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

Apple Rejects 'Sony Reader' From App Store, 'Kindle' Removal Next?

Sedulous said:
That's curious. I wonder why Apple seems to swing wildly between opening up and limiting app functionality. What's next, you can't buy stuff from amazon.com using the amazon app because the items don't come through Apple? Unless there is some compelling reason for this new limitation, I think it is a bogus money grab.
Click to expand...

This is a very compelling point. What about apps like ebay, or scanner apps where you can scan a bar code and then be directed to an online store directly from the app?

Apple needs to make iBooks compelling enough for people to want to use (e.g. on par with the Kindle in every way from number of books to functionality, etc.) rather than stifling perfectly good apps.
 
I only use iBooks but prefer paper books anyway,but this is a bad bad move if true.
Unlike some people I'll wait for actual confirmation before freaking out and screaming it's the end of the world.
Don't like the look of it though.
 
I've never seen such a big difference towards the negative in the rating.

Now I'm absolutely convinced that the reason why Steve doesn't like flash is because he wants people to be dependent on iTunes.
 
Cleverboy said:
Don't be silly. iBooks uses your iTunes account. What other guideline are you referring to? Apple has every license to allow users to update their iTunes billing info in their own apps. Don't be vague (as you accuse Apple of). Refer to the specific rules I quoted, whether they work or don't. They seem clear. Next.

~ CB
Click to expand...

Rule 2.5 states:

"Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected"

iBooks uses a private API to allow the user to change the iOS device's brightness. No other developer is allowed to use this API. If they did, Apple's
automated systems would detect such usage and reject the App without it even being reviewed by a human.

iBooks is an App on the App Store, rather than one included with iOS, so it should be subjected to the same rules and guidelines as any other App submitted to the App Store.
 
Cleverboy said:
You know what's irritating?

People acting like this is new, and swallowing whole what's clearly manipulation of the media. Yes, yes... Apple controlling... very sexy story. Yum.

Kongregate. What? Yes, Kongregate. Recently Android denied the app "Kongregate", because it violated a "non-compete" clause in the market. Kongregate allowed free access to hundreds of Flash games... but let users download the games and store them on their SD card. They moved to change the app so that it did not download the games, but instead allowed users to play them from the web.

How's that related? Well, just that fact that ALL App Stores have certain types of restrictions. But, unlike what's happening here, people are misreporting this. There's this SEEMINGLY little known restriction, that Apple and Google tried to hold people to when submitting apps. No matter WHO you are... don't take credit card numbers inside the app. If you want to do a purchase inside the app, use the in-app purchase API. There is NO exclusion for magazines, or whatever. This is simply the way things are.

Time Magazine had this same fight LAST year with Apple. Oddly... many links to this stand-off seem to have evaporated in relevance. Time ended up creating a mechanism by which existing subscribers could be verified and download the content for free.

Check it out:

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/201...blem-is-trouble-for-every-magazine-publisher/
Even then, I scratched my head at the dark speculation of Apple's evil intent. Isn't this rejection part of a policy that's been in place for a while? Let's see...

Apple has TWO problems.

One that it shares with Google, one of its own making.

#1.) CREDIT CARDS - Apps shouldn't take credit cards. This is just common sense. You don't need 700 fake banking apps eliminated from Android Marketplace to know that apps that ask for credit card information are pretty serious issues, especially if users can't confirm the information is being transmitted securely. So... as a rule... just NO. Google says this too. I've seen some exceptions, but I think its a hard, hard rules to enforce, especially when you confirm big companies who take care with sensitive data. Apple usually requires people to go through the Safari browser to communicate this data to the company.

#2.) CONTENT RATING - Apple rates its apps for content. Apple has created parental controls. Apple wants to be able to marginally control whether someone is able to spontaneously create a porn app. This... seems like a VERY, very hard situation. With magazines that have clear policies on nudity, etc... Apple has tried to be flexible with outside content. But, what about eBooks? Even access to the Kama Sutra have gotten some apps in hot water. What about web browsers and ebook readers, Apple? Well... indeed. That's the heart of this issue.

This is a repeat of the Time Magazine mess. Kindle isn't "NEXT". That's just yellow journalism. The Kindle App doesn't DO in-app purchases at all. Apple doesn't want "their cut" more than they want "safe commerce" on the commerce process to not be violated.

Apple's not an innocent in this. They continue to have mis-queues and bottleneck issues that harm the development process. They recently tried to be more transparent about App Store guidelines.

Every story on rejection, should reference this hallmark statement from Apple last year:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/09/09statement.html


Yes. And they DID!

http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

Non-devs, can read many of these guidelines here:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/thoughts-on-apples-new-app-store-guidelines/

11.2 is a toughie, isn't it? But, iLounge's Jessie Holington wrote:


Recently, Apple was also criticized for not allowing charities to take money through PayPal. Stories implied Apple wanted its cut. Here's Apple's guideline:
Sounds like the end of the world, doesn't it?

~ CB
Click to expand...

CB, thank you for you investigation and smart posting. Unfotunately, it won't stop the people from buying into the evil fruit conspiracy.
 
