Allowing an app on iOS on an iPhone or iPad, from which to purchase product or services directly.
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.
DoJ Claims Apple Implemented In-App Purchase Rules to 'Retaliate Against Amazon'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Allowing an app on iOS on an iPhone or iPad, from which to purchase product or services directly.
They already have an easy way around Apple. They send people to Safari to browse their website instead of letting people grab items from the app itself.
It works, but it's rather inconvenient.
You know, like trying to illustrate the point that if it's not anti-competitive.
Ah, my mistake then.
----------
And I take it all of the apps everywhere aren't doing this? But I'm told that companies will screw over Apple ASAP. Surely the next step is to make sure that Apple gets 30% of revenue from things purchased using their browser...
Besides being very difficult to do, especially since they allow competing browsers on iOS, like Chrome, it would be an extremely stupid business decision. Which could also be argued about premiums on IAP's. If it forces consumers to their competitors, then so be it. The market will bear that out.
Why does everyone keep bringing up competing browsers like they're really other browsers? A browser is more than just a UI. If I took Trident, put on a new UI, added some tweaks, and threw it up on the Windows RT Store... would that makes it a separate browser?
Of course not.
Edit: Just tie it into the special iOS rendering engine, nobody can escape that.
The only difference I see is that those are all items that do not use iOS. Content for an iOS app however does use iOS.
If Apple did away with taking a cut of IAP then all apps would be offered for free with an IAP that unlocked the rest of the app. E-Book content is far closer to IAP content than it is to ebay app purchasing of physical goods.
The only thing that makes it remotely tricky is that some book/magazine content can also be viewed outside of the iOS app, but not all of it, and Apple isn't prone to making complicated rules with a couple dozen if-and-buts. They tend to make one general wide sweeping rule. In this case, if your app allows you to purchase content that can be used by your app, you pay 30%. Done. If your app allows you to purchase items that can't be used by your app, no fee required.
More clearly, they pay for that service subject to specific terms which include the bit about IAP. Apple would not be charging only a $99 developer fee if that was their only significant source of revenue from the App Store.
Sure, but I think this is ridiculous. I half expect to read on here next that the DOJ has ordered Apple to make a larger screen because Netflix doesn't like making users watch shows on a smaller screen.
If you need to ban competitors it means your own offer is inferior, otherwise you would compete on merit.
In my opinion Apple offers the best hardware device with the best software, but in many cases the best software comes from third-parties, not from Apple itself. Take Google Maps vs Apple Maps: in my country there is no question that Google Maps is a far superior choice. Apple banning it would mean may customers would start to look for alternative devices.
I have hundreds of ebooks in my Amazon account and I read them on non-Apple devices too. The moment Apple decides to ban the Kindle App is the moment I will actually consider buying a non-iOS smarphone and tablet.
There is a big difference you're not seeing.
If Apple made the change specifically to screw over Amazon... it might have legal repercussions.
Edit: Also, I remember that argument being trotted out against the Affordable Care Act. "If they can make you buy insurance, next thing they'll be making you buy X" in which you take two slightly related things and act like there will necessarily be both.
Jobs missed the boat on this one
The beauty of the Kindle app is exactly what the commercial was highlighting...you can read a book on multiple devices, and it syncs between all of them. It's fantastic.
iBooks stinks. I can read books only on my iPhone or iPad, but not on my Mac, and for sure not on my PC. And in iBooks, I can't readily cut and paste text. It makes doing research writing or public speaking prep a pain.
On Kindle, everything is a breeze, and Amazon spanks Apple on this one. I've sent emails to apple about it, and they get back with me on licensing and copyright issues yada yada yada. Lame. So I stopped buying iBooks and switched completely to Kindle books. I'm so glad I did. And I don't think Apple will ever catch up to Amazon now. The user experience with Kindle is very rich.
What's disappointing to ME is that I WANTED iBooks to be better. I sent emails about it. I'm used to Apple providing a terrific user experience virtually across the board. But instead of making iBooks better, he focused on payment streams. Helloooo. The ad wasn't about that.
And iBooks is still inferior. And Apple is still missing the point.
The beauty of the Kindle app is exactly what the commercial was highlighting...you can read a book on multiple devices, and it syncs between all of them. It's fantastic.
iBooks stinks. I can read books only on my iPhone or iPad, but not on my Mac, and for sure not on my PC. And in iBooks, I can't readily cut and paste text. It makes doing research writing or public speaking prep a pain.
On Kindle, everything is a breeze, and Amazon spanks Apple on this one. I've sent emails to apple about it, and they get back with me on licensing and copyright issues yada yada yada. Lame. So I stopped buying iBooks and switched completely to Kindle books. I'm so glad I did. And I don't think Apple will ever catch up to Amazon now. The user experience with Kindle is very rich.
What's disappointing to ME is that I WANTED iBooks to be better. I sent emails about it. I'm used to Apple providing a terrific user experience virtually across the board. But instead of making iBooks better, he focused on payment streams. Helloooo. The ad wasn't about that.
And iBooks is still inferior. And Apple is still missing the point.
Why? Because it would be a lot easier from you if you were able to purchase directly from the app and Barnes & Nobles would make a lot more sales if it could sell their books directly to you, or be allowed to link to the bn.com site from the app. Apple allows neither. For an obvious reason. The 30%.
Which also means that Barnes & Nobles can't do it the Apple way, since it would lose a lot on every sales or be forced to hike prices...
I see no other difference other than the amount of $$ Apple has. If I had a small startup company selling T-shirts and I put a graphic on my T's that insulted my competition, no one would care.
Why should iOS developers be paying Apple? Should developers making programs for OS X be paying Apple too?
Huh?
It's like you don't know what's going on here... you just know that Apple is right.
What does "should" have to do with anything? Apple chose different business models for different products.
Funny thing is, that's how it was in the beginning.
Apple got paid for their part (hosting the app in the App store) with the dev fee.
Now they want a 30% piece of the pie from other side (something they have no hand in creating btw). They got greedy.
Happens all the time with companies. It eventually comes back and bite them in the rear.
I wonder what Steve would say if he was around to defend Apple on this.
I miss his open letters, disputes, and intensity and passion.
I miss his open letters, disputes, and intensity and passion.
Again, you are missing the point. If you purchase the book from their website which is not in the appstore, then Amazon does not pay the 30% markup but if you do purchase it from the app in the appstore then there is a 30% fee paid to apple.
In the same way, retailers who have a presence in Grand Central station are only required to cough up a percentage of their profits from their location in Grand Central and not other locations in non-MTA controlled buildings.
----------
I think you missed the boat on this. The format offered in iBooks is superior as it offers interactivity whereas the Amazon format is just a DRM'ed version of ePub. So given that I get a better experience with certain books if bought for iBook, why would I want to buy the Amazon version? What am I getting for my money? If I buy from Amazon, I am getting exactly what I would get from a quick and dirty bootlegged ePub version.
If Apple doesn't take a cut of IAPs then everyone will start releasing free apps with actual app content being sold as IAP, so Apple won't get any money.
It's a bogus fee... in both cases.
In both cases, the retailer is already paying for the space. Either through a Dev fee or via rent.
Taking a cut from the retailers profits on top of the fee/rent is pure greed and undeserved.
They already make money from the dev fee and app sales. If the overhead to run the store is higher, raise the dev fee price to cover it.
Again, the dev fee was never Apple's only source of revenue from the App Store. They also made 30% from the sales of each app. Without the IAP and subscription rules, developer could have cut Apple out of any additional revenue by offering free apps with an IAP or subscription to activate any significant content.