Kindle App Gets Biggest iOS Change in Over a Decade

[Unregistered 4U]

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%).

And, when I was looking into it, some even took up to 90%!

 

[Nekronos]

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?

You claim I'm oversimplifying which implies I'm somehow mischaracterizing the relationship - I'm not.

Think again if you genuinely believe Apple doesn't factor continued development of hardware and related software into its product price.

Consumers have always expected that what they purchase works and continues to work - to suggest that such an expectation is new with connected services seems strange. These same sort of mafia-esque pricing policies don't plague windows or macOS.

You are downplaying Apple's benefit and incentive to support developers while overplaying its cost to do so and downplaying developers' contributions in addition to the negative downstream effects to the end user. The bottom line is platform pricing like this is monopolistic - that's simply a fact and its not unique to Apple's app store. These sort of practices are unlikely to change without regulation due to all major platforms behaving in a similar fashion.

If you read my comment I never suggested Apple not charge a fee on the app store and at the end of the day the end user is charged one way or another.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Amazon understood that if a customer was coming to them from the iPhone, Apple deserved demanded a cut

Fixed.

They understood that Apple demanded a cut - or would otherwise yank their access to the store.
They clearly didn't think Apple "deserved" it - which is why they didn't offer it.

And why would they think Apple "deserved" it?
They operate their own payment service that processes payments for third parties at a fraction of what Apple charge.

Apple doesn’t care if they view it through the device. It wasn’t about the consumption, it was the acquisition

Apple does not "acquire" customers or sales in meaningful numbers. Consumers don't open the App Store, type "movie streaming app" and then go "Oh, never heard of this 'Netflix' service, let's try that". Apple knows this - that's why they allowed "reader apps" in the first place.

“That Number” is literally the industry standard, though.

It's literally not.
There have been online payment (and software licensing) services for a long time - that charged a fraction of the 30% Apple does.

 

[Mousse]

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

This is why you need to make a backup on your computer. I use Caliber to make a DRM free version of my purchases.

 

[xXRainKingXx]

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?

What is the Apple Developer Program fee paying for?

 

[Nekronos]

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

I'm well aware of the history - I eluded to it in my comment and i had a cell phone before the iphone/android era though what I had is hardly relevant.

Prior to the iphone/android era mobile app stores were fairly inconsequential. There were indeed a variety of app stores though mostly not for mobile devices and many of them did not in fact take as much of a cut as you claim, some took as little as 9%. There were certainly app distribution avenues other than "app stores" as well.

I'd suggest doing more due diligence on your part before you try to smear another user like myself.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There were indeed a variety of app stores though mostly not for mobile devices and many of them did not in fact take as much of a cut as you claim, some took as little as 9%.

Exactly.

Though to be fair, consumers (for whatever reason) often seem to converge on a very few "marketplace" type of stores for digital transactions. iTunes, Amazon, Bandcamp for digital music. Apple, Google Play for mobile apps. Steam (and Epic) for PC games.

With these platforms gaining considerable gatekeeping power.

 

[spartan1967]

Not as it should be. Yes, it let’s you “get book” now but instead of taking you to the Amazon app, it opens Amazon in the browser where you have to sign in. 👎

 

[Rogifan]

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. 🙂

If you download the Kindle app and then search for a book inside the app is the ‘acquisition’ or ‘referral’ or whatever you want to call it coming from Apple? I would argue no. What’s the difference between the Kindle app and going directly to amazon.com?

 

[srbNYC]

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

Em dashes are correct and useful in well-punctuated writing. That "sleuthing" is misguided—at least in my well-punctuated opinion.

 

[Rogifan]

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.

This most recent quarter, Apple’s operating profits before taxes were nearly $30B. Services gross margins were nearly 80%. At this point the 30% has little to do with platform development and maintenance. It’s pure profit for Apple. And a way to show ‘services’ growth while hardware is mostly flat.