Ignoring the fact that iBooks is the worst of all the readers out there, if Apple bans the Kindle app the iPhone4 will be my last Apple device. I've been on the fence for awhile, but that action from Apple would send a clear message about their future plans so why hang around.

It wouldn't be an easy transition, but this is something I would take a stand over.
 
jeez....

I have no idea why I feel the need to shout into the tempest here, but as others have mentioned this kind of "scandal" seems to blow up about once a month.

1. Apple rejects app.

2. Information of the rejection is shouted to various websites like this one and everyone gets all indignant.

3. Developer resubmits app.

4. App is approved and available for download.

5. It later comes out that the app was trying to do something that is not permitted in the developer agreement, and it appears that someone was just crying for no good reason.

I would bet a paycheck that the Sony Reader app will be available for download from the App Store within a month.
 
Overreaction

Everyone needs to calm the frak down.

This is pretty obviously because Sony made their ebook purchases IN-app.

When you go to the Kindle Store from the Kindle app it opens Safari.

Kindle is not going anywhere.

RELAX.
 
The Sony eReader app allowed the purchase of books within the app. Kindle and Nook readers dumped you over to the external website via browser.

That's the main reason for rejection.

I would be extremely surprised if/when Sony alters their app to be like Amazon's and B&N's that they would still be rejected.

Until then - this thread is a lot of "the sky is falling - the sky is falling"

But - at the end of the day, there's more than a kernel of truth that Apple would simply love to be the one and only content provider. I just don't think it's wise to build the wall THAT high and not expect to alienate customers.
 
samcraig said:
the sony ereader app allowed the purchase of books within the app. Kindle and nook readers dumped you over to the external website via browser.

That's the main reason for rejection.

I would be extremely surprised if/when sony alters their app to be like amazon's and b&n's that they would still be rejected.

Until then - this thread is a lot of "the sky is falling - the sky is falling"

but - at the end of the day, there's more than a kernel of truth that apple would simply love to be the one and only content provider. I just don't think it's wise to build the wall that high and not expect to alienate customers.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Cleverboy said:
You know what's irritating?

People acting like this is new, and swallowing whole what's clearly manipulation of the media. Yes, yes... Apple controlling... very sexy story. Yum.

Kongregate. What? Yes, Kongregate. Recently Android denied the app "Kongregate", because it violated a "non-compete" clause in the market. Kongregate allowed free access to hundreds of Flash games... but let users download the games and store them on their SD card. They moved to change the app so that it did not download the games, but instead allowed users to play them from the web.

How's that related? Well, just that fact that ALL App Stores have certain types of restrictions. But, unlike what's happening here, people are misreporting this. There's this SEEMINGLY little known restriction, that Apple and Google tried to hold people to when submitting apps. No matter WHO you are... don't take credit card numbers inside the app. If you want to do a purchase inside the app, use the in-app purchase API. There is NO exclusion for magazines, or whatever. This is simply the way things are.

Time Magazine had this same fight LAST year with Apple. Oddly... many links to this stand-off seem to have evaporated in relevance. Time ended up creating a mechanism by which existing subscribers could be verified and download the content for free.

Check it out:

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/201...blem-is-trouble-for-every-magazine-publisher/
Even then, I scratched my head at the dark speculation of Apple's evil intent. Isn't this rejection part of a policy that's been in place for a while? Let's see...

Apple has TWO problems.

One that it shares with Google, one of its own making.

#1.) CREDIT CARDS - Apps shouldn't take credit cards. This is just common sense. You don't need 700 fake banking apps eliminated from Android Marketplace to know that apps that ask for credit card information are pretty serious issues, especially if users can't confirm the information is being transmitted securely. So... as a rule... just NO. Google says this too. I've seen some exceptions, but I think its a hard, hard rules to enforce, especially when you confirm big companies who take care with sensitive data. Apple usually requires people to go through the Safari browser to communicate this data to the company.

#2.) CONTENT RATING - Apple rates its apps for content. Apple has created parental controls. Apple wants to be able to marginally control whether someone is able to spontaneously create a porn app. This... seems like a VERY, very hard situation. With magazines that have clear policies on nudity, etc... Apple has tried to be flexible with outside content. But, what about eBooks? Even access to the Kama Sutra have gotten some apps in hot water. What about web browsers and ebook readers, Apple? Well... indeed. That's the heart of this issue.

This is a repeat of the Time Magazine mess. Kindle isn't "NEXT". That's just yellow journalism. The Kindle App doesn't DO in-app purchases at all. Apple doesn't want "their cut" more than they want "safe commerce" on the commerce process to not be violated.

Apple's not an innocent in this. They continue to have mis-queues and bottleneck issues that harm the development process. They recently tried to be more transparent about App Store guidelines.

Every story on rejection, should reference this hallmark statement from Apple last year:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/09/09statement.html


Yes. And they DID!

http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

Non-devs, can read many of these guidelines here:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/thoughts-on-apples-new-app-store-guidelines/

11.2 is a toughie, isn't it? But, iLounge's Jessie Holington wrote:


Recently, Apple was also criticized for not allowing charities to take money through PayPal. Stories implied Apple wanted its cut. Here's Apple's guideline:
Sounds like the end of the world, doesn't it?

