Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sure they do, to put public pressure on Apple. I don't think anyone knows exactly what happened here, but we can be sure that Sony's version is not the whole story.

Time will tell. If this does represent a new Apple policy, Barnes and Noble and Amazon's readers should both be removed in the near future. If that doesn't happen, I think we can presume that there is something hanky about Sony's statement.

I article implies that their source is not just Sony. It says:

The company [Apple] has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store."

This quote implies that there are other application developers that have been told the same thing. What are these other applications? Who told the NYTs about these other applications (including Sony's)? I don't really know. But, it doesn't necessarily mean that Sony is the source.
 

Ok, thanks for the reference. 2 interesting points. First: "A representative of Sony's PR company wrote to tell me that the functionality of the rejected iPhone app is "essentially the same" as the Reader app for Android--which, like other companies' iPhone apps, launches a browser for book buying."

So, here's my question on this one. Does it close the App and open Safari, like the Kindle, or does it open a browser window within the app? I know it sounds like a minor difference, but it could be big for Apple.

Second, "But I don’t think we know enough yet to understand what’s going on here." And that's really all I'm saying. I'm not trying to excuse Apple, I'm just posing possible alternative theories because I don't think we have all the facts. And while I agree that Sony wouldn't overtly lie, they, like anyone, will slant the truth in their favor. Apple could well have a different take on the same events. (Ever see a movie called "Rashomon"?)
 
Hard to see any legal issues stemming from this. But it wouldn't make a lot of business sense. The iBookstore is by far the absolute worst digital bookstore on the market. And that should be a bit of a black eye for Apple, since the iPad was supposed to slay the Kindle (originally).

Still, they've done nothing to change that. No significant announcements and, as far as I can tell, no effort to procure more content since the iPad launched. The iBookstore may well be Apple's biggest failure of the last decade. It is a joke.

I agree. iBooks is a terrible excuse for a digital bookstore.
 
What rules did they break? It's already been clarified that the app does exactly what the Kindle app does - redirects to a browser for purchase.

Tony

Except, that you're basing this on the current / previous version of the Sony app. We don't know what the version they submitted to Apple did. Never know what they changed because it was never made public.
 
Sony has no incentive to put public pressure on Apple. They just want their app approved and there is NO WAY that they would overtly LIE about the actual FACTS of what they submitted, because they know the truth of this would eventually come out.

You are joking, right? There's no way they'd try to give Apple a bad PR day?

Note also that the "update" you're pointing to says that

A representative of Sony's PR company wrote to tell me that the functionality of the rejected iPhone app is "essentially the same" as the Reader app for Android--which, like other companies' iPhone apps, launches a browser for book buying.

"essentially the same" are weasel words.
 
Look, I totally understand that Apple won't allow Sony to directly sell content from within its iPhone app. Cool. But that is not all the article says. It says:

"The company has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store."

I bolded some of the quote for your benefit. I think this is what people are having issues with.

As for Apple having nothing to gain. I'm going to make this really, really simple. The #1 book on NYTs best-seller list is a book called "Shadowfever". Suppose I want to buy this ebook. I can buy it either from Sony ebook store or from iBookstore (if they even have it). The ebook costs $10. If I buy it from Sony, Apple makes $0. OIf I buy it from the iBookstore, Apple stands to make $3.00. If Apple blocks my ability to use the Sony ebook on my iPad, I'm more likely will buy the iBookstore one. Apple makes $3.00 from me.

And don't try to argue that Apple doesn't care about getting more of my money because they already make enough money selling apps. That argument is laughable. They are one of the greediest corporations in America. They want every penny they can get their hands on.



The article says that Apple rejected it because it lets "customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store". How is this breaking the rules?

I read and I also understand this is all based loosely on a supposive policy change that has not resulted in other applications being removed.

