PDA

View Full Version : Amazon Introduces New 'Login With Amazon' API for iOS and Android




MacRumors
May 29, 2013, 11:05 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/29/amazon-introduces-new-login-with-amazon-api-for-ios-and-android/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/05/NewImage11.pngAmazon has introduced a new 'Login With Amazon (http://login.amazon.com)' API for web, Android and iOS apps, competing with other OAuth services from Google, Facebook, Twitter and others.

The Login With Amazon platform allows iOS developers (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1824961) to integrate Amazon login to their apps, though developers on other platforms can use other Amazon services to facilitate in-app purchasing over Amazon's platform.Today, Amazon launched Login with Amazon, a new service that will enable the over 200 million active Amazon customers to securely and simply login to apps, games, and websites. Login with Amazon allows developers to easily reduce sign-in friction for their customers, leading to higher engagement and order conversion.

[...]

Login with Amazon is available at no charge to developers of apps, games, and websites. The service is easy to integrate, as developers can typically go from registration to launch in a matter of hours. It is based on the OAuth 2.0 authorization framework, allowing developers to leverage a widely-adopted open protocol. For additional details about Login with Amazon, including code samples and the SDKs for Android and iOS, please visit login.amazon.com.rwJCI2lyWMk

Article Link: Amazon Introduces New 'Login With Amazon' API for iOS and Android (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/29/amazon-introduces-new-login-with-amazon-api-for-ios-and-android/)



mw360
May 29, 2013, 11:14 AM
Apple were shrewd to block this kind of thing on iOS. (The purchasing aspect I mean). It could get very grubby out there on Android.

tevion5
May 29, 2013, 11:17 AM
Integration like this is great as long as apple keep a tight control over the quality.

MegamanX
May 29, 2013, 11:29 AM
Apple were shrewd to block this kind of thing on iOS. (The purchasing aspect I mean). It could get very grubby out there on Android.

Apple blocking stuff like this and using things like Amazon to pay for things is already starting to be iOS undoing. Also it is starting to bring fire from regulators.

AbSoluTc
May 29, 2013, 12:04 PM
Finally, an alternative to "sign in with FaceBook" BS. Hate FB. Dropped it over a year ago. Never even really used it when I had it either. Love Amazon.

charlituna
May 29, 2013, 12:24 PM
Finally, an alternative to "sign in with FaceBook" BS. Hate FB. Dropped it over a year ago. Never even really used it when I had it either. Love Amazon.

I prefer a detached universal log in like Disqus. Then I can make an id that doesn't reveal my Facebook, apple id etc to anyone. Last thing I need is someone to dislike my opinion and decide to Mat Honan me. And I made it easier cause I gave them details about where my accounts are

ArtOfWarfare
May 29, 2013, 01:15 PM
Sounds great! I'm in the process of making a social web store right now and was planning on using Amazon accounts for processing payment anyways. Now I can have the amazon account be the only one user's need to pay and leave comments. (There's no need for an iOS app - this is strictly web only.)

Saladinos
May 29, 2013, 02:11 PM
Apple blocking stuff like this and using things like Amazon to pay for things is already starting to be iOS undoing. Also it is starting to bring fire from regulators.

Really? I haven't seen any complaints.

maxosx
May 29, 2013, 02:48 PM
Apple blocking stuff like this and using things like Amazon to pay for things is already starting to be iOS undoing. Also it is starting to bring fire from regulators.

Apple can only "lockup" it's customers for so long, before even the most complacent begin to wonder...

mw360
May 29, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apple can only "lockup" it's customers for so long, before even the most complacent begin to wonder...

See above. Amazon want it so you can't even post a comment on some guy's website without being one of their customers. Ugly.

MegamanX
May 29, 2013, 03:23 PM
Really? I haven't seen any complaints.

Really? Have you seen the hell went on after apple forced all in app stuff to go threw their payment processor, block kindle, block dropbox for a while and so on.

Everyone must give apple a 30% cut for being nothing more than a payment processor.

Porco
May 29, 2013, 05:18 PM
I would never even think of logging in in to some random website with Facebook or Amazon accounts. I find it disturbing how many people seem perfectly happy spraying their personal information around the web for the most trivial of conveniences.

