Kindle App Gets Biggest iOS Change in Over a Decade

[AppliedMicro]

👉 Regulation that benefits consumers.

I don’t like Amazon’s Kindle Store and its policies.
But yeah, still a great improvement in usability for those that do.

Great to see Apple’s anticompetitive restrictions - that did not benefit consumers - partially lifted.

And we could use more of that. It’s up to Apple to introduce competitively priced in-app payment facilities or revise their current in-app purchasing service (and conditions) to make developers want to use it.

 

[klasma]

So I still can’t buy Kindle books in the Amazon App, it’s just a link to their website where I can buy the book.

It’s probably a deep link directly to the purchase, and after the purchase you get redirected back via a deep link into the app directly to the new purchase. So it should be similarly seamless. This is why Apple wanted to prohibit the linking in the first place.

 

[Apleeseed84]

I never really bothered going through the website to buy a book, usually I already knew what I wanted anyways, easier to find ebooks or deals the app wouldn't let me see. At least it's easier now.

 

[klasma]

I think the rule is if you are selling something that competes with Apple then the fee applies. Since there is Apple Books, it applies. I don't like what that does in apps that I use, but if I understand correctly, that's the explanation.

It’s for all in-app purchases of “digital goods or services”. I think the explanation is “why not”, and that it can be difficult to precisely delineate between different kinds of “digital goods”. If they make one kind free, it can be used as a digital currency to pay for other goods or services.

 

[Aeronauts]

It’s probably a deep link directly to the purchase, and after the purchase you get redirected back via a deep link into the app directly to the new purchase. So it should be similarly seamless. This is why Apple wanted to prohibit the linking in the first place.

It would be a whole lot easier if I could just purchase stuff in the app but I understand why they don’t want to give Apple 30% of everything sold on the Amazon app.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Also, great to see a very high-profile and popular service like Kindle being among the early adopters.

I hope they won’t let get them bullied around by Apple as much as smaller services may be prone to, for fear of retribution.

It will only help put up competitive pressure on Apple. And, should Gonzalez-Rogers’ ruling be reversed (or declared unconstitutional, @surferfb ) expose Apple’s anticompetitive greediness to a wider audience.

 

[Rogifan]

This is great though it’s still dumb that you can’t do it in the app.

 

[Rogifan]

I never understood this...I could buy a hardcopy book in the Amazon app (with no Apple markup). But Apple took a fee if I bought a digital book on Kindle (which is why Amazon didn't offer it).

If Apple was hosting those ebooks on its server, then sure they should be entitled to something. But that isn't the case here.

Presumably because we read ebooks on Apple hardware. But I paid Apple for that hardware. And in the case of Kindle books you can read those on multiple platforms. What IP does Amazon need to be paying Apple for?

 

[Nekronos]

The question is: if every developer could simply route around Apple by using a third-party link, who ultimately funds the platform’s development and infrastructure?

Apple’s position is that it provides the platform - iOS - on which these e-commerce transactions occur. Since we, as users, don’t pay directly for iOS, Apple expects the businesses that profit from the platform (i.e., app developers) to contribute to its upkeep by paying a commission.

I’m not defending the 30% commission. It’s been too high for too long in too many cases. But it helps to remember the context in which the App Store began. Back then, distributing software meant dealing with physical media or building out your own web store - handling hosting, payment processing, customer service, and more. For users, it often meant trusting some sketchy 3rd-party site with your credit card info and hoping they might still be around if you ever needed to redownload it. Plus manual updates, no recourse if the software is junk etc.

Today, the landscape is very different. And frankly, 30% no longer makes sense. Apple has clung to that number for too long, and it’s now backfiring. Had they adjusted the commission over time, they might have retained developer goodwill - and revenue. Instead, they’re now risking much more.

30% has never made sense, I've always found it to be pure greed and monopolistic, it's essentially what mafia/gangs do.

Apple funds the platform's development and infrastructure because it owns it and everything developers make benefit Apple by fostering an app library that bolsters user experience leading to device retention and continued sales of Apple devices.

