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
Yupe.
And from current available data, it's unlikely they will rule Apple having a monopoly in the smartphone market, despite what haters like to think.
Here's the bottom line... If Apple does not back down on this, they will loose all the major apps that help them sell products. For example, when the iPad first came out, there were like 10 apps available for it, and one of those was NetFlix... And that was one of the reasons I stood in line at Best Buy on launch day to buy it.
If you take these apps away, people will go elsewhere, guaranteed. Apple needs to stop being greedy and continue focusing on making innovative products, and cooperate with those partners like Amazon and Netflix who help them be successful rather then trying to strong arm them into giving away 30% of their revenue, which last time I checked equaled MORE then their profit margin, which means if they give Apple 30% they will be loosing money.
If you take these apps away, people will go elsewhere, guaranteed. Apple needs to stop being greedy and continue focusing on making innovative products, and cooperate with those partners like Amazon and Netflix who help them be successful rather then trying to strong arm them into giving away 30% of their revenue, which last time I checked equaled MORE then their profit margin, which means if they give Apple 30% they will be loosing money.
You forget that these apps are bringing more business to Apple too. I for sure would never have bought an iPhone without the Kindle App available. Apple needs these apps to make their ecosystem rich. Both Apple and Amazon would be hurt if the Kindle App is removed from the store, that's why Apple is not enforcing the rules strictly (yet).
Agreed, but the fact that Apple can demand this money doesn't mean it's reasonable. Even Apple recognized it was not reasonable and backed down from the original plan. The new plan is just trying to harm the competition in their ecosystem making less convenient for customers to buy through third-parties.
Most likely they can do this too, again, their garden. But the drawback is that if apps are less convenient in iOS, people will look at alternatives. Apple knows this well, I doubt they will keep fighting this battle for much longer. There is simply a too small chance of actually gaining IAP adopters or iBook/whatever customers than simply losing people to competing platforms.
It seems you have misunderstood the new rules.
It is very easy for Amazon to avoid Apple getting any cut: Just don´t make it possible to buy books in the iOS app or provide links to other ways to do it. Just let the customers buy books on amazon.com.
Basically all that is required by Amazon is to remove an URL link.
No, it doesn't apply, at least in Spain. You can have 10% of the marketshare and be fined for anticompetitive practices
Market AND laws
So, Amazon can put a link to Safari Mobile?
And Apple has a right to ban a link to a browser?
They can't provide links to other ways
Last edited by a moderator:
And the net result would be? Kindle App in iOS would be worse than the same app in other platforms. The only way this favors Apple is if Kindle App's customers switch to iBooks, which I don't think is so likely. I actually considered iBooks but they did lack content compared to Amazon so the choice was clear.
If customers don't switch to iBooks, Apple will end up with no actual gain and a less competitive platform, because apps in iOS will be less comfortable than apps in the competitors' platforms, making the competitors' platforms more interesting.
You don´t link to Mobile Safari but create URLs and then iOS launch the standard browser for the device. Of course, unless you jailbreak that is always going to be Mobile Safari.
They are not banning all links, only links that app developers use to avoid IAP.
My sentence was unclear. Yes, all that is required is for Amazon to remove all links to web sites where users can buy books.
Yes, in this particular case the Amazon app will be worse. In other cases the developer will cave in for Apple´s pressure and provide IAP which in many cases benefit the users.
These new rules were not made specifically to pressure Amazon or Netflix because Apple as similar offerings (iBooks, iTunes). It is Apple´s way of testing if they can get away with getting a share of the revenue stream generated on their platform.
As a customer it would be nice if I could do all my purchasing on the platform by only using my Apple ID. I really don´t care how the revenue is divided.
OK what about the books that i already have?
OK I can live with the future on this mess but what about the hundreds of Kindle books that I already have on my iphone and ipads? It may take me a couple of years to read all of them, will I still have access to them if this all goes south? Will they sync until I have read them all? Changing horses in the middle of the stream is not a good thing. Will existing book owners be grandfathered in for use of their currently purchased books?
