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 Requiring eBook Apps With External Purchases to Also Offer In App Purchasing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Name calling in the first post.. sheese..
I could care less, but I see what Apple is trying to do.
Example.
Open an Ice Cream shop in an ally behind a very popular Pizza place, in fact, you have a door to the back of the Pizza place. You get very little foot traffic because no one knows about you. The Pizza place allows you to hang fliers in their establishment and customers to come in through their back door if you give them a cut of what you make. After a while your business is taking off; so now you change your flyer to say, use the Ally door instead of the Pizza door. Is that fair to the Pizza owner? Or that the Pizza owner is now telling you that you cannot do this because in the original agreement you said you wouldn't send people through the ally door.
Wouldn't the Pizza owner have the right to close and lock the back door, and take down your fliers? Wouldn't you, as the Ice Cream owner know that if he does that, your business will eventually suffer because new people won't find you so easy?
In the case with Apple, they say the agreement said you can't send people around to the ally; only through the Pizza door. If that is what was agreed upon, then they should follow the rules.
If Sony, B&N, Amazon don't like the rules, pull their apps, discontinue their support for iOS/Mac and walk away. But I'm guessing it won't happen because there is money to be made there. We'll see what happens; the free advertising on Apple's dime seems to be coming to an end.
Is it politically the right thing for Apple to do? I don't know, it's business, everything stinks when it comes to business. No corporation is any different / better / worse then any other. It's about making money. Show me a company who doesn't want to make money, and I'll show you someone who will be going out of business.
I pointed out eariler Amazon only gets 30% off its revene book sells. So if Apple took 30% Amazon now would have to be lossing money on every sell.
Sorry but this is pretty poor of Apple and to me is full of anti competiveness and apple is abusing it market size. (you do not have to be a monopoly to be busted for anti competitive)
Apples gets more sells off offering the kindle and nook app than if not. If Apple block it I would see Amazon and B&N saying ok bye to Apple. Apple would loss more sells of its hardware than Amazon and B&N would loss in sells.
Also it is Apple changing the agreement on them after the fact. Do this would be just another reason for companies not to trust Apple.
Apple is worse than MS ever was.
That would be true if buying the developer license didn't have other stipulations; which it does. Apple is just enforcing those rules. Just because Amazon, Sony or B&N didn't read all the rules or had not had them enforced until now, doesn't mean that they can continue to ignore them.
If, according to Apple, the rules say that if you sell content for your application from a website or other source, that you also have to have it for sale via in-app purchase; then what is the problem? The contract they signed (according to Apple) says this, and thus the app should have it. Don't like it, don't sell (or give) your app away.
Are you free to load what ever you want on your desktop, or do you have an overloard deciding for you?
So I guess the Sony PSP, and the nintendo ds should be considered portable computers.
Are you free to load what ever you want on your desktop, or do you have an overlord deciding what you can or cant?
So I guess the Sony PSP, and the nintendo ds should be considered portable computers.
So, because of Amazon's mismanagement by signing an agreement to give 30% of the sales to Apple when they only make 30% is Apple's fault? From the day the app store opened everyone knew the percentage Apple takes; you either agree to it or you don't. Blame Amazon for not crunching the numbers up front, knowing what they are getting into before signing anything.
Debatable; maybe, maybe not. Obviously Apple doesn't think so otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Nope, it's in the original agreement.
Apple should have enforced the rules from day one.
The post I was responding to said in effect that Amazon owe Apple due to possibly making the Kindle a success ( which they do not ) due to having the Kindle application on the appstore. IMO, is a bogus argument.
Here's the post:
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.
But it is enforcing these rules in an arbitrary fashion (allowing the Kindle app without saying a peep for a full year and this is not some hard to detect use of the wrong API). This can get you intro trouble (it does already in a PR sense).
Huh?
No confusion here. Read the post.
I said, a person that preferred to use the Kindle Reader APP, which allowed him/her to keep Books from a Kindle Reader, would, on the iPad, have the choice of buying from iBooks within the Kindle App on an iPad. And that it would be an enhancement to choice for someone who wanted to continue using the Kindle App on the iPad, but perhaps would like to make a purchase from Apple. This is the conversation. "Apple Now Requiring eBook Applications With External Purchases to Also Offer In App Purchasing". My post was about being able to buy from Apple's bookstore, while in the Kindle App. Read the subject of the thread again and tell me how my post "has nothing to do with the conversation".
