Any news on the fate of Kindle in iOS?

[dmaul1114]

That said, the Kindle app is one of the main reasons I bought an iPad and if it goes away I just became an Android user.

Honestly, I hope what happens is apps get pulled and lots of people do like you.

Maybe that will lead to better competition and Apple starting to have less restrictive policies that limit their smartphone and tablet's functionality relative to the competition. They have a huge advantage in app availability currently, some major apps leaving would help lessen that.

 

[poloponies]

That's not correct. The rule change in June is making is so Apps like Kindle can no longer jump out to the web browser and buy the books without ALSO having them for sale in the app where Apple gets a 30% cut. It's not "IF" they offer in app purchases they have to be the same price as in the store. It's that they "MUST" start offing in app purchases if they're going to have the option to buy books in the web browser and send to the Kindle app, and they must be the same price in app.

Amazon won't go for that as most people are lazy and will just buy it in app for convenience, and thus Amazon doesn't get much, if any profit on books sold on the iOS platform. So they are being penalized.

I don't think hardware companies should have that kind of control over app developers, nor should be taking a cut of profits for in app sales. Period.

So it's just agree to disagree if you think such practices are fine.

Again, that misstates the policy. It requires in-app purchases to be made subject to Apple's 30% cut. It doesn't require that in-app purchases be made mandatory. If Amazon wants to provide a Kindle reader-only then it's free to do so. What Amazon can't do is provide a mechanism to circumvent Apple's purchasing policy. Amazon is not stupid, it wants in-app purchases and is in the best position to figure out what % of their sales come through the various conduits. If they can't make money under Apple's policy then they'll stop selling books through their app.

 

[Panch0]

Apple's not demanding a piece of every book Amazon sells, the agreement is that if Amazon offers in-app purchases then it must charge the same price it does elsewhere. There are 2 reasons for this, but Apple's primary concern is that if Amazon charges $9.99 normally and then charges $15 in-app, then it's forcing out-of-app sales. So customers can still buy the books through the online option but if someone wants to buy in-app for convenience then they should not be forced to pay a higher price or go the other route. Amazon is simply not being penalized.

And it does seem a little inconsistent that you're being protective of Amazon's profit when it's the ultimate beneficiary of the practice (larger reader base = more sales; you and I and the rest of the world can continue buying books through Amazon directly).

I read the policy a bit differently...
If you have an app
And you sell content for said app outside of the app
Then you must also provide an in-app purchase mechanism
Content purchased via this in app mechanism must be at the same or lower price than the same content purchased through other channels.

So, If Amazon sells content for the Kindle App on their website (they do), then Apple is saying that they must enable in app purchases. Of those in-app purchases, Apple gets 30%.

Apple is not saying that we have to buy through In-App store, but that we must be offered the option and that the in-app price must not be higher. The idea is that the in-App purchase will be the easiest for App users to get to, and thus many sales will be channeled through Apple.

If Apple gets 30% of the gross sale and the Publisher gets 70%, nothing is left for Amazon. For them to make a profit, they have to raise the price. Because of Apple's lowest price policy, they would have to raise the price charged on the website as well. That's bad for consumers.

I'm not sure that in-app purchases are going to be all that convenient or compelling for Kindle Books anyway. I rather prefer to buy from Amazon.com then direct them to deliver to the device I select.

 

[BaldiMac]

The thing is, they're both right. The relationship is synergistic and the sooner they both cop to that fact the better.

Which is why I think the most likely outcome is Apple and Amazon will negotiate a reasonable. Despite the hyperbole on either side of the argument, this really isn't about whether Apple should be able to charge for the arrangement. It's about how much.

I think most people would consider this policy completely reasonable if Apple charged in the neighborhood of transaction fees for credit cards. Apple believes that it provides more value than that. The answer will likely be in the middle unless Apple's goal is to get rid of apps such as Kindle. Which I doubt.

