'iFlow Reader' iOS eBook Store Shutting Down

[swarmster]

Click this link from the first post.

The problem is the sellers cant raise prices. Read the original article. The sellers have to sell at the same price in the app store as they sell everywhere else. Apple says its now against their policy. Basically, apple is telling the sellers how much they can sell their content for. That is RIDICULOUS.

I understand recent events (as un-clarified as they are); what I don't understand is how they apply to iFlow. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with their product, and the article and their site is unclear, which is mostly why I'm asking, I guess.

As far as I can tell from their site and rant, they came into being solely as an iOS bookstore app? Why can't they raise prices then? What are their other venues that they have to match prices with? Why can't they just open a web-based store and dump the IAP part of their reader?

 

[rdowns]

How about this example. Airport space is very expensive. Have you ever been to a Mcdonalds at an airport? Theres no dollar menu and all the food is twice as expensive. What if the airport told Mcdonalds that they had to have a dollar menu and charge the same as every other Mcdonalds outside of the airport? It wouldnt be profitable. Apple should let the developers charge what ever they want for their apps.

This might be the most absurd example I have ever read here.

 

[Daveoc64]

This might be the most absurd example I have ever read here.

It's actually a pretty good example.

Apple is forcing content sellers to sell content through iOS with a 30% cut in income when it is purchased that way.

If I go to McDonald's in a location like an Airport I expect them to charge me more.

 

[MacObsessed]

Why can't they just open a web-based store and dump the IAP part of their reader?

If you read the link, you'll find that, according to Apple's newly enforced rules, if they offer something through another avenue, such as a web-based store, then they MUST also offer it through IAP at the same price. Given that IAPs are much more convenient, people will naturally utilize that avenue, which would force some content providers to either sell at too low of a margin, or raise their overall prices beyond a competitive range.

 

[pmz]

I see nothing wrong with Apple 30% or 50% or 70% if they want to on their own devices/platform.

I find it absurd that Apple insists on content being the same price as offered elsewhere, where the Apple-cut doesn't exist. Simply so that Apple can appear to customers as having the same prices as elsewhere.

Such B.S. The example re: McDonalds in an Airport is extremely relevant.

 

[iSee]

Don't get me wrong.
I think this is a *horrible* idea by Apple. But it's not monopolistic.
They *are* forcing competetors off of the iOS platform...
And that is very bad for consumers like me.

In fact, Apple's new policy is *why* I am not going to buy an iPhone once I'm ready to replace my 3GS and why I'm not going to buy an iPad when I'm ready to replace my 1st gen one -- Apple is in the process of locking out my content from the device.

The fact that I have a choice, though, shows how Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

What Apple is doing here is saying it's all or nothing. You get everytjhing from Apple on Apple device, etc, or you have to get off the platform entirely.

It's a dumb idea, IMO. At the end of the day, I want my stuff where and when I want it, wherever I purchased it from. If Apple devices won't do that I *will* get something else.

 

[pmz]

This might be the most absurd example I have ever read here.

YOU are absurd. That example is 100% exactly the same thing.

 

[swarmster]

If you read the link, you'll find that, according to Apple's newly enforced rules, if they offer something through another avenue, such as a web-based store, then they MUST also offer it through IAP at the same price. Given that IAPs are much more convenient, people will naturally utilize that avenue, which would force some content providers to either sell at too low of a margin, or raise their overall prices beyond a competitive range.

If you read the link, there is a lot of conjecture there that people seem to be taking as fact.

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
–Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines

According to that long-standing rule, I assume the iFlow app was using IAP for its app's purchases. In which case, they've always been charged 30%.

If they suddenly need to avoid that 30% (it sounds like because publishers re-negotiated?), why don't they remove in-app purchasing from the app and create an online store people can go to in a browser to add to an online library (not through the app)? This is what Amazon does.

I haven't seen any confirmation that this is changing. In fact, in that linked article it says "Apple's made no change to its App Store Guidlines" and a quote from an Apple spokesperson only references apps that allow you to make purchases:

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

 

[2 Replies]

lol Yeah. And Walmart gets a cut of everything sold in Walmart.

