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

[knucklehead]

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.

I'm comfortable using PayPal, Amazon and iTunes for all my Internet purchases.
If Apple thinks it can eliminate free market pricing with iTunes, I will eliminate it.
I don't think my life will be more complicated or restricted using just PayPal and Amazon.

 

[CylonGlitch]

What we know :
1) Apples rules say that if you offer new content for an app from an outside source, you MUST also offer that content via in-app purchases.

1a) Wording may / may not have been in there from the beginning, but it doesn't matter, it has always had wording saying that they can add/change the requirements at any time. If the developer doesn't agree, they can pull their app at any time.
1b) It does NOT prevent people from selling outside of the app. It just says if you do offer it outside, you also have to offer it inside.
​

2) The 30% fee for app sales has always been there
3) The 30% fee for in-app sales has been there since in-app sales were permitted.
4) Developers agreed to the licensing when they purchased a developers account.
5) Apple has not always enforced the rule in question.

5a) Because they wanted to gain market share?
5b) They forgot?
5c) They had agreements with the developers in question?
5d) We don't know!​

6) If a developer doesn't agree with any of the rules, they can pull their app at any time.
7) Some developers have skirted the rules up until now.
8) So far only one developer has had their app rejected because of the enforcement of the rule. There is no comment on more to come (See #5 for possible reasons)

What appears to have happened :
a) Developer agrees to Apple's rules.
b) Developer creates app
c) Developer sells content for app via website only.
d) Apple ignores the rule (see #5, we don't know why)
e) Apple later decides to enforce the rule
f) People cry

Questions
I) Why did Apple decide to initially ignore the rule, and then suddenly start to enforce it? (Could be they wanted to grow initially and now want to reap the rewards?)
II) All developers know the rules, and anytime Apple changes them, they email them the new set of rules; so why did any developer ignore them in the first place?
III) Is it possible that some big developers have different rules, or have negotiated their own set of rules up front and that is why it seems that the rules are not being universally applied?
IV) Will there be more apps subject to this new enforcement? Maybe, maybe not, depends on the answer to (III).
V) Why is any developer surprised by the enforcement of a rule that has been around?
VI) If a developer is so upset by a rule; why don't they remove their app and go elsewhere?
VII) If a developer isn't really complaining about it, why are some people?
VIII) Why is the percentage that Apple takes a question at all? It has always been clear; if a developer was so against it, why bother creating the app in the first place?
IX) How many more roman numerals can I keep going with before I forget what is the next "number"?
X) Will this hurt the user in the end? Maybe, we don't know, it will depend on the response of the developers.
XI) Are the developers really upset by this? So far it seems more like the users are more "scared" then the developers.
XII) Is Apple wrong given that their rules are spelled out, documented, and had to be agreed upon by the developer?
XIII) Is a developer wrong for bypassing the rules, even though the rule wasn't enforced?
XIV) Is it wrong for Apple to start enforcing a rule after so long?
XIIV) Why are some people so upset by this? Isn't it really between Apple and the Developers?


(NOTE: Not trying to take any sides here, just trying to organize things. Also I am trying to avoid naming any developer by name, there seems to be a lot of "confusion" about who is involved)

 

[andiwm2003]

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.

................................

seeing that there are only 10% of the books available that I try to buy, less than half of the audio books, tons of movies come never or late, flash content is not available at all I believe it could happen that vendors leave the platform.

Especially when they see alternative platforms being less expensive and less restrictive.

 

[srosgen]

Wow, I was about to buy an iPad

How disappointing!! I'd love to buy an iPad, but e-book reading is one of the primary functions I'm looking for. With that seemingly crippled by Apple's greed, it's time to keep looking at other devices. What's truly upsetting is that:

- Apple is showing that profits are more important than customer experience (forgetting that a great customer experience is what led to profits).

- Apple is telling us that it can and will devalue a product you pay good money for AFTER you buy the product. Hard to feel good about buying a product from a company like that.

I feel like I can't trust Apple anymore which is heartbreaking because I love their hardware (there's Android but I despise the thought of switching). I guess it's just time to wait longer and see what emerges.

