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

[divinox]

Next thing you know Apple will want 30% for in-Safari purchases made on iOS device. Why not?

Nah, they'll invent the iNternet, and charge everyone 30% on everything, while at the same time keeping a tight control of what you (and who) can do. Ah, freedom at last!

The internet as we know it will of course be forbidden area for us, using arguments of user-satisfaction and user-experience. After all, we all know that the world-wide web is a scary place. Even the name sends chills down my spine... Brrr, spiders!

 

[FranksWildYears]

Ridiculous, I can't see how anything defending them on this one. Just imagine if MS said, for every online purchase made through IE on WindowsI have to get a 30 % cut, because you know, billions are using my platform and you would have no way of reaching these customers if it weren't for me. I would imagine I wouldn't read about people defending MS on that one...........same thing!!!

Secpnd worst example of all-time, behind the one stating "what if Microsoft charged for everything bought in Windows" earlier in the thread. Windows, like iOS, is the platform. iOS is closed, yet Apple still allows this content to be purchased via its web-browser.

A PROPER comparison would be to ask whether Microsoft allow publishers to sell free of charge on its Games For Windows store or even better, on the Xbox 360's Xbox Live Arcade / Games On Demand service. You think they'd let developers charge for content which doesn't go through their store on Xbox?! Hahaha aha aha....ha..ha!

 

[jakeOSX]

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

i know i am coming way late to the party here, but just wanted to offer a counter to this.

i do not believe this is fair, from Apple's or anyone's point of view. Let me explain:

it is one thing to 'publish' a book through kindle or ibooks or nook and have either of those three companies take a cut of the profits. They are hosting the book, paying for server space, bandwidth and the processing of the credit card.

now look at how the kindle (and nook) apps work through the iphone. Apple does not pay for bandwidth, server space or processing of the credit card when i buy a kindle book. All of that is on Amazon's side. the only interaction Apple has is that I am trying to do this on my iPhone.

if anyone had an argument to be in on this, it should be AT&T/Verizon since I am using their network-- but I already pay for bandwidth.

in the end, it makes no sense for Amazon to be forced to pay Apple 30% to purchase content that Apple isn't providing. The Kindle App isn't costing Apple anything. Apple does not pay a fee when I download something on my iPhone (from the internet, yes there is bandwidth costs from the App Store itself, but that was a decision Apple made, not Amazon). I pay for the bandwidth, the mobile service or the WiFi. I paid for the book on Amazon.

In the end, it is an arbitrary imposition on the App store. Again, if the content is being fed through Apple's servers, using their $ processing, then by all means, charge away. But making it mandatory to use for a third party? a bit much.

And as for the "right to do with its platform" non-sense. Would you say the same if they did this on the Mac? Say you want to buy something through your Mac. You go to JoesAwesomeBikeParts.com and go to pic out something, you get to the end and it says "i'm sorry, you have a Macintosh, as we are not a part of the Apple Purchasing program you cannot buy through our online store."

It is their platform, why not? they could prevent Steam from selling games, or charge %30 more for WOW since it is a subscription. Just because the iPhone is a phone doesn't mean it should be 'special'. it is still MY phone. I paid (and still pay) for it. a restriction like this on App developers does not help the consumer.

/rant

tl,dr: i disagree

 

[FranksWildYears]

i know i am coming way late to the party here, but just wanted to offer a counter to this.

i do not believe this is fair, from Apple's or anyone's point of view. Let me explain:

it is one thing to 'publish' a book through kindle or ibooks or nook and have either of those three companies take a cut of the profits. They are hosting the book, paying for server space, bandwidth and the processing of the credit card.

now look at how the kindle (and nook) apps work through the iphone. Apple does not pay for bandwidth, server space or processing of the credit card when i buy a kindle book. All of that is on Amazon's side. the only interaction Apple has is that I am trying to do this on my iPhone.

if anyone had an argument to be in on this, it should be AT&T/Verizon since I am using their network-- but I already pay for bandwidth.

in the end, it makes no sense for Amazon to be forced to pay Apple 30% to purchase content that Apple isn't providing. The Kindle App isn't costing Apple anything. Apple does not pay a fee when I download something on my iPhone (from the internet, yes there is bandwidth costs from the App Store itself, but that was a decision Apple made, not Amazon). I pay for the bandwidth, the mobile service or the WiFi. I paid for the book on Amazon.

