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 Rejects 'Sony Reader' From App Store, 'Kindle' Removal Next?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sigh.
Man people will believe anything a "journalist" throws up on the web.
Nothing is happening to Kindle. Nothing.
I suspect that the Sony app was doing some things it shouldn't (like allowing in app purchasing without using the App store). If they rework it so it works more like Kindle and Nook (where you go to the browser to buy things then sync them down) it will be fine.
Why are so many of you willing to bash Apple about pure speculation? Why don't you wait and see what Apple does first?
Why is it that on a site about APPLE we have so many people that hate their guts? I just don't get it.
Man people will believe anything a "journalist" throws up on the web.
Nothing is happening to Kindle. Nothing.
I suspect that the Sony app was doing some things it shouldn't (like allowing in app purchasing without using the App store). If they rework it so it works more like Kindle and Nook (where you go to the browser to buy things then sync them down) it will be fine.
Why are so many of you willing to bash Apple about pure speculation? Why don't you wait and see what Apple does first?
Why is it that on a site about APPLE we have so many people that hate their guts? I just don't get it.
You have nothing to worry about. Even if this concern was warranted, Amazon would simply not release another version of Kindle for iOS. It wouldn't make any sense to change what's working. It wouldn't be pulled, because that would defeat the purpose of Apple not pre-installing iBooks in the first place... they didn't want to create anti-competitive backlash.
Stanza, Kindle Books, Google Books, etc. Really, Sony? They're all going to evaporate? Not sure what kind of gas has entered the room, but its fairly potent I gather.
~ CB
Totally agree with you on that one. The apple has started to rot, its only a matter of time.
Atomic Browser uses a very clever display trick to adjust its brightness, but it's not actually adjusting the backlight.
No it isn't.
Its more like McDonalds selling you a burger and telling you that you can't put Mustard or Ketchup on it when you get home unless Heinz gives them a cut of their sales.
I don't know if this story from the NY times is out of whack, I'm not going to jump straight to conclusions on limited info.
But your analogy seems like an extremely poor one.
There's a few more months for these things to get hashed out before I make a decision on a tablet, but their 30% cut clearly does not make sense in some cases.
An app for some of these retailers is simply a way of optimizing the shopping experience for a touch interface.
It certainly makes absolutely no sense in the world for apple to get a cut for that convenience given to the user via the app a retailer paid to create and offer to a customer.
This is turning into very dangerous slope for apple.
I dont know what the solution is here, perhaps they are pushing all retailers to develop web apps or optimize thier existing websites. But it's difficult for me to understand the difference in apples eyes from rejecting the newspaper "free" apps while allowing netflix to have an app.
The Kindle and Nook apps are NOT going anywhere and you'll still be able to read your books purchased there on the iPhone and iPad.
And you'll still be able to watch Netflix movies and all those other things that people are worried about.
You won't be able to purchase sony books directly in-app, however, unless they agree to give Apple their cut.
That is all.
And you'll still be able to watch Netflix movies and all those other things that people are worried about.
You won't be able to purchase sony books directly in-app, however, unless they agree to give Apple their cut.
That is all.
THIS.
Some clueless reporter reflexively declares something they don't understand, and suddenly everyone is all mad at Apple for screwing things up - WITHOUT understanding WHY. There's usually more to the story.
Found on Engaget.com:
"The kindle app (and nook app) was changed already to use the raw file system, and books are pulled in from a web page, and you have to buy them on the web page (not in-app). Its a file download. Sony tried to use in-app features to buy books, bypassing child protections apple has in place preventing kids from using your account without entering a password first, but also not replacing that with SSL based purchase security on a web site. Also, Sony is also downloading the content inside the app's own storage, not as raw files, making the impossible to sync back and forth to a PC or other devices, and also violating the in-app updating content from 3rd party sources rules.
"Sony simply needs to make simple changes: use the file system, allow book migration between devices, and stop using a directly connected 3rd party payment system. If they do as Amazon and BnK anlready do, it will get approved, and apple still gets $0 from each book sale.
"This has nothing to do with content blocking or apple demanding 30%, this has to do with use of features that are potential security risks that ALL apps have to be banned from using consistently. This is not some vague rule Sony accidentally tripped over, its a VERY clear condition, mentioned multiple times in the dev agreement in crystal clear print."
Especially the NYT though!
That's a very good question. I'd be willing to bet it won't be the powerhouse it is today. HP's WebOS will be the new "cool" thing in town, MS will still have a monopoly over corporate usage, and when Apple has to compete with WebOS and Windows for consumer market share only, and all 3 OS's are just as good, I don't see Apple's premium brand surviving outside of the pro market - if they haven't abandoned it completely by then.