 

[dandy1117]

If you download the Kindle app and then search for a book inside the app is the ‘acquisition’ or ‘referral’ or whatever you want to call it coming from Apple? I would argue no. What’s the difference between the Kindle app and going directly to amazon.com?

The Kindle app utilizes Apple's intellectual property and APIs. I think many commenters here lack development experience and do not understand that a large part of app creation on Apple's platforms relies on APIs that necessitate considerable investment from Apple. Therefore, the 70/30-85/15% revenue distribution with Apple appears more justifiable. Just my 2¢, but I think this perspective changes the analysis beyond simply Apple handling payment processing and instead uses the revenue split to monetize the platform's software ecosystem and continued development, partly. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when users had to pay for software releases, mapping data, weather services, etc.

 

[Octavius8]

Typo: “button that links users directly to purchase pages on Amazon's”. Pages only or books? 😉

 

[Asthmatic Kitty]

Checks if the Kindle app finally supports ProMotion in the “Continuous Scrolling” mode, 3 1/2 years after the iPhone 13 Pro introduced it …

Nope. Way to go, Amazon. Keep up the good work.

 

[dandy1117]

You claim I'm oversimplifying which implies I'm somehow mischaracterizing the relationship - I'm not.

Think again if you genuinely believe Apple doesn't factor continued development of hardware and related software into its product price.

Consumers have always expected that what they purchase works and continues to work - to suggest that such an expectation is new with connected services seems strange. These same sort of mafia-esque pricing policies don't plague windows or macOS.

You are downplaying Apple's benefit and incentive to support developers while overplaying its cost to do so and downplaying developers' contributions in addition to the negative downstream effects to the end user. The bottom line is platform pricing like this is monopolistic - that's simply a fact and its not unique to Apple's app store. These sort of practices are unlikely to change without regulation due to all major platforms behaving in a similar fashion.

If you read my comment I never suggested Apple not charge a fee on the app store and at the end of the day the end user is charged one way or another.

I wasn't suggesting that your comment misrepresented the situation; instead, it missed important considerations about the new relationship and consumer expectations. I do disagree with the notion that nothing has changed in this respect. Prior to the iPhone's launch, it wasn't anticipated that buying a mobile phone would come with mapping data, weather services, continuous notifications, or years of software feature upgrades. Typically, these were paid extras after acquiring the hardware.

Apple recognizes that third-party developers significantly contribute to the success of their platforms, which is why a substantial portion—70-85%—of sales revenue on the platform goes to those developers offering commercial products. Developers providing free software incur no costs. Unlike organized crime groups, Apple genuinely gives services to developers. Should hosting fees rise or developer availability become scarce, forcing Apple to increase salaries for in-house developers, those expenses won't be passed on to third-party developers. Again, this is a revenue share, not a profit share.

Another clear example is that Apple invests heavily in researching accessibility features. If a third-party developer gains or retains a user with a disability who makes use of an accessibility feature, that represents customer acquisition at no expense to the developer. It would be prohibitively expensive for third-party developers to create those integrations for their apps on their own.

 

[CalMin]

What is the Apple Developer Program fee paying for?

Um - $99 that supports millions of app downloads and updates? Not sure the economics of work out that well.

 

[CalMin]

This most recent quarter, Apple’s operating profits before taxes were nearly $30B. Services gross margins were nearly 80%. At this point the 30% has little to do with platform development and maintenance. It’s pure profit for Apple. And a way to show ‘services’ growth while hardware is mostly flat.

I understand. That's why I stated the historical context. When the AppStore first appeared this felt like a good deal for smaller developers, but the world has changed and I can see how 30% no longer makes sense at all.

 

[Rogifan]

The Kindle app utilizes Apple's intellectual property and APIs. I think many commenters here lack development experience and do not understand that a large part of app creation on Apple's platforms relies on APIs that necessitate considerable investment from Apple. Therefore, the 70/30-85/15% revenue distribution with Apple appears more justifiable. Just my 2¢, but I think this perspective changes the analysis beyond simply Apple handling payment processing and instead uses the revenue split to monetize the platform's software ecosystem and continued development, partly. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when users had to pay for software releases, mapping data, weather services, etc.

