'iFlow Reader' iOS eBook Store Shutting Down

[liphonearth]

Pretty dense folks-

No. Is Apple a Monopoly? Not even close.

In the world of tablet computers, Apple is on shakey ground. The moment a company captures over 50% of a market, they fall under anti-trust scrutiny. The fact that Amazon was selling books electronically before iBooks, and the fact that Apple allowed their app in the first place, and may deny it in the future, MIGHT give the impression that Apple is forcing their platform users to stop giving their money to one company and give it to them instead.

Couldn't it be argued that Amazon customers bought an iPad because they could use it to read their Amazon content? If Apple then disables that feature, isn't that bait and switch.. forcing iPad owners to either repurchase their content through iBooks or to also buy an Amazon reader?

If the iBooks app suddenly starts reading Kindle books, then the argument is over.. Amazon would probably be fine with it...

I agree that the iFlow model was ill-conceived and probably would've failed without this policy, but the policy reaches farther than ebooks.. and the term Shylock comes to mind.

 

[alent1234]

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.

a lot of manufacturers already tell retailers how to sell their products and what prices to charge. it's legal.

 

[liphonearth]

a lot of manufacturers already tell retailers how to sell their products and what prices to charge. it's legal.

Apple is not a manufacturer in this case. They are the middle-man. In the case of Amazon and iFlow, however, they are a direct competitor, and that is what makes this story news.

 

[andiwm2003]

apple seems to be well within their right to do this and force companies to pay 30% for using the iOS platform.

While I will stay with the iPhone and iPad due to the lack of good competitors I will definitely not buy anything that locks me into the apple platform.

I will not buy books through iBooks,
I will not buy movies through iTunes
and I will not buy expensive Apps.

I don't want to end up with a lot of investment in a platform that ends up being way to restrictive for my taste.

 

[rols]

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."

No I don't think iFlow was selling content via IAP, they (like amazon) were selling it via a web page, whether that page was linked from inside the app and popped up automatically in MobileSafari I don't know.

Either way from the agreement

"11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions."

That talks about any content sold outside the app. It doesn't specify how it's sold, just that it's content, it was sold and you can read/play it on the App. A strict reading of that says that if you build a pure reader with no IAP, not even a handy button which links you to mobilesafari to take you to a webpage to buy content, you still have to add IAP to your app and allow the same content to be purchased at the same price in the app.

To reduce it to absurdity, if your model was to keep content on a server and access it via an app and the only way you could add content was to go down to your local 7-11 and hand over money and they secretly upload the content to the server, no web store, nothing, you still have to make that content available via IAP.

This - to my personal reading - means that Amazon's Kindle app falls foul of the rule. You can access content which you purchase outside (via amazon's website) so it must provide IAP for the same content at the same price. Just removing the 'link to amazon website' is not enough.

As I say, that's my interpretation of those rules from reading them.

 

[gglockner]

I'm reading a ton of misinformation in this thread.

First, the analogy with McDonald's is totally off the mark. With an airport, you have two options: pay the airport price, or bring food with you that you purchased outside the airport. With the iOS device, it's not possible to import outside content. In fact, if you could, the app would be in violation of the app store rule 11.2 that's quoted in this thread.

Some people say the answer is to remove in-app purchases and make the content downloadable from outside the app. Again, this is why Apple has rule 11.2. If you think I'm reading rule 11.2 too broadly, consider the following scenario: developer offers a free application in the iOS App Store, but the application can be unlocked through a download from another source -- imagine an unlock code that you would purchase on the web. So this would completely bypass the sales through the iTunes store as well as Apple's in-App purchase mechanism. Apple collects nothing in revenue.

I agree that this is an obnoxious policy that is bad for consumers and bad for developers who invest in building great iOS apps. Nevertheless, although I'm not a lawyer, I have real doubts that you could convince a court that Apple has a monopoly. Apple built the platform, and they have right to run the iOS platform and the iTunes store as they wish. If you don't like it, there is an ever growing list of alternatives from Google, Microsoft, RIM and (soon) HP.

That said, I've written before that there is a simple solution to this problem: Apple needs to make an exception to rule 11.2 for content providers who make their content available for multiple devices. In other words, if you can install additional content to the App - beyond just unlock codes - then Apple should not prevent you from downloading that content from sources besides in-App purchases. This protects Apple from developers who want to do a deliberate end-run around the iTunes store, while making people able to use their external content inside the iOS Apps.

 

[gglockner]

I really like what Rols said here, and I think we're stating the same thing in two different ways.

Although I fully agree with your interpretation, the only thing that's tough to digest is that if Apple does force others like Amazon to offer content through in-App purchase, the extra commission to Apple will make Amazon unable to support Kindle for iOS. And I think everyone will lose under that scenario, which is why I think Apple needs an exception for cases like Amazon.

Alternately, if Apple plays hardball on this, I expect Amazon will withdraw the Kindle app for iPhone and replace it by a web app with offline cache, thereby completely bypassing Apple's rules.

 

[caspersoong]

Well, less small eBooks Stores will confuse less people at least.

 

[pedrofp]

What document is this?

Either way from the agreement

"11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions."

rols,

Can you tell me precisely what document this is from? Or even perhaps provide me with a copy. I've found it & will be using it in a submission to the ACCC.

This issue is of great interest to me because I am developing an app with a content model very much like that of e-books (though the content is not books) & that clause will impact my business model. It is also at risk of violating fair trading laws in Australia, where I am, & I would like to use it in putting a case to the ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission) in whose jurisdiction this lies.

Cheers, Pedro

 

[rols]

rols,

Can you tell me precisely what document this is from? Or even perhaps provide me with a copy. I've found it & will be using it in a submission to the ACCC.

This issue is of great interest to me because I am developing an app with a content model very much like that of e-books (though the content is not books) & that clause will impact my business model. It is also at risk of violating fair trading laws in Australia, where I am, & I would like to use it in putting a case to the ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission) in whose jurisdiction this lies.

Cheers, Pedro

Go to the developer center and search for "app store review guidelines" for iOS. That's the document.

 

[twilson]

Like I've said before, this is exactly the same as if Microsoft were to force Apple to give them 30% of every song sold on iTunes on a Windows PC using a "Windows Payment System."

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

No it makes no sense, because Microsoft aren't SELLING anything. Apple is the payment gateway (middleman) for iTunes (the content they have the right to sell), and you can't interfere with that.

 

[dexthageek]

I am guessing that with the revised guidelines. iFlow Reader can stay in business! That is good news for them!

Never used the product, but as a small business owner I hate seeing other companies forced to close their doors.

Good Luck Guys!!