be saying Bravo when the next update includes the required IAP through Apple with the required 30% cut etc.

No you will probably be accusing said companies of bending over so Apple can stick it, well you know where.

The real "Bravo" would be if said companies pulled their apps over the rules. Thus refusing to play by Apple's games. Then again they should have pulled them back in Feb when the rule was announced.



The "rent" is the 99$/year developer fees and the 30% of the app price itself.

Sounds like every mall in the US.

Yep that's right, all those companies get a base rent AND sales share from the stores in their shopping centers. It's the way the business is played.

Oh and you know all those book stores etc when newspapers and magazines. They get a cut of the sales. They don't just put that stuff up there at cost. That $5 magazine you buy cost the store perhaps only $4 to have on the shelf. And then there's the distributor, who gets his $1-2 per copy to be the middle man. Fact is that the publishers don't make a penny off in store sales. They do it as a way to try to lure you into subscribing so they can make money off the advertisers. Or rather more money because they can get demo info, which the advertisers want.

What Apple is doing isn't really that different than the brick and mortar stores and their practices for the last several decades




What Books does Apple have ? They aren't a publisher, they're just a 3rd party reseller.

Amazon is just a 3rd party reseller also.

[divinox]

Happy now Apple? So much for ease of use. This is pathetic. :rolleyes:

Indeed. They got too greedy. No wonder that the talks of Apps just being a first-step, a temporary solution. Good for us consumers though. I really look forward to the emergence of HTML5 solutions. They're bound to get a great boost when W8 comes out.

Since there have been over 200 million iOS devices sold, Amazon (and others) have the potential to reach a far greater audience. This is all possible because of the platform that Apple built. Why then, should Amazon be allowed to profit on this platform without paying "rent"?

Apple profits from just having them present on the platform. The smart phone industry have always priced the consumers, not the producers. Now Apple wants to tap both sources (more than they have), and the producers are not having it (for good reasons). If it was 1%, sure. 30%, what a joke.

Think of it like free advertising. Amazon uses the iOS platform to make more money, while Apple gets no compensation for putting together the platform and hence establishing the userbase in the first place.

Skewed pricing is as common as ketchup on burgers when it comes to multi-sided platforms. Second, as stated above Apple benefits from just having them on board. If it werent for the producers, there would be no consumers (the paying party at the moment).

Think of it as a singles club (or any club, as most clubbers are single and indeed looking). Girls attract boys. Boys are willing to spend money. By letting girls in for free, and possibly even subsidizing their drinks, the club can attract more men, and men spend money. Women = magnets = profit!

[KnightWRX]

Amazon is just a 3rd party reseller also.

Yes, and I'm sure they'd be happy to sell Apple's books for them if Apple published any books at all. So we're agreeing here, the fact that Amazon does not sell Apple books on the Kindle store is because Apple doesn't publish books, not because Amazon doesn't want to.

[divinox]

It doesn't make financial sense for Apple to provide a platform just so that other companies can make profits on their user base free of charge. After all, I can't take my lemonade stand inside a shopping mall and make profit from the customer traffic without paying rent.

Yes it does. The beauty of multi-sided platforms is that it is enough to just price one side. We see it everywhere from computers, to dating-hotlines, to clubs, to malls, to what-ever. Obviously it works, and obviously it makes financial sense since its the dominant model out there at the moment.

p.s., you can enter the Mall without paying entrance fee. with your reasoning that makes 0 financial sense for Mallpple.

[bsolar]

What are you talking about? Amazon can't do it because their business model does not allow for it.
That's exactly my point. It's not Amazon's job to change business model to make Apple's IAP work. To be more clear, if Apple hopes that, they are delusional.

Amazon will be back at some point. They can not afford not to be.
Apple already showed its weakness backing off from the original policy. They didn't kick the Kindle App off the store and wait for Amazon to come back with a compliant IAP version, they changed their own policy instead.

Failing at what? Amazon is the one who is losing business not Apple. In fact Apple is probably making more as people just go buy the same products on iBooks. Hundreds of millions of people have iOS devices and millions of people have Kindles.
Failing at making third parties adopt IAP en masse. Or you consider a service successful when third parties actually cripple their own applications to *avoid* using it? About who is losing customers, you just have to check the majority of reactions in these discussions to see who is risking a chunk of customers.

...
There is competition. For people who want a crappy ecosystem they can buy an android device. Why should Apple allow second-tier app stores into the iOS environment? How would that benefit me as the consumer? Would I be able to put porn on my phone? Oh boy.
I think you are missing some points about this and most of the arguments about the different stores. I agree that Apple's App Store is better, but this doesn't mean it's perfect. I respect Apple's decision to have strict control on what is available in their store, but I would like to be able to run whatever *I* like on my device. This doesn't mean I see Android as superior, I see it superior in this particular aspect and I doubt Apple wouldn't be able to make it's App Store coexist with third party software sources. Most people would stick with the official one and who actually is interested would have other options.

Plus you may want to sign up for remedial business school. No business wants competition. They deal with it, they manage it. If you tell them it does not have to be there, nobody is going to complain. Where did you learn about business?
You may want to re-read my sentence before offering advice. As I wrote, no company likes competition, it's obvious they would like very much not to have any competitor. But even if they hate it, competition is good for them (and for the customers too).

