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

Maybe this will be a catalyst for all of the eBook formats to be combined into a STANDARD format, so all readers / stores can play nicely with each other.

I do find it absurd that I have to use Kindle to read amazon's format on an iPad, but also have the same books available from iBookstore that are only readable on in iBooks, and Barnes & Noble books (same title, mind you) can only be read on a Nook or Nook application.

THEY ARE BOOKS for goodness sake. Apple, Amazon, B&N, Sony, etc don't own the books, they are resellers. Just open up that eco system and put them all on a common standard to let us choose which store and which application to use to read with....
 
Good!

Well, that is good news. It will make the experience on Apple devices much more consistent. It won't block Developers from offering things outside, as well. Sounds like a win / win.
 
Taselcult said:
Does anyone know if this applies to just book apps (per the quote) or to all "purchases relating to an app"? The rules are only viewable for paid dev members. If it's all apps Netflix, Sirus/XM, Guardian/NY Times are going to have to give customers the option to buy subscriptions to their companies services via Apple, and pretty sure they aren't going to want the chance for apple to take 30% of their entire revenue stream...

It's like saying a mall gets 30% of all revenue a store makes just because they are there. Doesn't seem right wen put in brick in mortar terms.
Click to expand...

Now you could say Netflix and Amazon both get *free* services from Apple since Apple hosts the App Store and lets users download their services for free.

In that current structure apple makes NOTHING.

But can you blame Netflix or Amazon?

They code the iOS apps.
They provide the content.

And they have no other way of giving iOS customers their content besides THROUGH the app store.

Why can't I just go to Netflix.com on my iPhone and download their app outside of Apple?

Why can't Apple work with Netflix and offer them a special "in-app" purchase deal that isn't 70/30, but maybe like 90/10?

I hate how everything is black and white, YES/NO, OPEN/CLOSE.

The consumer should be given options. We already "paid" apple.
 
Fork in the road?

After over a decade of a satisfactory, but somewhat uncomfortable relationship with Apple, this might be where I wind up throwing in the towel on them.

They REALLY NEED to resolve this in in a way that doesn't live down to the arrogant greedy bunch of a$$holes characterization that their worst detractors have been claiming for years.
 
macnews said:
I can understand 30% for buying an app but in app purchases not hosted on Apple servers like a book download is crap. Make it more like a credit card fee percentage 1.5% for processing the charge. Can still make hundreds of millions from these fees alone plus if Apple is looking in to RFD or NFD or what ever the initials are for the near purchase point of sale things, retailers will not all of a sudden jump from a maybe 4.5% to 30% just for the privilege of THEIR customer paying with an Apple product.
Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense, on the other hand I could see a lot of in-app purchases changed over to this method to get around the 30%. It could fragment the store experience.

I would argue that the Kindle store/library is different than an in-store purchase. It's more of a reader for walled content, like others have drawn the parallel to Netflix or Hulu+, you sign in with an account and it syncs your content, the subscription/purchase/queue just comes from another source.
 
thatisme said:
Maybe this will be a catalyst for all of the eBook formats to be combined into a STANDARD format, so all readers / stores can play nicely with each other.

I do find it absurd that I have to use Kindle to read amazon's format on an iPad, but also have the same books available from iBookstore that are only readable on in iBooks, and Barnes & Noble books (same title, mind you) can only be read on a Nook or Nook application.

THEY ARE BOOKS for goodness sake. Apple, Amazon, B&N, Sony, etc don't own the books, they are resellers. Just open up that eco system and put them all on a common standard to let us choose which store and which application to use to read with....
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. I think there should be a common base specification that all ebook products should adhere to. This would make them portable across readers, as it should be.

The catch will be with innovation within each reader. There are bound to be secondary features that each provider will want to covet. For example: notes, hyperlinking, illustration format, interactive elements, etc. Maybe they could solve this by charging extra, say $0.99, for the customizations to that particular book.

Honestly, there are a lot of book on Amazon that I can't get on iBooks. But I will be damned if I start splintering my books into multiple eBook formats. The end game is that NOBODY gets my money until it's portable.
 
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...

Spot on -- if you think about it, the eBook sells for $10, Amazon gets $3 of that; however, since it sold for $10 through an in-app purchase, then Apple wants $3 too; which would be 100% of Amazon's cut. So if Amazon raises the price for the in-app purchase, then won't the publisher still want his 70% of the increased price? Unless the Amazon/Publisher agreement is setup so that the Publisher gets 70% of Amazon's net sale, and not gross sale, then this policy will basically end Kindle on iOS.

I suppose Amazon can always offer the eBook for twice the price on iOS to simply deter in-app purchases and encourage customers to buy through their web site. But who does that benefit?
- Amazon loses because they had to go update their app for no reason
- Apple gets bad PR, and minimal sales since anybody who is sane will not purchase for twice the price, and those who do will later be angry.
- Customers get annoyed.