The real issue I have with it is I think a lot of people do it without even understanding the consequences. If you're fine that whichever of these companies you choose to use to identify yourself with will track your every move on the web, that's one thing (namely an informed choice), but I'm not sure how many people really understand that, or are making an informed choice at all.

Saladinos
May 29, 2013, 07:04 PM
Really? Have you seen the hell went on after apple forced all in app stuff to go threw their payment processor, block kindle, block dropbox for a while and so on.

Everyone must give apple a 30% cut for being nothing more than a payment processor.

Yep, payment processors do take a cut. Online as in retail.

I haven't seen any regulatory complaints on the issue.

MegamanX
May 29, 2013, 08:15 PM
Yep, payment processors do take a cut. Online as in retail.

I haven't seen any regulatory complaints on the issue.

I think you missed the point.
Payment processor take less than a 5% cut in most cases (most of the time less than 3%) Apple offering the same service is taking 30% which is a 6 to over a 10 times greater cost.

Saladinos
May 29, 2013, 08:48 PM
I think you missed the point.
Payment processor take less than a 5% cut in most cases (most of the time less than 3%) Apple offering the same service is taking 30% which is a 6 to over a 10 times greater cost.

Yup. Apple provides a lot more for the service than a payment provider does. They provide hosting, they have a human being manually check the app for reliability and malware (which for some apps can be quite a task), etc.

You may not like the absolute rate, but it was correct for Apple to charge the same rate for Apps and IAPs. Apple could always lower the rate, but the important thing is that it's kept level so that 'freemium' Apps don't skirt the system.

Still, you haven't backed up your allegation of regulatory agencies getting involved.

MegamanX
May 29, 2013, 09:22 PM
Yup. Apple provides a lot more for the service than a payment provider does. They provide hosting, they have a human being manually check the app for reliability and malware (which for some apps can be quite a task), etc.

You may not like the absolute rate, but it was correct for Apple to charge the same rate for Apps and IAPs. Apple could always lower the rate, but the important thing is that it's kept level so that 'freemium' Apps don't skirt the system.

Still, you haven't backed up your allegation of regulatory agencies getting involved.

You are confusing the 2. No one is saying anything about the app store. It is the requirement that any payment go threw them. All extra network load and hosting from said services you have to provide all for 70% of the gross compared to 95% of the gross.

Also sorry to say that 99 fee you pay ever year for a dev license covers all of Apple's cost and then some. Hell Apple is making a VERY healthy profit just off that $99 fee.

The "freemium" excuse you and other I see toss around is exactly that. An Excuse and a BS one at that.
The issue is you are required to give apple a massive cut for being nothing more than a payment processor.

If Apple provided other services for the in app purchase stuff when you used it would be one thing but they provide NOTHING more than to take a 30% cut.
But this as been gone over multiple times and it has been showing that you are defending Apple BS screw the dev trick.

So come up with something else. Lets face it APple knows its service sucks and is over priced. But it is not like Apple knows how to play fair.

Saladinos
May 29, 2013, 09:57 PM
You are confusing the 2. No one is saying anything about the app store. It is the requirement that any payment go threw them. All extra network load and hosting from said services you have to provide all for 70% of the gross compared to 95% of the gross.

Also sorry to say that 99 fee you pay ever year for a dev license covers all of Apple's cost and then some. Hell Apple is making a VERY healthy profit just off that $99 fee.

The "freemium" excuse you and other I see toss around is exactly that. An Excuse and a BS one at that.
The issue is you are required to give apple a massive cut for being nothing more than a payment processor.

If Apple provided other services for the in app purchase stuff when you used it would be one thing but they provide NOTHING more than to take a 30% cut.
But this as been gone over multiple times and it has been showing that you are defending Apple BS screw the dev trick.

So come up with something else. Lets face it APple knows its service sucks and is over priced. But it is not like Apple knows how to play fair.

Actually there are a bunch of services that only AppStore apps can access - iCloud and Push Notifications, for example. The 30% rate is standard across the industry; even Google take the same.