In the end, it is an arbitrary imposition on the App store. Again, if the content is being fed through Apple's servers, using their $ processing, then by all means, charge away. But making it mandatory to use for a third party? a bit much.

And as for the "right to do with its platform" non-sense. Would you say the same if they did this on the Mac? Say you want to buy something through your Mac. You go to JoesAwesomeBikeParts.com and go to pic out something, you get to the end and it says "i'm sorry, you have a Macintosh, as we are not a part of the Apple Purchasing program you cannot buy through our online store."

It is their platform, why not? they could prevent Steam from selling games, or charge %30 more for WOW since it is a subscription. Just because the iPhone is a phone doesn't mean it should be 'special'. it is still MY phone. I paid (and still pay) for it. a restriction like this on App developers does not help the consumer.

/rant

tl,dr: i disagree

Again, it's a faulty argument. You can still get the subscriptions / books through the iPad's web browser. You mention Steam...who gets a cut on the software there? Valve. Have you ever owned a video game console? The publisher pays a license fee and they're locked down to the point where the only way you'll legally download a game is via the manufacturer's store. They're taking a cut. How about Amazon's built-in Kindle store? Would you feel like it wasn't 'your' Kindle because you go through them when buying a book? How about Microsoft's Games For Windows store?

 

[KnightWRX]

Again, it's a faulty argument. You can still get the subscriptions / books through the iPad's web browser. You mention Steam...who gets a cut on the software there? Valve. Have you ever owned a video game console? The publisher pays a license fee and they're locked down to the point where the only way you'll legally download a game is via the manufacturer's store. They're taking a cut. How about Amazon's built-in Kindle store? Would you feel like it wasn't 'your' Kindle because you go through them when buying a book? How about Microsoft's Games For Windows store?

And how are all those examples related to related to forcing IAP on 3rd parties who don't need it, much less even related to IAP at all ?

IAP/IAS is simply a payment processing service. It does only payment processing. Even the Apple documentation can't be clearer on that :

http://developer.apple.com/library/.../StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html

Important: In App Purchase only collects payment. You must provide any additional functionality, including unlocking built-in features or downloading content from your own servers.

 

[FranksWildYears]

And how are all those examples related to related to forcing IAP on 3rd parties who don't need it, much less even related to IAP at all ?

IAP/IAS is simply a payment processing service. It does only payment processing. Even the Apple documentation can't be clearer on that :

http://developer.apple.com/library/.../StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html

But it's not being forced in many cases. It can still be purchased via the web browser. The examples are pertinent, because they are methods of purchase where the vendor takes a slice. If you don't like it, don't sell through them, yet publishers still do because they're very popular and make them a lot of money.

There are already an increasing number of apps where the initial download is free, yet the only way to buy the full program is via IAP. If Apple said 'yeah, go ahead! Sell it however you want through our store!‘ they'd soon have a massively used App Store where everyone profits but themselves. That's just bad business. They're simply saying "our store, our rules" as do all of my examples. The product can still be sold to whoever wants it, and if Amazon et al suddenly find their sales drop, they'll do the sensible thing and return. If they find that profits from that area of their business increase, they'll do the sensible thing and stay web-based.

It'll be interesting to see what happens going forward.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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.

By "we" there do you mean "we the fanboys"? You certainly don't speak for me, guy. I don't support corporate greed (which is killing my country one outsourced job at a time) or anything that takes options and choices away from the consumer, all in the name of more money for someone that did none of the programming work, but feels they deserve 1/3 of your gross revenue, even if you are running your own store, etc. by not allowing links in your program. When you think about it, they are dictating what you can and cannot put on your own hardware device that you own. And that is downright wrong, speaking as a freedom loving American. Apple's roll should begin and end with the hardware and/or operating system. They should not have a say what you use that hardware for. Does Ford tell a Mustang owner where they can drive their car? Does Sears tell their customers what they can use a hammer on? Does Bic tell their consumers what they can write with one of their pens? Where the hell does it end as time goes on? And people were worried about Microsoft spying on them with Windows? I thought Apple was supposed to be different. But give them some major sales and watch the same damn thing happen all over again. Apparently, something happens with money and power. You want more. And it never turns out to be good in the end.