I agree that iOS is better than Android and that Apple did most things right. Their success is pretty telling of that. Still I don't like some of the shortcomings of Apple's model. I don't think I will go to Android because of these shortcomings, but if Android improves and Apple's shortcomings stay, who knows?

[JediZenMaster]

No, Apple is kind of lame for making them do it. Would you want to give 1/3 of your sales to Apple for no reason what-so-ever??? Really?
They drop iOS support for devices over 2 years old and appear to be doing something similar now for OSX proper.

You are really digging for something aren't you? There is no other mobile OS that providers official updates for 2 years after a device has been released. So i would say this is a good thing :). Looks like in your rant against apple you actually pointed out something good they are doing.

[JediZenMaster]

You see, you almost defined what I consider an iRobot.
---------

I'll never buy a book in the ibookstore. I keep buying from the Kindle store. I still like my ipod in spite of Apple's crappy policy.

Intelligent people get their point across in other ways than name calling but then i suppose that's what certain people in this thread do not have.

[Lennholm]

Marksman, your posts say it all:


"It seems like some people here are being purposefully ignorant."

"You might learn about that in business 301."

"Stop the ignorance."


It's impossible to get through to these people. I'm giving up on these forums.

Get off your high horse

[divinox]

1) Every person who downloads the Kindle iOS app is a customer Apple has given to Amazon. Of course they already have a customer base - some people already owned Kindles or had Kindle apps on their computer. But this app allowed a new way for them to purchase books aka a new revenue source. This also exposed new people to Kindle/Amazon. (If you can't see this, it's because you need to learn business. No malice intended.)

2) Apple wasn't making money off the Kindle purchases thru that iOS app. If you sell something in my store (be it digital or brick and mortar), shouldn't a get a cut? The business answer is yes. And all parties involved agree. Why because my company is now making money it didn't make before.

3) This is how all business is done. In ALL industries. If one party creates a new revenue stream for another party, the creator gets a cut. Read some business books. Ask some business people. Learn about it. It's very interesting.

Ack, Direct got me started!

1) Likewise Amazon is a content provider for the Apple, allowing Apple to capitalize on third party content and exposing Apple products to new people.

2) If a foxy lady (or a celebrity for that matter) drinks something at my pub, should i always (business-wise) charge her (or him) for the drink? The answer, quite simply, is No. Why because my company is now (potentially) making money it didn't make before.

3) Multisided platforms are different though, and are in general characterized by skewed pricing schemes.

FYI: Im a phd, specialized on (software-based multi-sided) platforms. As such, i have read my fair share of literature pertaining to platforms, both on the academic and business side of things. I do believe that i, granted my area of expertise, know more than a few things regarding these matters.

p.s. of course it would be stupid to argue that Amazon benefits nothing from being on the ios platform. however, it would be equally stupid to argue the reverse. thus, the question is not "who benefits from who", but "who benefits the most from the other partner (and has a significant enough say in the matter).

Cheers!

[divinox]

Windows don't have an app store yet.

no, but they have a platform, which alllows Apple to make money.

p.s., change "they" to Apple, and replace Apple with Amazon. same scenario, same conclusion.

[divinox]

Well you can't say that Apples policy is working out when content providers are circumventing the whole thing by not offering in-app subscriptions at all, they simply don't think it's worth 30% and now Apple gets nothing and things are becoming complicated for customers.
If Apple had settled on a reasonable fee, like 5%, I'm sure most content providers think it would be fair and worth it.

Indeed, and after all it is we - the consumers - that end up paying. For me 30% on .99 is quite fine, i dont really care about those 33 cents. In other words, i find it worth while to pay apple .33 to get the App in an easy fashion. Now make that App a usd 99 subscription or a book, and ill be damned before i pay apple usd 33 to do so. Especially if i could save usd 33 by buying it directly from the vendor just clicking a few times with my finger.

In the end, as noted by several others, the only thing that will come out of this is a worse experience for us users. This can never be good for Apple, as it is us that they primarily make their money out of, not the developers and content providers.

[divinox]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)



If Microsoft had anything to do with the delivery and installation of the iTunes app you might have a point.

The amount if critical logic failure in this thread is amazing.

If you install iTunes on a Windows pc MSFT has - everything - to do with the installation of the app(lication) in question. Just like Apps on your beloved iphone in other words. (If you also used that very pc to locate and download the app in question, then MSFT has everything to do with that aswell).

[divinox]

Well, no, they can't. If the content providers offer a link to their site for direct purchases, Apple demands that they also sell the content via iTunes in-app purchase AND that the iTunes price is no higher than the direct sales price.
The 30% is certainly a problem. Access to the customer information is an additional issue (and it also limits the content providers' business models, e.g. if they want to sell bundles like paper + digital newspaper subscriptions).

Wow. Talk about Crapple... err crippling businesses.

[divinox]

Next thing you know Apple will want 30% for in-Safari purchases made on iOS device. Why not?

Nah, they'll invent the iNternet, and charge everyone 30% on everything, while at the same time keeping a tight control of what you (and who) can do. Ah, freedom at last!

The internet as we know it will of course be forbidden area for us, using arguments of user-satisfaction and user-experience. After all, we all know that the world-wide web is a scary place. Even the name sends chills down my spine... Brrr, spiders!

