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]

Charging rent? Really?

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?

 

[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 or Kindle store in the market. What thet can not do is distribute the Amazon Appstore within Android Market (which is why it isn't avaiable in the Market).