If Apple pulls the Kindle app from the iPad, I'm selling mine and buying an Android tablet.
This is as bad as windows and the browser wars.
This is as bad as windows and the browser wars.
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.
Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People like you make me sick. Sure Target doesn't have to sell JIF peanut butter. However if they sold you a plate to eat food off of that had some microchips in it that only allowed food sold from Target to be ate on the plate and then told JIF that if they want to allow their customers to put peanut butter on that plate then they have to get it from Target and the customer can't get it anywhere else then that is a huge problem, especially if Target controlled 50% of the market for plates and that other plates were crap. So JIF complies and sells their peanut butter at Target. To top it off if JIF wanted to sell you bread using their own shipping method for your peanut butter and they told you where you can get bread but Target stepped in and said you can't tell them where to get bread unless you sell that bread at Target where they take a 30% cut I'm sure you'd go along with it.
You the customer wouldn't put up with this anti consumer crap nor would JIF ever go along with these stupid rules. Why are we doing it with Apple? If tomorrow Microsoft tried imposing these same rules that Apple does on Windows there would be an uproar and our government would intervene. Why can Apple do this with the iPhone?
I have no problem with Apple having the App Store and developers having to comply with the rules. However secondary markets should be completely legitimate without jail breaking the phone such that you can purchase/manage other applications from other app stores or even directly from the developers site and get them installed to the phone.
Whoa.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave out analogies altogether and just discuss the situation on its own particular merits.
Whoa.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave out analogies altogether and just discuss the situation on its own particular merits.
Yeah well sorry but I didn't bring up the analogy. I just made it more accurately depict what is going on. I probably shouldn't of made the comment that "people like you make me sick" but this whole topic just really infuriates me that anyone could possibly side with Apple on this especially when they change the rules in the middle of the game. Kindle app should be grandfathered in if they are going to make these new subscription rules.
I have an iPhone and an iPad. They are great products. And I really don't want to switch to what I feel is still an inferior product in Android devices but wow this is really pissing me off. Every time one of these things happen I get closer and closer. I have tons of friends in the IT business and a lot of them simply will not purchase an iPhone while openly saying that they know the iPhone is the better device however they can't do business with Apple due to the way they conduct manage the App Store.
Consumers should be the ones that say what Apps suck. Not Apple. If an app sucks then it isn't going to sell. If it doesn't then who cares what it does. That is what the rating system is for. Apple can't and shouldn't be trying to protect all their consumers to give them the best user experience possible. However I seriously doubt that is the reason for the subscription rules in place.
Sure they are. They take 30% of the sale price of the app.
Really? How come Amazon charges a comparable % for kindle apps? How come MS and Sony charge more?
You calling it that doesn't make it so. They are charging for the privilege of using Apple's platform to obtain and serve subscribers.
Which is perfectly fine if they company wants to use Apple's platform. However if they have their own platform to do so and serve their customers just fine they shouldn't be forced to use Apple's platform.
They're not "forced" to use Apple's platform. Amazon can sell its books on Kindles and other devices. But if they want to sell their books on Apple's platform, Apple has a right to set the rules. Just as Sony can set the rules for PS3 development, and Amazon can (and does!) set the rules for Kindle development.
but as far as I know only Apple has done a major bait and switch in the rule changes.
As far as I can tell this was bait and switch on big players like Amazon. It gets them on iOS ingrains them in and now Apple pulls the switch and more or less screws them. To me that has a lot of things wrong with it. Like predatory pricing.
First, how does this "screw" Amazon? Let's say they were kicked off of idevices tomorrow - do you really think they didn't more than make back the money they spent developing the app? And everyone knew going in what they were getting into - Apple had a history of changing the rules, competing with its third party developers, etc.
And what the heck does this have to do with "predatory pricing?" Predatory pricing is when you sell something at a very low price to drive out competition - how is Apple doing THAT? (Though I'm sure Apple would like to be associated with LOW prices for once
)Terms and Conditions are subject to change. I believe it's covered in the Developer TOS.
Last edited:
First, how does this "screw" Amazon? Let's say they were kicked off of idevices tomorrow - do you really think they didn't more than make back the money they spent developing the app? And everyone knew going in what they were getting into - Apple had a history of changing the rules, competing with its third party developers, etc.
And what the heck does this have to do with "predatory pricing?" Predatory pricing is when you sell something at a very low price to drive out competition - how is Apple doing THAT? (Though I'm sure Apple would like to be associated with LOW prices for once
Not really sure on that 2nd part but the bait and switch is pretty bad.
