Jeez. 15 pages for a button 
Apple don't want a competitor taking revenue from iBooks. What a surprise!
Apple don't want a competitor taking revenue from iBooks. What a surprise!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon's 'Kindle' App Updated to Remove Direct Kindle Store Links
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Clarifications
let me explain some fundamentals:
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) 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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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
IMHO, the real problem is that most people want the world to be their own little "Burger King" and always have it their way 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 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!
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 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 IMHO, the real problem is that most people want the world to be their own little "Burger King" and always have it their way
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
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!
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
IMHO, the real problem is that most people want the world to be their own little "Burger King" and always have it their way
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
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.
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.
Last edited:
Half way?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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
Amazon is just a 3rd party reseller also.
Last edited:
Happy now Apple? So much for ease of use. This is pathetic.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).