The only encouraging thing is that I'm sure Apple watches forums so if enough people scream loudly enough, longly enough they may respond.

 

[paulro]

I think that by knowing that this mechanism exists, I will just make sure that I navigate away from the app to make a purchase.

That way, I know that my money is going to the supplier of the media in question.

Whilst I can understand Apple's point of view in this to some degree, it does seem that they are being offensively greedy.

 

[AdrianWerner]

I don't see much problem here. Amazon should just offer in app purchases that are priced 30% higher than the same books on their own website. This way they don't loose any money on the change and if people are willing to pay more for convienience they will, if not they will go and buy directly from Amazon.

 

[LagunaSol]

I don't understand, elaborate? How is the current situation even remotely relevant to the platforms you cited?

You were griping about Apple taking its 30% cut from developers, thus driving developers away. To more profitable platforms I assume? Hmm. Guess what cut Google and Microsoft take from their mobile developers? 30%.

Seems entirely relevant to me.

 

[rosshmusic]

I'm not a fan of this kind of policy (and I'm not going to read through 300+ posts to see if this is stated elsewhere)... but I think Amazon and B&N would benefit from making an HTML5 or other web based version that could be supported through the browser and just forgo the app. That of course means needing web access to read a book, but it could potentially be a workaround from having to let Apple control their business model.

These are text files and if they dynamically loaded only the needed pages it would keep any data usage to a very small amount.

 

[knucklehead]

I don't see much problem here. Amazon should just offer in app purchases that are priced 30% higher than the same books on their own website. This way they don't loose any money on the change and if people are willing to pay more for convienience they will, if not they will go and buy directly from Amazon.

That's the key point.
It was raised as a question in the lead post as to whether Apple could require prices to be set equal in app or out, but I'm not seeing much to support that it might actually be required to work that way --- seems pretty legally far fetched.
Has anyone come up with much on this question?

 

[NATO]

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.

I think you're missing the point - Amazon doesn't make an automatic 30% when they sell an eBook on Kindle, they have set their price which includes their profit margin. In order to maintain the same profit margin if Apple makes them hand 30% over by processing the transaction, it means Amazon either has to increase the App Store price to compensate for the 30% cut, or keep the price the same and make less profit (or possibly a loss). Knowing Apple they won't allow you to price your content higher on the App Store which means Amazon will have to increase their prices across their website OR choose not to offer content on the Kindle App.

Yes, Apple is hosting a free app but the costs involved in this are very small as it's just the app being hosted - not all the content. Besides, Apple has traditionally been all about creating a software ecosystem to boost its hardware sales (eg, iTunes), now it's just looking like they want it all - hardware sales and a huge take on content sales.

 

[Popeye206]

How disappointing!! I'd love to buy an iPad, but e-book reading is one of the primary functions I'm looking for. With that seemingly crippled by Apple's greed, it's time to keep looking at other devices. What's truly upsetting is that:

- Apple is showing that profits are more important than customer experience (forgetting that a great customer experience is what led to profits).

- Apple is telling us that it can and will devalue a product you pay good money for AFTER you buy the product. Hard to feel good about buying a product from a company like that.

I feel like I can't trust Apple anymore which is heartbreaking because I love their hardware (there's Android but I despise the thought of switching). I guess it's just time to wait longer and see what emerges.

The only encouraging thing is that I'm sure Apple watches forums so if enough people scream loudly enough, longly enough they may respond.

You really just don't get it. Sounds like you just want to post some anti-Apple spew. The issue here does not affect you as a consumer. You just get choices as to how to buy your books.

Gosh... choices always make me not want to buy something!

 

[Carniphage]

seeing that there are only 10% of the books available that I try to buy, less than half of the audio books, tons of movies come never or late, flash content is not available at all I believe it could happen that vendors leave the platform.

Especially when they see alternative platforms being less expensive and less restrictive.

It doesn't matter if alternative platforms are less expensive, if no one buys anything on them.