And are you saying Amazon DOES'T use DRM? If so, go educate yourself. Amazon uses DRM also, and in a very famous use Amazon.com remotely deleted purchased copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm from customer's Amazon Kindles using that DRM. You make it sound like Apple is the only one that uses it. All the (commercially available) e-book readers use DRM at this time. Otherwise, publishers wouldn't sell their books with any of them.
rights? look at you making post after post about rights. how about the rights of Bill Watterson?
LOL! I love this thread so much uninformed and narrow sighted comments going around.
Stella... your argument is lame to be honest! Do you really understand what Apple is doing??? I don't think you do.
umm you do know that Amazon was making more off each sell but reduced it after iBookstore.
Also how is it fair to Amazon if Apple could under cut them big time on iBook sells.
Again does not add up. If anything i could see Amazon just raising the prices of books sold in the kindle App threw apple to for the user to eat the lost.
End of the day this one is showing 100% pure greed by Apple. Apple middle man fees are pretty high. Threw Amazon Market place they are only taking about 15% cut of the stuff I sale being the middle man. Amazon has to store everything on there server. Apple at most should get 1-2% of the cut at best.
Yes I do know what Apple are doing!
Read this post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11823741&#post11823741
I'll even highlight the portion that you should be paying attention to:
The reason for the lock down - Apple wants payment for paid content provided on its devices - after all - content is king for the iDevices - especially the iPad. That is where the $$ is.
__________________
So, if Apple can get a cut of whatever content is sold via iOS applications they stand to earn a fair chunk of money. Content is King for iOS.
This is my own personal opinion:
"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."
Based upon this post:
"Originally Posted by CylonGlitch
That would be true if buying the developer license didn't have other stipulations; which it does. Apple is just enforcing those rules. Just because Amazon, Sony or B&N didn't read all the rules or had not had them enforced until now, doesn't mean that they can continue to ignore them.
If, according to Apple, the rules say that if you sell content for your application from a website or other source, that you also have to have it for sale via in-app purchase; then what is the problem? The contract they signed (according to Apple) says this, and thus the app should have it. Don't like it, don't sell (or give) your app away."
Last edited:
So based on that, what is apples share of the portable computer market? My guess is that share would be less than the minuscule share of the laptop and desktop market apple has now.
Wow - you're still confused. The Kindle app will never be able to buy books from Apple's bookstore. This conversation is about the Kindle app possibly needing to provide an in-app store for Amazon's content. Two completely different stores, not compatible with each other.
Speaking of reading comprehension, I didn't say that your post has nothing to do with the conversation. I said (paraphrasing) that the ability to use in-app purchases on other non-iOS devices wasn't part of this conversation, as it was possible before this change, and will still be possible after it.
And no, I didn't say that Apple was the only one who uses DRM. Just that Apple's DRM wasn't compatible with Kindle readers.
Last edited:
Sorry dude... you've lost me?
Why is it so hard for people here to understand... IT's an option for companies like Amazon. IF they want to sell content through their app, they also (as in addition too, not as replacement) have to have an in-App option through iTunes. IF they don't want to sell through iTunes, they don't sell through their app. Does not mean they can't sell otherwise and let people use the content on the App. And if they do want to sell through their app, they CAN sell direct but also have to allow for Apple to resell too.
ITS ALL OPTIONAL and it's what they signed up for.
So, what's the scenario for the end user?
A. Amazon wants to sell from the iOS App so you have a link to the Amazon store, or you have a link to purchase through iTunes. You as an end user make a choice.
B. Amazon does not want to distribute through iTunes because of low margins on their end, so they remove the purchase web site link. Customers buy Kindle books from the Amazon web site and download them to their iOS device and away you go.
So, if Apple is starting to enforce this terms of their agreement with their agreements with their developers like Amazon, you will see an update to the Kindle App soon and you'll know which way Amazon choose to go. As an end user, you will get option A or option B based on what they decide.