What facists!

This is no different. "But it's their own separate bookstore!" Yeah? You think those McDonalds in Walmarts pays Walmart to be there? You'd better believe it. You don't want to pay Walmart? Build your McDonalds outside in the parking lot.

You wanna run a bookstore and not pay Apple? Build your own device. That's what Amazon did and they seem to be doing well, so you can't claim it's impossible.

EDIT: Mind you, I don't think Apple's making the best choice here. I'd do it differently than they are. But they're doing the exact same thing thousands of other companies do. To call it evil or facist or illegal is really silly. It's perfectly normal.

Thousands? That's quite the statement. Name them.
In terms of phones, Apple is the only one acting that way.
WinMo phones have LONG been able to sync WinMo apps onto the device. Apps that could have just been downloaded from any crappy website. It was an option long before the PDA software made the jump to Windows smartphones.
Even Motorola dumb-phones such as the Razr, (unless locked down by companies like Verizon) can be connected to a computer and have java apps installed via USB.
Microsoft is not only not against jail-breaking of WP7, they encourage it. So if another company wants to create and offer another WP7 app store for users, they can. (And it'd be a great idea too.)
Android already has MANY app stores available to its users, in addition to the ability to just install an apk manually. (Hell, you can put all your apks on dropbox or a static webpage and install them.)

I'm not saying that there's a problem with Apple getting a cut of the apps they sell through their store.
It's that they use their iOS to enforce the Apple app store to be the SOLE app content hub on their iOS that is the issue.

Also, your McDonalds in a Walmart example is WAY flawed.
No iOS apps run INSIDE the app store. They run on the iOS operating system (which is not an app distribution service... it's an operating system).

Apple is using their iOS to force iOS developers to use their app store. It's a fact.
Apple doesn't just provide their store as a means of app distribution, they use their control of iOS to enforce it as the SOLE means of app distribution.
Sure, users can jailbreak and install Cydia... but apple will with any further updates break any jailbroken iOS device. Apple is vehemently AGAINST jail-breaking of iOS, and so also vehemently against allowing of any non-appstore provided content.
It's as if Microsoft would uninstall any and every NON-IE webbrowser installed on a computer when a user chooses to apply a Windows OS patch/update.
And not only that, it'd be as if Microsoft was ALSO against the installing of any programs on Windows that weren't downloaded via IE.

And yes, Amazon Kindle do allow the users to purchase books from Amazon's store, but Amazon DOES NOT impose their store as the SOLE content distribution hub for content to be consumed on their device.
In FACT, (and if you owned one, you've know what you're talking about) Kindle owners can ALSO purchase books on a publisher's individual website (TOTALLY separate from Amazon's store) then transfer those eBooks onto their kindle without Amazon getting a single red penny.
This is NOT the case for iOS devices.
Hell, if setup correctly users could even make those purchases ON a kindle (through the on-device web-browser), and have the eBook emailed to their kindle email. Thus auto-delivering the content OTA to the Kinda via Amazon's whisper net. REF

If it's not monopolistic for Apple to force everyone using their iOS to use their store... then wanna explain why MS was charged with monopolistic practices NOT for forcing everyone to use IE, but merely including it with their OS?
Or maybe you'd prefer to explain how users can purchase and install iOS apps without having to jail-break, use iTunes or the app store?

Try not to be such an Apple apologist next time.

 

[liphonearth]

I see nothing wrong with Apple 30% or 50% or 70% if they want to on their own devices/platform.

I find it absurd that Apple insists on content being the same price as offered elsewhere, where the Apple-cut doesn't exist. Simply so that Apple can appear to customers as having the same prices as elsewhere.

Such B.S. The example re: McDonalds in an Airport is extremely relevant.

So, by your analogy, if you use the firefox app or the opera app to purchase something through the web on your iOS device, Firefox and Opera or the vendor must pay 30% commission to Apple?