All users pay for iOS - purchasing Apple devices support hardware and software development. Having said that I don't think anyone would be too bothered if Apple charged a small fee, keyword small, to cover transaction processing and developer tools/support, along the lines of what Visa/Mastercard do.

 

[Rogifan]

From a user perspective don't think anyone ever truly understood.

Nevertheless I would understand the requirement to have In App Apple Pay along with other payment alternatives.

Based on this update it seems that an app can link out without having to also provide IAP as an option. Unless this just applies to the ‘reader’ app category and other apps will still have to provide IAP?

 

[FSMBP]

The question is: if every developer could simply route around Apple by using a third-party link, who ultimately funds the platform’s development and infrastructure?

Apple’s position is that it provides the platform - iOS - on which these e-commerce transactions occur. Since we, as users, don’t pay directly for iOS, Apple expects the businesses that profit from the platform (i.e., app developers) to contribute to its upkeep by paying a commission.

I’m not defending the 30% commission. It’s been too high for too long in too many cases. But it helps to remember the context in which the App Store began. Back then, distributing software meant dealing with physical media or building out your own web store - handling hosting, payment processing, customer service, and more. For users, it often meant trusting some sketchy 3rd-party site with your credit card info and hoping they might still be around if you ever needed to redownload it. Plus manual updates, no recourse if the software is junk etc.

Today, the landscape is very different. And frankly, 30% no longer makes sense. Apple has clung to that number for too long, and it’s now backfiring. Had they adjusted the commission over time, they might have retained developer goodwill - and revenue. Instead, they’re now risking much more.

I understand and I think this whole thing could have been avoided if Apple had a more reasonable fee.

 

[xalea]

Yes, Kindle is very much still a thing—and thriving. Far from being abandoned, Amazon continues to release new Kindle models, improve the Kindle app, and invest in features like adjustable warm lighting and enhanced typography. Kindles remain a top choice for dedicated readers, with a user base that spans casual book lovers to voracious consumers of literature.

As for the idea that Amazon "decimated" independent booksellers—it's a more complex story. Independent bookstores have actually seen a resurgence in recent years, in part by offering curated experiences, community events, and personalized recommendations that big-box retailers and e-readers can't match. Many indie stores have embraced online sales and diversified their offerings to compete in a digital landscape.

Rather than being relics of a bygone era or tools of destruction, Kindles have become just one part of a broader, more diverse ecosystem of reading—one that includes independent bookstores, libraries, print books, audiobooks, and digital platforms all coexisting.

You should remove the ChatGPT em-dashes before you post.

 

[HouseLannister]

So I need to click a button to see the price? That’s not very useful if I am just browsing books to look for deals.

 

[mdatwood]

30% has never made sense, I've always found it to be pure greed and monopolistic, it's essentially what mafia/gangs do.

Apple funds the platform's development and infrastructure because it owns it and everything developers make benefit Apple by fostering an app library that bolsters user experience leading to device retention and continued sales of Apple devices.

All users pay for iOS - purchasing Apple devices support hardware and software development. Having said that I don't think anyone would be too bothered if Apple charged a small fee, keyword small, to cover transaction processing and developer tools/support, along the lines of what Visa/Mastercard do.

When the App Store came out, 30% did make sense. It was a bargain compared to other phones and stores at the time. People forget how Apple was able to strong arm the carriers into something better for everyone. But, as time went on they should have been lowering fee while increasing features. Did Apple make more money by clinging on to 30% as long as they did or could they have made more over time if they never pushed everyone to this result? Hard to know, but it seems like App Store revenue is about to crater.

 

[DougieS]

I never understood this...I could buy a hardcopy book in the Amazon app (with no Apple markup). But Apple took a fee if I bought a digital book on Kindle (which is why Amazon didn't offer it).

If Apple was hosting those ebooks on its server, then sure they should be entitled to something. But that isn't the case here.

