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

How about if we all don't take this so personal. If Apple decides that they would rather risk losing the Kindle, Nook, etc. apps, that's a business decision on their part. If Amazon or B&N decide that they don't want to pay a premium in profit for the right to sell in the Apple store, that's a business decision on their parts.

And my decision will be made with no emotion, also. If I can't use Kindle on my iPad, I will sell it and buy an Android tablet.
 
Apple should have a different model for re-sellers

If Apple is going to require this, they should (IMHO) have a reduced revenue cut for themselves. It is one thing for a developer (originator of content) to give up 30% (of 100%), versus a re-seller of content like Amazon to give up 30% (of ?) of their selling price/retail, which is already a percentage cut from the content owner/developer.

Apple, of course, can do whatever they want (this is not a negative comment - they are running a business - note: does Amazon allow externally bought content on their Kindle... No). However, Apple, 1) has always been more about selling the hardware (the content drives hardware sales); and 2) has been end-user focused as far as giving the best possible experience of the content. Amazon, on the other hand, is about selling books - the Kindle is a vehicle for that, and so is the iPad.

It will be interesting to see how these two different business models may or may not cooperate. Maybe, Apple is looking at making book sales a bigger revenue stream in the future. iBooks still doesn't have the depth of content as Amazon (with Amazon locking up what they can - what about an article about "bad Amazon" trying to lock up book sales - make it a "closed system" for themselves). iBooks, by the way, is also really slooooooow on an iPhone 3g (at least mine) - to the point of being unusable.
 
SerenityInt said:
I can see both sides of this.

On Apple's side, it sucks that a company can release a free app and use Apple's infrastructure to deliver it, but not pay for any of it.

On the other hand, sucking away 30% from every single purchase just seems like too much.
Click to expand...

Is 70% too much then?
Because that's what you pay to get downloadable games into Sony's store.

C.
 
I'm still not sure what the requirement is saying. If you have an app that has in-app purchases, can you ALSO redirect to the browser from WITHIN the app to purchase outside the app? If that's the case, and Amazon raising the in-app price according to their price increase, why the heck would anyone then buy the book as in-app?

This whole Apple position makes no sense. :confused:

tony
 
Not quite as brutal a move as it seemed, but almost the same, in effect. So the policy needs to be refined, not enforced as-is (no matter how long it has been on the books).

The implications could be interpreted very broadly to interfere with lots of kinds of services. And pricing the same when costs aren’t the same doesn’t make sense.
 
i.mac said:
So you do not think that it is fair for apple to get paid for the app store service?
Click to expand...

But it's not for the app store service. Apple wants to get paid when you download an Amazon book from an Amazon server. I'll be on Amazon's side when they get ticked about that.


rdlink said:
How about if we all don't take this so personal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that's a good ide...

rdlink said:
And my decision will be made with no emotion, also. If I can't use Kindle on my iPad, I will sell it and buy an Android tablet.
Click to expand...

What? %$&*#!

Uh, yeah. You're not the only one. Then the iPad business goes stale and inovation slows and I don't get the kick-@$$ 2013 iPad 'cause Apple just doesn't have the resources to invest in that old thing anymore.

That's why I take it personal.
 
fruitpunch.ben said:
Yeah, cause making rules that benefit your company and shareholders at the expense of your competitors is exactly the same as murdering millions of innocent people. Great analogy
Click to expand...

Not a great analogy I agree, but it is getting increasingly difficult to defend what Apple is doing from a consumer perspective. The problem is though, as a publicly traded company they have an obligation to try and help themselves to as many 30% of transactions as possible.

I remember Leo Laporte saying many times on his MacBreak Weekly podcast that as much as he loves Apple, he was always very happy that it was Microsoft and Bill Gates that got into the position of market domination. Because if people thought Microsoft were bad at abusing their monopoly position, they would have seemed like gentle giants had they swapped positions with Steve Jobs and Apple. ;)
 
OllyW said:
It's got nothing to do with it being easier or safer for the customer, Apple just want that 30%.
Click to expand...

I know i would rather not have multiple 3rd parties with my credit card, if i downloaded a book app of the app store i expect to be able to use the same payment system to buy content for that app.

I would not be comfortable giving payment information to a 3rd party and i think it is very un user friendly to not offer the option to pay with your iTunes account.
 
Wonder if this includes Audible.com's app.