Don't you see the problem?

I have no problem with a commission on the actual app, but the ongoing (passive on Apple's part) taxation of goods and services cannot be 30% and work in the eco chain. A manufacturer, for instance needs to make a 50% profit in order to cover development and manufacturing costs. It might be able to afford a 30% commission, once.. but twice, and on the sales price, not cost?

It's draconian, and yes Apple can do it.. but its wrong... immoral even.. and it will not stand without eventual court action, or if not that, at the cost of the user experience and their ability to have choice.

 

[marshzd]

How about this example. Airport space is very expensive. Have you ever been to a Mcdonalds at an airport? Theres no dollar menu and all the food is twice as expensive. What if the airport told Mcdonalds that they had to have a dollar menu and charge the same as every other Mcdonalds outside of the airport? It wouldnt be profitable. Apple should let the developers charge what ever they want for their apps.

This example is only half accurate. The McDonald's either has to have a dollar menu and charge as much as every restaurant outside, or raise its prices so they are higher than the other competitors like Airport Food Express (a fictional food corporation owned and run by the airport) that are also located inside the airport. Which has the exact same food recipes and tastes the same, but the color of the packing is different.

 

[peetyrd]

This example is only half accurate. The McDonald's either has to have a dollar menu and charge as much as every restaurant outside, or raise its prices so they are higher than the other competitors like Airport Food Express (a fictional food corporation owned and run by the airport) that are also located inside the airport. Which has the exact same food recipes and tastes the same, but the color of the packing is different.

I dont think you quite get it. Mcdonalds has stores everywhere in which they either own the building or lease the space. #1(Big Mac) Value meals go for say, $4.99.

In an airport, Vendors are paying an astronomical price to lease the space. Why, because its an airport, its a closed environment, and they can sell the space for what ever they choose to. So in order to still make a profit, Mcdonalds has to make a #1(Big Mac) Value Meal, $7.99.

In the case of Apple, Developers, Publishers etc... have to give apple a 30% cut of what ever they sell. So naturally, to keep profits, you would think that content would come at a 30% increase. Apple is saying NO to price increases. They say if you sell content for $X dollars some where else, you have to sell for $X dollars in the App store.

Is this even legal? Can Apple really tell someone else what they have to sell their stuff for? If the airport told Mcdonalds that they had to sell their Big Mac Values Meals at $4.99, Mcdonalds would probably say, See you later like iFlow.

 

[Whati]

Am I missing something

Maybe I am missing something, but I dont see anything about product pricing. The original message says that you cannot offer product outside the AppStore and make them available on an ios device. Except if you offer the same product from within the AppStore.

Can anyone tell me where I can find the price statement?!

 

[jglavin]

Don't get me wrong.
I think this is a *horrible* idea by Apple. But it's not monopolistic.
They *are* forcing competetors off of the iOS platform...
And that is very bad for consumers like me.

In fact, Apple's new policy is *why* I am not going to buy an iPhone once I'm ready to replace my 3GS and why I'm not going to buy an iPad when I'm ready to replace my 1st gen one -- Apple is in the process of locking out my content from the device.

The fact that I have a choice, though, shows how Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

What Apple is doing here is saying it's all or nothing. You get everytjhing from Apple on Apple device, etc, or you have to get off the platform entirely.

It's a dumb idea, IMO. At the end of the day, I want my stuff where and when I want it, wherever I purchased it from. If Apple devices won't do that I *will* get something else.

Ding ding ding.
That's the way a lot of people will see it. It's not monopolistic but if they continue down the path they are going to hurt the platform.

 

[spazzcat]

Don't get me wrong.
I think this is a *horrible* idea by Apple. But it's not monopolistic.
They *are* forcing competetors off of the iOS platform...
And that is very bad for consumers like me.

In fact, Apple's new policy is *why* I am not going to buy an iPhone once I'm ready to replace my 3GS and why I'm not going to buy an iPad when I'm ready to replace my 1st gen one -- Apple is in the process of locking out my content from the device.