If the iPad is selling tens of millions of dollars worth of books for Amazon, then Amazon are not going to shut that down in a hurry.

C.

 

[firestarter]

I'm not a fan of this kind of policy (and I'm not going to read through 300+ posts to see if this is stated elsewhere)... but I think Amazon and B&N would benefit from making an HTML5 or other web based version that could be supported through the browser and just forgo the app. That of course means needing web access to read a book, but it could potentially be a workaround from having to let Apple control their business model.

These are text files and if they dynamically loaded only the needed pages it would keep any data usage to a very small amount.

That doesn't really work.

Many people will be reading books on the device while commuting or travelling - underground trains, aircraft etc. If you can't read your books in those environments, the appeal is enormously reduced.

 

[beaub]

Love my Apple products, but this whole issue is going way overboard (I'm an app developer as well btw).

Where to draw the lines?

• I use DropBox.. now I upgrade to a paid account and get more drive space and functionality - did the upgrade fee need to be AppStore payable??
• I have an online banking application, I sign up for a brokerage account with a monthly fee, should that fee get routed through Apple in order to enable brokerage functionality within the App??
• LogMeIn app - I have a free account. Since upgrading to Premium supplies more features, does LogMeIn now need to let me do this through the App??
• Heck, I can use myWireless to make changes to my AT&T account within the App right now! Should Apple get a 30% cut of my wireless plan?
• Use Fly Delta to make a ticket change, Apple now will start getting 30% of the change fee? Sweet, I'm an Apple stockholder, so at least I will get some benefit back for getting raped by Delta on change fee's.

I could spend half an hour with other examples just from the apps I use and there are plenty out there that I don't use that would make just as good an example.

I believe Apple has stepped over the line with this.

 

[Carniphage]

Love my Apple products, but this whole issue is going way overboard (I'm an app developer as well btw).

Where to draw the lines?
I believe Apple has stepped over the line with this.

I believe Apple will be clarifying the lines now that they have announced the Daily.

C.

 

[beaub]

I believe Apple will be clarifying the lines now that they have announced the Daily.

C.

Won't it be a blast to be caught in the crossfire of the defining of lines? Not hard to take the bet that lines will get drawn dependent on competition with Apple. eBook market?? Kindle app, screwed! VNC? LogmeIn, no worries!

So as an Apple product consumer, I'm now going to be at the whim of Apple to define these new lines and the new lines may diminish the value of products I've already spent my money on. I don't own a Kindle, I read the Kindle books I've purchased on my iPad. I purchased these Kindle books relying on the ability to use my iPad to read them. Now Apple is potentially going to "clarify lines" in such a way that Amazon can't keep the Kindle app alive?

Obviously, we already have the Kindle app downloaded, wonder if push comes to shove if we'll see Apple do its first remote-app kills? (Take a page from Amazon against Amazon?!)

If not, guess Kindle reading will continue. If nothing else, we'll have to rely on Jailbreaking and/or switch platforms.

 

[KALLT]

Apple should in my opinion not claim 30% of the revenue on content that is provided by the app developer or a third party. For the Kindle app, Amazon is the distributer of the eBooks and should be able to offer them without giving Apple 30% of the revenue. The content is bought and downloaded from Amazon, not Apple. Despite Apple's reasonable goal to enforce this rule for the sake of convenience for consumers, it should not punish the content distributers instead. Unreasonable change of policy in my opinion, and yet another frustrating misstep.

 

[balamw]

c) Developer sells content for app via website only.

Thanks for putting this summary together.

This is the bit I am not sure we have all the info on.

My guess is that Sony didn't allow users to buy stuff on the device, as the other stores do via Mobile Safari, but required you to buy them from your PC.

Of course I could be wrong.

B

 

[AdrianWerner]

IKnowing Apple they won't allow you to price your content higher on the App Store which means Amazon will have to increase their prices across their website OR choose not to offer content on the Kindle App.

I don't think they can really enforce that now and I honestly doubt they would introduce changes necessary to allow that later on. With prices being already pretty tight for Amazon it would propably make iPad simply not profitable for them. And Apple wants to make more money, not scare away content providers and thus making less of it.

