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

[howard]

I'm sure you supported the ban on Flash. Now you have it, just now it's not games but books.

I didn't have an opinion one way or another on Flash. But Apple had a reason for doing it which was performance/battery life as well as the fact that most Flash content can be developed on other platforms. In any case, I never felt the affect of not having Flash.

This is entirely different. This is simply negative to customers, there is no positive or logical reasoning here other than greed.

 

[ahostmadsen]

Unbelievable!

I'm not sure this is a wise business decision on Apple's part.

For example: I currently have a Kindle, and a lot of Kindle content. I was thinking of buying the next version iPad when it is released. But if Apple ban's Kindle contents, I will look elsewhere for a tablet type reader.

 

[CylonGlitch]

I just buy all my books on my Mac and then remove the copy protection and put it on any device I chose. I don't advocate stealing, but I do prefer to not be tied to any one device.

 

[kas23]

Eh... I see both sides on this. People are not all up in arms that you can't play a XBox 360 game on a PS3. That's expected, they are competing systems and there are hardware limitations. But because there is no hardware limitation, Apple should allow people to buy products from a competing service?

I see your point here. But Apple shouldn't just haphazardly jump into different industries and then not allow their competition on the iDevice because they can't compete with them. The book selection at Amazon is 100X better than the iBookstore. I know Apple may not agree with me, but its about offering the end-user the best selection possible. If you can run with the big dogs, you shouldn't run. Just don't chose to tie them up.

I just buy all my books on my Mac and then remove the copy protection and put it on any device I chose. I don't advocate stealing, but I do prefer to not be tied to any one device.

This is not stealing, sir. The reason media costs so much is due to the costs of the copyright. CDs cost pennies to produce. Ebooks costs pennies to produce. We pay a lot of money for the right to use this content in a reasonable manner, not the actual "physical" medium itself. Therefore, you have the right to reasonably use the contents of these files as you chose. I would say showing a movie for free in an arena would be unreasonable use. But, personally reading the content on a different device certainly is not unreasonable and is not stealing.

 

[hayesk]

Apple has never allowed apps to have in-app purchases that go through Apple. Kindle and Nook haven't tried to do this - only Sony. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There's no conspiracy, no "beat-down", the Sony app broke the rules, plain and simple. Kindle didn't, Nook didn't, so why everyone thinking "Kindle will be next" don't understand the issue here.

 

[gri]

I hope this is for the reasons mentioned some posts above this one (i.e. security issue, in app downloads, books not transferable etc.). I planned to get the next iPad as I noticed that once you read a book it usually sits around collecting dust and taking up space (and honestly - who is reading "Mona Lisa's smile" twice). But if Apple is too greedy to allow better applications than theirs than this is not a good move and shows the flip side of the coin: A book is mine once I have bought it and in my possession and is not upon any company's mercy...

 

[ctdonath]

Can you provide a link

It was in the comments.

 

[Popeye206]

I'm not sure this is a wise business decision on Apple's part.

For example: I currently have a Kindle, and a lot of Kindle content. I was thinking of buying the next version iPad when it is released. But if Apple ban's Kindle contents, I will look elsewhere for a tablet type reader.

Funny.... Apple rejects one App for reasons that are only speculated, and everyone wants to jump to the worst conclusion so quickly based on some writers news hype.

It makes no sense that Apple would limit outside content or outside apps. They limit certain things for security reasons, but not to prohibit use or content.

Think about it people... Apple would have nothing to gain with this sort of speculated lock down... especially if they want to gain users like the person above and I'm sure they do.

 

[Popeye206]

Apple has never allowed apps to have in-app purchases that go through Apple. Kindle and Nook haven't tried to do this - only Sony. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There's no conspiracy, no "beat-down", the Sony app broke the rules, plain and simple. Kindle didn't, Nook didn't, so why everyone thinking "Kindle will be next" don't understand the issue here.

+1.... you hit the nail on the head.