The fact that I have a choice, though, shows how Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

What Apple is doing here is saying it's all or nothing. You get everytjhing from Apple on Apple device, etc, or you have to get off the platform entirely.

It's a dumb idea, IMO. At the end of the day, I want my stuff where and when I want it, wherever I purchased it from. If Apple devices won't do that I *will* get something else.

I just subscribed to New Yorker today. It was great not having to get my credit card out or fill out forms. I clicked one button. I agreed to give my info to them, so I had to create a user name for their website. This isn't how it worked before, and new way is much better for me as the customer. If tomorrow I don't want it anymore, one click and it stops.

Ding ding ding.
That's the way a lot of people will see it. It's not monopolistic but if they continue down the path they are going to hurt the platform.

The problem you are not seeing is the big boys are now start to support Apple's new model. The ones that have all the content.

 

[appleguy123]

Will this affect non-ebook apps in the future? A lot of apps make you go to a web browser or other means which are not in app purchases to make purchases.
-Amazon app
-audible
-ebay
-groupon
-Dropbox
-HBO Go

I understand recent events (as un-clarified as they are); what I don't understand is how they apply to iFlow. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with their product, and the article and their site is unclear, which is mostly why I'm asking, I guess.

As far as I can tell from their site and rant, they came into being solely as an iOS bookstore app? Why can't they raise prices then? What are their other venues that they have to match prices with? Why can't they just open a web-based store and dump the IAP part of their reader?

It's because the publishers set the prices on the books.

 

[peetyrd]

Maybe I am missing something, but I dont see anything about product pricing. The original message says that you cannot offer product outside the AppStore and make them available on an ios device. Except if you offer the same product from within the AppStore.

Can anyone tell me where I can find the price statement?!

It has to do with in-app purchases. If a company sells an ebook for $5.99 somewhere, they can't sell the ebook as an in-app purchase for $8.99. Even though apple takes a 30% cut. It would make sense for those distributors with very low profit margins to need to raise prices in order to stay profitable given 30% will now go to Apple. Price manipulation? I think so.

 

[ChrisA]

So basically the people who have nothing to offer but delivery of some other person's content will all disappear? So what? Who cares?

If this were a publisher or an author it would be to bad but they were selling the same books at the same price as others.

 

[bretm]

Apple's new business model to ride on the backs of others' work is dissapointing. They are cutting away any chance for small scale developers of iOS and now Mac Apps to try and make very much money from their apps. Perhaps it will be decided eventually that this is anti-competitive practice, but I fear that until congress steps in, nothing is going to change.

Pretty dense folks-

Apparently with this agency model thing, they're all selling books around the same price. SOOOOOO - if Apple is selling books, and these guys give away their book app and sell their books on their own website, who is taking advantage of who? Let's see... these guys invested a million bucks on an app and a business. Apple invented the whole darn environment where their business could even exist! And so Apple would be making nothing off these guys, AND they'd be competing for Apple's business. So Apple is supposed to let them ride Apple's coattails for free? Apple didn't care until they deemed it neccessary to enter the book market to sell ipads. Without a built in, decent, consistent book experience to compete with Amazon, they would lose enormous sales to those that decide not to buy an iPad because it doesn't really have a great book experience. The truth is, it was probably focused more on Amazon not riding their coattails. Not iflow. If Apple hadn't pushed them out, Amazon would have for sure.

They had a bad plan. They knew Apple could change the rules. That's part of the contract. Did Apple breach a contract? No. Is Apple a Monopoly? Not even close. Why don't these guys just port the concept to android if it's so awesome? Cuz it's not that awesome or original. Neither is Apple or Amazon. Just evolution. Could Apple have handled it better? Perhaps. Perhaps given a 1 year grace period where the commission ramps up slowly, or even offer some sort of grandfathered in deal. Did they need to handle it better? No. It's just a little blip that will pass and won't affect their margins, user base, stock price, profits, etc.