I know some people don't like to hear it because in their hearts they are just as greedy and self-centered as any corporate CEO out there, but people need to stop putting their own personal desires ahead of the rest of the country and world for that matter. There are extremists out there that would destroy the entire Western way of life for their own personal desires to see us be like them (or dead). Nothing benefits the cause of extremists more than society fighting itself for them. Nothing makes this more clear than the BS going on in the US government right now over debt and political bologna. The few are making trouble for the many.

To me, there's no difference between a CEO, a politician or an organized crime boss when it comes to putting their own personal agendas ahead of society in general. We used to have patriotism. Tell me that in the face of every CEO that sent U.S. jobs to China, every politician that made it easier for them to do it and even get tax breaks in the process. Tell it to every little small business that got shoved out of business by a large corporation like Wal-Mart whose buying power made it impossible for small stores to compete. And whose lives are being made better in the process? The near minimum wage workers with no union protection that displaced all the small business owners? The consumers getting lead-laced toys from China? The call centers where you can't understand what they're saying because they're in a foreign country? Have gas prices gone down from starting wars in the Middle East? Has de-regulation lowered electricity prices? The answer to all of those things is a resounding NO.

So why should people get upset about little things like having to open Safari to buy a book when they could just click on a button before? It's because of what's behind that inconvenience. The greed and the bullcrap that puts Apple's interests ahead of its customers every single time. Don't blame Apple. That's just what corporations do. It's their job to make maximum profits at any cost, but I think some people fail to realize just how high that cost is going to be as time goes on and The Corporate States of America (and eventually the world) control literally everything. But don't worry, that just how business works....

 

[KnightWRX]

But it's not being forced in many cases. It can still be purchased via the web browser.

Yes, it is being forced. To the point that Amazon had to remove a link to their website so you could purchase stuff via the web browser.

Apple forced Amazon to remove a link to a website. Because otherwise, it was IAP or get thrown out of the app store.

This is what this story is basically about. Do you even understand the issue we are discussing here ?

 

[macUser2007]

Apple has every right to do what it wants with its platform; ... blah, bs, blah...

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?...

The App Store isn't a charity, folks.

/rant

LOL, that's what I did, over the Flash thing. Now I am a very happy Android user, with Flash (yes, it runs great) and without any of this BS. I can use any provider I want -- when I travel abroad I just pop in a local SIM, I can tether at airports using the data I already pay for, etc.. Not looking back.

I have also started buying music from cheaper, better bit-rate alternatives to iTunes.

My fear is that the iOS software lock-down will move to the desktop eventually, to complement the hardware lock-downs making their appearance with the new iMacs (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/14/imac_hard_drive_replacement_woes/).

 

[FranksWildYears]

Yes, it is being forced. To the point that Amazon had to remove a link to their website so you could purchase stuff via the web browser.

Apple forced Amazon to remove a link to a website. Because otherwise, it was IAP or get thrown out of the app store.

This is what this story is basically about. Do you even understand the issue we are discussing here ?

Again, it's Apple's store. You can buy through the web browser, it'll take you an extra 20 seconds, tops. It was a link designed to sell books without giving a cut to the vendor. If I made a trial version of a game, tried to put it on Steam but didn't allow the full version to be bought there and instead included a link to buy it exclusively from my website, it would get thrown off.

I think the cut they want is probably too large, but this is standard practice and really no different to anything ton of other digital content vendors do. The only difference is that Apple allowed it for a while, hence the uproar now that it's changing.

 

[macUser2007]

...
I think the cut they want is probably too large, but this is standard practice and really no different to anything ton of other digital content vendors do. The only difference is that Apple allowed it for a while, hence the uproar now that it's changing.

No, it's not standard practice. There is not such restrictions to iOS's main competitor, Android.

Plus, Apple has made it so painful to sideload apps in iOS that in practice vendors are locked out of the ability to sell apps outside Apple's store.