If Amazon is kick off the one thing that is pretty safe to say is Amazon would file a law suit against Apple and drag them threw the court system. I do not know if Amazon would win the Anti trust case but I am willing to bet Amazon would file the law suit and force Apple to fight it and justify everything in court.
Apple has to know that and I think the last thing they would want is be forced release a lot of things into public court.
You keep saying that kind of thing, but the law requires what is called a "cause of action" for a lawsuit - you can't just sue because your feelings are hurt, or because someone decided to exercise their rights to stop doing business with you. There is no contract breached. There is no antitrust cause of action. What, exactly, would Amazon sue about?
How much would you like to bet?
huh?
I believe the person was talking about the subscription model platform. Not the App store platform. Why can't anyone just admit that they are going too far in forcing apps to sell products through their model when there is no reason to do it in a lot of situations.
I can definitely understand a situation where a company finds it easier to let Apple take care of the subscription or in app purchases for them as it would be a great service Apple is providing to those developers. However does it really make since for netflix where a bulk of their business is not on the iPad or iPhone to have to use Apple's subscription model when they already have one in place, why can't they simply point users from within the app to their website or even set it up from within the app? Think about it, Netflix is putting their app on the App store not because it is making them more business. They are doing it because their customers are asking for it. While doing so they are making Apple's product BETTER for Apple customers. They aren't selling this app. They aren't increasing my subscription cost. So they aren't even making a profit off of, it's just an extra service they are going out of their way to provide and Apple has the audacity to tell them that they can't even send business from this free app they provide to their website?
So let's face it Apple clearly doesn't have their consumers in mind when they are making these rules. Here is one pissed off customer right here that if Amazon/Netflix/Hulu are forced to change will finally give up on Apple.
Before the Sony PS3 issue removing the "install other OS" I was a huge loyal Sony consumer. Every TV, receiver and home stereo system I ever owned came from Sony along with purchasing their PS2 and PS3. I am never buying another Sony product again because of this issue.
I agree with what you are saying. This is similar to what happened with MS and the default icons on windows desktop. Actually it may be worse since apple has control as to what is offered on the iOS desktop. I think it may be time for the courts to step in this...
Because we don't agree its true.
Huh? Of course it is bringing them more business.
Netflix, like any other business, does things to make money. If they didn't make money off of the iphone app they wouldn't have one. They make money because people who otherwise wouldn't pay for the service do so. Netflix isn't doing anything out of the goodness of their heart.
Look, if no one was going to subscribe to anything through the in-app link, then nothing is harmed by removing it. If, on the other hand, people WERE going to subscribe via the in-app link, then Apple has a right to ask for a cut of that money. If the customers and/or app-providers don't like it, there are plenty of other platforms out there.
Maybe, maybe not. But neither does Amazon, Netflix, etc.
Amazon is unlike to win an anti-trust suit if they file one IMO
Apple has <50% of the smartphone market in the US, even less of the entire mobile phone market.
You would be hard pressed to prove they have undue influence that is causing "restrain of trade", especially when there are other highly popular and widely available platforms, eg. Android, Amazon's own Kindle ebook reader, in which to deliver your products and services.
It's like suing DHL for anti-trust just because they refuse to deliver/handle your products.
There is always Fedex or the USPS. Your trade is not "restrained".
Not to mention, Amazon really shouldn't be throwing stones.
Their stores have "restrictions" as well and they have the same right to not carry your books/ebooks in their online store.
And as one of the bigger book retailers - with most of their competition dying (eg. borders) or barely surviving (eg. Barnes and Nobles) - Amazon is way closer to having a retail monopoly on books than Apple is in the mobile phone market.
My 2c.
Sony removed it because it was used to hack and bypass the PS3's security system. They have an implicit obligation to the developers to keep the platform piracy free and to gamers to keep online games as free of hacks as possible.
Lets see ...
Piss of a handful of homebrewers who don't really give you much income.
Or.
Piss of developers and gamers who are their bread and butter.
Decisions. Decisions.
Seriously. What would you do? Leaving it and let the platform turn into another PSP, then have everyone blame you because you did nothing?
Maybe they should have done what MS did and not include homebrew capability at all in the first place. Would you be happy then?
Apple has <50% of the smartphone market in the US, even less of the entire mobile phone market.
You would be hard pressed to prove they have undue influence that is causing "restrain of trade", especially when there are other highly popular and widely available platforms, eg. Android, Amazon's own Kindle ebook reader, in which to deliver your products and services.