 

[samcraig]

At first it seemed that Apple didn't want competition on its device, then I read the article and says that they just want in-app purchase process, a totally different thing.

In Apple defense I tried once Kindle for iPad, and buying book from Amazon website was confusing compared to iBooks.

In Amazon's defense - if you can buy a book with the iBooks app and you are confused on how to buy a book with the Kindle app - it might be you.

And by that - I mean you are either so much in Apple's "camp" - or clicking on the buy now button is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

I'm not trying to insult you... I just find this line of argument silly and almost laughable.

 

[diabolic]

Apple has never allowed apps to have in-app purchases that go through Apple. Kindle and Nook haven't tried to do this - only Sony. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There's no conspiracy, no "beat-down", the Sony app broke the rules, plain and simple. Kindle didn't, Nook didn't, so why everyone thinking "Kindle will be next" don't understand the issue here.

People like to pile on when there is an inkling of Apple exercising any control over anything.

I agree with you. There's no big deal here at all.

 

[kas23]

Funny.... Apple rejects one App for reasons that are only speculated, and everyone wants to jump to the worst conclusion so quickly based on some writers news hype.

It makes no sense that Apple would limit outside content or outside apps. They limit certain things for security reasons, but not to prohibit use or content.

Think about it people... Apple would have nothing to gain with this sort of speculated lock down... especially if they want to gain users like the person above and I'm sure they do.

What are these potential security issues if I may ask?

And Apple has plenty to gain from this. They are blocking competition. Therefore, Apple is blocking people from buying an ebook from the Sony ebook store and coercing people to buy from the iBookstore. Is this really a hard concept?

 

[Tones2]

Apple has never allowed apps to have in-app purchases that go through Apple. Kindle and Nook haven't tried to do this - only Sony. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There's no conspiracy, no "beat-down", the Sony app broke the rules, plain and simple. Kindle didn't, Nook didn't, so why everyone thinking "Kindle will be next" don't understand the issue here.

Nope. Sony says there submitted app works exactly like the Android version which works just like the Kindle anf Nook apps - meaning that you get redirected to a browser for purchases. Read the updated source article.

Tony

 

[CylonGlitch]

Apple has never allowed apps to have in-app purchases that go through Apple. Kindle and Nook haven't tried to do this - only Sony. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Ahhh.. this is, it looks like, the heart of the issue.

No application is allowed to do "IN-APP" purchases without going through Apple. For security reasons, this seems logical. They don't want apps making their own in-app purchases screens because it a) gets around Apple's cut, and b) can really be dangerous if not done correctly [not that Sony can't do it correctly, but this is more a general rule].

Sony's reader does just this, it has it's own in-app purchasing screens and communicates directly with their server.

The Kindle and Nook do NOT do this, they redirect you to Safari and their website front end where people can log in and buy stuff that way but not via fake in-app purchasing screens.

So, Sony broke the rules, got slapped and people are up in arms. This is not about Apple being mean or unjust, or trying to stifle competition; but more of just applying the rules that every developer agreed to follow.

 

[Zepaw]

What a ******** move. I had a Sony reader for a while and would enjoy having access to some of those books again.

 

[Tones2]

Funny.... Apple rejects one App for reasons that are only speculated, and everyone wants to jump to the worst conclusion so quickly based on some writers news hype.

It makes no sense that Apple would limit outside content or outside apps. They limit certain things for security reasons, but not to prohibit use or content.

Think about it people... Apple would have nothing to gain with this sort of speculated lock down... especially if they want to gain users like the person above and I'm sure they do.

Well, if that's true, that all Apple has to do then is COMMENT about what happened to clear it all up, which as usual they refuse to do.

tony

 

[kas23]

Apple has never allowed apps to have in-app purchases that go through Apple.

I'm a little confused. What are you trying to say here?

 

[CylonGlitch]

Nope. Sony says there submitted app works exactly like the Android version which works just like the Kindle anf Nook apps - meaning that you get redirected to a browser for purchases. Read the updated source article.