[FranksWildYears]

Ridiculous, I can't see how anything defending them on this one. Just imagine if MS said, for every online purchase made through IE on WindowsI have to get a 30 % cut, because you know, billions are using my platform and you would have no way of reaching these customers if it weren't for me. I would imagine I wouldn't read about people defending MS on that one...........same thing!!!

Secpnd worst example of all-time, behind the one stating "what if Microsoft charged for everything bought in Windows" earlier in the thread. Windows, like iOS, is the platform. iOS is closed, yet Apple still allows this content to be purchased via its web-browser.

A PROPER comparison would be to ask whether Microsoft allow publishers to sell free of charge on its Games For Windows store or even better, on the Xbox 360's Xbox Live Arcade / Games On Demand service. You think they'd let developers charge for content which doesn't go through their store on Xbox?! Hahaha aha aha....ha..ha!

[jakeOSX]

Apple has every right to do what it wants with its platform; it seems perfectly reasonable to me for them to want to get in on the action from apps that are taking advantage of the platform's userbase (meaning, apps like Kindle that direct the user to the Kindle Store, in which case Apple gets nothing, despite providing Amazon with the customer in the first place via the iOS device).

Honestly, the way some of you talk, if you don't like what Apple's doing with iOS in regards to content and 30% cuts, why not just ditch them entirely the next time around and spare yourselves the frustration?

This is an inconvenience, sure, but if you look at it from Apple's point of view, it's only fair. And if Amazon really was upset by this change, they could've pulled out of the App Store. But they didn't, because they're still going to be making mad money.

The App Store isn't a charity, folks.

/rant


i know i am coming way late to the party here, but just wanted to offer a counter to this.

i do not believe this is fair, from Apple's or anyone's point of view. Let me explain:

it is one thing to 'publish' a book through kindle or ibooks or nook and have either of those three companies take a cut of the profits. They are hosting the book, paying for server space, bandwidth and the processing of the credit card.

now look at how the kindle (and nook) apps work through the iphone. Apple does not pay for bandwidth, server space or processing of the credit card when i buy a kindle book. All of that is on Amazon's side. the only interaction Apple has is that I am trying to do this on my iPhone.

if anyone had an argument to be in on this, it should be AT&T/Verizon since I am using their network-- but I already pay for bandwidth.

in the end, it makes no sense for Amazon to be forced to pay Apple 30% to purchase content that Apple isn't providing. The Kindle App isn't costing Apple anything. Apple does not pay a fee when I download something on my iPhone (from the internet, yes there is bandwidth costs from the App Store itself, but that was a decision Apple made, not Amazon). I pay for the bandwidth, the mobile service or the WiFi. I paid for the book on Amazon.

In the end, it is an arbitrary imposition on the App store. Again, if the content is being fed through Apple's servers, using their $ processing, then by all means, charge away. But making it mandatory to use for a third party? a bit much.

And as for the "right to do with its platform" non-sense. Would you say the same if they did this on the Mac? Say you want to buy something through your Mac. You go to JoesAwesomeBikeParts.com and go to pic out something, you get to the end and it says "i'm sorry, you have a Macintosh, as we are not a part of the Apple Purchasing program you cannot buy through our online store."

It is their platform, why not? they could prevent Steam from selling games, or charge %30 more for WOW since it is a subscription. Just because the iPhone is a phone doesn't mean it should be 'special'. it is still MY phone. I paid (and still pay) for it. a restriction like this on App developers does not help the consumer.

/rant

tl,dr: i disagree

[FranksWildYears]

i know i am coming way late to the party here, but just wanted to offer a counter to this.

i do not believe this is fair, from Apple's or anyone's point of view. Let me explain:

it is one thing to 'publish' a book through kindle or ibooks or nook and have either of those three companies take a cut of the profits. They are hosting the book, paying for server space, bandwidth and the processing of the credit card.

now look at how the kindle (and nook) apps work through the iphone. Apple does not pay for bandwidth, server space or processing of the credit card when i buy a kindle book. All of that is on Amazon's side. the only interaction Apple has is that I am trying to do this on my iPhone.

if anyone had an argument to be in on this, it should be AT&T/Verizon since I am using their network-- but I already pay for bandwidth.

in the end, it makes no sense for Amazon to be forced to pay Apple 30% to purchase content that Apple isn't providing. The Kindle App isn't costing Apple anything. Apple does not pay a fee when I download something on my iPhone (from the internet, yes there is bandwidth costs from the App Store itself, but that was a decision Apple made, not Amazon). I pay for the bandwidth, the mobile service or the WiFi. I paid for the book on Amazon.

In the end, it is an arbitrary imposition on the App store. Again, if the content is being fed through Apple's servers, using their $ processing, then by all means, charge away. But making it mandatory to use for a third party? a bit much.

And as for the "right to do with its platform" non-sense. Would you say the same if they did this on the Mac? Say you want to buy something through your Mac. You go to JoesAwesomeBikeParts.com and go to pic out something, you get to the end and it says "i'm sorry, you have a Macintosh, as we are not a part of the Apple Purchasing program you cannot buy through our online store."

It is their platform, why not? they could prevent Steam from selling games, or charge %30 more for WOW since it is a subscription. Just because the iPhone is a phone doesn't mean it should be 'special'. it is still MY phone. I paid (and still pay) for it. a restriction like this on App developers does not help the consumer.