It's like suing DHL for anti-trust just because they refuse to deliver/handle your products.
There is always Fedex or the USPS. Your trade is not "restrained".
Not to mention, Amazon really shouldn't be throwing stones.
Their stores have "restrictions" as well and they have the same right to not carry your books/ebooks in their online store.
And as one of the bigger book retailers - with most of their competition dying (eg. borders) or barely surviving (eg. Barnes and Nobles) - Amazon is way closer to having a retail monopoly on books than Apple is in the mobile phone market.
My 2c.
Sony removed it because it was used to hack and bypass the PS3's security system. They have an implicit obligation to the developers to keep the platform piracy free and to gamers to keep online games as free of hacks as possible.
Lets see ...
Piss of a handful of homebrewers who don't really give you much income.
Or.
Piss of developers and gamers who are their bread and butter.
Decisions. Decisions.
Seriously. What would you do? Leaving it and let the platform turn into another PSP, then have everyone blame you because you did nothing?
Maybe they should have done what MS did and not include homebrew capability at all in the first place. Would you be happy then?
Last edited:
Believe it or not some companies like to go out of their way and maybe lose some money short term to create what is called customer satisfaction. Which is what Netflix is doing with the netflix app. Sure they realize in the long run the customer satisfaction they are building will keep their customers loyal and faithful by not canceling their subscription but they are most definitely taking a loss right now on the development/support of the apps and probably netting next to zero new business.
Case in point, look at Apple Stores. How many stories have you heard where someone takes something in after warranty is expired and Apple fixes it anyway? They are temporarily taking a loss with no guarantee to ever make it up. Why? Customer satisfaction.
And I'm at a loss for words if you truly believe Amazon/Netflix doesn't have customer satisfaction in mind. As many people have pointed out both of these companies don't really truly need to have their apps in the app store to make money.
What would happen if these companies complied and now Apple starts taking a cut of their business that they truly aren't needed to be a middle man for? PRICES will go up. I'm sorry but selling a book for $9.99 when they are already paying close to $9.99 for the rights to sell each book and now they are going to have to actually end up paying $12.99 to sell that same book for no reason at all just won't cut it. They will have to raise prices. You do realize Amazon makes next to nothing on digital books? It's not like they are printing money off of Apple's back and Apple is simply asking for a cut.
I can understand the situation where the business didn't exist prior to Apple creating this new market and now they can sit there and print money by charging for in app purchases of .99 cents to get an eagle bird in Angry Birds that it isn't going to kill them to give Apple a cut for providing the service making that work. However this is not the situation with Kindle or Netflix at all.
Thataway to misrepresent what I said. To be clear: neither Netflix, Apple, Amazon, or any other company is primarily concerned with anything other than making money. The reason Amazon, Netflix, etc. would like to be able to sell things from within their apps is to make money. The reason they don't want to pay Apple for the privilege is to make money.
In the end, iOS is Apple's platform, and Apple can set whatever rules it would like. Just like Sony can with the PS3, Amazon can with its storefront and the Kindle store, etc.
iOS is not an open ecosystem like Mac OS X or Windows. It only runs the software Apple decides to let it run, same as XBOX, PSP, iPod, etc.
If MS is a monopoly, then so is apple with the app store, actually apple is worse because they can blatantly block an app if it competes with theirs. IOW apple is just as bad, if not worse, than MS. I know its painful for some of the iFans to admit this...
Apple <50% of smart phone market share worldwide - around that from the stats I have seen; probably less to be honest.
MS >90% of desktop OSs worldwide.
Difference rules are applied depending on whether you are determined to have a monopoly in the market.
And whether you have a monopoly is determined by the courts, not hearsay on the Internet.
I know it's painful for some of you to admit to this...
Satan means opposer. Devil means deceiver. You should have said Devil.
The problem is in media apps only that are selling new media content in IAP. What Apple needs to do (to appease people) is set up two versions of IAP. (but they won't) Their system is necessary for other kinds of apps, that mainly sell app upgrades via IAP. Otherwise, devs would simply make nothing but free apps, with all payments through IAP.
This is nothing like the MS IE antitrust case. Not similar at all. And you realize that you already have the Kindle app, yes?
Ya think?
If they hadn't, there would be no IAP at all. So, you want new features, but not rules for how they work? People like you....make me wonder what the **** they teach in school these days.
I don't think he's even in the same language.I don't think monopoly means what you think it means.
Actually, I was just about to say that: the courts will decide this not the fans of a company...