If true, then maybe Apple is being a pain in the ass. I don't know, I have never used the Sony app. I hate the Nook app and the Kindle app, which isn't bad, just doesn't do anything that iBooks doesn't so I see no need for it (for me).

 

[Tones2]

Ahhh.. this is, it looks like, the heart of the issue.

No application is allowed to do "IN-APP" purchases without going through Apple. For security reasons, this seems logical. They don't want apps making their own in-app purchases screens because it a) gets around Apple's cut, and b) can really be dangerous if not done correctly [not that Sony can't do it correctly, but this is more a general rule].

Sony's reader does just this, it has it's own in-app purchasing screens and communicates directly with their server.

The Kindle and Nook do NOT do this, they redirect you to Safari and their website front end where people can log in and buy stuff that way but not via fake in-app purchasing screens.

So, Sony broke the rules, got slapped and people are up in arms. This is not about Apple being mean or unjust, or trying to stifle competition; but more of just applying the rules that every developer agreed to follow.

Once again, this is not true. Read my post above and the update to the original story.

tony

 

[Tones2]

If true, then maybe Apple is being a pain in the ass. I don't know, I have never used the Sony app. I hate the Nook app and the Kindle app, which isn't bad, just doesn't do anything that iBooks doesn't so I see no need for it (for me).

Except that iBooks has about 30% of the CONTENT that the other stores have. It's terrible.

Tony

 

[CylonGlitch]

Well, if that's true, that all Apple has to do then is COMMENT about what happened to clear it all up, which as usual they refuse to do.

The policy from Apple is to not comment on why things are rejected or not. That is between them and the developer, no one else. That is the way it should be. If the developer releases that information, that is up to them.

 

[nuppieri]

i don't like this

i guess apple is trying to catch the business of internet that anybody forgot at the beginning of this era. and actually they have good cards...

apple want to make me pay for the device they build, now they want a commision with my purchases i do aswell. and the keyfeature is "ecosystem". sure, cool and simple.

ok apple, i don't need this kind of platform. i don't want it. if apple's big idea to make my life easier is just to programm and build a hole ecosystem only with the goal to buy only apple related products and having problems if i don't want it 100% standard, then forget it. this **** is surely nice to have and looks cool, but is really not necesary... devices ok, design are killerfeature and apple stuff ist really nice to have... but for data handling? no way.

i asked me many times how could our online lifes be if the web wherenot a public network... i'm sure we where paying for sending emails today.

what's coming next? paying apple or google for online purchases with safari or chrome? or paying adobe commission for designs you do with the creative suite?

 

[CylonGlitch]

Except that iBooks has about 30% of the CONTENT that the other stores have. It's terrible.

And exactly why I said in an earlier post. I just buy the books wherever I want, remove the copy protection and then sync them to my phone. Since I'm not a HUGE reader, I'm never on the go and find myself looking for something to read. I just buy my books ahead of time.

This works for me, may not work for others.

 

[Popeye206]

What are these potential security issues if I may ask?

And Apple has plenty to gain from this. They are blocking competition. Therefore, Apple is blocking people from buying an ebook from the Sony ebook store and coercing people to buy from the iBookstore. Is this really a hard concept?

Yes there is a security issue. This is why they don't allow for direct app purchases and why Sony was removed and why Kindle is not. You have to allow for an open exchange of data and this opens a hole for someone to exploit.

Again... nothing to gain. Apple is selling apps and content just fine on it's own and I'm sure they are counting on the ease of use to attract more sales. Banning outside content just makes no sense.

I'd recommend stop looking for the conspiracy here... it does not exist so why think there is? When Apple officially comes out and cuts off outside content, then we can freak out. But I don't think we'll see that happen.

 

[Tones2]

The policy from Apple is to not comment on why things are rejected or not. That is between them and the developer, no one else. That is the way it should be. If the developer releases that information, that is up to them.

Which Sony DID. So we have to accept Sony's stated reason for rejection, the criteria of which is inconsistent with other approved readers. Unless Apple wants to clarify.

Tony