As I said above, this is probably what's coming to MacOS, too.

 

[FranksWildYears]

No, it's not standard practice. There is not such restrictions to iOS's main competitor, Android.

Plus, Apple has made it so painful to sideload apps in iOS that in practice vendors are locked out of the ability to sell apps outside Apple's store.

As I said above, this is probably what's coming to MacOS, too.

Well, there are undoubtedly fewer restrictions on Android, but Google do take a cut - 30% in fact - from in-app purchases made within the Android eco-system. Whether they'll tighten up in future remains to be seen, but at the moment the Android marketplace is comparatively moribund - partly through a relative lack of quality and partly because the store front itself is the worst piece of design ever and doesn't encourage purchases.

It's not a bad OS for all its clunkiness though. I just hope that Google take control so we see something approaching uniform updates in future, not this ridiculous and counterproductive phone by phone, network by network crap. Each phone should have a two year life, yet I still don't have Gingerbread on my HTC Desire, which is pretty crazy.

I would be astonished if this came to Mac OS, and it won't. It won't happen. By the way, the hard drive story being some sort of control to stop people switching it has been debunked by so many people. Come back when you can't change the HDD in a Mac Pro and I'll apologise.

 

[macsmurf]

Well, there are undoubtedly fewer restrictions on Android, but Google do take a cut - 30% in fact - from in-app purchases made within the Android eco-system.

AFAIK, in-app purchasing isn't forced which is the important difference.

Apple doesn't apply the same restriction to the Mac App Store. The reason is that they can't force people to buy through the store. If the terms become too draconian, developers would just pull their apps. The Mac App Store competes with traditional installation which benefits the consumer.

The Kindle app on the mac still has the web link to the Kindle store. Go figure.

 

[FranksWildYears]

AFAIK, in-app purchasing isn't forced which is the important difference.

Apple doesn't apply the same restriction to the Mac App Store. The reason is that they can't force people to buy through the store. If the terms become too draconian, developers would just pull their apps. The Mac App Store competes with traditional installation which benefits the consumer.

The Kindle app on the mac still has the web link to the Kindle store. Go figure.

But if the Android Marketplace were an App Store level success, things might well be different. Google have slowly been asserting more control over Android. Not enough, given the farcical fragmentation of updates and sometimes in your face network branding, but the signs are perhaps a bit more positive that they're looking to tighten up the system now, which can only lead to improvement. I do hope that it keeps its array of options though...polish it up a bit rather than suddenly decide that a total iOS clone is the only way. It's nice to have alternatives.

iOS on the other hand has always been closed. Like a kind of console / PC hybrid in terms of functionality and access. You can still buy the additional content / sign up for subscriptions outside of the App Store, and that's no different to countless other online vendors. That's my point, really. Like the policy or not, it's a store, and they're the rules.

With regards to the Mac App Store, Apple aren't stupid. They know that they could never, ever get away with lockdown on a stalwart like he Mac, a computer which has been around for decades. Instead, they've decided to focus on making the store the best, most convenient place from which to procure software, which it patently is. I would be horrified if they suddenly stopped you from buying direct via websites. But they won't. It's a different product entirely...a fully fledged personal computer to the iOS consoles.

 

[macsmurf]

But if the Android Marketplace were an App Store level success, things might well be different. Google have slowly been asserting more control over Android. Not enough, given the farcical fragmentation of updates and sometimes in your face network branding, but the signs are perhaps a bit more positive that they're looking to tighten up the system now, which can only lead to improvement. I do hope that it keeps its array of options though...polish it up a bit rather than suddenly decide that a total iOS clone is the only way. It's nice to have alternatives.

I'll be sure to criticize Google if they force app store apps to remove hyperlinks in order to stay in the store. I doubt it'll happen. I don't think Android is a iOS clone but that's a different discussion.