I don't buy e-books, but I do listen to Audible.com books. Their prices are much better than apples with the monthly subscription.
 
Tones2 said:
I'm still not sure what the requirement is saying. If you have an app that has in-app purchases, can you ALSO redirect to the browser from WITHIN the app to purchase outside the app? If that's the case, and Amazon raising the in-app price according to their price increase, why the heck would anyone then buy the book as in-app?
Click to expand...

That's my guess too.

Sony probably made it so that you have to buy the content elsewhere and didn't provide hooks to buy content from the app and that's why they got rejected.

B
 
Here's some more from that Digitimes article:

"In other words, Apple wants its cut on sales enabled by its iOS devices, it has an established guideline that allows it to take it and that’s what it’s doing. Developers are still free to send customers to their own Web stores, but they must also offer them the option of purchasing content within their apps themselves, and they must route those sales through Apple which will then take its percentage."

Sounds like apps just need to offer customers the option. Customers then decide which way they want to purchase their books.
 
Can somebody please quote the relevant section of the iOS developer guide lines as a comment to this story -- sure would like to review it. The only thing I saw referenced online seemed to be with respect to the app using an in-app payment API, but did not sound like it pertained to something you purchased via a website outside the app.
 
greytmom said:
Sounds like apps just need to offer customers the option. Customers then decide which way they want to purchase their books.
Click to expand...

So here's a thought...

Amazon can do exactly what Apple wants but put a banner on their app:

*ALL E-BOOKS 30% CHEAPER THAN HERE IF BOUGHT on AMAZON.COM*

Nothing wrong with that, huh? :D
 
now when will Amazon allow me to download iBooks and Nook books to my Kindle? I'm sick of their gestapo tactics.
 
The problem here is that the AppStore should not be the EXCLUSIVE App supplier to iOS.

The iPhone should be unlocked and allowed to load other app stores as the consumer sees fit.

We don't need AT&T telling apple to block apps...
We dont' need Apple shutting down Google Apps because they are competition...
And we dont' need Apple STEALING 30% of every amazon, ebay, or any other purchase.

I have a feeling the EU is going to tear Apple apart in the coming years. This is VERY microsoft 1990s all over again.

Gah I love Apple products, but Android is looking better and better all the time..
 
solafide said:
If Apple is going to require this, they should (IMHO) have a reduced revenue cut for themselves. It is one thing for a developer (originator of content) to give up 30% (of 100%), versus a re-seller of content like Amazon to give up 30% (of ?) of their selling price/retail, which is already a percentage cut from the content owner/developer.
Click to expand...

If in-app purchases have a different royalty percentage - then it's easy to end-run around Apple's model.

A game developer could give away their game. But use in-app purchases to unlock content. This would let them avoid the higher rate completely.

C.
 
Simple, just make your out of app purchases 30% less.

If Apple are not hosting them, then you can charge the customer less.

Deal with Apple as Apple deal with sales tax. Apple sells a product then put tax on saying it's not our fault, it's the tax.

Well do the same back to them, price your books as normal and then load on the 30% apple sales tax onto the price.

Then the customer is free to decide where to buy the item from.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

I was irritated when Apple banned Google Voive and took other apps off their app store but I thought they'd learned their lesson. I love my macs and my iPhone but Apples tactics are pushing me towards Android. I've been considering jumping ship anyway because I'm tired of AT&T and I hate Verizon. If both AT&T and Apple are pushing me away I think I'm gone.

Sad too because I haven't loved the few Android experiences I've had and I have hundreds of dollars in apps. Wish Apple would wisen up.
 
Small White Car said:
So here's a thought...

Amazon can do exactly what Apple wants but put a banner on their app:

*ALL E-BOOKS 30% CHEAPER THAN HERE IF BOUGHT on AMAZON.COM*

Nothing wrong with that, huh? :D
Click to expand...

Nothing at all wrong with that. There will be customers happier to buy using there iTunes account and others that trust there details with 3rd parties and would take the cheeper price.
 
Small White Car said:
So here's a thought...

Amazon can do exactly what Apple wants but put a banner on their app:

*ALL E-BOOKS 30% CHEAPER THAN HERE IF BOUGHT on AMAZON.COM*

Nothing wrong with that, huh? :D
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is it okay for Apple to being a greedy whore so long as only the consumers in the end get screwed ;).
 
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