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
I see where you are coming from but i think a shared revenue/commission model is better for all parties (since Amazon also uses the 30% rule)
Amazon made the sale, but Apple insists on doing the payment processing, so they should somehow share the 30%.
If the customer bought via the iBookstore, then Apple gets the entire 30%.
If the customer bought via the Kindle platform (outside of iOS entirely) then Amazon gets the entire 30%.
- consistent pricing for the customer,
- both parties makes some profits by providing some value
- healthier ecosystem, less fighting
P.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-gb; GT-P1000 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
As far as I am aware, Google do not impose any sort of ruling like this on Android Market so the Kindle (and Sony) reader apps will never be affected in this way.
If Google did ever go down this route, all Amazon would have to do is offer the Kindle app on the Amazon website completely avoiding anything to do with Google or Android Market.
I doubt this would ever be a problem on Android.
wippler said:
As far as I am aware, Google do not impose any sort of ruling like this on Android Market so the Kindle (and Sony) reader apps will never be affected in this way.
If Google did ever go down this route, all Amazon would have to do is offer the Kindle app on the Amazon website completely avoiding anything to do with Google or Android Market.
I doubt this would ever be a problem on Android.
"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."
According to their wording you can still do both at the same time. In app and outside of it, just that it you offer the prior you also have to offer the former. All the developers need to do is set the in-app price extremely high while keeping you out of app prices the same. That way they can avoid as much profit sharing with Apple.
According to their wording you can still do both at the same time. In app and outside of it, just that it you offer the prior you also have to offer the former. All the developers need to do is set the in-app price extremely high while keeping you out of app prices the same. That way they can avoid as much profit sharing with Apple.
What apple is planning to do now
I thought they should have done it a long time ago.
If barnes and nobles, borders etc Sell a book for $10 in their store ..wouldnt that mean that they made about $7 profit on it as approximately $3 would be used o pay salaries of the staff, electricity bill, land tax or rent etc. Apple is a asking for that $3 as it is giving them acces to millions of readers.
Apple spent many years in building their app store, and the ecosystem .they are not here to give away the whole thing for free to the competitors.
If barnes and nobles, borders etc Sell a book for $10 in their store ..wouldnt that mean that they made about $7 profit on it as approximately $3 would be used o pay salaries of the staff, electricity bill, land tax or rent etc. Apple is a asking for that $3 as it is giving them acces to millions of readers.
Apple spent many years in building their app store, and the ecosystem .they are not here to give away the whole thing for free to the competitors.
They are not giving anything away for free to competitors. One of the huge draws to the iOS platform is the huge selection of quality applications available which in turn helps Apple sell record quantities of iOS hardware with record profits every quarter.
Apple did spend years building their app store and ecosystem, all with the help of developers providing these quality apps to entice people to the platform and into buying new hardware (all of whom pay Apple the development program fee and have to use Apple computers to develop for iOS).
I'm betting that existing apps like Kindle, Nook, Audible etc. who haven't been observing this rule will be grandfathered in and not be subject to the new enforcement of these guidelines. That way you won't piss off customers who have an investment in the platform.
Seems like this wording has a bazillion loopholes. For in-app purchases, couldn't a developer just put it someone very obscure in the app and have prices be really high. Even telling the user. Buy "in-app" for $100 or buy "from Amazon" for $5 This would make Apple look very bad. It seems like they will have to clarify further what this really means. As stated, the rules don't seem that scary for content providers. It says specifically that you must have the same "product" it says nothing of prices. In addition, it says nothing about 'in-app' purchasing must be easier in your app. Perhaps you could even just have a setting that changed all links to in-app purchases?
Well, so much for any concerns about illegality. Simply requiring equal terms for those going through AAPL as going through other sources using iPads. Sounds like mainstream media misunderstood this, but then what else is new?
I get a kick out of all these folks who say they bought the iPad to download eBooks from Kindle, and if they can't do that, they're going to sell their iPad, take a hit, and then buy a Kindle.