It just does not make sense. Otherwise with these rules you wouldn't be able to move your own content onto an iDevice. Right? I would imagine that Apple wants to encourage sales through their own store, but they would be fools to lock out other content. Again.... just does not make sense and even if they did try this, I'm sure it would not last long.

So, instead of freaking out based on one article that has yet to be confirmed, and there are NO DETAILS FROM ANY RELIABLE SOURCE, I'll just sit back and see what reality is.

Sorry... but I just don't buy into the whole hype around this.
 
So, here's my question on this one. Does it close the App and open Safari, like the Kindle, or does it open a browser window within the app? I know it sounds like a minor difference, but it could be big for Apple.

On Android, it opens the default browser. And if you look at the screenshots, you can see Safari, not in app browser control
 
So, instead of freaking out based on one article that has yet to be confirmed, and there are NO DETAILS FROM ANY RELIABLE SOURCE, I'll just sit back and see what reality is.

Wait, man, that's crazy talk!! This is a rumors forum!! </kidding>
 
"essentially the same" are weasel words.

If Sony is "essentially the same," then oh well, nothing to see here.

If Sony is "exactly the same" then I'm not happy.

Either-way, iBooks needs an e-reader for Mac and PC already. I've already moved to Kindle only because of that one feature. (Expanding their book store selection would help a lot also.)
 
On Android, it opens the default browser. And if you look at the screenshots, you can see Safari, not in app browser control

OK, thanks. I didn't focus on the screenshot. Well, there goes that theory!! This is odd. What is Apple thinking? Do they have a special deal of some kind with Amazon? Hmmm.....
 
If true, that's the end for iPad, and probably for iPhone as well. I'll buy some other device that I'm actually allowed to use.
 
This just in: All browsers pulled from the app store over breach in terms. Apple requires 30% cut on all internet purchases. Mobile Safari update coming in iOS 4.3 to impose fee on all online credit card transactions.
 
Don't Panic.

Apple is not going to drop Kindle so can everyone can just relax. We have no idea why Apple rejected Sony's app. They rejects apps all the time. Sony will follow the protocol make an adjustment to the app so it fits the requirements and resubmit it to the app store. Holy smokes, apple rejects and an app and everyone is claiming media armageddon.
 
The implications of such a policy would be WAY too broad!

Apple has reversed bad calls many times. Time for that to happen again...
 
We do know what was in the Sony app. Read the article. Its really obvious but the usual linkbaiter page view whore websites pretend not to know. The usual morons, starting with the NYT, are in full force this morning with this non-story. Sony wanted to have their own store within the app store which Apple has never allowed for many good reasons. Instead, Amazon and others have users go to the internet to buy books. Same as it's always been. But Sony, being a bunch of whiny bitches who make cheap plastic crap these days, went crying to the NYT.
 
There is enough idiocy here with you adding to it.

This just in: All browsers pulled from the app store over breach in terms. Apple requires 30% cut on all internet purchases. Mobile Safari update coming in iOS 4.3 to impose fee on all online credit card transactions.
 
Stop it with the sensationalism

The Kindle does not allow for purchase of content within the app. You have to go to amazon's website to make the purchase. Therefore, it is not going anywhere.

It appears that the Sony reader Application tried to include a store that would operate within the app but outside of the "in app" purchase mechanism which means that it was in contravention of the existing App store conditions.

Sony is a big boy and they knew exactly what they were doing when they submitted it. They knew that it would be rejected and that they would get free publicity for their stunt.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Bad move apple. This is like when you have one unique government, they **** up ppl and screw them around.
 
I'm sure this echoes most of the posts: Not excited about a monopoly. I seem to remember our favorite Microsoft getting *some* bad press for their association with that word...
 
So, here's my question on this one. Does it close the App and open Safari, like the Kindle, or does it open a browser window within the app? I know it sounds like a minor difference, but it could be big for Apple.

It does neither. Sony don't have a web front end to their book store. So thought they could ignore the App store rules.

C.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.