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

[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.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

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]

Oh please this is so dumb

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!

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.

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.