In a simple explanation (excluding reader apps etc), if the content being purchased can be consumed on-device = fee applies

If to be consumed off device = no fee applies

Books cannot be consumed on your iPhone, only purchased. E-books can be both purchased and consumed on your iPhone.

 

[svish]

Good for customers. But waiting to see whether things change as Apple has appealed. Will be interesting to see how things move forward.

 

[MacBH928]

it might be more expensive than the paper book and they can revoke "access" to it 🤡

 

[zinacef]

You should remove the ChatGPT em-dashes before you post.

Ah, the em-dash police have arrived. Imagine reading a thoughtful discussion on the future of reading, digital ecosystems, and the survival of independent bookstores—and deciding the real issue is punctuation. Not the content, not the argument, but the presence of em-dashes that offend your ChatGPT radar. If you're more concerned with formatting quirks than with ideas, you may be missing the plot entirely.

Language evolves. So do the tools we use to communicate. If an em-dash is the hill you want to die on, by all means, wave your grammar flag high—but don't expect anyone actually engaged in meaningful discourse to take it seriously.

 

[Nekronos]

When the App Store came out, 30% did make sense. It was a bargain compared to other phones and stores at the time. People forget how Apple was able to strong arm the carriers into something better for everyone. But, as time went on they should have been lowering fee while increasing features. Did Apple make more money by clinging on to 30% as long as they did or could they have made more over time if they never pushed everyone to this result? Hard to know, but it seems like App Store revenue is about to crater.

Please explain how 30% ever made sense? In what way was it ever a bargain and how does the iphone's initial disruption to the wireless industry with its exclusive revenue sharing contract with AT&T have anything to do with Apple's appstore fee structure?

Also, Apple didn't "strongarm" anyone back then, Steve Jobs was a relentless visionary and the carriers benefited from the introduction of smartphones - the iphone disrupted the industry, it caused change but it wasn't to the detriment of carriers.

 

[dandy1117]

30% has never made sense, I've always found it to be pure greed and monopolistic, it's essentially what mafia/gangs do.

Apple funds the platform's development and infrastructure because it owns it and everything developers make benefit Apple by fostering an app library that bolsters user experience leading to device retention and continued sales of Apple devices.

All users pay for iOS - purchasing Apple devices support hardware and software development. Having said that I don't think anyone would be too bothered if Apple charged a small fee, keyword small, to cover transaction processing and developer tools/support, along the lines of what Visa/Mastercard do.

Your response oversimplifies the relationship that iOS users have after purchasing the hardware; the relationship with Apple continues beyond the hardware sale. It's now an expectation that users anticipate regular updates for map data, weather info, server requests for Siri and notifications, frequent security updates, and feature enhancements, among other things. This is in addition to the massive development resources Apple contributes to developers with its APIs, training sessions, and research, like accessibility. We certainly don't want Apple to view their operating systems as loss-leaders, as this could diminish the frequency and range of services provided to existing customers and encourage a stronger incentive for users to upgrade their hardware more frequently.

So, would you prefer Apple to refrain from taking a commission from App Store sales generated by developers and instead charge users directly for ongoing post-purchase services, or focus on boosting hardware sales?

 

[g35]

Yes, Kindle is very much still a thing—and thriving. Far from being abandoned, Amazon continues to release new Kindle models, improve the Kindle app, and invest in features like adjustable warm lighting and enhanced typography. Kindles remain a top choice for dedicated readers, with a user base that spans casual book lovers to voracious consumers of literature.

As for the idea that Amazon "decimated" independent booksellers—it's a more complex story. Independent bookstores have actually seen a resurgence in recent years, in part by offering curated experiences, community events, and personalized recommendations that big-box retailers and e-readers can't match. Many indie stores have embraced online sales and diversified their offerings to compete in a digital landscape.

Rather than being relics of a bygone era or tools of destruction, Kindles have become just one part of a broader, more diverse ecosystem of reading—one that includes independent bookstores, libraries, print books, audiobooks, and digital platforms all coexisting.

