Apple takes 30% of all App sales and In-App purchases for this reason.
Apple isn't covering these costs out of the kindness of their hearts, they get a big enough cut to do it and still make a profit out of each App sale.
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
Apple takes 30% of all App sales and In-App purchases for this reason.
Apple isn't covering these costs out of the kindness of their hearts, they get a big enough cut to do it and still make a profit out of each App sale.
Everyone getting worked up over nothing. The headline of the story doesn't help.
Yeah, so that's why Apple sells you iBooks in an open standard: ePub - whereas Amazon's Kindle uses a completely proprietary format then ?
If you want to migrate your Kindle content away to another format - well, good luck with that. You'll be using Kindle: either a hardware Kindle, or a Kindle app on another device.
Disclaimer: I own and use a hardware Kindle, as well as the Kindle apps. I'm under no illusions that I'm locked in to Amazon's format by doing so. However, I accept the trade-off because the experience is good. It's the same deal for Apple and the App Store - I know there's some degree of lock-in, but the experience is good.
iBooks use the FairPlay DRM. They may use an open standard behind the scenes, but they're absolutely useless to the consumer without an iPad or iPhone. While Kindle may be equally locked down, at least they can be used on a wider variety of platforms.
This is true, but when Amazon is pushing free Kindle apps for just about every platform out there this isn't really an important factor.
Kindle makes a hardware device that does this (their equivalent to the iPad if you're talking purely about eBooks), yet they are quite happy to sell books to people with a different device.
ePub is an open standard, but the DRM scheme can be defined by anyone. There are several competing schemes in use on both devices and stores - Apple's FairPlay is just one of them. Devices can support any number of DRM schemes - or none at all.
It might be an open standard, but they are still DRM encoded.
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/12/apple-rolls-out-ibooks-feature-page/
This seems like a stupid move for Apple. Are they going to grandfather Kindle and Nook, but reject Sony? Are they going to remove Kindle and Nook, thus preventing further updates for iPad owners who rely heavily on these apps?
Where does Apple draw the line then? Is it going to be that all things that are digitally delivered need to come from Apple? Music downloads, e-Books, video downloads, optional application features & upgrades, etc....
Since the arrival of iTunes I have been able to rip my own CDs and store them on an iPod. I can even purchase music through Amazon MP3 and stick it in iTunes (quite seamlessly). Sure, I cannot download an Amazon MP3 directly to my iPhone's iPod app and I don't have an Amazon MP3 player app -- but since e-Books have DRM protection, there would really be no other way to deliver these purchases.
The only thing left that I can think of is having users leverage the iTunes file transfer to copy DRM-protected e-Book files from their hard drive to the Sony app, and having the Sony app use the network connection to obtain and cache the digital identity of the book owner in order to authorize viewing of the content. That would be a pretty lame delivery method.
It just seems like Apple keeps swinging back and forth on the app store. Is the new rule "Everything is allowed so long as we get our cut"? I'll bet we see a re-reversal on this sometime soon.
EDIT: If this policy holds, what does that mean for subscription-based GPS or music streaming apps?
Where does Apple draw the line then? Is it going to be that all things that are digitally delivered need to come from Apple? Music downloads, e-Books, video downloads, optional application features & upgrades, etc....
Since the arrival of iTunes I have been able to rip my own CDs and store them on an iPod. I can even purchase music through Amazon MP3 and stick it in iTunes (quite seamlessly). Sure, I cannot download an Amazon MP3 directly to my iPhone's iPod app and I don't have an Amazon MP3 player app -- but since e-Books have DRM protection, there would really be no other way to deliver these purchases.
The only thing left that I can think of is having users leverage the iTunes file transfer to copy DRM-protected e-Book files from their hard drive to the Sony app, and having the Sony app use the network connection to obtain and cache the digital identity of the book owner in order to authorize viewing of the content. That would be a pretty lame delivery method.
It just seems like Apple keeps swinging back and forth on the app store. Is the new rule "Everything is allowed so long as we get our cut"? I'll bet we see a re-reversal on this sometime soon.
EDIT: If this policy holds, what does that mean for subscription-based GPS or music streaming apps?
Makes me laugh
So an app is rejected because it contravenes the guidelines.
This means that an app which has been accepted, is widely used and is approved by Apple (obviously, as it's in the app store) is about to be removed?
Utter nonsense and troll-baiting speculation based on Sony trying to make Apple look bad with a one sided argument.
Hey Sony - follow the rules, they are clearly there for you to see - if you do that, you have a better chance of being accepted.
So an app is rejected because it contravenes the guidelines.
This means that an app which has been accepted, is widely used and is approved by Apple (obviously, as it's in the app store) is about to be removed?
Utter nonsense and troll-baiting speculation based on Sony trying to make Apple look bad with a one sided argument.
Hey Sony - follow the rules, they are clearly there for you to see - if you do that, you have a better chance of being accepted.
