Sidebar Sidebar
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

CylonGlitch said:
I) Why did Apple decide to initially ignore the rule, and then suddenly start to enforce it?
Click to expand...


The truth is likely more like they were not ignoring it for newly submitted apps and had warned other apps that they needed to change and there would be a day in the future at which point if they had not done so, the app would be pulled

THe reason we hadn't heard about the rejections before is because it wasn't someone big and high and mighty like Sony who thought they could get an exemption cause "Hey we're Sony. You should shut up and let us doing things the way we want" and everyone else just made the change, put in the option and resubmitted. They didn't post about it etc
 
If Apple takes a 30% cut off of in-store content purchases, and the provider's profit margin is less than that, unless the price is raised doesn't that mean that content providers would be paying customers (and Apple) to download the content? It doesn't make sense to me... for Apple to take 30% off the top only leaves 70% for the author and content provider, which may be too little for the author/provider to make a profit at all.

Since Apple already requires a $100 subscription to release apps to the App Store, plus whatever their cut is off app purchases, a 30% cut from content purchases just seems way excessive...
 
macsforme said:
Since Apple already requires a $100 subscription to release apps to the App Store, plus whatever their cut is off app purchases, a 30% cut from content purchases just seems way excessive...
Click to expand...

A 30% revenue share for a videogame app is a good rate. MS charge 70% for access to their platform.

But as I understand e-book publishing, the profit margins are very thin. And it certainly looks like a 30% share of retail would be excessive.

C.
 
Carniphage said:
But it is "As presented" by a bunch of hysterical ninnies.

Apple has no commercial benefit by losing Amazon. Amazon would lose massively by dropping iOS support. Especially looking at the potential growth of the iPad next year. Customers would be very angry is the Kindle app ceased to function.

The sky is not, in fact, falling.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, "as presented" by Apple's official spokesperson. However, her statement would not win an award for clarity, exactly, and it certainly wouldn't make *sense* for Apple to do what she said that they were going to do.

But that doesn't mean that Apple won't. So while I hope that the sky isn't falling, I can't help but note that Apple suggested that it was.
 
macsforme said:
If Apple takes a 30% cut off of in-store content purchases, and the provider's profit margin is less than that, unless the price is raised doesn't that mean that content providers would be paying customers (and Apple) to download the content? It doesn't make sense to me... for Apple to take 30% off the top only leaves 70% for the author and content provider, which may be too little for the author/provider to make a profit at all.
Click to expand...

Except, why is this Apple's fault? They were very clear about the required 30% from the beginning. If a developer feels that they cannot make money with a 30% fee to Apple, then why would they move forward and create the app in the first place? It is not Apple's fault that a developer poorly planned.

Now, that being said, some of these apps were available before the in-app purchase functionality. But once it was announced, it was clear what Apple's cut was, they either should have pulled their app or as a large company could do, cut a better deal with Apple.

I'm sure that some of the big companies are already working with Apple, already have better deals, already playing the game correctly. What we have right now is ONE company (Sony) who wasn't playing the game and wanted to skirt the rules and got slapped down. So again, why is this really an issue? Bring it back up when this happens with other big name developers.
 
alhedges said:
Unfortunately, "as presented" by Apple's official spokesperson. However, her statement would not win an award for clarity, exactly, and it certainly wouldn't make *sense* for Apple to do what she said that they were going to do.
Click to expand...

I was wondering. I know that Amazon has a referral program where if you refer someone to a product on their site and they buy it, you get a percentage of that sale. Could it be that they sat down with Apple, and said that their Kindle app will go out to the Amazon website and anything they buy will fall under the Amazon referral program for Apple. Thus Apple is getting their share of the pie. Sure it isn't 30% but for someone like Amazon who sells so much it is still significant.

BUT now why was Sony rejected? Well my understanding is that they don't have the website to buy books; and they don't have a referral program like Amazon. People have to buy books through their device which, Apple has no way to track. Thus Apple gets nothing from Sony at all.
 
CylonGlitch said:
Except, why is this Apple's fault? They were very clear about the required 30% from the beginning. If a developer feels that they cannot make money with a 30% fee to Apple, then why would they move forward and create the app in the first place? It is not Apple's fault that a developer poorly planned.

Now, that being said, some of these apps were available before the in-app purchase functionality. But once it was announced, it was clear what Apple's cut was, they either should have pulled their app or as a large company could do, cut a better deal with Apple.

I'm sure that some of the big companies are already working with Apple, already have better deals, already playing the game correctly. What we have right now is ONE company (Sony) who wasn't playing the game and wanted to skirt the rules and got slapped down. So again, why is this really an issue? Bring it back up when this happens with other big name developers.
Click to expand...

so i can't buy anything from amazon on my iphone unless it's an in app purchase?
 
alent1234 said:
so i can't buy anything from amazon on my iphone unless it's an in app purchase?
Click to expand...

Do you know if Amazon and Apple struck a deal? Maybe it is like I listed in the post above (Amazon's referral program). Besides, it is not adding content to the Amazon shopping app. The issue is with that, adding content to an application from outside of the application. Not buying things outside of the application for something unrelated.

