Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which free advertising?

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

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?
 
...why not just ditch them entirely the next time around and spare yourselves the frustration? ...


/rant

will do exactly that! After iOS5 being a ripoff of other OS and cydia apps only (no innovations there coming from apple) why not move to android then anyway? The software is advanced enough with 4.0 coming out soon and the devices are on par when it comes to hardware.

The move is just an inconvinience for iOS users, who will eventually reconsider and buy a different brand afterwards. 30% cut is just too much...especially if you think about, that you bought that iPad or iPhone and own it! The ecosystem is the reason why you bought it...and not a platform to make you pay apple even more money. The revenue for iOS hardware is already the highest compared to other devices....
Can´t wait for Amazon´s tablet to show some ecosystem muscles as well ;)
 
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 see it the complete other way, apple should be glad and appreciate that the developers even bother making apps and make the whole iOS experience what it is
 
Are you serious?

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"?

You can't be serious. Apple shouldn't get rent. Microsoft doesn't charge developers on Windows! Apple gets money from hardware sales and they control the iOS. This is enough power and money.

Apple's 30% is like a landlord charging you to breath air in your house that you already pay rent for.
 
Let's low ball a publisher's cut on a book and say it is 50% and then Apple gets 30%...that leaves 20% for Amazon. I guess that's fair since Amazon is only a reseller.

Apple doesn't care about Kindle anyway as Steve Jobs said people don't read books.
 
i see it the complete other way, apple should be glad and appreciate that the developers even bother making apps and make the whole iOS experience what it is

I can see that, for sure, but don't forget Apple has paid out billions to developers. If the platform wasn't worth developing for, then people wouldn't flock to adopt it and, as a result, buy apps.

Do you think Symbian paid out as much money to its developers, despite having something like an App Store (the Ovi Store) and throughly dominating the phone marketplace for years?

If the platform isn't worth a lick of developers' time, then they won't develop for it. Give Apple some credit here too. Developers deserve credit, without a doubt, but Amazon hardly qualifies as a Marco Arment. They sold books before the iPad and iPhone, it's not like Apple has them to thank for iOS becoming as momentously big as it is. :)
 
Man, this sucks.
Hopefully Apple gets a clue and drops these anti-customer restrictions soon.
 
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?

What? Compensated for providing traffic?

You can't be serious. Do you really believe that Apple deserves a cut from every purchase made from safari browser.

And no, a button to a homepage is not free advertising.
 
This has a VERY clear downside, and it’s a shame Apple and Amazon couldn’t come together. I blame neither party more than the other, but this rule has had a bad outcome, plain and simple.

Let’s also remember that this rule has actual advantages too—for us as users: Having all in-app purchases work the same! For security, ease-of-use, and peace of mind that’s good. Is it good enough to be worth putting up with heading to the web for those companies who won’t play along? I don’t know. But it IS a good thing, along with all the bad. Like most controversial calls Apple makes, there’s both a good and a bad side, even though people pretend to see only one or the other.

Now, given that, if purchases are done through Apple’s system, then Apple’s handling the credit card fees, customer service, infrastructure, R&D (for the iTunes back-end), etc.... and should certainly get a cut!

How much of a cut? That’s a negotiation between two companies, and beyond my experience. Still, I can armchair-negotiate and say that 30% sounds high! Because Apple’s handling only the transaction, NOT serving the files. I’d think some lower % would be appropriate in that case.

But Apple certainly CANNOT let their bluff be called too many times. They’ve shown much flexibility in the past, and I’m sure they always will. But if, say, they cave to Amazon now, what happens when the movie labels want to slap some more DRM on us, or something? We users benefit a lot from Apple’s clout with content providers. Hopefully this is just a step in the back-and-forth, leading to some future agreement that works better for all: Apple, Amazon, other companies, and especially us, the content buyers.

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

Agreed. Apple should let their huge, profitable competitors break the rules. Rules are not for everyone! Only for the little guys. They need to send the message that they’ll bow to whatever their competition wants.

What? Compensated for providing traffic?

You can't be serious. Do you really believe that Apple deserves a cut from every purchase made from safari browser.

And no, a button to a homepage is not free advertising.

Providing traffic via our iTunes accounts and credit cards that Apple has on file (and makes incredibly easy/inviting/trusted) is offering Amazon FAR more than just letting people, on their own, view a web page and enter their credentials conventionally. You can’t equate the two.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. I don't see it as harder to use. It's just a link button after all. A very minor inconvenience. Not saying I like the policy (I don't) but I don't make it out to be a big deal.

I have to agree with you on that. I usually buy my books from the main store anyway (though my iMac) since it is easier for me to find something I like that way so it is not a big deal.
 
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'm upset by the change, but I still agree with you.

It's not like Amazon lets Apple sell stuff in the Kindle itself. They're certainly free to set the rules on their own device, so Apple's got that same right back the other way.
 
How can Amazon do that? You can't purchase iBooks from a web browser.