Heh... Who didn't see that coming raise their hand...
But I kinda agree with most.. The iBook store isn't the best thing Apple did lol
But I kinda agree with most.. The iBook store isn't the best thing Apple did lol
Ah, sounds like it was some misinformation.
But I will say even though I don't use Kindle I'd be annoyed.
And that while I prefer the iBook reader Amazon is cheaper for books and tends to have a little more (of the books I tend to want. I'm lucky I guess that ibooks mostly has the books I want).
Which kinda annoys me cause i can't find a good way to remove DRM on Kindle books and I'd buy the ones not available on iBooks from Amazon if I could get them easily ported over to read on iBooks.
But I will say even though I don't use Kindle I'd be annoyed.
And that while I prefer the iBook reader Amazon is cheaper for books and tends to have a little more (of the books I tend to want. I'm lucky I guess that ibooks mostly has the books I want).
Which kinda annoys me cause i can't find a good way to remove DRM on Kindle books and I'd buy the ones not available on iBooks from Amazon if I could get them easily ported over to read on iBooks.
At first I agreed with Apple, then I disagreed for the same principle that made me initially agree.
Ok, I think it's fair game to not really direct competitors in your store.
I also think it's only fair to allow content to be put on the device outside your store.
That's pretty sneaky.
Ok, I think it's fair game to not really direct competitors in your store.
I also think it's only fair to allow content to be put on the device outside your store.
That's pretty sneaky.
You can sue for anything you want to sue for. But if you want to have any chance of winning on your premise, you better sue Amazon instead of Apple. It was Amazon/Kindle that promised you cross-device functionality, not Apple.
Yes, why should Apple allow you to purchase music from Amazon on your Mac, they built the Mac, they built the OS, they built iTunes (through which you play the music)?
Why are people commenting so negatively towards Apple? All we know so far is only half of the story.
To get riled up at the Kindle aspect of this "story" at this time is simply wrong as it's all speculation at this time.
Crazy....
To get riled up at the Kindle aspect of this "story" at this time is simply wrong as it's all speculation at this time.
Crazy....
Apple may be going too far
I'm writing this on my iPad, but if Apple thinks by forcing me to only buy content from the iTunes store they may be finally pushing me too far. I currently can share books that I buy for my wife's Kindle and read them on my iPad with only have to buy one copy. I don't think people who want an e-reader only will buy an iPad. Remember Apple, a Kindle is only $139, and a Nook is cheaper and has color. With no flash support and a restrictive purchase policy Android starts looking attractive. This new policy is like forcing Chevy owners to only be able to buy gas from a GM gas station.
I'm writing this on my iPad, but if Apple thinks by forcing me to only buy content from the iTunes store they may be finally pushing me too far. I currently can share books that I buy for my wife's Kindle and read them on my iPad with only have to buy one copy. I don't think people who want an e-reader only will buy an iPad. Remember Apple, a Kindle is only $139, and a Nook is cheaper and has color. With no flash support and a restrictive purchase policy Android starts looking attractive. This new policy is like forcing Chevy owners to only be able to buy gas from a GM gas station.
And Apple is getting advertising by having apps like the Kindle app. This flows both ways.
Can you provide a link, because this is what I saw on endgadget, and its not different than here, by very much:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/apple-rejects-sony-reader-app-doesnt-want-you-buying-content-f/
And is accessing storage space bought via the web from Dropbox on your iOS device digital content?
Exactly. Apple has no reason to allow Sony/Amazon/whoever to give away an iPhone app – distributed by Apple – that extends the usability of a product that competes with Apple. If Apple thinks it’s a bad business decision to allow competitors to put free content on Apple devices, that doesn’t strike me as anticompetitive conduct.
I would, though, like to hear Apple's definition of what transactional apps are and are not permitted to do.
No, Apple is just saying you can't get free gas at their iPad stations. Your car/gas to reader/content analogy presumes that a company who sells readers and content should have a reasonable expectation that the content they sell will work on their competitors' readers. If Apple thinks allowing kindle content to be viewed for free on an iPad effective subsidizes the same of kindles, why should Apple allow it? If the reason is that you think it's a bad business decision for Apple, won't the market sort that out?
Last edited:
That could potentially violate rule 11.1:
"Apps that unlock or enable additional features or functionality with mechanisms other than the App Store will be rejected".
It's things like this that I don't think are particularly clear.
Apple could do everyone a lot of favours by expanding this section of the guidelines with more specific rules and examples.