As for being the only payment route, again you've shown nothing that indicates that that is illegal or even frowned upon by the Government. Apple is within their rights to build their platform as they want, and iOS' superior e-Commerce results indicate that it's doing no harm to the ecosystem (in fact, simplifying the process by having all Apps use a standard system is likely to encourage more people to spend )

Also, how is the freemium circumvention any sort of excuse? IAPs are making up more and more income for iOS developers and nearly every top-downloaded free App includes them to unlock major functionality. If Apple were to charge only 20% commission for those sales, developers would essentially be lowering their rates by moving to that model. It's right not to encourage one particular business model. Freemium doesn't work for all Apps.

Apple have experience with loopholes; this one was plain as day.

"it's been shown"? Not by you, it hasn't. You make allegations of escalation which you can't back up.

MegamanX
May 29, 2013, 10:23 PM
Actually there are a bunch of services that only AppStore apps can access - iCloud and Push Notifications, for example. The 30% rate is standard across the industry; even Google take the same.

As for being the only payment route, again you've shown nothing that indicates that that is illegal or even frowned upon by the Government. Apple is within their rights to build their platform as they want, and iOS' superior e-Commerce results indicate that it's doing no harm to the ecosystem (in fact, simplifying the process by having all Apps use a standard system is likely to encourage more people to spend )

Also, how is the freemium circumvention any sort of excuse? IAPs are making up more and more income for iOS developers and nearly every top-downloaded free App includes them to unlock major functionality. If Apple were to charge only 20% commission for those sales, developers would essentially be lowering their rates by moving to that model. It's right not to encourage one particular business model. Freemium doesn't work for all Apps.

Apple have experience with loopholes; this one was plain as day.

"it's been shown"? Not by you, it hasn't. You make allegations of escalation which you can't back up.


Again the 30% fee is not the issue. It is the fact that it your ONLY choice. Google you are allowed to use your own payment processor if you want.

astrorider
May 30, 2013, 01:33 AM
If Apple provided other services for the in app purchase stuff when you used it would be one thing but they provide NOTHING more than to take a 30% cut.
Not true. As an example, Apple provides an optional 2GB of hosting (https://developer.apple.com/in-app-purchase/In-App-Purchase-Guidelines.pdf) on Apple's servers for each in-app purchase.

Again the 30% fee is not the issue. It is the fact that it your ONLY choice. Google you are allowed to use your own payment processor if you want.
Again not true. "Developers offering additional content, services or functionality within an application downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play's payment system as the method of payment"
http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html

MegamanX
May 30, 2013, 09:22 AM
Not true. As an example, Apple provides an optional 2GB of hosting (https://developer.apple.com/in-app-purchase/In-App-Purchase-Guidelines.pdf) on Apple's servers for each in-app purchase.


Again not true. "Developers offering additional content, services or functionality within an application downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play's payment system as the method of payment"
http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html

You missed the expections
except:
where payment is primarily for physical goods or services (e.g. buying movie tickets; e.g. buying a publication where the price also includes a hard copy subscription); or
where payment is for digital content or goods that may be consumed outside of the application itself (e.g. buying songs that can be played on other music players)

Apple lacks those 2 much needed exceptions. Apple is ANYTHING that you buy in app.

astrorider
May 30, 2013, 10:49 AM
You missed the expections


Apple lacks those 2 much needed exceptions. Apple is ANYTHING that you buy in app.

Sorry, still not true. Both Apple and Google have exceptions to that rule. As with Google, you can't use Apple's in-app purchases to buy physical goods or services. That's just not what in-app purchases are for.

Also like Google, with Apple you can use any payment processor you want, but it's more restricted to only purchases made outside your app that are then played inside your app:

"Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video and cloud storage) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the App to purchase the approved content. Apple will only receive a portion of revenues for content purchased inside the App."

I'm not arguing Apple doesn't have more restrictions here, but the situation is clearly different than you realize.

SteveW928
May 30, 2013, 03:10 PM
I prefer a detached universal log in like Disqus.

Me too! I HATE these universal login systems, as IMO, they just TRAIN people for Phishing attacks. Why should I trust the login box on some 3rd party site? I hope (at least) they have designed this so that I can go to Amazon, login, and have that directly apply to any 3rd party site. But, this is because I know how this works... the average user doesn't, and will just login anywhere they see the amazon login thing.