So... how is this evil, bad, greedy, etc?????
They are saying what they said. The apps must have both options so customers can use what they prefer.
The definition of "computer" is not one of my choosing. Sorry you are so troubled by it.
It may be of little surprise to you, that the world of "computers" gets divided into different categories however for comparison of market share. You can choose to divide it up anyway you like.
But to say a devise, that can:
determine the position of celestial bodies over the next thousand years, create a spread-sheet, access your on-line bank account, create documents, manipulate images, calculate pi to the thousandth decimal place, store and access tens of billions of bits of data, locate my position to with in 30 ft (3G equipped) and generally give me directions between any to places on earth . . . etc. .
is not a personal computing device? That just makes you a sad person, so desperate to want to say Apple only has "insert your favorite SMALL number here" share of the personal computer market, that you are unable to recognize the most simple of facts. And thus, you discredit anything else you say as well.
An iPad (as well as a Samsung Galaxy) is a personal computer. And certainly, as I stated, by every measure, a computer. You are just going to have to get over it.
Most curious...
The Kindle App is just that... it's an app, not an online bookstore. The app lets you read content you already own. So as I read Apple's position, you can have an app, but you can't use the app to sell products.
Kind of makes sense. It would be like Target selling Wal-Mart gift cards.
So if I read the policy correctly, as long as Amazon or B&N or whoever has an app that is just a reader that does not attempt or offer the ability to make a purchase, they are not violating any developer policies. So remove the links. I think everyone is already aware of where you go to buy the books.
I'm curious as to what Sony sent in for approval, and if their app maybe went even further than Amazon and tried to offer in app browsing of their store or something that actually set Apple off.
In any case, download the apps now while they still exist just in case. I don't even own an iPad yet, and I downloaded to be safe.
Someone said this would make them go Android... and I agree. IOS devices are becoming more like a modern form of communism. You can only get your rations from us, and you can only choose from what we say you can choose from, and you can't only use your device the way we think you should be able to. Apple needs to realize that throwing this at us when we live in a capitalist world is foolish. We can choose a different platform, and interface and OS isn't going to remain a compelling reason to stay in the Apple eco-system much longer. I get that Apple is now in the e-book business too, but they're pretty poor at it with both price and content, and I can only imagine Apple banning books they could be selling for some reason or another. Granted, Amazon was selling how to guides for peodophiles on the Kindle, but at least they don't censor their content. (Though they did eventually on that one, and I think that was one book worth burning, or uh, deleting.)
The Kindle App is just that... it's an app, not an online bookstore. The app lets you read content you already own. So as I read Apple's position, you can have an app, but you can't use the app to sell products.
Kind of makes sense. It would be like Target selling Wal-Mart gift cards.
So if I read the policy correctly, as long as Amazon or B&N or whoever has an app that is just a reader that does not attempt or offer the ability to make a purchase, they are not violating any developer policies. So remove the links. I think everyone is already aware of where you go to buy the books.
I'm curious as to what Sony sent in for approval, and if their app maybe went even further than Amazon and tried to offer in app browsing of their store or something that actually set Apple off.
In any case, download the apps now while they still exist just in case. I don't even own an iPad yet, and I downloaded to be safe.
Someone said this would make them go Android... and I agree. IOS devices are becoming more like a modern form of communism. You can only get your rations from us, and you can only choose from what we say you can choose from, and you can't only use your device the way we think you should be able to. Apple needs to realize that throwing this at us when we live in a capitalist world is foolish. We can choose a different platform, and interface and OS isn't going to remain a compelling reason to stay in the Apple eco-system much longer. I get that Apple is now in the e-book business too, but they're pretty poor at it with both price and content, and I can only imagine Apple banning books they could be selling for some reason or another. Granted, Amazon was selling how to guides for peodophiles on the Kindle, but at least they don't censor their content. (Though they did eventually on that one, and I think that was one book worth burning, or uh, deleting.)
Funny.... Apple isn't saying that... only the over reacting people on this forum. Apple has not said anywhere that you can't bring on content from other sources. Only people who want to believe this are saying this.