 

[jakeOSX]

Again, it's a faulty argument. You can still get the subscriptions / books through the iPad's web browser. You mention Steam...who gets a cut on the software there? Valve. Have you ever owned a video game console? The publisher pays a license fee and they're locked down to the point where the only way you'll legally download a game is via the manufacturer's store. They're taking a cut. How about Amazon's built-in Kindle store? Would you feel like it wasn't 'your' Kindle because you go through them when buying a book? How about Microsoft's Games For Windows store?

no, not a faulty argument. think of it from a business standpoint: what is Amazon getting for that 30%?

again, this is for the books purchased through the kindle app, not apps purchased through the App Store.

nothin. they are losing 30% of their sales and getting absolutely nothing for it. in fact, because they have to make it harder to buy stuff, they may be losing sales.

and i read books that i did not buy through amazon on my kindle all the time. in fact most of the books i've read on it came from 3rd party sources. (manybooks.net, it is your best friend if you have a reader... oh and Baen, they rock)

steam may have been a bad example. you are right, they do get a cut of the stuff they sell, i was more thinking of apple getting a cut on top of that. let's just scratch that one from the record...

side note: anyone know if this means that the amazon program will be turned off? it does make it fantastically simple to buy things on your phone... just don't know if the 30% is just for digital goods or any goods purchased through any program (honest question)

 

[kdarling]

The whole idea of electronic sales is that you've cut out the middlemen (except for credit card companies).

Electronic books are not free. For one thing, the authors are paid by royalties on sales. When Amazon sells an electronic book, the author gets 30-70% depending on the book's price. (Books under $3 get the lowest.)

When Apple wants 30% of an in-reader ebook sale, either Amazon has to pay the author the same sales royalty and eat the difference themselves, or they'll have to give lower royalties. Or raise prices. Basically, it's a disruption.

Reminds me of how long it took Sling Media to put their Slingplayer for sale on the Apple App Store. They were very used to selling it on their own web site (where people normally went to after buying the Slingbox.) They had no reason to suddenly give Apple a huge cut of their product.

 

[FranksWildYears]

I'll be sure to criticize Google if they force app store apps to remove hyperlinks in order to stay in the store. I doubt it'll happen. I don't think Android is a iOS clone but that's a different discussion.

Neither do I. I meant I hope they polish it in future, rather than totally iOS it. Keep a distinctive flavour.

 

[mkrishnan]

The whole idea of electronic sales is that you've cut out the middlemen (except for credit card companies).

Electronic books are not free. For one thing, the authors are paid by royalties on sales. When Amazon sells an electronic book, the author gets 30-70% depending on the book's price. (Books under $3 get the lowest.)

Certainly there's no reason electronic books should be free -- I think books are among the most valuable products we generate (although some of them are rubbish). On the other hand, with this publisher-set pricing and the way publishers have responded to ebooks, they've time and time again tried to stall or encumber something that clearly offers benefits to consumers of books, who are ultimately the ones who finance their development. The same thing happened / is happening with music and video (for purchase) being sold digitally.

In general, Apple has placed itself in the vanguard camp of wanting to deliver something customers want/like at a price that reasonably takes the medium into consideration (e.g. there's really no good reason it should be cheaper to buy a CD than to buy the same product distributed online). With this 30% pricing, I think they're being as unreasonable as the publishers have been. I'm all in favor of Apple getting a cut for the work they do for their market, but 30% is not reasonable in the case of essentially "taxing" third-party sales of books, magazines, newspapers, etc, that are not being sold directly by Apple. The effect is clearly to stifle the medium, even if that stifling is relatively minor.

(And, as I've said before, this will at some point become an anti-trust issue, and the rules will probably change. It's really just a matter of when, and not if.)

 

[diamond.g]

With regards to the Mac App Store, Apple aren't stupid. They know that they could never, ever get away with lockdown on a stalwart like he Mac, a computer which has been around for decades. Instead, they've decided to focus on making the store the best, most convenient place from which to procure software, which it patently is. I would be horrified if they suddenly stopped you from buying direct via websites. But they won't. It's a different product entirely...a fully fledged personal computer to the iOS consoles.

I think it would be in Apples best interest to try to lock down the Mac in the same way they do iOS. I say give it 3-5 years. Shoot many here didn't believe Apple would do a Mac App store at all. It could be completely possible that the next OS or the one after will only allow signed software to run, and the software can only be signed by going through the Mac App store.

