Apple Requiring eBook Apps With External Purchases to Also Offer In App Purchasing

[ouimetnick]

I'm not a lawyer but I do understand the concept of precedent. Apple set a precedent by not enforcing the rule. By changing what is enforced they put the income of many including self publishing authors at harm. Even if the DOJ does not investigate a civil lawsuit and EU government action is very possible.
Quote:
11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected

–Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines
Good Luck with 11.3 in Court. I bought my Kindle reader from my Amazon app on my iPhone4. 11.3 Makes no sense and Apple breaks it's own rule as you can buy Music from your iPhone app and then transfer it to your laptop or desktop.

So when I purchase things off ebay an amazon, Apple doesn't get money off that. But I'm confused. Why should Ebay pay Apple? Ebay had to pay for their own servers, storage and bandwidth. I had to pay to sell/buy the iteim. Why should Apple get 30% of what was purchased or stuff when they didn't help or anything?

 

[Runt888]

New functionality can be purchased using In-App Purchase.

There's a Twitter App (I forget which one) that you can enable PUSH notifications via an in App Purchase.

I stand corrected

 

[notabadname]

But Kindle doesn't have an iBooks reader to purchase from Apple, nor Sony an option to buy your books from Amazon or Apple. Apple will actually be the most open format. Allowing a Kindle App user to only purchase from Amazon if he/she so choses, but expanding options to purchase from Apple as well. Why is this any more unfair than how Amazon, B&N and Sony manage their Book purchase options. When I see a Droid enabled tablet offering to sell books from Apple, than I will judge Apple as being unfair.

 

[Oletros]

When I see a Droid enabled tablet offering to sell books from Apple, than I will judge Apple as being unfair.

I didn't know that Apple has made an Android app and that it has been banned from the Android Market

 

[CylonGlitch]

In actuality, I bet Amazon and the others just make it so you have to buy from a browser on another device and it will show up in your archive on the iOS device. This should circumvent the issue.

This is exactly what Apple is trying to stop. If you can supply your application with purchased content from another source (ie website) then you have to give the application a way to buy it in-app as well. As it is, Apple is making ZERO from the Kindle application (besides people buying the iPad instead of a kindle). Because the Kindle app is free, and all content is sold via Amazon. All Apple is saying is give us a chance to get our cut as well by offering the same content via in-app purchases (you can still sell via your website if you wish).

If Sony wanted more for their 30%, just put all the books in the iBookstore. That way Apple has to manage, maintain, and pay for bandwidth. That way Sony makes money on the sales, Apple makes money on the sales, and Sony doesn't have additional expenses. I be they would make more money this way instead of putting in-app purchases of the same material.

 

[CylonGlitch]

Why should it piss greedy selfish Steve off? Amazon is paying for bandwidth, and storage and servers to host their books sold in THEIR OWN Kindle store. If greedy Steve wants some money, then he should host all of Amazon's books, and pay for Amazon's storage and servers. Why should Steve and Apple get money when they don't deserve it?

So Apple should get nothing for introducing millions to the Kindle application? Some of those who purchased Kindles, and many who purchased books because of it? If it wasn't for the Kindle application on the iPhone/iPad; the Kindle device might have not done as well, and thus the book sales could have been much worse. Apple should get a piece of the pie if they are supplying customers to them.

 

[Popeye206]

I agree, the veteran developers I talk to says the same.. .in the past sales , channel and distrib costed way more than 30%... with the App store, it allows smaller shops to spring up and focus on development. For small shops it's great... with Amazon (and others) who already has an established payment processing system, not so great.

P.

Good response and I agree. It may not be worth it for them. So all they have to do is not sell through the Kindle iOS app. It's that simple. I'm sure their customers can find their store without the app pointing them there.

 

[Kwill]

I'm so getting tired of the Apple Gestapo.

How can I love and hate a company so much at the same time?

Corporations: "They have no soul to save, and they have no body to incarcerate." ~Baron Thurlow http://bit.ly/eqUYbw

 

[Rodimus Prime]

This is exactly what Apple is trying to stop. If you can supply your application with purchased content from another source (ie website) then you have to give the application a way to buy it in-app as well. As it is, Apple is making ZERO from the Kindle application (besides people buying the iPad instead of a kindle). Because the Kindle app is free, and all content is sold via Amazon. All Apple is saying is give us a chance to get our cut as well by offering the same content via in-app purchases (you can still sell via your website if you wish).

