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

[MacRumors]

Following reports that The Wall Street Journal and eBook company Kobo have pulled 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 app for iOS.

What's new

- This update removes the Kindle Store button from the app.

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.

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

 

[roadbloc]

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

 

[nwcs]

They could make the app even nicer if they did wireless sync of last read page like iBooks does. Syncing to the furthest page is not very convenient for me. Especially when using technical books or other reference material.

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

I don't know. I don't see it as harder to use. It's just a link button after all. A very minor inconvenience. Not saying I like the policy (I don't) but I don't make it out to be a big deal.

 

[Spoony]

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.

Music (iTunes) I probably buy 80% in app versus on my computer but books is almost alwasy through my computer.

 

[Creator3571]

Apple please make exceptions.

 

[diamond.g]

Is everyone here that has the app, just going to update?

I plan on holding on to the version that I have, with the button...

 

[gibbz]

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.

Music (iTunes) I probably buy 80% in app versus on my computer but books is almost alwasy through my computer.

Could you ever buy them in the app? Wasn't it just a link to their store in the app that launched Safari? I don't understand how removing the link is so terrible, especially with fast app switching

 

[kenypowa]

Thanks Apple. You sure provide excellent "user friendly" features. You don't even get your ridiculous 30% cut.

Just another dickish move... nothing surprising really.

 

[bushido]

stupid really stupid apple, dont be so nitpicking all the time

 

[CylonGlitch]

Could someone subvert the requirement by making the link to an information page. Such as an "about page" in most applications. Thus you click the link and it takes you to the "About" page for the application (that open in Safari); and then from there you can click another link to open the store?

Just a thought.

 

[RaggieSoft]

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's that IAP requirement coming along, Apple?

Seems like more and more apps are removing links than going the IAP route

(granted, it does seem easier - but I don't want a lawsuit in Texas)

 

[rfrankl]

Show Bezos who is boss Steve!!

 

[nwcs]

Is everyone here that has the app, just going to update?

I plan on holding on to the version that I have, with the button...

I'm going to update. It's no big deal for me. I also go to eReaderIQ to find the free/discount books, too, so I'm already in the browser at that point. I've had my kindle for 4 months now and have only purchased through the ipad safari on eReaderIQ or on the computer itself.

 

[gibbz]

Thanks Apple. You sure provide excellent "user friendly" features. You don't even get your ridiculous 30% cut.

Just another dickish move... nothing surprising really.

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"?

 

[CristobalHuet]

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

 

[rikscha]

How dare you! Give your money to Steve and not to anyone else! The iBook store is great.

 

[Oletros]

I don't understand how removing the link is so terrible

I don't understand why is so terrible to keep the link

 

[CristobalHuet]

I don't understand why is so terrible to keep the link

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.

 

[Oletros]

Why then, should Amazon be allowed to profit on this platform without paying "rent"?

Where they were profiting without paying "rent"?

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.

Which free advertising?

What compensation deserves Apple from a Safari purchase? Does it deserve a cut when I buy a theater ticket from Safari browser?

 

[341328]

They should have waited...

They should have waited to see if Apple would have pulled their app from the App Store.

Why make the change before Apple actually enforces it?

Would have gotten Apple bad publicity and then if they remove the app, then Amazon could have made the change and resubmitted.

I for one won't be buying through iBooks. In Australia there isn't any content and I don't like being limited to one brand of hardware devices.

 

[CristobalHuet]

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"?

Completely agreed. Spot on.

 

[mkrishnan]

Apple has every right to do what it wants with its platform

At some point, this is highly likely to become an anti-trust issue. But yes, until then, they can do as they please, within the limits of what customers will tolerate.

As for me, I rarely buy from my iPhone (probably 2/3 of my purchases are from desktop, e.g. at work, and most of the other 1/3 from my Kindle), and if I do, I'm often browsing books in Safari anyways. So for now, I don't really care much. Amazon (and the WSJ and others) are probably going to do fine with it, too.

 

[gibbz]

I don't understand why is so terrible to keep the link

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.

 

[organerito]

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

 

[macsmurf]

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!"