By saying 'no.' If Microsoft or Apple came to Kindle and said "We want to sell our own books inside the Kindle itself from our own store, let us put software in there" then Amazon would just say "no." As is their right.


Apple's 30% is like a landlord charging you to breath air in your house that you already pay rent for.

No, it's like Wal-Mart taking a percentage of the price for things sold in Wal-Mart.

I know...so unreasonable! Right?
 
Think of it like free advertising. Amazon uses the iOS platform to make more money, while Apple gets no compensation for putting together the platform and hence establishing the userbase in the first place.

Apple gets no compensation for putting together the platform and establishing the user base?! My wallet disagrees with you!!

Apple's most recent quarterly results show they are getting plenty of money (iPhone sales, etc.) thanks to their great work on iOS. It's their right to try to get more, but it's making the experience less elegant for users and apparently alienating developers.
 
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

While I agree that Apple can do anything it wants with its platform where do you get the notion that Apple is providing Amazon with customers? Are you really under the impression that if there wasn't an Amazon app on an iphone that Amazon would have no customer base?

And on Amazon's part, they likewise have the right to make their own decision about the app. I think their decision is the correct one, remove the in-app purchase button and cut Apple out of the revenue loop.

For full disclosure I'm a Nook user and don't have any real interest in this fight, when I buy from Amazon I always purchase physical books.

johnpq
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

CristobalHuet said:
bushido said:
i see it the complete other way, apple should be glad and appreciate that the developers even bother making apps and make the whole iOS experience what it is

I can see that, for sure, but don't forget Apple has paid out billions to developers. If the platform wasn't worth developing for, then people wouldn't flock to adopt it and, as a result, buy apps.

Do you think Symbian paid out as much money to its developers, despite having something like an App Store (the Ovi Store) and throughly dominating the phone marketplace for years?

If the platform isn't worth a lick of developers' time, then they won't develop for it. Give Apple some credit here too. Developers deserve credit, without a doubt, but Amazon hardly qualifies as a Marco Arment. They sold books before the iPad and iPhone, it's not like Apple has them to thank for iOS becoming as momentously big as it is. :)

Don't you feel that Apple get all the credit they deserve when people buy iOS devices giving them blowout quarter after quarter?

If they were making a massive loss on the platform with freeloaders coming out on top I would see sense in this but at the moment with iOS going from strength to strength based on the vitality of the platform (thanks in part to the devs) it seems a little greedy from my persepective.
 
What? Compensated for providing traffic?

You can't be serious. Do you really believe that Apple deserves a cut from every purchase made from safari browser.

And no, a button to a homepage is not free advertising.

Once again, Amazon is making money off the iOS userbase and platform. By putting a button in the app, they're taking the users to their website where they're going to make money. Money they wouldn't have made if Apple hadn't built up its userbase and platform to where it is now.

What does Apple get for that, exactly?

And don't put words in my mouth; I said Apple deserves credit for purchases made from an app that directs you to said company's website. If Amazon never put out a Kindle or Shopping app, and people went to Safari to purchase from them, then that's not the same thing. They went there because they wanted to, out of their own free will. If Amazon puts a button and tells people to go to their Store to buy a book, it is essentially free advertising, because Apple gets nothing for providing Amazon with a platform for making money off of.

I'm never going to win with this, so I should just quit now. I firmly believe Apple has every right to make money if Amazon is making more money because of iOS.
 
By saying 'no.' If Microsoft or Apple came to Kindle and said "We want to sell our own books inside the Kindle itself from our own store, let us put software in there" then Amazon would just say "no." As is their right.\

Ah, so we're talking about an hypothetical situation, no a real one and Amazon hasn't banned anything.
 
What people are missing is that we're talking about 2 things here. This is NOT about controlling what's on iOS. (Which is what many people seem to be thinking.) No, this about the App Store vs. the Web.

Apple has provided a controlled market (the App Store) and a wide-open, anything goes market (Safari).

Apple is NOT taking 30% from things sold in web apps in Safari. The web is as wide open and free on the iPhone as it is anywhere. They don't control it.

They DO take percentages in the App Store. Ok, it's their store. They didn't have to make it. They don't have to host free apps. But they do. So it's up to them to make the rules.

Don't like it? Sell on the web. Apple gives you that option and it's there for the taking. As long as that's still an option on iPhones then I don't think you can really complain.
 
Once again, Amazon is making money off the iOS userbase and platform. By putting a button in the app, they're taking the users to their website where they're going to make money. Money they wouldn't have made if Apple hadn't built up its userbase and platform to where it is now.

Well, as you have said, we can't approach on this so I will leave also.
 
Hubris in the extreme

Apple should hire more creative software engineers and fewer lawyers and bean counters.

The company is really becoming full of itself. They tout over the air application updating for iOS5 as though THEY invented it. Android already has it, and it works pretty good.
 
Checked my updates and it seems I also have an update for Spotify for similar reasons. Is there anyway to flag an update as "do not want" so that clicking on "update all" will ignore it?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.