And Apple isn't preventing the app from running, as long as it follows the rules. Thus wouldn't the problem be with the app developer not Apple?
Is Apple being a jerk about it? Maybe, but it is business.
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
And Apple isn't preventing the app from running, as long as it follows the rules. Thus wouldn't the problem be with the app developer not Apple?
Is Apple being a jerk about it? Maybe, but it is business.
Greed - Another reason why I sold my iPad and will be buying either a Nook or a Kindle.. Don't need a $500 dollar book reader, already have a laptop and an iphone... And who the hell does Apple think they are, trying to take 30% of Amazon's revenue for book sales?
Disgusted with the state of American democracy, he took a stand and moved to North Korea!
C.
No - see, apple, developer, it really makes no difference to me who's "fault" it is.
All I care about is the end functionality of the device.
So you see, it is in fact something that goes beyond whether I think apples policies are wrong or fair or whatever.
Ultimately if the devices function changes, so does the value.
Everyone's usage, and in turn, value, is different though. But my point is that this is certainly something that is not just between apple and devs, IMO.
I suspect the policy regarding in-app purchases is shifting. To become something much more flexible in terms of the revenue sharing scheme.
News International has just launched the Daily - with a $40 per year subscription. Do you really think Apple is going to take 30% of that.
If flexible revenue sharing arrives. Many more content vendors might be attracted to the platform. And all apps can use the proper in-app purchasing method, rather than the lame shove-you-out-into-a-website model.
Perhaps the device's function has changed for the better?
No?
C.
They have forgotten 1984 Ad
Apple has become the beast it once ridiculed in the "1984" ad. What is next for them? Charging a fee for all web sales made through the browser app? The greed is incredible, Microsoft got slammed in multiple courts for behavior much less anti-competitive than this, how long until the Apple is taken to task for its abusive behavior? Hopefully writing my reps and government bodies today will be of some use while we wait for Apple to be confronted for this crap.
Apple has become the beast it once ridiculed in the "1984" ad. What is next for them? Charging a fee for all web sales made through the browser app? The greed is incredible, Microsoft got slammed in multiple courts for behavior much less anti-competitive than this, how long until the Apple is taken to task for its abusive behavior? Hopefully writing my reps and government bodies today will be of some use while we wait for Apple to be confronted for this crap.
Well, the ultimate results of this are beyond my scope of knowledge, as I dont know that flexible rev sharing isn't ALREADY in place.
But the public disputes will make me hold off on purchase of the ipad2 until some of this smoke clears, which maybe well be before its even announced...
So i have no problems with what you are stating at all.
But those results - they are far-reaching in terms of the future of iOS in my opinion.
So I'll need to see them or be confident that I have seen them before I make a major purchase on an item that apple has so much control over.
To date I have preferred the method they've used, I own an iphone and have for years. The limits they enforce simply do not limit my personal use. But they could do some serious damage to the functionality if they we so inclined so any smart consumer should be very sensitive to this fact when dealing with these iOS devices.
Trust is earned, and IMO, for me and apple it has been. But its not static. Apple, like myself or anyone else, can lose trust in exponentially smaller amounts of time than it took to earn it.
Why not see if Microsoft will let you open a games store on the 360? With zero revenue sharing with MS?
You may discover they are not receptive to the idea.
C.
I agree that some clarification is needed. My guess is that this clarification won't be forthcoming until the launch of the iPad2.
I suspect that what Apple are attempting is to create a content distribution technology, that is *MORE* commercially attractive to multiple vendors and simultaneously offers users a more seamless experience.
But we will have to wait to see if I am right.
C.
Should developers have "known" better? Arguably, though this particular "rule" was added this past Fall and the Kindle app has been around much longer.
The question though is: should Consumers need to "know" the rules? I sold my Kindle as I bought my iPad knowing how the Kindle app functions. Forget that this was before this new "rule", should consumers now considering their iPad purchase need to evaluate not only what apps are currently available, but also scrutinize whether these existing apps fully conform with existing Apple rules? Also, should they be forced to speculate what soon-to-be-made-up Apple rules will surface!?
Its all fine and good that Apple wants to protect their eBook interests on their own platform, but doing so at this stage of the game will be in spite of the best interests of their customers.
The question though is: should Consumers need to "know" the rules? I sold my Kindle as I bought my iPad knowing how the Kindle app functions. Forget that this was before this new "rule", should consumers now considering their iPad purchase need to evaluate not only what apps are currently available, but also scrutinize whether these existing apps fully conform with existing Apple rules? Also, should they be forced to speculate what soon-to-be-made-up Apple rules will surface!?
Its all fine and good that Apple wants to protect their eBook interests on their own platform, but doing so at this stage of the game will be in spite of the best interests of their customers.
Well, see now this is a shades of grey scenario.
Those devices have never come close to what a consumer would call a personal computer, and when you buy one, you know full well what function you are getting with it.
People are not used to this kind of ACTIVE control over a device they have bought, particularly when it comes to consumer electronics. In fact I have never owned any item that the manufacturer has had so much control over the functionality of. In a way, owning an iOS device is quite a bit more like leasing something or licensing something than it is like owning it.
So lets not paint with such broad strokes regarding this.
Why? If the quantity of Kindle books sold through a PC is bigger than from iPad is reasonable that Amazon share a proportion of the revenue to MS?