Example. You cannot give away a "demo" of a game that has only 1 level and then allow them to download more levels if they buy them on your website. In this case, Apple would get $0! If you allow them to get more levels from your website you have to also have a way to allow them to buy them in-app (you can have both). Otherwise this would start a trend of "Free Demo" that you can upgrade to the full version, completely bypassing Apple.

What you CAN do, is like the Amazon shopping app. Sell tangible items, such as printers, bikes, games, etc, that do not change the functionality of the application. Big difference.
 
Kindle, Netflix, Zinio, Stanza, nook...

Kindle, Netflix, Zinio, Stanza, Nook, Hulu plus... All these "apps" are streaming/downloading information that was paid-for/subscribed, and the information is not using any of Apple's resources. If Apple wants to charge those companies to "host" their apps in its app-store, fine. But they want to get 30% of my subscription fees to Netflix? Oh pls, come on.

Is Apple going to enforce their 30% tax on all these suppliers? How about TDAmeritrade, where I host my trading activities: they provide information (stock info) for my money. Is Apple going to ask for 30%?

If they do, bye bye Apple. I, for one, will be taking my business and my $ somewhere else. Sad, since I have gotten the iPad on April 3, i bought one for my wife, and my sister, and was planning to buy one to each of my team members at work. And I must have referred 20-30 additional customers to the Apple store to purchase theirs.

Also, this rule did not exist when I purchased the iPad. They have changed it along the way, and now forcing me to accept it (otherwise, I cannot connect to my ITunes store at all). Talk about a major Bait-and-Switch tactic.

If this is true, I am very sad for Apple. It will go down soon, or a regulator will find a way to break the monopoly, hurting a business model that was working very well (the iOs ecospace). Oh well, seems all good stories must have an end.
 
yaredna said:
Also, this rule did not exist when I purchased the iPad. They have changed it along the way, and now forcing me to accept it (otherwise, I cannot connect to my ITunes store at all). Talk about a major Bait-and-Switch tactic.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the impression that you wouldn't be able to connect to iTunes? And no one is forcing YOU to change anything. They might be forcing the APPS to change, but they aren't forcing any new rules on YOU.

BTW : March 17th, 2009 Apple announces the in-app purchasing rules (30% payment; etc). Jan 27th, 2010 Apple announces the iPad. Thus when the iPad was announced the rules were already in place -- some apps may not have followed the rules at that point, and were over looked (or ignored) but are now being made to play by the rules.

Thus your claim that they changed the rules after you purchased your iPad is false. But actually irrelevant because it is between Apple and the developer, no Apple and you. You being the end consumer might be effected though but it doesn't change what Apple sold you or your terms of use with Apple.
 
CylonGlitch said:
Where did you get the impression that you wouldn't be able to connect to iTunes? And no one is forcing YOU to change anything. They might be forcing the APPS to change, but they aren't forcing any new rules on YOU.
Click to expand...

I'd guess they can't connect to the iTunes store unless they accept the new terms.
 
ChazUK said:
I'd guess they can't connect to the iTunes store unless they accept the new terms.
Click to expand...

Terms that are being discussed here only effect developers, not end users. Besides from the first time you connect your device to iTunes you are presented an agreement. In that agreement you agree that Apple can change the terms at any time; if you don't like those terms, T.F.B. But again, not the point we are talking about here, they don't have any bearing on the end user besides if an app is available or not.
 
CylonGlitch said:
Terms that are being discussed here only effect developers, not end users. Besides from the first time you connect your device to iTunes you are presented an agreement. In that agreement you agree that Apple can change the terms at any time; if you don't like those terms, T.F.B. But again, not the point we are talking about here, they don't have any bearing on the end user besides if an app is available or not.
Click to expand...

I thought the terms had changed to reflect the in app subscriptions released with The Daily yesterday but you may be right there. Looking at the current terms on Apple's website it was last updated "January 6, 2010" although they may be outdated.


It does appear something changed yesterday regarding customer terms and conditions: http://www.slashgear.com/the-daily-debuts-new-itunes-subscription-agreement-02130050/ (I may be incorrect here as this seems to be a "The Daily" agreement)
 
This has certainly generated a lot of interest--and it is a big deal to a lot of us. I love my Kindle app on my iPhone and don't have a fall-back position if that app wasn't available. Always fun to speculate but the real business is most likely behind the scenes between Apple and companies like Amazon to find a position that benefits both parties--so I'm sure it will be more speculation until something changes--hopefully something that benefits everyone--including us--the consumer. :D
 
bobr1952 said:
I love my Kindle app on my iPhone and don't have a fall-back position if that app wasn't available.
Click to expand...

Speculation is fun. :D

As for a fallback plan. Take your books for your Kindle, remove the DRM, and use them in iBooks or any other app you chose. Again, not advocating piracy, just advocating being free to use your books anywhere.
 
CylonGlitch said:
Terms that are being discussed here only effect developers, not end users. Besides from the first time you connect your device to iTunes you are presented an agreement. In that agreement you agree that Apple can change the terms at any time; if you don't like those terms, T.F.B. But again, not the point we are talking about here, they don't have any bearing on the end user besides if an app is available or not.
Click to expand...

