Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Following reports that The Wall Street Journal and eBook company Kobo have pulled direct content sales from their iOS apps in order to comply with Apple's new rules regarding in-app subscriptions and purchases, Amazon has followed suit with an update to its Kindle app for iOS.While the Kindle app has always redirected users to a Safari web app for purchasing, it has until now prominently featured a button to allow users to quickly navigate to the store from the app. Users will now have to manually load the store in Safari when they wish to purchase new content.

Image
Kindle app before (left) and after (right) update

Amazon has attempted to soften the blow of the new inconvenience for getting to the Kindle Store by enhancing support for newspapers and magazines on the iOS app. Users can now read over 100 newspapers and magazines through the app after subscribing via the Kindle Store website. Kindle users who are already subscribed to newspapers and magazines can now quickly access the content on their iOS devices via the "Archived Items" section.

Given the number of apps that have been updated or removed to address Apple's in-app subscription and purchases policy, it certainly appears that Apple has finally closed the door and begun enforcing the new rules that were to have gone into effect on June 30th.

Article Link: Amazon's 'Kindle' App Updated to Remove Direct Kindle Store Links

This is stupid and anti-customer. Apple is asking a *large* cut for sales that have no reliance whatsoever on the Apple infrastructure.

I can see if Apple were providing payment processing services . . . but in this case, they are not. This was simply a button in the app that led to the *Amazon* web site to make purchases!

Sure, I can go directly to the Amazon web site to shop (and I will) but it was nice to have the button in the app. It's no longer there because Apple is being intransigent and greedy.
 
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.

Completely and utterly agreed.

There's a clear distinction between a user being proactive and buying from Safari, and a user being reactive and buying because he is being directed to do so.
 
Look, it not about who deserves what or who should or should not get a cut. It's business. It's not a morality issue.

Apple feel that they can charge for in-app purchasing although some companies will opt out. As long as there are money to be made on iDevices nothing will come of this. If customers (and developers by extension) start preferring the more functional Android app counterparts, we'll see a change in policy.
 
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?

Because you have it backwards. I don't go to Amazon to buy a kindle book because of Apple. I go to Amazon to buy a kindle book because of Amazon. If I want to support Apple, I'll buy an iBook, which it seems not many are doing, thus the real root of this policy. After all I paid Apple for the "rent" when I paid them for my devices. All of them.
 
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)

JohMai said:
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.

Apple have never touted OTA updates as their invention from what I've seen. When did this happen?
 
Pointless and petty on the behalf of Apple. It's just going against everything they believe in about being "user friendly" it's not as if they need the 30% when each quarter they post is a record one.

Will there still be a way to purchase Kindle books for the iPhone/iPad app after the update, as my mother is going to be buying an iPad for reading and the Kindle App provides more competitive pricing, in my opinion
 
Because you have it backwards. I don't go to Amazon to buy a kindle book because of Apple. I go to Amazon to buy a kindle book because of Amazon. If i want to support Apple, I'll buy an iBook which it seems not many are doing, thus the real root of this policy. After all I paid Apple for the "rent" when I paid them for my devices. All of them.

Many more people are now buying from Amazon because of the Kindle iOS app, people who didn't necessarily buy from Amazon before, but now they are because they want to read on their iOS devices.

Whether or not they choose to buy from Apple is irrelevant. The point is that Amazon is in all likelihood making more money in the year 2011 than they were in 2007, and you could definitely attribute some of that (of course, not all of it, that would be ridiculous) to their evergrowing presence on devices like the iPhone and iPad.
 
Bravo!! With Kindle, that's four (WSJ, Kobo and Nook)! In celebration of this, I'm going to buy a Kindle book on Amazon's web site right now, and then on Nook, instead of an iBook. Let's make this little firecracker blow up in Apple's hands. My iBook shelf sure looks lonely, with the exception of PDFs I've loaded (with no revenue to Apple).
 
Last edited:
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

The developers should appreciate that Apple has provided them with the opportunity to make money.
 
It doesn't make financial sense for Apple to provide a platform just so that other companies can make profits on their user base free of charge. After all, I can't take my lemonade stand inside a shopping mall and make profit from the customer traffic without paying rent.

That makes sense... if you think of your phone as a shopping mall: a place you can visit to buy stuff that is owned and operated by someone else.

I think of my phone as mine, and want to be able to load whatever content from where ever I want.