/rant

tl,dr: i disagree

Again, it's a faulty argument. You can still get the subscriptions / books through the iPad's web browser. You mention Steam...who gets a cut on the software there? Valve. Have you ever owned a video game console? The publisher pays a license fee and they're locked down to the point where the only way you'll legally download a game is via the manufacturer's store. They're taking a cut. How about Amazon's built-in Kindle store? Would you feel like it wasn't 'your' Kindle because you go through them when buying a book? How about Microsoft's Games For Windows store?

[KnightWRX]

Again, it's a faulty argument. You can still get the subscriptions / books through the iPad's web browser. You mention Steam...who gets a cut on the software there? Valve. Have you ever owned a video game console? The publisher pays a license fee and they're locked down to the point where the only way you'll legally download a game is via the manufacturer's store. They're taking a cut. How about Amazon's built-in Kindle store? Would you feel like it wasn't 'your' Kindle because you go through them when buying a book? How about Microsoft's Games For Windows store?

And how are all those examples related to related to forcing IAP on 3rd parties who don't need it, much less even related to IAP at all ? :rolleyes:

IAP/IAS is simply a payment processing service. It does only payment processing. Even the Apple documentation can't be clearer on that :

http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html
Important: In App Purchase only collects payment. You must provide any additional functionality, including unlocking built-in features or downloading content from your own servers.

[FranksWildYears]

And how are all those examples related to related to forcing IAP on 3rd parties who don't need it, much less even related to IAP at all ? :rolleyes:

IAP/IAS is simply a payment processing service. It does only payment processing. Even the Apple documentation can't be clearer on that :

http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html

But it's not being forced in many cases. It can still be purchased via the web browser. The examples are pertinent, because they are methods of purchase where the vendor takes a slice. If you don't like it, don't sell through them, yet publishers still do because they're very popular and make them a lot of money.

There are already an increasing number of apps where the initial download is free, yet the only way to buy the full program is via IAP. If Apple said 'yeah, go ahead! Sell it however you want through our store!‘ they'd soon have a massively used App Store where everyone profits but themselves. That's just bad business. They're simply saying "our store, our rules" as do all of my examples. The product can still be sold to whoever wants it, and if Amazon et al suddenly find their sales drop, they'll do the sensible thing and return. If they find that profits from that area of their business increase, they'll do the sensible thing and stay web-based.

It'll be interesting to see what happens going forward.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

This is exactly the type of circular talking that makes it impossible to have a conversation with you. It's also clear that English in not your first language, which I don't hold against you.

Great that you are a developer. It seems that you should understand the way the business works. And you would think we would agree. But instead you argue in a confusing way against the business statements I make. We start off talking about how you think it's wrong that Apple want's a percentage of sales and then you take it, sideloading, and to the "open" argument. Then you give examples that are not related. Talking with you is a confusing mess. We're talking about a very simple business idea. It's a shame.

By "we" there do you mean "we the fanboys"? You certainly don't speak for me, guy. I don't support corporate greed (which is killing my country one outsourced job at a time) or anything that takes options and choices away from the consumer, all in the name of more money for someone that did none of the programming work, but feels they deserve 1/3 of your gross revenue, even if you are running your own store, etc. by not allowing links in your program. When you think about it, they are dictating what you can and cannot put on your own hardware device that you own. And that is downright wrong, speaking as a freedom loving American. Apple's roll should begin and end with the hardware and/or operating system. They should not have a say what you use that hardware for. Does Ford tell a Mustang owner where they can drive their car? Does Sears tell their customers what they can use a hammer on? Does Bic tell their consumers what they can write with one of their pens? Where the hell does it end as time goes on? And people were worried about Microsoft spying on them with Windows? I thought Apple was supposed to be different. But give them some major sales and watch the same damn thing happen all over again. Apparently, something happens with money and power. You want more. And it never turns out to be good in the end.

I know some people don't like to hear it because in their hearts they are just as greedy and self-centered as any corporate CEO out there, but people need to stop putting their own personal desires ahead of the rest of the country and world for that matter. There are extremists out there that would destroy the entire Western way of life for their own personal desires to see us be like them (or dead). Nothing benefits the cause of extremists more than society fighting itself for them. Nothing makes this more clear than the BS going on in the US government right now over debt and political bologna. The few are making trouble for the many.

To me, there's no difference between a CEO, a politician or an organized crime boss when it comes to putting their own personal agendas ahead of society in general. We used to have patriotism. Tell me that in the face of every CEO that sent U.S. jobs to China, every politician that made it easier for them to do it and even get tax breaks in the process. Tell it to every little small business that got shoved out of business by a large corporation like Wal-Mart whose buying power made it impossible for small stores to compete. And whose lives are being made better in the process? The near minimum wage workers with no union protection that displaced all the small business owners? The consumers getting lead-laced toys from China? The call centers where you can't understand what they're saying because they're in a foreign country? Have gas prices gone down from starting wars in the Middle East? Has de-regulation lowered electricity prices? The answer to all of those things is a resounding NO.

So why should people get upset about little things like having to open Safari to buy a book when they could just click on a button before? It's because of what's behind that inconvenience. The greed and the bullcrap that puts Apple's interests ahead of its customers every single time. Don't blame Apple. That's just what corporations do. It's their job to make maximum profits at any cost, but I think some people fail to realize just how high that cost is going to be as time goes on and The Corporate States of America (and eventually the world) control literally everything. But don't worry, that just how business works.... :rolleyes:

[KnightWRX]

But it's not being forced in many cases. It can still be purchased via the web browser.