They need another model for eBook purchases -- more like 3%. Or they simply need to leave well enough alone. For heavens sake -- Amazon Kindle helps sell the iPad. Apple should *want* the Kindle app on their device. Think of it as an upgrade path for Kindle owners:

Hmmm... I own a Kindle, but I like the iPad, but I already have all these Kindle books. What am I going to do? I sure wish there was a Kindle app for iPad so I could upgrade.


Apple needs to realize that competition from eReaders is not killing iBooks -- their lack of selection is killing iBooks. In my opinion, its killing Kindle for me too, but Kindle at least has greater selection than iBookstore. I still cannot find 90% of books I want on either e-Bookstore.
 
wwchris said:
3) To they guy who asked about Skype credits being bought through the store. Funny example, I wanted to try that out the other day, but I opted not to set up a skype credit card account and so I did not buy any minutes. If it had been an in-app purchase, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. Instead, they got none of my money.
Click to expand...
So you would never buy any Skype credits except through your Apple ID? I hope you realise that your position cannot really be relevant here, currently 100% of all Skype revenue is NOT coming through Apple IDs, thus for all current customers it is not a problem that they cannot pay via their Apple ID. And Skype does have quite a few customers.
 
Huge disappointment if this is really the direction in which Apple is heading. Usually this stuff is a knee-jerk reaction and Apple gets things corrected before they make a mistake, but if they take this so far as expecting Amazon, B&N, and similar competitors to offer in-app purchasing with Apple's 30% profit take this will push them from the App Store.

There's no defending Apple on this: it would either represent greed over interest in supporting consumers (who will lose out in no longer being able to, say, access their Kindle library, which for many was a consideration in buying these products), a bone-headed stand for rules which should be adjusted, or an anti-competitive move. I think they'll sort this out and I doubt they're doing it to be anti-competitive, but I also think this is a case where they need to consider their customers first.
 
saxamoophone said:
Go watch the 1982 commercial that apple fanboys love and tell me how apple isn't the evil company anymore?
Click to expand...

Umm... 1982? Are you sure you really care about any article involving books? ;)

Sorry, just having a little fun with ya, hoping to lighten the mood in what is really such a downer topic.
 
Lets try this again.
Sony cannot have their own app store within the app.
Sony can sell through the Apple App store ORlink out to their own app store.
If you had read and comprehended this you would have not had the opportunity to be oh so outraged.
Oh, and you have to have a monopoly to be considered anti-competitive. last I checked Apple has no monopoly on smartphones. Not even close.

Rodimus Prime said:
Umm Amazon and B&N having to give apple 30% of the revenue would mean that Amazon and B&N be losing money for every sell threw those devices since they only get 30% cut of the price of the book. So that 30% goes Apple. Amazon and B&N receive nothing and have to pay to host the book, track that it has been sold and so on.

This is pure Apple greed and if they push it I could smell law suits. Not because of Ebook stores but because iPhone, iPad are so huge and the only way to get on them is to go threw the App store. No side loading this make an issue in terms of anti competitive.
Click to expand...
 
I take this statement to mean the following: We're not interested in building a competitive iBookstore. We're just going to make up ways to start taking money from Amazon.

Truly despicable. Odds I forgo the next gen iPad for a Kindle just went way, way up.
 
Xian Zhu Xuande said:
Huge disappointment if this is really the direction in which Apple is heading. Usually this stuff is a knee-jerk reaction and Apple gets things corrected before they make a mistake, but if they take this so far as expecting Amazon, B&N, and similar competitors to offer in-app purchasing with Apple's 30% profit take this will push them from the App Store.

There's no defending Apple on this: it would either represent greed over interest in supporting consumers (who will lose out in no longer being able to, say, access their Kindle library, which for many was a consideration in buying these products), a bone-headed stand for rules which should be adjusted, or an anti-competitive move. I think they'll sort this out and I doubt they're doing it to be anti-competitive, but I also think this is a case where they need to consider their customers first.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt there are many people who bought iPads solely because they can get kindle books on it...

alot of commenters here are really over reacting on this.

as a consumer...it is easier and better to just have everything billed to one account using one card.
 
Greed! pure and simple.


And in a firey furnace somewhere deep within the depths of cuppertino, the once all powerful Steve Job's cast from the molten depths one ring to rule them all....

The evil eye of Cuppertino is watching us all...
(iOs)




Run hobbits. Secure your Kindle before evil destroy's it....
 
Apple seem to think the balance of power has changed. They used to see you and I as their customers. Now they see us as their product, and iOS content providers as the customers to which they sell the product.

Apple sells a large user base to merchants, in the same way that a mall sells space and branding to stores. That they are a little high handed with their new customers should not come as a surprise to Sony et al. Apple was built on offering customers what Apple feels they need, rather than what the customer believes they want.

Personally I object to being treated as a product, because unlike a mall, or for a more obvious comparison, Google, I'm being charged. I don't pay the mall for access to their shiny stores. I don't pay Google for access to its web services. I do *pay* Apple for a product.

I'm sure Apple will complain when ISPs start billing for iTunes downloads on the grounds that Apple is making money off their backs, and I'm sure Apple would make the case that consumers are paying for the download though their monthly fees. Equally, I'm sure they'd argue that with less stuff like iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube, there'd be less people paying for Internet access.