Why didn't they buy a Kindle in the first place? It's cheaper, better for reading eBooks, ties right into the store where you purchase the eBooks in the first place.
I am amazed that anyone would buy an iPad solely to read Amazon eBooks.
This is not rocket science. Heck, by a Nook, I think they are even more inexpensive. But for heaven's sakes, don't buy an iPad if you're only going to use it to read books on it. What a waste.
But if you did, donate your iPad to some elementary school student who would love to have it.
Why didn't they buy a Kindle in the first place? It's cheaper, better for reading eBooks, ties right into the store where you purchase the eBooks in the first place.
I am amazed that anyone would buy an iPad solely to read Amazon eBooks.
This is not rocket science. Heck, by a Nook, I think they are even more inexpensive. But for heaven's sakes, don't buy an iPad if you're only going to use it to read books on it. What a waste.
But if you did, donate your iPad to some elementary school student who would love to have it.
I think you got it wrong. Apple spent years designing an iPhone and an iPad. Content was created for these two products to make sense. Without apps, both are pretty much an expensive telephone and an extremely expensive photo holder. Apple should be grateful that Amazon and other platforms published their apps in the Apple store. I were to buy a tablet, with the idea of reading quite a lot (besides other things) and I find that bokks for my iPad are going to be 1.3x more expensive than they are for Android tablets, I would probably not get the iPad. You scare people away with this practice. People will be wondering "what's next? Accessing only Apple-approved sites in Safari? Ban apps that compete directly with Apple-developed ones?".
The longer I've owned my iPad and the more I use it, the more I end up using content-consuming apps, rather than creative apps (or games).
Book reading isn't the only thing I use the device for, but it's an important part of the device's appeal. I already dislike the closed environment of e-books (why should I pay the same amount as a printed book, when I can't lend, sell or give the book away?). Kindle is a lot better for this - in the UK the prices are cheaper than Apple's, and my content can be viewed across a much wider range of devices.
If this action forces Kindle off the iPad, it would make me seriously reconsider the platform. There's no way I want to buy my books from Apple - too expensive and too limited. I don't really like the look and feel of Android, but would make the move if pushed.
Book reading isn't the only thing I use the device for, but it's an important part of the device's appeal. I already dislike the closed environment of e-books (why should I pay the same amount as a printed book, when I can't lend, sell or give the book away?). Kindle is a lot better for this - in the UK the prices are cheaper than Apple's, and my content can be viewed across a much wider range of devices.
If this action forces Kindle off the iPad, it would make me seriously reconsider the platform. There's no way I want to buy my books from Apple - too expensive and too limited. I don't really like the look and feel of Android, but would make the move if pushed.
You can already read other books on the kindle, in a couple of formats (not epub, but you've got mobi). E.g. I often read books I purchase at Pragmatic Programmers there.
So . . . you want to AVOID giving Apple any profit (30%) - who is hosting the free app and is handling the purchase BTW - so that you can give it to poor little Amazon or poor little Sony, so THEY can make the profit (30%)? You do realize that neither company is actually creating any of these books that are being sold, don't you? No matter what, the creator of said book is STILL being charged 30%. Be it Sony, Amazon or Apple, the creator is still going to be charged the same.
Why would Apple be hosting FREE apps, only to have those apps make all of their profits by offering "Out of App" purchases? Would you? "Hey, let my host your app for FREE so you can make all of your profits by offering out-of-app purchases while I make none." It is no different then a TV station or newspaper or magazine offering to host or display advertising for free. "Hey, advertise for free on our TV station and/or newspaper and we won't charge you a cent. That way you can make all of your money from the display and everyone viewing your advertising and we won't get a cent."
Which brings up a good point. For these type of apps (Free, but offering in-app purchases) why don't they do a simple set point once a year charge? So, if you are a free Ebook type of app (no actual content in the app, but rather a shell that is filled with books and such) you get charged a once a year fee? This way it is more like the "advertising" type of model.