Yes, it is being forced. To the point that Amazon had to remove a link to their website so you could purchase stuff via the web browser.

Apple forced Amazon to remove a link to a website. Because otherwise, it was IAP or get thrown out of the app store.

This is what this story is basically about. Do you even understand the issue we are discussing here ?

[macUser2007]

Apple has every right to do what it wants with its platform; ... blah, bs, blah...

Honestly, the way some of you talk, if you don't like what Apple's doing with iOS in regards to content and 30% cuts, why not just ditch them entirely the next time around and spare yourselves the frustration?...

The App Store isn't a charity, folks.

/rant

LOL, that's what I did, over the Flash thing. Now I am a very happy Android user, with Flash (yes, it runs great) and without any of this BS. I can use any provider I want -- when I travel abroad I just pop in a local SIM, I can tether at airports using the data I already pay for, etc.. Not looking back.

I have also started buying music from cheaper, better bit-rate alternatives to iTunes.

My fear is that the iOS software lock-down will move to the desktop eventually, to complement the hardware lock-downs making their appearance with the new iMacs (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/14/imac_hard_drive_replacement_woes/).

[FranksWildYears]

Yes, it is being forced. To the point that Amazon had to remove a link to their website so you could purchase stuff via the web browser.

Apple forced Amazon to remove a link to a website. Because otherwise, it was IAP or get thrown out of the app store.

This is what this story is basically about. Do you even understand the issue we are discussing here ?

Again, it's Apple's store. You can buy through the web browser, it'll take you an extra 20 seconds, tops. It was a link designed to sell books without giving a cut to the vendor. If I made a trial version of a game, tried to put it on Steam but didn't allow the full version to be bought there and instead included a link to buy it exclusively from my website, it would get thrown off.

I think the cut they want is probably too large, but this is standard practice and really no different to anything ton of other digital content vendors do. The only difference is that Apple allowed it for a while, hence the uproar now that it's changing.

[macUser2007]

...
I think the cut they want is probably too large, but this is standard practice and really no different to anything ton of other digital content vendors do. The only difference is that Apple allowed it for a while, hence the uproar now that it's changing.

No, it's not standard practice. There is not such restrictions to iOS's main competitor, Android.

Plus, Apple has made it so painful to sideload apps in iOS that in practice vendors are locked out of the ability to sell apps outside Apple's store.

As I said above, this is probably what's coming to MacOS, too.

[FranksWildYears]

No, it's not standard practice. There is not such restrictions to iOS's main competitor, Android.

Plus, Apple has made it so painful to sideload apps in iOS that in practice vendors are locked out of the ability to sell apps outside Apple's store.

As I said above, this is probably what's coming to MacOS, too.

Well, there are undoubtedly fewer restrictions on Android, but Google do take a cut - 30% in fact - from in-app purchases made within the Android eco-system. Whether they'll tighten up in future remains to be seen, but at the moment the Android marketplace is comparatively moribund - partly through a relative lack of quality and partly because the store front itself is the worst piece of design ever and doesn't encourage purchases.

It's not a bad OS for all its clunkiness though. I just hope that Google take control so we see something approaching uniform updates in future, not this ridiculous and counterproductive phone by phone, network by network crap. Each phone should have a two year life, yet I still don't have Gingerbread on my HTC Desire, which is pretty crazy.

I would be astonished if this came to Mac OS, and it won't. It won't happen. By the way, the hard drive story being some sort of control to stop people switching it has been debunked by so many people. Come back when you can't change the HDD in a Mac Pro and I'll apologise.

[macsmurf]

Well, there are undoubtedly fewer restrictions on Android, but Google do take a cut - 30% in fact - from in-app purchases made within the Android eco-system.

AFAIK, in-app purchasing isn't forced which is the important difference.

Apple doesn't apply the same restriction to the Mac App Store. The reason is that they can't force people to buy through the store. If the terms become too draconian, developers would just pull their apps. The Mac App Store competes with traditional installation which benefits the consumer.

The Kindle app on the mac still has the web link to the Kindle store. Go figure.

[FranksWildYears]

AFAIK, in-app purchasing isn't forced which is the important difference.

Apple doesn't apply the same restriction to the Mac App Store. The reason is that they can't force people to buy through the store. If the terms become too draconian, developers would just pull their apps. The Mac App Store competes with traditional installation which benefits the consumer.

The Kindle app on the mac still has the web link to the Kindle store. Go figure.

But if the Android Marketplace were an App Store level success, things might well be different. Google have slowly been asserting more control over Android. Not enough, given the farcical fragmentation of updates and sometimes in your face network branding, but the signs are perhaps a bit more positive that they're looking to tighten up the system now, which can only lead to improvement. I do hope that it keeps its array of options though...polish it up a bit rather than suddenly decide that a total iOS clone is the only way. It's nice to have alternatives. :)

iOS on the other hand has always been closed. Like a kind of console / PC hybrid in terms of functionality and access. You can still buy the additional content / sign up for subscriptions outside of the App Store, and that's no different to countless other online vendors. That's my point, really. Like the policy or not, it's a store, and they're the rules.