If Sony wanted more for their 30%, just put all the books in the iBookstore. That way Apple has to manage, maintain, and pay for bandwidth. That way Sony makes money on the sales, Apple makes money on the sales, and Sony doesn't have additional expenses. I be they would make more money this way instead of putting in-app purchases of the same material.

you example fails in Sony could only do that if they were a publisher. So why would publisher make a deal with sony who is going to turn around and make a deal with Apple. They would rather cut out the middle man.

Apple only cost in terms of kindle app and other ebook apps is storing and uploading the app to the person. All the other work is handled by Amazon and there servers. Apple losses more money on the free apps given away. Apple got the 100 bucks off of Amazon. Also Apple is getting iPad sells off of amazon because a lot of people are buying iPads because it works with the kindle store. Apple would loss more sells and profit off that alone.

Really you entire agrument does not make sense and full of fanboy smell.

 

[Matty-p]

I can see both sides of this.

On Apple's side, it sucks that a company can release a free app and use Apple's infrastructure to deliver it, but not pay for any of it.

On the other hand, sucking away 30% from every single purchase just seems like too much.

apart from the $99 the developer pays a year for this 'infastructure' of 4-5g of bandwith on the biggest apps big deal i can get that for 99 cents

 

[manu chao]

So when I purchase things off ebay an amazon, Apple doesn't get money off that. But I'm confused. Why should Ebay pay Apple? Ebay had to pay for their own servers, storage and bandwidth. I had to pay to sell/buy the iteim. Why should Apple get 30% of what was purchased or stuff when they didn't help or anything?

The idea is that Ebay gets more customers and more bids by being present on iOS devices with native app. They could have gone the way of a web app but since you get thrown out of cache fairly quickly on iOS devices, the user experience is not quite as good.

That is the idea at least why Ebay should pay something to Apple (Apple allows them to offer a better user experience compared to a web app). But this also very clearly shows that the 30% rule cannot directly applied to Ebay purchases, rather it would be 30% of the fees Ebay is making. But then again, would Ebay have to pay something for every bid somebody makes or only for actual purchases?

 

[Popeye206]

So Apple should get nothing for introducing millions to the Kindle application? Some of those who purchased Kindles, and many who purchased books because of it? If it wasn't for the Kindle application on the iPhone/iPad; the Kindle device might have not done as well, and thus the book sales could have been much worse. Apple should get a piece of the pie if they are supplying customers to them.

CylonGlitch... I agree with both of your recent posts. Well said.

The cool thing about it is "Greedy Steve" is giving them a choice and trying to help iOS customers get access to more content. But of course, this is just "Greedy Steve" trying to stong-hold everyone by giving the developers access to all iOS customers and companies like Amazon another channel to sell their book libraries.

 

[Objectivist-C]

Welp, no new iOS devices for me.

 

[jcdean]

In other news Microsoft now demands that any content purchased on a Windows device must pay a 30% fee to MS. Dell also has gotten in on the action is demanding a similar % if the purchase was made while using a Dell.

Blatant money grab by apple here. They might currently own the market but with some real competition coming they can not continue to push these kind of tactics.

I really like the Apple products and would love to continue to support them but this kind of stuff is a huge turn off for me. The revised position is not really any better than the initial report and in fact might be worse. I am going to seriously reconsider the iPad2 now and give the new Driods coming out a heck of a look.

 

[manu chao]

Please remember that most modern languages are "living languages" and word meanings are constantly changing. For reference, the word "Gestapo" has become a commonly-accepted term for any organization that uses oppressive tactics. Most people accept this new meaning and I don't believe you're going to singlehandedly change their minds.

And languages involve also via social discussion about the proper usage and meaning of words, thus criticism of somebody's usage is part of the 'living' aspect.
Another point is that in one country, a certain usage might be accepted and in others it is not. And not only is English spoken natively in more than one country, a lot of people on international fora do not use English as their mother tongue. There is even as much what we call in Europe, Continental English, the English spoken by non-native speakers when communicating with other non-native speakers.

 

[notabadname]

I didn't know that Apple has made an Android app and that it has been banned from the Android Market

True, since their aren't many Android Readers out there yet. However, do you think Android would support it. And there is not such an option made on a Nook, Kindle or Sony Reader - you can't make Apps for them. So, by their very nature, are closed to Apple. So again, Apple is not being any different than their competition. And, while everyone one flames against a lack of choice, this only results in more choice. If you prefer to consolidate purchases through Apple, but like the Kindle Reader more than iBooks, you can do that. If you want to use one reader like the Kindle, but have moved to an iPad, now you can keep all books in one library. This results in nothing but choice. Apple has over 40 million iOS users and growing. That is a huge consumer market. Its access by direct competitors should have a price. Why it is unfair, when Apple converts many people to be first time digital book readers, to want to try and keep those customers, as do the other hardware makers.