~ CB
Click to expand...


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
I see a big lawsuit coming. And Apple losing.

We've all discussed this type of Apple monopoly behavior of the iOS devices and App Store...no matter how you spin the "it's Apple's store so and they can do what they want" comments.

Besides, Kindle blows away iPad for true book reading.
 
samcraig said:
The Sony eReader app allowed the purchase of books within the app. Kindle and Nook readers dumped you over to the external website via browser.
That's the main reason for rejection.
I would be extremely surprised if/when Sony alters their app to be like Amazon's and B&N's that they would still be rejected.
Click to expand...

Except that doesn't fit with the line ;

"...or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store."

Someone (NYT or Apple) needs to refute or confirm this. I don't care about "workarounds" that Apple might be happy with to fit with arcane app store rules, but if this really is a land grab as that phrase implies, that's the deal breaker.
 
What's up fanbois? You wanted this, no? Whoever shouted ban Flash contributed to this and worst is yet to come. Mark my words.
 
zacheryjensen said:
I don't believe this for a second. Sony is well known for spouting B.S. that is completely unfounded. They probably got rejected for using an IN-APP WEBVIEW control to open their store. If Apple was to make this change, randomly, most of the very top rated app store apps would be banned:

Kindle
Nook
(basically every eReader app, even Stanza for accessing Fictionwise)
Evernote
Netflix
Pandora
Skype
Hulu Plus
FarmVille
FT
NYTimes
Dropbox
box.net
(tons of other services accessible via App Store apps of their own and others)

As well as many other similarly purposed apps. There is no way Apple is banning eBooks as reading (of various forms, such as mail, sms, im, twitter, books, articles, documents, notes, etc.) is pretty much the #1 reason to use iPad and iPhone and we all know iBooks is a pathetic performer compared to Kindle.

The fact is that Sony is a competitor with Apple. Sony is full of talking heads that don't know what their priorities should be and will blindly jab at competition even while trying to ride their coattails. When, if ever, real details finally show up for what really happened I'm sure it will be a well established rule having been broken and Sony using it as a false alarm for crying wolf about Apple's app store.

I mean, really, how many times has this kind of nonsense come up (independent, unverifiable app store approval claims) and later we find out it was just lies? Way too often.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with this post and I have to say, I think it is actually irresponsible of Macrumors to post something like this that could be incredibly damaging based on rumors from a competitor and then phrase it by speculating about Kindle being removed as the headline.

BTW, this also isn't a policy change, all "in APP purchases" have always had to go through the Apple store. Kindle books are not bought in App, you are sent to the website for purchasing.

Netflix is bought through the web.

Marvel Comics is bought in app and I imagine apple gets a 30% cut.


Point is, way to little data for this kind of speculating.
 
Tumbleweed666 said:
Except that doesn't fit with the line ;

"...or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store."

Someone (NYT or Apple) needs to refute or confirm this. I don't care about "workarounds" that Apple might be happy with to fit with arcane app store rules, but if this really is a land grab as that phrase implies, that's the deal breaker.
Click to expand...
NYT needs to check its facts. Apple doesn't need to dispute ANYTHING. Just look at what's already in the App Store. Wallstreet Journal, Amazon.com, Kindle, Audible, People (subscription confirmation), etc. Sony is being idiotic. They should promote how they're able to freely do whatever they're saying on Android. But, I'm not sure they can... because last time I checked, Google didn't cotton to app taking credit cards either. It's just a reasonable rule. I'm also thinking Amazon's new App Store won't allow credit card taking apps.

~ CB
 
Ridiculous

if they try to hamper the Kindle App with this policy. I'll be sure to not upgrade my current version of the App, EVER, and I sure as hell WILL NOT purchase the iPad 2.
 
wwchris said:
Yeah, I agree with this post and I have to say, I think it is actually irresponsible of Macrumors to post something like this that could be incredibly damaging based on rumors from a competitor and then phrase it by speculating about Kindle being removed as the headline.

BTW, this also isn't a policy change, all "in APP purchases" have always had to go through the Apple store. Kindle books are not bought in App, you are sent to the website for purchasing.

Netflix is bought through the web.

Marvel Comics is bought in app and I imagine apple gets a 30% cut.

Point is, way to little data for this kind of speculating.
Click to expand...
Mindbendingly bad reporting by NYT. But... its SELLS! They're probably getting loads of impressions. Sexy story. I think Mark Twain said something about this.

~ CB
 
What ARE you thinking?

Hey Apple,

I give talks to groups about digital publishing and often get asked about e-reader recommendations. One of the biggest selling points for the iPad is the choice it gives you: iBooks, Kindle, and Nook.

I like the iBook reader the best, but let's face it, the Kindle and Nook stores have a larger selection and they have sales and giveaways that the iBookstore doesn't.

Don't take away the other e-readers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back