So... it doesn't have an impact on us other than stopping us using content that we've paid for in these Apps?

Sounds great to me.
 
CylonGlitch said:
Sorry, my bad, just repeating what someone said way back on one of the early pages.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. It actually might have made sense if Apple rejected them because they didn't offer sales via a web portal, but it seems they actually do.

I expect this to be resolved, either by clarification or Sony making it to the App Store soon.

B
 
ChazUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Your premise is that putting your credit card on 20 sites is safer than 1?
 
JAT said:
Seriously? Your premise is that putting your credit card on 20 sites is safer than 1?
Click to expand...

From a personal perspective, yes I do.

If I want to buy something through Amazon, I'll give amazon my credentials over their secure payment system. Same with play.com, game.co.uk, STEAM and anywhere else I buy stuff, all with unique passwords. I am in complete control on what I spend and where I spend it and can also remove payment information at will (like I did with iTunes when the scamming/phishing stories hit).

Giving third parties access to my payment info via a single iTunes login across multiple stores would worry me. There are regular reports of compromised iTunes accounts being used for nefarious purposes and with that extra spending ability, the potential for abuse is heightened.

If you think the key to secure online shopping is via a single login and password which then lets you buy from multiple vendors, more power to you. Putting all your eggs in one basket sure is convenient, I just don't think it's safe personally and will always choose to pay the vendor direct over anything else.
 
ChazUK said:
From a personal perspective, yes I do.

If I want to buy something through Amazon, I'll give amazon my credentials over their secure payment system. Same with play.com, game.co.uk, STEAM and anywhere else I buy stuff, all with unique passwords. I am in complete control on what I spend and where I spend it and can also remove payment information at will (like I did with iTunes when the scamming/phishing stories hit).

Giving third parties access to my payment info via a single iTunes login across multiple stores would worry me. There are regular reports of compromised iTunes accounts being used for nefarious purposes and with that extra spending ability, the potential for abuse is heightened.

If you think the key to secure online shopping is via a single login and password which then lets you buy from multiple vendors, more power to you. Putting all your eggs in one basket sure is convenient, I just don't think it's safe personally and will always choose to pay the vendor direct over anything else.
Click to expand...

Uh, I think you're missing the point.

Having your credit card at multiple sites means there are more chances a hacker is going to get that info (if your info is with multiple sites, that is more chance that if a site gets hacked, it's one that your credit card info is on).

If you put it on one site that you trust to be secure, that's a lot less places for a hacker to find your info. Of course if that site ends up with a lot of credit cards then it becomes more appealing to the hackers ;). But shoot, you say you'd rather give your info to Amazon so you're still not escaping having your info on a site that would be appealing to hackers anyways (Amazon is definitely big enough that it would be a huge treasure trove to hackers).

Oh, and those vendors you buy through apple aren't going to have access to your credit card info. You are going to pay Apple and Apple is going to take info of what you were buying and then give that vendor their cut of the money (basically, they're getting paid by Apple, not by your CC). So no one but Apple is going to have access to that CC info anyways! You're not having risk of random vendors having access to your CC. Even if it did work the way you thought, only the vendors you bought from would have access to that (unless they hacked the system. And it would be really stupid of a vendor to do something like that, risk their continual income from sales they will lose when Apple finds out and kicks them out plus sends them to court, for some short time benefits).
 
tigress666 said:
Oh, and those vendors you buy through apple aren't going to have access to your credit card info. You are going to pay Apple and Apple is going to take info of what you were buying and then give that vendor their cut of the money (basically, they're getting paid by Apple, not by your CC). So no one but Apple is going to have access to that CC info anyways! You're not having risk of random vendors having access to your CC. Even if it did work the way you thought, only the vendors you bought from would have access to that (unless they hacked the system. And it would be really stupid of a vendor to do something like that, risk their continual income from sales they will lose when Apple finds out and kicks them out plus sends them to court, for some short time benefits).
Click to expand...

It's not my credit card info specifically I'd be concerned about, it's about someone logging into a single source (iTunes account) who would then have the ability to purchase content from Amazon, Sony, Barnes and Noble and whatever third party providers choose to use the system.

Currently if I buy an eBook from Amazon, I use my unique Amazon credentials to do so, the same for Steam, Play.com, Game.co.uk e.t.c.

I don't know if statistically I am wrong or right by thinking that "Your premise is that putting your credit card on 20 sites is safer than 1?" but I wouldn't trust a single iTunes login just as I don't trust a single PayPal login to purchase items from vendors. I like having control on when and where my money can be spent and the ability to remove my payment info from a specific vendor if there is ever a breech.

If JAT or someone would care to explain why it is safer for me to put all my eggs in one basket as I mentioned earlier by letting Apple deal with all my purchases rather than registering my details to various reputable dealers using unique credentials then I'm all ears.

GRR submitted too early!
I do understand your point on having my CC info on less sites is better as there would be less vendors to hack but there is a reason we are regularly advised to use unique passwords for whatever sites we access, be it for Social networking, forums or online shopping. To flip the multiple password advice by having a single login to abuse across merchants doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back