With regards to the Mac App Store, Apple aren't stupid. They know that they could never, ever get away with lockdown on a stalwart like he Mac, a computer which has been around for decades. Instead, they've decided to focus on making the store the best, most convenient place from which to procure software, which it patently is. I would be horrified if they suddenly stopped you from buying direct via websites. But they won't. It's a different product entirely...a fully fledged personal computer to the iOS consoles.

[macsmurf]

But if the Android Marketplace were an App Store level success, things might well be different. Google have slowly been asserting more control over Android. Not enough, given the farcical fragmentation of updates and sometimes in your face network branding, but the signs are perhaps a bit more positive that they're looking to tighten up the system now, which can only lead to improvement. I do hope that it keeps its array of options though...polish it up a bit rather than suddenly decide that a total iOS clone is the only way. It's nice to have alternatives. :)


I'll be sure to criticize Google if they force app store apps to remove hyperlinks in order to stay in the store. I doubt it'll happen. I don't think Android is a iOS clone but that's a different discussion.

[jakeOSX]

Again, it's a faulty argument. You can still get the subscriptions / books through the iPad's web browser. You mention Steam...who gets a cut on the software there? Valve. Have you ever owned a video game console? The publisher pays a license fee and they're locked down to the point where the only way you'll legally download a game is via the manufacturer's store. They're taking a cut. How about Amazon's built-in Kindle store? Would you feel like it wasn't 'your' Kindle because you go through them when buying a book? How about Microsoft's Games For Windows store?


no, not a faulty argument. think of it from a business standpoint: what is Amazon getting for that 30%?

again, this is for the books purchased through the kindle app, not apps purchased through the App Store.

nothin. they are losing 30% of their sales and getting absolutely nothing for it. in fact, because they have to make it harder to buy stuff, they may be losing sales.

and i read books that i did not buy through amazon on my kindle all the time. in fact most of the books i've read on it came from 3rd party sources. (manybooks.net, it is your best friend if you have a reader... oh and Baen, they rock)

steam may have been a bad example. you are right, they do get a cut of the stuff they sell, i was more thinking of apple getting a cut on top of that. let's just scratch that one from the record...

side note: anyone know if this means that the amazon program will be turned off? it does make it fantastically simple to buy things on your phone... just don't know if the 30% is just for digital goods or any goods purchased through any program (honest question)

[kdarling]

The whole idea of electronic sales is that you've cut out the middlemen (except for credit card companies).

Electronic books are not free. For one thing, the authors are paid by royalties on sales. When Amazon sells an electronic book, the author gets 30-70% depending on the book's price. (Books under $3 get the lowest.)

When Apple wants 30% of an in-reader ebook sale, either Amazon has to pay the author the same sales royalty and eat the difference themselves, or they'll have to give lower royalties. Or raise prices. Basically, it's a disruption.

Reminds me of how long it took Sling Media to put their Slingplayer for sale on the Apple App Store. They were very used to selling it on their own web site (where people normally went to after buying the Slingbox.) They had no reason to suddenly give Apple a huge cut of their product.

[FranksWildYears]

I'll be sure to criticize Google if they force app store apps to remove hyperlinks in order to stay in the store. I doubt it'll happen. I don't think Android is a iOS clone but that's a different discussion.

Neither do I. I meant I hope they polish it in future, rather than totally iOS it. Keep a distinctive flavour. :)

[mkrishnan]

The whole idea of electronic sales is that you've cut out the middlemen (except for credit card companies).

Electronic books are not free. For one thing, the authors are paid by royalties on sales. When Amazon sells an electronic book, the author gets 30-70% depending on the book's price. (Books under $3 get the lowest.)

Certainly there's no reason electronic books should be free -- I think books are among the most valuable products we generate (although some of them are rubbish). On the other hand, with this publisher-set pricing and the way publishers have responded to ebooks, they've time and time again tried to stall or encumber something that clearly offers benefits to consumers of books, who are ultimately the ones who finance their development. The same thing happened / is happening with music and video (for purchase) being sold digitally.

In general, Apple has placed itself in the vanguard camp of wanting to deliver something customers want/like at a price that reasonably takes the medium into consideration (e.g. there's really no good reason it should be cheaper to buy a CD than to buy the same product distributed online). With this 30% pricing, I think they're being as unreasonable as the publishers have been. I'm all in favor of Apple getting a cut for the work they do for their market, but 30% is not reasonable in the case of essentially "taxing" third-party sales of books, magazines, newspapers, etc, that are not being sold directly by Apple. The effect is clearly to stifle the medium, even if that stifling is relatively minor.

(And, as I've said before, this will at some point become an anti-trust issue, and the rules will probably change. It's really just a matter of when, and not if.)

[diamond.g]

With regards to the Mac App Store, Apple aren't stupid. They know that they could never, ever get away with lockdown on a stalwart like he Mac, a computer which has been around for decades. Instead, they've decided to focus on making the store the best, most convenient place from which to procure software, which it patently is. I would be horrified if they suddenly stopped you from buying direct via websites. But they won't. It's a different product entirely...a fully fledged personal computer to the iOS consoles.

I think it would be in Apples best interest to try to lock down the Mac in the same way they do iOS. I say give it 3-5 years. Shoot many here didn't believe Apple would do a Mac App store at all. It could be completely possible that the next OS or the one after will only allow signed software to run, and the software can only be signed by going through the Mac App store.