Somehow though they feel they have the right to bill Sony for the privilege of selling to me. It's called double dipping Apple, and it makes you look like douches.
 
knucklehead said:
After over a decade of a satisfactory, but somewhat uncomfortable relationship with Apple, this might be where I wind up throwing in the towel on them.

They REALLY NEED to resolve this in in a way that doesn't live down to the arrogant greedy bunch of a$$holes characterization that their worst detractors have been claiming for years.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I think the best thing that can happen now is Sony and Amazon offer their readers on Cydia. It'd be the biggest slap in the face apple could ever have.
 
saxamoophone said:
Now you could say Netflix and Amazon both get *free* services from Apple since Apple hosts the App Store and lets users download their services for free.

In that current structure apple makes NOTHING.

But can you blame Netflix or Amazon?
-------------
Why can't I just go to Netflix.com on my iPhone and download their app outside of Apple?
Click to expand...
You could also argue those "larger companies" drive consumers to use the hardware. I know this goes both ways, but you can realistically argue apple does get something out of it, if not in a direct monetary way..

Although to your other point, This little stunt by apple might entice these companies to allow viewing of their content via a website. There apps already require a full internet connection. There is a way to "get their apps outside of apple". Just code the websites to take full advantage of the iOS. Then they can cut apple out of the equation completely. Isn't that what Apple wanted originally?
 
This is a really stupid move for Apple. Just taking a quick glance over the top 200 apps on the Apple store shows a whole bunch of apps that could fall into this category...
Facebook, Pandora, Netflix, Skype, Farmville, Redbox, Hulu, etc. Not to mention all the eReader apps and the many magazine or newspaper apps that require subscriptions. Personally, if they kill the Kindle app on my iPod, I may start looking at Android phones a little more seriously. I love my iPod touch but I'm not rebuying eBooks on a different platform because Apple wants a cut of the profits.
 
rorschach said:
Seems to me that all Amazon et al would have to do to avoid having to have in-app purchases is remove any button/link in the app directly linking to their store in Safari.

Unless they're including apps that allow users to sync/download content purchased elsewhere (and not just have a link in the app to buy elsewhere).
Click to expand...

I totally agree they will just remove the Kindle Store button. I think this is the most likely outcome. We will just have to purchase our books independently through a web browser and the app will just sync it up. Apple hasn't blocked music or videos purchased elsewhere from syncing up to iOS devices and they have been in those businesses much longer.
 
iOrlando said:
I highly doubt there are many people who bought iPads solely because they can get kindle books on it...
Click to expand...
I know at least eight. It was also an important consideration for both my purchase of the iPad and my wife's. I think it is reasonable to assume that it is important for many people who replaced their Kindle with an iPad.

iOrlando said:
alot of commenters here are really over reacting on this.
Click to expand...
They probably are. Hopefully.

iOrlando said:
as a consumer...it is easier and better to just have everything billed to one account using one card.
Click to expand...
This completely misses the point. The digital bookstore price points and business models cannot sustain a 30% cut going to another company on top of their own cut. Well, they theoretically could, and probably with price adjustments, but they won't. As a consumer, I would rather have the option to buy this content from another store rather than have no option to buy it at all (short of jumping ship to the iBookstore).
 
This is simple and I don't see a problem with it....

if you want to sell content through an iApp... then Apple says you have to offer it in their store too. Smart on Apple's part as it will increase content for all of us. How is that bad?

Oh... the 30% you say? Well, I'm sure if you're going to buy a Kindle book, it's way more advantageous to buy it from Amazon than Apple. I'm guessing a $9.95 book at Amazon would sell for $11.95 through the in-app program.

So... what's the downside? If you want to use your Apple ID and buy Amazon from Apple you're going to pay more for that connivence. But if you want to save money, go to Amazon and buy your book. That simple.

It's all about choices and Apple takes none away only adds.

If Amazon or Sony does not want to do this... simple... take purchasing out of their app all together. Then they don't have to offer both. Less convenient for iOS customers, but you can still go buy your book and transfer it to the iDevice.

Again... no issues here. You as a consumer have the choice as do the developers.
 
Oletros said:
Ein? Apple doesn't provide the Credit Card Service, doesn't store the books, doesn't sell them and doesn't deliver them
Click to expand...

Are meaning in the technicality that Apple doesn't do the Credit Card transaction itself? Neither does Amazon. Otherwise, Apple does provide the system for Credit Card storage, account information and transaction receipts.

As for selling and delivery, if Amazon chose to, Apple would deliver the books as well. Amazon prefers to host them on their site so they can share account information for multiple devices. (BTW, also so they can charge publishers 30%)

Apple is the one selling the books if you make an in-App transaction. They are the ones incurring the credit card transaction fees, credit card fraud costs and (most) customer service needs. (With some being handled by Amazon for download problems or authentication problems).
 
people keep saying "Just raise the prices on the in-app purchases." But if you read the quote they have to have the "same option" through the in-app apple process.

How many of you would guess the apple lawyers will use "option" to mean same price?
 
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