OK I can live with the future on this mess but what about the hundreds of Kindle books that I already have on my iphone and ipads? It may take me a couple of years to read all of them, will I still have access to them if this all goes south? Will they sync until I have read them all? Changing horses in the middle of the stream is not a good thing. Will existing book owners be grandfathered in for use of their currently purchased books?
Of course. Your books are your books. It doesn't matter where or how through Amazon you purchased them. As long as you're running any kindle app or app meant to read those books, you still can read them. So obviously, nobody wants a removal of said app since that would mean removing the primary app for reading said books.
This right here is the reason I've been a disgruntled Apple customer and simply waiting for something better. However with this latest scam they are pushing me to jump off to something inferior. It is also why most Android users I know refuse to buy Apple.
Nope. Because the rules Amazon etc signed allow Apple to change the rules. If Amazon et al are not complying then they are removing the apps, not Apple.
It's like that retail job you had in high school. You gave them an availability and signed it saying that you would show up for your shifts. the store has a rule that if you don't show up for 3 shifts you will be deemed having quit. If you run off to Vegas and missing a weekend of work, you have no cause to complain when you lost your job.
Are you an iOS developer? Do you work for Amazon's corp office?
I suspect every strongly the answer is no and no. So you don't know the T&C for developers and you have zero proof that Amazon etc were allowed to sign a different T&C.
I am one so I know that "We are allowed to change the rules" is in there. You might call it a 'bait and switch' but everyone agreed that Apple is allowed to do it if they choose. ANd they have the right to remove their own apps if they don't like the new rule.
Fact is that this pricing thing could be more of a PR gig. There's no proof anyone was ever going to not update or was ever going to charge differently. But now they have the choice which might make them feel a little better.
Last edited:
Yep and it is sad that the iTards don't seem to have a problem with that. Good that some see what apple is doing.
They only have to give Apple 30% if the person buys/subscribes via IAP. All those big boys have major prior customer bases that aren't likely to switch methods of payment so Apple gets nothing from them. In the end, who is to say that this won't offset the 30% they have to give up.
In the general public's eye it is just as possible that they will see the other guys as the greedy ones. Not Apple.
It would benefit the user from the usability point of view, but goods would need to have a much higher price to offest the very high fee Apple requires. I would understand a fee which has a small impact to the end price, but 30% will mean the end price will be significantly higher.
Apple already realized it cannot get away with such a high fee in many cases, that's why the original rules were retracted in the first place. 30% is simply unreasonable.
This is something I agree with completely, but in the end even if I don't care how the revenue is divided, I do care if the price is higher. You cannot expect third parties to add a 30% cost to their sales and simply leave the price as it was before, and with IAP rules it means they would need to increase the prices overall even from their own stores, because the rules mandate the same pricing.
Also for me would be even nicer to be able to do all of my purchasing only using an ID, even purchases outside of Apple's ecosystem. Google Checkout was an abitious effort in this direction. In general would be nice to have one single company able to process my payments for whatever I wish to buy from whatever site or app, but we're pretty far from that.
In any case, just to keep everything in perspective, Google Checkout did apply a fee around 2%. PayPal charges around 2%. Credit Card interchange fees are around 2%. Apple's fee for basically the same service in iOS is 30%...
Apple can get away with this overpriced fee only because in iOS they barred any competition. It would simply be a ridiculously inferior offer in a free market.
It's not only changing payment method, is changing all their accounts system. They have to link their current accounts to the iTunes ones, sync purchases done between one and another.
Not talking about the current limitations of in-app purchases, there is no automated process to fill the items and there is a limit in the number of items you can register.
The only way I can see Amazon (and others) circumventing the in-app purchases is to set two different prices.
Ex: If Book A normally costs $5.00 to Amazon, simply sell it on the iOS store for $6.50, then on the Amazon store via browser, make a permanent "discount" so it's 30% off the "original price" of $6.50.
Sounds silly, though.
Ex: If Book A normally costs $5.00 to Amazon, simply sell it on the iOS store for $6.50, then on the Amazon store via browser, make a permanent "discount" so it's 30% off the "original price" of $6.50.
Sounds silly, though.