Apple's rules have always been what Apple said that they were, not what was written down. (Which is kind of irrelevant anyway; Apple can change what's written down at any time). Apple themselves admitted (through their spokeswoman) that they were interpreting the rules in a "new" way.
But I think John Gruber said it best: "Oceania: We Have Always Required Books From the Eurasian E-Bookstore to Be Sold Through Our In-App Purchasing System."
And that's the damage for me currently. Until further clarification is given, I simply cannot buy another iOS device.
I want very much for apple to succeed and continue to offer the best in the biz regarding these devices and the user experience that comes with it. Doesn't mean they will.
-to use your xbox example, well they do have netflix and several other 3rd party apps without demanding a piece of there revenue.
Take microsoft 1997 vs Apple 2011
-both lock a single browser to a OS
-both give there own applications advantages in the operating system that 3rd parties do not have access too.
At least with microsoft 1997 they did not demand a percentage of revenue from anyone selling online?
I have been a huge apple fan and own many macs, ipods, a iphone, and the best 3G ipad. That does not mean I can not call them out when they are out of line and expect that they be brought back within legal and ethical limits such as other tech companies have (Microsoft). This is not the first time Apple has shown its greed and anti competitive tendencies, when the iphone was released only apple could develop for it. Under legal threat they finally launched a dev program and it has been a great success (that they were originally opposed too). Adobe flash conversion development would be another example just last year. So, hopefully with legal and regulatory threat they will again do the right thing. At least that is my hope, I do like my ipad and would hate to think it my last.
The Kindle, the PS3, the XBox360 are all devices with curated content.
They are aggressively locked down, far more so than the iPad.
People are very used to much more extreme forms of control.
C.
No they are not. When you buy those items, you know what you are getting. People don't buy an Xbox with the expectation of running PS3 games and shopping on Amazon.
Xbox plays Xbox games, PS3 plays PS3 games, bluray and dvd's, the kindle displays kindle purchased PDF books.
You don't buy a toaster with the expectation of smoking a brisket.
The iPad is 1000x more functional than those devices through the use of 3rd party software that is in no way pigeon-holed to games or books.
The swing in functionality that apple has the ability to control is staggering, and in NO WAY comparable to those devices you've stated.
To even restate it in that way makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion.
All of these devices are content delivery platforms. But yes, the iPad is more flexible.
So what you are saying is that if a manufacturer offers a device which is more flexible, then it should have less freedom to monetize it?
C.
And then ask me under your argument why should MS windows not block all Apple software from working on windows.
Or why did they get nailed for anti trust. Under your argument they should of been allowed to do that.
Not at all.
I have no problem with apple monetizing their offerings. In fact that has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all.
What I AM saying however, is that with the ipad being more flexible, and apple advertising that flexibility, people expect flexibility when they buy it.
What I am also saying is that nothing on the market that you can buy is under as much control by the manufacturer as iOS devices.....and that's after customer purchase I'm talking about. Fluid, active control. No, people are certainly NOT used to that.
Apple could render the device nearly useless by making the dev waters toxic enough. At the very least they can severely cripple the device you purchased - at their sole discretion.
And so comparisons to limited machines that more resemble a toaster or dryer than an ipad are poorly chosen.
A more apt comparison is to your Mac/PC.
Correct, however when you have what is essentially a personal computer in the iPad, then effectively you have the worlds first fully curated Mac/PC.
And that's exactly why these curating decision are infinitely more important to the consumer than Xbox and PS's could ever be.
Well I am sure they could. Just as Sony can turn-off Linux on their PS3. Or suddenly make half the games stop working.
But why on Earth would Apple want to sabotage their own platform?
C.
Last edited:
1. Amazon has said that 20% of its sales come from its various apps, and I think it's reasonable to imagine that the iPad and iPhone apps would account for a lot - maybe a majority - of these purchases.
2. If the new policy means that Amazon has to charge the same for in app purchases as out of app purchases, and has to give 30% to Apple, Amazon would undoubtedly pull the Kindle app, as they would be losing money. This would be bad for Apple - see below.
3. If the new policy means that Amazon and Apple somehow split the 30% commission for sales made on the iPad, but prices remain the same in or out of app, Amazon may or may not pull their app. It depends on the details. But Amazon is a low margin, high volume seller (4Q profits were $416 million on $12-$13 bln in sales), so there may not be a lot of flexibility. And this might also depend on whether B&N (and to a lesser extent Sony) go along with the change.
4. If Amazon can sell its books at 43% premium through the app, I would imagine they would keep the app on the ipad. Although I doubt that either Apple or Amazon would make much money through in app sales.
5. It would be bad for Apple if Amazon pulled its app. Amazon sold 8 million Kindles in 2010 - not iPad numbers, but very respectable. Kindle has a different demographic from iPads (its owners are slightly older, slightly wealthier, and read a lot of books), but there is some overlap. Many iPad owners also own a Kindle, of course. If the Kindle app is pulled, Apple will likely lose some millions of customers or potential customers, especially for the iPad. Few, if any, Kindle owners won't move from the book format with 80% of the market to an incompatible book format that shares the bottom 5% of the market with Sony and all other e-readers that are not the Kindle or the Nook. So to the extent that they are interested in a tablet, they will look for one that they can read their books on. And the same analysis is likely also true for Nook readers as well.
Maybe Apple has something else up their sleeve. But as presented, this looks like a change in policy that is bad for iPad and iPhone owners, bad for booksellers, and even bad for Apple.