Look, what Apple is doing is simple: they want to squeeze out the middle-man as much they can in regard to any transaction (financial or not). They are doing whatever they think they can get away with. They want it to all boil down to:

You and Apple. Apple and You. And that's it.

Is that enough for you? Not for me.

Today, all this looks like is a series of relatively small frustrations: can't get certain apps on my phone, need to manually go to Kindle store. But in the long run, it seems clear to me Apple will keep cranking up the barriars to going outside their ecosystem.

Personally, I don't know if I want to keep going down this road.
 
Apple is asking a *large* cut for sales that have no reliance whatsoever on the Apple infrastructure.

This is wrong.

If it has no reliance on the infrastructure, why did Amazon make an iOS app? If you're correct and there's 'no reliance,' then they'd just have a web-app, right?

So clearly you're missing something.

What you're missing is that being in the app store brings millions of users and viewers and eyeballs. It's free advertising on a massive scale. How many millions of people downloaded the Kindle app who never would have thought to type in www.amazon.com to check it out? Each and every one of those viewers is there because of Apple's software.

That's called Amazon making use of Apple's infrastructure and it's pretty huge. It's exactly why everyone's rushing to get their own app in Apple's store.

To ignore that fact is to close your eyes. It's pretty obvious that that's why all these companies are making apps. It's not just for fun.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
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

Ah yes - that old chestnut. By that logic. Your ISP should claim 30% from Apple for aiding the delivery of the app to you. After all, without your internet connection you wouldn't be able to download the app. If your ISP blocked access to Apple you could simply choose another provider. Minor inconvenience. Would that be ok with you?
 
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. I know there's some hardcore fanboys here, but you can't be serious.
 
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!!!
 
Ah yes - that old chestnut. By that logic. Your ISP should claim 30% from Apple for aiding the delivery of the app to you. After all, without your internet connection you wouldn't be able to download the app. If your ISP blocked access to Apple you could simply choose another provider. Minor inconvenience. Would that be ok with you?

What's my other option?

Apple gives an option (sell your wares on the web) to get out of their fee, so in your analogy I must have a way of avoiding that ISP fee. (Otherwise it's a bad analogy.)

What is it?


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!!!

So then I'd use Firefox. What's the problem?
 
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.

And Apple got the benefit of people buying their devices to gain access to Amazon's kindle reader. Enough with the Apple defense, fanboys. Sometimes they're just wrong. Like now they're completely wrong.
 
Pointless and petty on the behalf of Apple. It's just going against everything they believe in about being "user friendly" it's not as if they need the 30% when each quarter they post is a record one.

Will there still be a way to purchase Kindle books for the iPhone/iPad app after the update, as my mother is going to be buying an iPad for reading and the Kindle App provides more competitive pricing, in my opinion

Kindle app also provides the poorest reading experience. I regret buying books from the Kindle store and I will never ever be buying from them even if I have to pay more in the iBookstore. Kindle = crappy experience for cheaper price.
 
Can you provide an example of Amazon allowing sales (from either their website, or their Kindle) without the vendor having to pay a substantial charge to Amazon?

Can you provide a proof that Apple has tried to sell iBooks books from Kindle hardware?

Because this is what he said
 
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"?

Not this trite again. IAP is an optional service, a payment processor. Amazon has their own payment processing infrastructure.

The "rent" is the 99$/year developer fees and the 30% of the app price itself.

Can we drop the "rent" thing ? Apple wouldn't have sold those 200 million iOS devices with Safari alone, it's things like Kindle, the iOS games, Google apps, Netflix and others that make them worthwhile. It works both ways, as such, developers owe nothing to Apple beyond the 99$/year and 30% of the app's price. Apple has no grounds to force IAP/IAS on 3rd parties that don't require such a payment processing service.
 
Ah yes - that old chestnut. By that logic. Your ISP should claim 30% from Apple for aiding the delivery of the app to you. After all, without your internet connection you wouldn't be able to download the app. If your ISP blocked access to Apple you could simply choose another provider. Minor inconvenience. Would that be ok with you?

Sorry, but I disagree. ISPs are there solely to provide internet connectivity, and they're getting rewarded handsomely from it. Nobody is profiting off of them because the internet is open (at least, in most countries), and nobody claims ownership to it.

iOS is something that Apple invented, without which some companies like Amazon wouldn't be making the additional revenue they are now. Apple aided Amazon by creating a platform. An ISP providing internet is in no shape or form the same thing.

ISPs are simply middle-men distributors. Apple is neither.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.