Just a thought. Everyone is so outraged, but I see this not that different than an "ad" type of model mentioned above.
Because content and apps drive people to buy the device.
What if Apple stopped you from using mp3s ripped from CDs on their iDevices, and made you buy all media through iTunes (paying them 30%)?
What if Apple put a 30% tax on everything you bought online using your Mac?
The comparison is more like Panasonic trying to charge TV stations for displaying programs on their TVs. Makes no sense.
Last edited:
Payments System
Could it be possible that they will be requiring this for ALL purchases to ramp up their payments system. For example the amazon shopping app will require in app purchase for anything you buy, or if you want to buy something on ebay, it would be treated as an in app purchase. 30% goes to apple. This would be disastrous
Could it be possible that they will be requiring this for ALL purchases to ramp up their payments system. For example the amazon shopping app will require in app purchase for anything you buy, or if you want to buy something on ebay, it would be treated as an in app purchase. 30% goes to apple. This would be disastrous
Perhaps they will just limit it to "content" displayed on the devices rather than all physical objects purchased!
I don't see anybody talking about the real reason why this is bad for Book Sellers AND consumers.
Amazon's model in particular is heavily dependent on the notion that you can buy a book and read it on multiple devices (not just those running iOS). This is factored in to the price.
Presumably if you buy a book through IAP you wont be able to use it on anything that doesn't run IAP.
This is confusing for customers and throws the whole eBook industry into turmoil.
Amazon's model in particular is heavily dependent on the notion that you can buy a book and read it on multiple devices (not just those running iOS). This is factored in to the price.
Presumably if you buy a book through IAP you wont be able to use it on anything that doesn't run IAP.
This is confusing for customers and throws the whole eBook industry into turmoil.
this is a bad move since many content licences are very restricted and will have to be renegotiated to allow distribution through Apples platform.
It's just a mess.
I see this as a move of Apple to establish themselves as the prime purchasing platform for everything since of course in App purchases are much simpler than going through a safari based external website.
Android will love this because if many things are available there but not on iOS consumer will switch.
It's just a mess.
I see this as a move of Apple to establish themselves as the prime purchasing platform for everything since of course in App purchases are much simpler than going through a safari based external website.
Android will love this because if many things are available there but not on iOS consumer will switch.
This will be a big differentiator between the iOS experience and the Android experience.
Consumers on iOS will get a single simple payment model for all content. With all billing to the same account.
Android consumers will have a mess. Multiple accounts with multiple vendors, typing in credit cards, into different sites with all manner of web and app store interfaces to figure out.
There's a possibility that some consumers might actually prefer the simpler model.
C.
How is it a "mess" exactly?
A centralized payment system like Apple would offer under these terms could lead to some serious fraud and looking at the continued abuse of hacked iTunes accounts, I'd be worried that a single breach could lead to some major headaches with my bank account. The amount of people complaining their iTunes accounts were "hacked" (possibly phished) made me immediately unlink both my wife's and my credit card info from Apple.
It seems that some people really do want to relinquish control of simple things (such as registering to a site, entering credit/debit card details and logging in occasionally) under the guise that it is difficult or cumbersome to do so now.
Are there people that genuinely struggle to register to a site and enter in credit card details?
I agree that a simple purchasing process is an advantage. I don't like to give my CC to twenty different companies.
However this is only true if all content is available through this simple platform. If I need to buy half my books on a different device because Apple does not allow the reader on the iPhone/iPad and the publishers don't extend their licences to include the Apple shopping platform then the more open system will win. Because who want's a second device for a few books/magazines/products you can't get on iOS?
I wouldn't say that. The content is the same regardless of how you purchase it. Amazon would still have a record of your purchases, so the only reason to not let you read it on other devices would be if Amazon decides to make it that way.
If Apple's strategy backfires and drives away important vendors, then it would be a disaster. But I don't think they are that stupid.
I think Apple is dead set on creating a next-generation content delivery platform par-excellence. And key to that is lots of third party support, and a seamless user experience.
C.