 

[Carniphage]

My guess is that Sony didn't allow users to buy stuff on the device, as the other stores do via Mobile Safari, but required you to buy them from your PC.

As far as I can see, Sony don't have a web portal that you can actually buy content on.

C.

 

[benpatient]

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.

speeding is illegal, but my brother says I can speed all i want, and he's a cop.

but if you speed, you will go to jail. that's fair, because it is on the books, and you can't say you didn't know.

does that sound fair to you?

Apple has a policy, and they haven't been enforcing it. for years, now. If they start enforcing it, they have to do so across-the-board. That means no more web-linking app purchases at all. none. no facebook credit purchases. or or drop box purchases.

it's either that, or they will be sued, and they will lose.

of course, they could just re-write the actual rules to conform to their new practice.

 

[Carniphage]

I don't own a Kindle, I read the Kindle books I've purchased on my iPad. I purchased these Kindle books relying on the ability to use my iPad to read them. Now Apple is potentially going to "clarify lines" in such a way that Amazon can't keep the Kindle app alive?

No. I think there is very little chance of that happening.

The real issue is, how many books have Amazon sold via their own device. And how many books are they selling on the iPad.

I suspect the iPad quantity is substantial. And it is obviously set to increase dramatically over the next year.

If that's the case, it is reasonable and fair that Amazon share a proportion of the revenue with Apple. It's not in Amazon's interest to shut down the iPad app. Nor is it in Apple's interest to see Amazon leave.

The best possible outcome for customers, Apple and Amazon is a sensible revenue sharing scheme - in which everyone benefits.

C.

 

[CylonGlitch]

speeding is illegal, but my brother says I can speed all i want, and he's a cop.

but if you speed, you will go to jail. that's fair, because it is on the books, and you can't say you didn't know.

does that sound fair to you?

I've been speeding for decades and haven't been caught. So if I get stopped I should fight it because it really isn't enforced?

Apple has a policy, and they haven't been enforcing it. for years, now. If they start enforcing it, they have to do so across-the-board. That means no more web-linking app purchases at all. none. no facebook credit purchases. or or drop box purchases.

If any of those things were generating huge amounts of money, I'm sure that the enforcement hammer would come down faster. Just like speeding, speed 5 miles an hour over the limit, you're most likely safe; speed 100 miles and hour over, and you are more likely to get caught.

it's either that, or they will be sued, and they will lose.

Not likely. I can't see an app developer standing up and yelling that they demand to pay more. And big name companies know that it won't turn out well for them so they won't bother. And besides all Apple has to do is say that if you're selling more then x items a day / hour / week / whatever then the rule applies to you. That's within their rights to do so.

 

[CylonGlitch]

If that's the case, it is reasonable and fair that Amazon share a proportion of the revenue with Apple. It's not in Amazon's interest to shut down the iPad app. Nor is it in Apple's interest to see Amazon leave.

The best possible outcome for customers, Apple and Amazon is a sensible revenue sharing scheme - in which everyone benefits.

And exactly what will most likely happen, if it hasn't already. We don't know, but maybe Apple said the same thing to Sony -- hey, pay us 1% and we'll be happy (or whatever payment scheme) and Sony said, "No way!" Thus the rejection. We don't know what is going on behind closed doors.

 

[Jcoz]

XIIV) Why are some people so upset by this? Isn't it really between Apple and the Developers?


(NOTE: Not trying to take any sides here, just trying to organize things. Also I am trying to avoid naming any developer by name, there seems to be a lot of "confusion" about who is involved)

No it isn't. Unfortunately the results of this "dispute" however widespread it may eventually become, directly affects the usability of the device 15 million people have already bought with certain expectations, which are fueled in part by apples ads, which happen to almost exclusively promote the use of 3rd party aps as the reasons to buy.

I haven't bought an ipad yet, I want to, but these negotiations could completely change some of the function of the device for me personally, so now instead of buying an ipad 2 as I planned to, I have to wait it out and see where this goes and if it does affect me.......