Outside of the risk of losing apps such as Kindle completely, I think Apple's policy is a benefit to consumers. All else equal, wouldn't most people prefer the ease of In App Purchase? Of course, this position is completely based on the assumption that Apple and Amazon will do what it takes to keep Kindle on iOS.

Again, that misstates the policy. It requires in-app purchases to be made subject to Apple's 30% cut. It doesn't require that in-app purchases be made mandatory. If Amazon wants to provide a Kindle reader-only then it's free to do so. What Amazon can't do is provide a mechanism to circumvent Apple's purchasing policy. Amazon is not stupid, it wants in-app purchases and is in the best position to figure out what % of their sales come through the various conduits. If they can't make money under Apple's policy then they'll stop selling books through their app.

Here is the actual policy.

11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.

 

[Saturnine]

Apple aren't stupid. They know 10% of $10,000,000 is better than 30% of $500,000.

I'm sure that they understand that developers selling software with less than a 30% markup, I.e. Content licensees simply can't afford to accept Apple's terms. They would be selling below cost price!

 

[dmaul1114]

Again, that misstates the policy. It requires in-app purchases to be made subject to Apple's 30% cut. It doesn't require that in-app purchases be made mandatory. .

NO! That's how it is currently. The rule is changing in June to make in app purchases mandatory. They will no longer allow an app to jump to safari to make out of app purchases unless the content is available to buy in app for the same price. As made clear in the actual policy posted above.

That's what this whole stink is about. Amazon is happy with the way it is currently as they just don't do in-app purchasing and jump people out to safari. With the rule change, they have to get rid of that jump out to Safari option unless they also add in in-app purchasing.

Now maybe there are other work arounds like they can just remove the jump out to safari option from the App and let people just manually go to the Kindle store in safari and buy the book and send it to their iPad just like they can from another computer now. Time will tell on that.

 

[BaldiMac]

Now maybe there are other work arounds like they can just remove the jump out to safari option from the App and let people just manually go to the Kindle store in safari and buy the book and send it to their iPad just like they can from another computer now. Time will tell on that.

That appears to be prohibited by the policy as well.

 

[dmaul1114]

That appears to be prohibited by the policy as well.

It does indeed seem to be from the language you posted.

Just BS. I don't see why Apple should get money from in app purchases in the first place, much less be able to force it to be an option it there is sold content that can be imported into an app through other means.

How is selling content through an app any different than a web browser? Are they going to start to want a cut of content people buy in safari that's not going into apps? It's ridiculous.

Apple is making hardware. They profit by selling hardware and their own software. They don't deserve a cut of what developers make in software on their machine.

That would be like Microsoft wanting 30% of everything sold through the Windows version of iTunes. iTunes is basically an app that runs on their platform (windows), just like things like Kindle are apps that run on Apple's playtform (iOs).

I just have a very strong distaste for those kind of policies by Apple. Unless they change their tune I'll ditch the iPad as soon as I find a competing tablet that suits my needs.

 

[Tsuchiya]

It would be too difficult for even Apple to restrict Amazon like this. WhisperSync works too well, there is nothing stopping people from purchasing elsewhere then just re-downloading the book from Archive using the Kindle App.

Sure it's slightly awkward, but I feel strongly about Apple's new rules and would rather not have them profit from my Kindle purchases.

 

[BaldiMac]

Just BS. I don't see why Apple should get money from in app purchases in the first place, much less be able to force it to be an option it there is sold content that can be imported into an app through other means.

And you were being so reasonable til now!

As I said before, it's not that Apple shouldn't be able to force in app purchase option or charge for it. Those are both completely reasonable. If all else was the same, and Apple was just charging a reasonable transaction fee (< 5%), would you have as much problem? Consumers benefit from the ease of in app purchase. They don't have to distribute their credit card info to as many merchants. Developer pays Apple for the purchase instead of VISA. Everybody's happy.