Nop, Apple sells you iBooks in an open standard with a totally propietary DRM scheme making them totally closed and unusable on other platforms.
If you use this logic, iBooks should be removed from the App Store (and shouldn't have been there in the first place) as it violates one of Apple's guidelines (2.5 Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected).
Technically it doesn't use the IAP either - it uses its own special system for buying books.
Many Apps in the store break the rules, yet they are allowed - but similar Apps aren't so lucky.
The real issue here is that these rules can be interpreted in different ways - and they regularly are.
Last edited:
Perhaps you need to "grow up", and learn to read - what he predicted is an extension of what Apple have already done.
I totally agree with you. As much as I love apple products it's really hard for me to give them more money. I hope the company to change for the better now that Jobs is leaving.
But, there is no 'development'. Nothing has changed. A single app has been rejected for violating clear App Store guidelines.
Apple want your iPad to be as useful as possible (with the proviso that it doesn't otherwise harm the user experience). Doing anything to reduce it's usefulness would directly cause them to loose money, so why would they, for instance, suddenly reject Kindle ?
There's an awful lot of hysteria here, and not much joined-up thinking. And that goes for the New York Times too.
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)
The Kindle app has been the single most valuable app on the iPhone. The value of my phone will drop significantly if they really do this.
The Kindle app has been the single most valuable app on the iPhone. The value of my phone will drop significantly if they really do this.
Apple want your iPad to be as profitable as possible, which doesn't necessarily align with what users want.
Apple is just getting more and more arrogant towards its customers. Its as if they are trying to see how far they can push it. Apple needs to be taught a lesson before this gets totally out of hand. I use and like many Apple products but in all honestly I hate the way they treat their customers and try to control everything.
Are you serious?!?! Even a child could think of ways to make iPad more useful. Apple is trying to get every cent out of their products and if that means taking away features then they will do it. What hysteria are you talking about? This is the state of Apple and there is no point of sugar coating it.
Yep. It's the only way to access over 100 million iOS devices, straight away, in one store with no hassle. It's the most successful software "store" we've ever seen.
If your application is successful the benefit from succeeding in such a store is huge. Especially a store thats has over 10 billion individual downloads. A store that is associated with one of the most successful brands of the last decade & has a customer base that is envied throughout the industry.
So right off the bat you've answered your own question. That is the benefit that companies get from having their content on the app store. Unless of course you want to pretend these companies would have this revenue stream available if it weren't available?
If you charge for your app, like any other store you have to pay for that privilege. You don't see companies demanding that Walmart sell their product for free so they can receive all the profit do you?
If you don't charge for that Application Apple are generous enough to let you do it for free. If you're selling content within that Application and taking advantage of the user base Apple's platform provides you should expect a cut of that to go to Apple. Just like if you sell magazines in a news agents, rent films in blockbuster or buy absolutely anything in the real world.
You may not agree with that but thats how Apple's system works and there's obvious benefits to the companies selling content on iOS devices other than Android for example which hasn't got the same ecosystem Apple has.
Sure these companies would love to bypass Apple and have all the profit themselves but it doesn't work like that in the real world and nor should it in Apple's ecosystem.
Precisely because of the above. Stores don't open for products to have a roof over their head.
Your previous post cited Netflix and looking from the outside it appears that Netflix made a deal with Apple to have their content on the app store. What they actually pay is a mystery but Apple will receive something for giving Netflix access to their eco system.
The question of whether Apple should have to allow other stores to function within iOS is another debate entirely because in the real world we've got a choice of stores. At the moment iOS functions in it's own bubble. The devices are Apple's world that people buy into, Apple then control the stores and content within that and don't allow for any other stores without receiving something for that.
At the moment it isn't a problem because Apple's world isn't the majority of the real world. Far from it. Consumers still have a variety of choices and aren't forced into buying into Apple's world and companies aren't forced to provide content on iOS devices either. When they are thats when you'll see Apple having to open things up but at the moment there's no reason what so they should have to do so given how competitive the industry currently is.
Last edited:
Apple haven't done anything. Stop getting carried away and that applies to the large majority of replies on here.
You're totally missing the point here. Yes, if you charge for your App then you have to accept that Apple will take 30%. NOBODY has complained about that, let alone mentioned it in this thread - it's the industry standard business model.
That is all incredibly irrelevant as Kindle, Nook, etc. are NOT paid apps! They are free Apps!
No they aren't. They take a 30% cut of your sale price to cover their costs (and they still make a profit).
With Amazon, Nook etc., Apple isn't offering any service. Amazon pays for the bandwidth, storage, payment costs etc. If Apple was paying for the bandwidth then I'd agree with you, but they aren't contributing a thing.
This paragraph is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
1) This isn't how Apple's system works - that's obvious! Look at the current swathe of Apps that offer content like this - e.g. Kindle and Nook!
2) Android has the EXACT same business model as iOS - 30/70.
Except... that it does and has done since these apps were allowed onto the App Store?