[Sharkus]

Again, it's Apple's store. You can buy through the web browser, it'll take you an extra 20 seconds, tops. It was a link designed to sell books without giving a cut to the vendor. If I made a trial version of a game, tried to put it on Steam but didn't allow the full version to be bought there and instead included a link to buy it exclusively from my website, it would get thrown off.

I think the cut they want is probably too large, but this is standard practice and really no different to anything ton of other digital content vendors do. The only difference is that Apple allowed it for a while, hence the uproar now that it's changing.

To buy, if you do not have an account, you need to actually go and create an account. Now, have a look at the updated app for Amazon, Nook, Kobo and others and see if you can find any information on how to create an account or where to go to create one. Can't find it? Funny that! The lovely guidline/rule 11.13 in the App Store Guidelines made mention of removing the options to purchase content form within the app, but it is also being used to force developers to remove any mention of their website (you cannot even say "our website" that'll get you rejected) and any information regarding how / where the user can go to create a new account.

Apple is forcing people to use IAP, if you don't, you are not allowed to inform the user in any way, shape, or form, of where your website is, or how to get a new account there. All in the name that it's allowing users to purchase content outside of the app.

The major key points here are that most ebook sellers are vendors and NOT publishers. A massive distinction. When it comes to a book sale made by a publisher then they get 100%, using IAP they would give 30% to Apple, so still have a nice chunk left. When it comes to the vendor, the publisher gets 70% the vendor 30%. Throw in IAP and that 30% is eaten up by what is JUST a credit card processing fee. The vendor still has to manage and store the content being processed, and they are getting 0% for doing so.
Most, if not all of the ebook apps are free, so it's not as if the vendors make money on the sale of an app, and in that case they'd be charged 60% by Apple, 30% for the sale of the app, and 30% if IAP is used.

The other key point is that IAP is not currently set up to cope with a very, very large catalog, and ebook vendors can have, at the very least 50,000 plus items. From what is known, IAP has an upper limit of about 5000 items. Additionally, there is no tool to mass create SKU's, so you'd have to manually add all those items. The pricing structure is fixed, and would not align with publishers prices. You'd need to go to the publisher and ask them to change their prices (they set them, not the vendor) to match the fixed pricing structure of IAP, and I doubt they would do that.
There is also the cost of implementing IAP, and who would really want to implement a system that results in their app still making zero money?

Apple knows exactly what it is doing here. It wants iBooks to be the only ebook app on iOS.

[Illumination]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

As much as I love(d) Apple, this is ridiculous. It won't hurt Amazon in the slightest thankfully. Good for them not paying Apple 30%.

Apple has become very sleazy. I don't like it. This, along with other things, is really making me want to jump ship.

[igs]

I do not understand blind acceptance of such greed. I am quite suspicious that this action might even be illegal on anti competative grounds. What has been said that this is a platform which Apple invites developers to develop on and then cuts them off when they do not get a bigger slice of their success. I find this appaling! Yes, there is a work around (at the moment), a work around that makes their customers experience a little less comfortable but why does the removal of a url link make them feel happy unless it is just a pre-cursor to pushing towards a monopoly in sales from from the platform.

I would remind you quite strongly on the DOJ's response to this kind of behaviour in quite recent cases with MS. I think you can see that the DOJ doesn't quite agree that "somebody has every right to do what they like on their platform" and I agree with them.

No downgrade for me.
After years of um and ah I finally jumped ship to Apple devices because they all work well alone and together and because of the outstanding marketing backed innovation. But I am sick of their arrogance and greed which may be their undoing in the end.

Android / Google is looking better all the time.

[lilo777]

As Steve Jobs would say: Not a big deal. You idiots lived with one button mouse and the windows resizeable from one corner only for decades. You'll be fine with ten extra clicks to buy a book.

[cmaier]

Reminds me of how long it took Sling Media to put their Slingplayer for sale on the Apple App Store. They were very used to selling it on their own web site (where people normally went to after buying the Slingbox.) They had no reason to suddenly give Apple a huge cut of their product.

Heh? Prior to the apps, you used to get the software for free (when you buy the box, you had the right to download the software). It wasn't until iDevices that sling started charging anyone for their software.

[kdarling]

Heh? Prior to the apps, you used to get the software for free (when you buy the box, you had the right to download the software). It wasn't until iDevices that sling started charging anyone for their software.

The Slingplayer software was only free for the desktop. For mobile devices, it was always around $30. (There were trial versions as well, and some boxes on sale might've come with a coupon. Perhaps you had one of those?)

The good news was that you could buy a player license and transfer it as many times as you wished. I started using Slingplayer on one old Windows Mobile phone and upgraded to new phones several times over the years.... and just kept using the same license code. (When you activated the player on the new phone, it registered it with SlingMedia, and the old one stopped working.)

I did have to buy a separate version for a non-touchscreen Windows Mobile phone which had no carrier plan. That's the device I used around the house and yard over WiFi as a handheld TV.

[AppLCII]

Since there have been over 200 million iOS devices sold, Amazon (and others) have the potential to reach a far greater audience. This is all possible because of the platform that Apple built. Why then, should Amazon be allowed to profit on this platform without paying "rent"?

Because Apple don't want their customers to have this experience: "Wow! This is so much easier on Android!" :)

MacSmurf had this right on the first page. Here is my more elaborated take:

If all the 3rd party app developers drop in-app purchasing, effectively boycotting Apple, it will only hurt Apple in the long run. Competitors' devices will offer these features and customers will ultimately "switch". If the folks at Apple are as canny as they believe they are, they will have no choice but to drop the 30% surcharge on in-app purchasing. The more likely scenario will be a smaller cut than the ridiculous 30% they are now charging.