 

[bretm]

I dont think you quite get it. Mcdonalds has stores everywhere in which they either own the building or lease the space. #1(Big Mac) Value meals go for say, $4.99.

In an airport, Vendors are paying an astronomical price to lease the space. Why, because its an airport, its a closed environment, and they can sell the space for what ever they choose to. So in order to still make a profit, Mcdonalds has to make a #1(Big Mac) Value Meal, $7.99.

In the case of Apple, Developers, Publishers etc... have to give apple a 30% cut of what ever they sell. So naturally, to keep profits, you would think that content would come at a 30% increase. Apple is saying NO to price increases. They say if you sell content for $X dollars some where else, you have to sell for $X dollars in the App store.

Is this even legal? Can Apple really tell someone else what they have to sell their stuff for? If the airport told Mcdonalds that they had to sell their Big Mac Values Meals at $4.99, Mcdonalds would probably say, See you later like iFlow.

And McDonalds probably would take it somewhere else if they couldn't make a profit in the airport. But it wouldn't be illegal.

In this case, the Airport itself decided to get in on the deal and buy it's own McDonalds franchise. And they really don't care about the other McDonalds franchises. They're happy to rent space to them and take a portion of their profits. But they don't want them to be able to sell cheap mcdonalds in the parking lot and bring it inside.

And if you're gonna sell it outside AND inside, you can't jack the prices inside to cover the rent, and whisper to customers that it's cheaper outside international concorse. But don't drink the water.

WTH? :0

 

[Stridder44]

Damn it Apple. Come on, you're better than this.

 

[Blue Fox]

I think some things need clarifying (or at least, someone needs to answer my question).......

The reason why Apple charges 30% is because Apple is hosting the app on Apple Servers. Requiring the developer no needed expense to add servers on their own.

Now my question: Does the in-app purchased content reside on the Apple servers? For example, if I in-app purchase a book from iFlow Reader, is the e-book being downloaded from Apple's server or iFlow's servers?

If the content is on Apple's servers (which I believe it is), this alone will explain why Apple is charging a 30% cut, no? If the company doesn't have to invest for servers/bandwidth/upkeep, then what is so horrible about giving a 30% cut to Apple for hosting it on their servers just like the App? Servers and bandwidth are expensive, I'm sure it would cost companies a ton more than 30% if they had to invest in their own equipment and bandwidth.

And I don't believe the "fair pricing" is anything horrible either. A lot of developers were amping-up prices specifically for iOS users because they know there is no other way for iOS users to get the content (whereas it was cheaper on other platforms). I know this is not the only reason, but simply one of many scenarios where Apple's enforcement of this policy is a benefit.

And I'll also say, if iFlow can't maintain its business based on the fact that it has to give a 30% cut to Apple for in-app purchases, then it seems to me that business was struggling before Apple started enforcing this.

 

[OllyW]

So basically the people who have nothing to offer but delivery of some other person's content will all disappear? So what? Who cares?

Doesn't the iTunes Store offer delivery of some other person's content?

If the content is on Apple's servers (which I believe it is), this alone will explain why Apple is charging a 30% cut, no? If the company doesn't have to invest for servers/bandwidth/upkeep, then what is so horrible about giving a 30% cut to Apple for hosting it on their servers just like the App? Servers and bandwidth are expensive, I'm sure it would cost companies a ton more than 30% if they had to invest in their own equipment and bandwidth.

If I remember correctly to back when the story first broke a few months ago, no.

It's only the app itself that is stored on Apple's servers.

 

[tobyx]

Now my question: Does the in-app purchased content reside on the Apple servers? For example, if I in-app purchase a book from iFlow Reader, is the e-book being downloaded from Apple's server or iFlow's servers?

Only apps itself are hosted on and downloaded from Apple's servers. In-app purchases (and subscriptions) need server infrastructure outside of Apple to process the purchase, deal with things like restoring old purchases, and of course downloading content. Apple only processes the payment in this case.

t

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

So I just wonder... Was this essentially an Apple beta test for their iBooks program?