Any of us could have prompted an LLM for this, we didn't need you to do it while pretending it was your own thought

 

[Unregistered 4U]

And frankly, 30% no longer makes sense. Apple has clung to that number for too long,

“That Number” is literally the industry standard, though. If this was a part of some huge commissions shake up across the industry where everyone currently charging a 30% commission had to reduce it, that would make sense. But, the “everyone can charge a commission except Apple” defies logic.

Had they adjusted the commission over time

They did. It was 30% across the board at the start and has only decreased since then, keeping pretty much in sync with the entire industry. And here’s the kicker, if they had gone much lower, that would have been seen as anticompetitive because they’re offering a cut the competition couldn’t match. So, the safest thing they could do was just ensure their commission wasn’t worse than competing companies. And, as we’ve seen, even that wasn’t safe. Apple’s built a collection of very valuable users that companies REALLY want access to because, even though they have access to WAY more Android users, they don’t buy spend anywhere near as much money as iPhone users.

 

[zinacef]

Any of us could have prompted an LLM for this, we didn't need you to do it while pretending it was your own thought

Sure, anyone can prompt an LLM — just like anyone can pick up a scalpel. That doesn’t mean they know what to do with it. The difference isn’t in access to the tool, it’s in the judgment, precision, and clarity brought to the outcome. What I delivered wasn’t a copy-paste job — it was filtered, refined, and tailored to the context in a way that actually adds value. If it feels seamless, that’s not an accident — that’s the work.

If you think the work is trivial just because it used a modern tool, you’re missing the point entirely. Tools don’t replace thinking — they amplify it. The fact that the result felt effortless doesn’t mean no effort was involved. It means it was done well.

 

[mdatwood]

Please explain how 30% ever made sense? In what way was it ever a bargain and how does the iphone's initial disruption to the wireless industry with its exclusive revenue sharing contract with AT&T have anything to do with Apple's appstore fee structure?

Also, Apple didn't "strongarm" anyone back then, Steve Jobs was a relentless visionary and the carriers benefited from the introduction of smartphones - the iphone disrupted the industry, it caused change but it wasn't to the detriment of carriers.

Did you have a cell phone pre iPhone/Android era? You need to go read up on history.

Developers cheered when the 30% cut was announced because it was so much better than any other store you could sell software in at the time (those often took 50%). It also completely took the hassle out of paying.

Originally VZW and ATT turned down iPhone because Apple wanted to control the experience (no carrier branding, no carrier store, etc...). They also wanted a cheap unlimited data plan to be part of the experience. Apple finally went with Cingular, who ended up merging with ATT midway through development.

https://archive.is/BeBf0

Behind the scenes in the making of the iPhone, Apple bucked the rules of the cellphone industry by wresting control away from the normally powerful wireless carriers. These service providers usually hold enormous sway over how phones are developed and marketed -- controlling every detail from processing power to the various features that come with the phone.
...
Upsetting some Cingular insiders, it also abandoned its usual insistence that phone makers carry its software for Web surfing, ringtones and other services.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If the content is meant to be consumed on the phone Apple wants a cut.

Actually, someone that finds a book using a web browser and downloads it, Apple doesn’t care if they view it through the device. It wasn’t about the consumption, it was the acquisition. The reason why Amazon turned off the internal app purchase is because people love their iDevices and would look for things to buy on it. Then, they’d find something, tap, and start reading. Amazon understood that if a customer was coming to them from the iPhone, Apple deserved a cut. So, they took steps to ensure that zero% of people would purchase content through the iPhone.

This is not much different from Google and Amazon. If I search something on Amazon and buy it, Amazon pays nothing to Google. If I search for something via Google and that Google search provides an Amazon link, then Google gets a percentage of the sale IF the person buys something via that link. It’s also how affiliate links work. If a YouTuber’s link brings a customer to a business and that customer buys something, that YouTuber gets a cut. Apparently, only large companies that are named after fruits are forbidden from doing what literally everyone is doing.