 

[Runt888]

So Apple should get nothing for introducing millions to the Kindle application? Some of those who purchased Kindles, and many who purchased books because of it? If it wasn't for the Kindle application on the iPhone/iPad; the Kindle device might have not done as well, and thus the book sales could have been much worse. Apple should get a piece of the pie if they are supplying customers to them.

I would say Apple gets value added to their iOS platform. I know several people who replaced their Kindle with an iPad, mainly because their library of kindle books would still seamlessly work.

 

[manu chao]

• 
  I think Amazon can easily add the extra cost of giving Apple 30% by simply multiplying the total cost of the book by 1.3.

• 
  BTW, 30% of 1.3 is not 0.3. Just to let you know.
  
  30% of 1.3 is 0.39 and 1.3 - 0.39 is 0.91, not 1.

 

[ouimetnick]

So Apple should get nothing for introducing millions to the Kindle application? Some of those who purchased Kindles, and many who purchased books because of it? If it wasn't for the Kindle application on the iPhone/iPad; the Kindle device might have not done as well, and thus the book sales could have been much worse. Apple should get a piece of the pie if they are supplying customers to them.

Actually Amazon introduced the app. If Apple is so great as you make it sound, then why do those lame fart Apps not get as much attention. Amazon is a well known brand. The Kindle existed before the iOS Kindle App. Even my mom head about the Kindle app because she goes on Amazon.com.

Its the developer who made the app. They must have done something right, otherwise it wouldn't sell.

 

[notabadname]

I would say Apple gets value added to their iOS platform. I know several people who replaced their Kindle with an iPad, mainly because their library of kindle books would still seamlessly work.

And they still would. But now, they could buy a book (perhaps even an Apple exclusive title) from Apple if they choose, and keep the file stored, and read it via the Kindle. Or, they could still buy it through Amazon on the Kindle App if they chose.

Again, this announcement really only expands your options, both for choice of App you read with and for the store you choose to buy from. Apple is only saying Kindle/Amazon has to give a choice if they want access to Apple's millions of hardware purchasers/market.

 

[leroypants]

So much for the claim that the ipad is a computer.

 

[Stella]

So Apple should get nothing for introducing millions to the Kindle application? Some of those who purchased Kindles, and many who purchased books because of it? If it wasn't for the Kindle application on the iPhone/iPad; the Kindle device might have not done as well, and thus the book sales could have been much worse. Apple should get a piece of the pie if they are supplying customers to them.

That argument is lame.

Amazon paid a developer fee to Apple in order to list the Kindle app on the AppStore. Payment complete.

Apple should not be entitled to payments for Kindle books that customer buy due to having used the Kindle app.

 

[Runt888]

And they still would. But now, they could buy a book (perhaps even an Apple exclusive title) from Apple if they choose, and keep the file stored, and read it via the Kindle. Or, they could still buy it through Amazon on the Kindle App if they chose.

Again, this announcement really only expands your options, both for choice of App you read with and for the store you choose to buy from. Apple is only saying Kindle/Amazon has to give a choice if they want access to Apple's millions of hardware purchasers/market.

I think you're confused - a Kindle is never going to be able to read a book purchased from the iBookstore (unless Apple removes their DRM like they did with music). Generally in-app content only works in the App that it was purchased in. Obviously, if Amazon had an in-app store in the iPhone Kindle App, then purchased content would also work on the other Kindle readers (same as it does now), but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[notabadname]

So much for the claim that the ipad is a computer.

So, does the fact that I can read a book on my desktop, or a newspaper, also mean that my desktop can no longer claim to be a computer. I didn't realize being able to display text/media would disqualify a device from being a computer.

I think the concept that an iPad is a computer is pretty cut and dry:
From Webster,

COMPUTER: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data

Yeah, I think the iPad makes the threshold.

 

[Oletros]

True, since their aren't many Android Readers out there yet. However, do you think Android would support it.

And why Android won't support it. Actually, Android can't ban it.

So, by their very nature, are closed to Apple. So again, Apple is not being any different than their competition.

Nop, Apple can make ebooks with B&N, Sony or Amazon format, sell them and sideload them on the devices. Nor Amazon, Sony or B&N ban this.