The issue is that Apple sees themselves as providing more of a service than VISA does. They believe IAP will result in more sales than alternative methods of payment because of the simplicity and privacy. They are probably correct. Hard to argue with that. They want a commission or referral or whatever you want to call it for providing additional sales.

I don't agree that it should be 30% simply because they are providing less service for that 30% than they are for the 30% they charge for the sale of the app.

Hopefully, Apple is using the 6 months or so from when they announced the policy until they start enforcing it to evaluate developer concerns. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the terms are modified before the June deadline. It's a lot easier to announce 30% and a strict policy and then reduce the price or soften the policy, than it is to do the opposite.

 

[fizzwinkus]

one problem with charging less for in app purchase is developers would just make all apps free and charge in app purchase for anything.

 

[dmaul1114]

And you were being so reasonable til now!

As I said before, it's not that Apple shouldn't be able to force in app purchase option or charge for it. Those are both completely reasonable. If all else was the same, and Apple was just charging a reasonable transaction fee (< 5%), would you have as much problem? Consumers benefit from the ease of in app purchase. They don't have to distribute their credit card info to as many merchants. Developer pays Apple for the purchase instead of VISA. Everybody's happy.

I'd still have a problem with it if it's five percent. Or 1 %. It's the principle of the matter.

A tablet is no different than a computer. If Apple can charge a % for sales of e-books in the Kindle app on their iOS platfrom, why can't MS make Apple give them a cut of every thing sold in iTunes on the Windows platform?

It's the exact same thing, just a different device and OS.

I just see it as BS. A hardware maker/OS maker shouldn't have that kind of control over companies developing software that runs on their platform IMO.

I thoroughly disagree with it and likely wouldn't have bought an iPad 2 if I'd been more aware of this issue before hand. I already dislike Apple's practices, and this is just more fuel on the fire.

If they don't change their ways, the iPad 2 will be the last Apple product I ever buy.

 

[dmaul1114]

one problem with charging less for in app purchase is developers would just make all apps free and charge in app purchase for anything.

So?

Computer companies don't get a cut of software sold and installed on their machines.

I get that Apple has the App store and they have to run it etc. But I hate that we're locked into only buying from there sans jailbreaking.

At the end of the day, the longer I have it the more I'm realizing it was a bad purchase for me. I dislike the company, dislike the walled garden, and really need a tablet to have more than a smart phone OS.

I'm tempted to sell it, but there's nothing better out right now. So I'll just begrudgingly use it for a year or two until MS gets their Tablet OS out, or Android tablets improve greatly etc.

In the meantime, I'm going to bow out of this site as it's an Apple fan site and I don't want to come across as a troll since I'm mostly negative on the company and a bit disgruntled with the iPad 2.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'd still have a problem with it if it's five percent. Or 1 %. It's the principle of the matter.

Why? Who would be losing? It's hard to argue that IAP isn't better for consumers in principle.

A tablet is no different than a computer. If Apple can charge a % for sales of e-books in the Kindle app on their iOS platfrom, why can't MS make Apple give them a cut of every thing sold in iTunes on the Windows platform?

It's the exact same thing, just a different device and OS.

I just see it as BS. A hardware maker/OS maker shouldn't have that kind of control over companies developing software that runs on their platform IMO.

I thoroughly disagree with it and likely wouldn't have bought an iPad 2 if I'd been more aware of this issue before hand. I already dislike Apple's practices, and this is just more fuel on the fire.

If they don't change their ways, the iPad 2 will be the last Apple product I ever buy.

The irony of the whole situation is that the poster child for your argument is Amazon. The company that makes it's living doing exactly the same thing. To sell your products through Amazon's platform (amazon.com), you have to use their purchasing system and give them a cut.

You keep using Microsoft as an example, instead of looking at Windows, how about you look at xBox. See anything for sale not using Microsoft's scam of a payment system? Want Netflix? Pay Microsoft for Gold. Want Twitter? Pay Microsoft. Facebook? Pay.