[StickMan451]

I haven't read all of the comments on this latest policy change by Apple, so perhaps I have missed a critical piece of the 'logic' applied but for me it can all be summed up to yet another unnecessary inconvenience laid upon the users by Apple. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and their products; the iPad is truly a revolutionary and game- changing device. But, as with so many other decisions reached by Apple their 'thinking' is arrogant, completly self-serving, and just plain wrong headed. I' m sure that reasonable and defendable points can be produced by any party invested in this discussion but for me, the end user and consumer of the technology, my life just became a little less convenient. Now, when I am shopping for books in my Kindle app on my iPad i can't just press a button and go directly into the store to browse for books, I have to switch screens press a few more buttons and wait. Why?

Apple makes some of the greatest and most innovative products that you can buy today; I salute them for their innovation and their drive to produce and provide us with the neatest and most cool devices and software on the planet, but their arrogance and self-centered thinking is pathetic.

And lets not even go to the FlashPlayer issue....

Apple, wake-up! Don't ruin a great idea with your petty and arrogant policies.

Does anyone that matters at Apple read this stuff?

[KnightWRX]

If the folks at Apple are as canny as they believe they are, they will have no choice but to drop the 30% surcharge on in-app purchasing. The more likely scenario will be a smaller cut than the ridiculous 30% they are now charging.

You were right until this point. Apple won't have to drop the 30% surcharge, but they will have to allow 3rd party IAP systems and payment processors. That's the logical next step, make their own service optional and if not used, a developer doesn't have to cripple its application.

Amazon would be happy to use itself as a payment processor, they already have a huge infrastructure in place for all their wares. Why give up 30% to Apple to implement IAP on Kindle for iOS ? Just treat it as a second rate citizen if that's what Apple wants.

However, if Apple was to again relax the rules, Amazon could implement it through a webapp on their site, the app offering it either via a link to safari or through a UIWebView. Then "It just works! on Android" becomes moot again.

Same for all others. It doesn't matter that Apple's service or a 3rd party one is used, what matters if that the iOS apps have the same level of functionality.

[cherbaree]

Apple uses the premise of apps to sell it phones which it makes money from. The apps are not developed or paid for by apple. The apps are provided either free of charge or we buy them, either way it helps apple to sell its phones which is revenue to apple.

Apple is no longer a little beaten down company and in my opinion is behaving worse than microsoft, they charge like wounded bulls, control what you can and can't put on the phone and now after companies have invested money i.e. amazon, apple wants to squeeze every drop of blood out of them, I realise its business, but we the apple users are getting the raw deal. I didn't buy an apple phone so I would have to go and manually open safari to get a book, this isn't ease of use, I could have done that without apps.

My next phone will not be an apple, I will purchase a phone where I can have any reader program, any app I choose and not be dictated to by apple. My last phone was a Jazz Jam and was a dream for me, I had mobipocket on it and could read any book from any store, ease of use, I loved it. Why is it when microsoft tried similar stuff we went up in arms but apple has being doing this sneakily for some time and they go under the radar. Just remember apple when microsoft did this they became the hackers fantasy, you are setting yourselves up and are on the same path. Ibooks in Australia is pathetic and so expensive I may as well go and buy the paper book, amazon was ease of use and now thats altered. I hate this with a vengeance.

In the end apple users will speak with their money, some android phones are just as good, I am now a very unhappy apple customer, and frankly I speak to many more who feel the same way.:(

[Lochias]

My next phone will not be an apple....

In the end apple users will speak with their money, some android phones are just as good, I am now a very unhappy apple customer, and frankly I speak to many more who feel the same way.:(


Not so many, if you believe the surveys: Nearly all iPhone users replace their iPhone with an iPhone. Fewer than half of Android users replace their Androids with Android.

One recent poll:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/01/74_of_verizon_iphone_buyers_are_waiting_for_apples_next_model.html

[malnar]

In the end apple users will speak with their money, some android phones are just as good, I am now a very unhappy apple customer, and frankly I speak to many more who feel the same way.:(
Ha, no. Drop the iPhone over one app? No. I'll buy a Kindle if I feel strongly enough, but I'm not getting rid of an entire device that I otherwise love, and an ecosystem that works perfectly well otherwise - not to mention all the apps, videos, and music that "just works" with it. No. If I care that much about losing a button that points me to the Kindle store (that I can easily find on the Amazon site) then I'll just buy a Kindle - which I may very well do. Apple IS wrong here, this is a stupid move because things like the Kindle app actually drive people TO their devices, but it won't drive me away. That's just ridiculous.

[bobr1952]

Funny this is still generating comments. I read on my Kindle app every night and frankly have not even noticed anything has changed on the app. Some of us never bought our books through the app in the first place. I prefer to buy them on my computer using the full Amazon site but I could just as easily buy them with the Amazon shopping app if I wanted to. Sure Apple didn't need to do this but I just don't see the big deal. :confused:

[LachiesBrown]

I do not think that this is a big issue. I think kindle links help me sometimes to get their website shortly. and I love Amazon books (http://lachies.onlinefamilyshopping.com/) to read.