 

[Sharkus]

Again, it's Apple's store. You can buy through the web browser, it'll take you an extra 20 seconds, tops. It was a link designed to sell books without giving a cut to the vendor. If I made a trial version of a game, tried to put it on Steam but didn't allow the full version to be bought there and instead included a link to buy it exclusively from my website, it would get thrown off.

I think the cut they want is probably too large, but this is standard practice and really no different to anything ton of other digital content vendors do. The only difference is that Apple allowed it for a while, hence the uproar now that it's changing.

To buy, if you do not have an account, you need to actually go and create an account. Now, have a look at the updated app for Amazon, Nook, Kobo and others and see if you can find any information on how to create an account or where to go to create one. Can't find it? Funny that! The lovely guidline/rule 11.13 in the App Store Guidelines made mention of removing the options to purchase content form within the app, but it is also being used to force developers to remove any mention of their website (you cannot even say "our website" that'll get you rejected) and any information regarding how / where the user can go to create a new account.

Apple is forcing people to use IAP, if you don't, you are not allowed to inform the user in any way, shape, or form, of where your website is, or how to get a new account there. All in the name that it's allowing users to purchase content outside of the app.

The major key points here are that most ebook sellers are vendors and NOT publishers. A massive distinction. When it comes to a book sale made by a publisher then they get 100%, using IAP they would give 30% to Apple, so still have a nice chunk left. When it comes to the vendor, the publisher gets 70% the vendor 30%. Throw in IAP and that 30% is eaten up by what is JUST a credit card processing fee. The vendor still has to manage and store the content being processed, and they are getting 0% for doing so.
Most, if not all of the ebook apps are free, so it's not as if the vendors make money on the sale of an app, and in that case they'd be charged 60% by Apple, 30% for the sale of the app, and 30% if IAP is used.

The other key point is that IAP is not currently set up to cope with a very, very large catalog, and ebook vendors can have, at the very least 50,000 plus items. From what is known, IAP has an upper limit of about 5000 items. Additionally, there is no tool to mass create SKU's, so you'd have to manually add all those items. The pricing structure is fixed, and would not align with publishers prices. You'd need to go to the publisher and ask them to change their prices (they set them, not the vendor) to match the fixed pricing structure of IAP, and I doubt they would do that.
There is also the cost of implementing IAP, and who would really want to implement a system that results in their app still making zero money?

Apple knows exactly what it is doing here. It wants iBooks to be the only ebook app on iOS.

 

[Illumination]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: 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)

As much as I love(d) Apple, this is ridiculous. It won't hurt Amazon in the slightest thankfully. Good for them not paying Apple 30%.

Apple has become very sleazy. I don't like it. This, along with other things, is really making me want to jump ship.

 

[igs]

I do not understand blind acceptance of such greed. I am quite suspicious that this action might even be illegal on anti competative grounds. What has been said that this is a platform which Apple invites developers to develop on and then cuts them off when they do not get a bigger slice of their success. I find this appaling! Yes, there is a work around (at the moment), a work around that makes their customers experience a little less comfortable but why does the removal of a url link make them feel happy unless it is just a pre-cursor to pushing towards a monopoly in sales from from the platform.

I would remind you quite strongly on the DOJ's response to this kind of behaviour in quite recent cases with MS. I think you can see that the DOJ doesn't quite agree that "somebody has every right to do what they like on their platform" and I agree with them.

No downgrade for me.
After years of um and ah I finally jumped ship to Apple devices because they all work well alone and together and because of the outstanding marketing backed innovation. But I am sick of their arrogance and greed which may be their undoing in the end.

Android / Google is looking better all the time.

 

[lilo777]

As Steve Jobs would say: Not a big deal. You idiots lived with one button mouse and the windows resizeable from one corner only for decades. You'll be fine with ten extra clicks to buy a book.

 

[cmaier]

Reminds me of how long it took Sling Media to put their Slingplayer for sale on the Apple App Store. They were very used to selling it on their own web site (where people normally went to after buying the Slingbox.) They had no reason to suddenly give Apple a huge cut of their product.

Heh? Prior to the apps, you used to get the software for free (when you buy the box, you had the right to download the software). It wasn't until iDevices that sling started charging anyone for their software.