I can maybe buy that with games or drawing apps that utilize Apple Pencil. But is the Kindle app really using some amazing Apple IP that Apple would deserve 30% of every Kindle book sale?

 

[UpsetTheAppleCart]

Kind of off topic, but Chirp is a much better alternative to Audible. They always have steep discounts on a variety of audiobooks.

 

[Rogifan]

I understand. That's why I stated the historical context. When the AppStore first appeared this felt like a good deal for smaller developers, but the world has changed and I can see how 30% no longer makes sense at all.

On the Upgrade podcast Jason Snell and Myke Hurley were talking about how Apple execs never imagined how much money they’re making from the App Store and they’re addicted to it now.

I think if the Apple board was smart they’d move Tim Cook into an executive chairman role (working towards retirement) and appoint a new CEO to oversee day to day operations.

 

[johnnytravels]

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?

I thought buyers of the devices running the platform would do that.
And the largest apps are still free apps that pay nothing. Why should others co-fund it?
The App Store is extra revenue that has gone out of hand. If it’s really necessary to maintain the infrastructure and recourse to monopolistic strongarming is necessary, then Apple needs a new business model…
But of course that is not the case but Apple trying to extract as much money out of their customers as possible.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Based on this update it seems that an app can link out without having to also provide IAP as an option.

According to the court rule its seams that Apple is required to allow link outs for any lawful purpose, including purchasing or payment without requiring support to its own in app purchase.

Under the DMA, Apple can require such support along with such link outs while still being compliant.

If Apple did this years ago all this circus would have been avoided and billions could have been saved. Users would have a choice: The ones that preferred to be under Apple "protection" would have that choice and end users that for some reason to another would not, could.

No external marketplaces necessary, no side loading, everything would still be under the umbrella of the App Store. Supplier would have freedom to address its own customers, users would have freedom to choose, etc etc. I bet Apple would still make billions in app purchases.

Apple has refused for decades this with its all or nothing policy.

 

[dandy1117]

According to the court rule its seams that Apple is required to allow link outs for any lawful purpose, including purchasing or payment without requiring support to its own in app purchase.

Under the DMA, Apple can require such support along with such link outs while still being compliant.

He Apple did this years ago all this circus as it is would have been avoided and billions could have been saved. Users would have a choice: The ones that preferred to be under Apple "protection" would have that choice and end users that for some reason to another would not, could.

No external marketplaces necessary, no side loading, everything would still be under the umbrella of the App Store. Supplier would have freedom to address its own customers, users would have freedom to choose, etc etc. I bet Apple would still make billions in app purchases.

Apple has refused for decades this with its all or nothing policy.

To clarify, this issue is not directly related to “user” choice but instead to the developers' choice regarding how they charge end users. Users do not have the option to purchase through other platforms when it comes to the Kindle app; they are still required to buy directly from Amazon.

I'm uncertain whether any revenue-sharing model for platform monetization would have prevented lawsuits from large developers, especially given the dominance of iOS and Android.

My concern is that if many developers are not sharing revenue with Apple, the company has two options. One option is to treat their platforms as loss leaders for hardware sales, which may impede API development or create the perverse incentive for Apple to limit support for older devices, encouraging users to make new purchases. Alternatively, Apple could shift the costs directly onto end users by charging for software updates and service fees for features like maps, weather, Siri server requests, and more. 🤷🏾‍♂️

 

[Nuno Lopes]

To clarify, this issue is not directly related to “user” choice but instead to the developers' choice regarding how they charge end users. Users do not have the option to purchase through other platforms when it comes to the Kindle app; they are still required to buy directly from Amazon.

Of course it is. The idea that there’s no mirroring between customers and suppliers is a fallacy. Moreover, I believe the second argument rests on a deeper fallacy — one with a name: false equivalence.

A and B share a property, therefore A and B are the same.

This kind of reasoning is tempting, but it’s often flawed. It leads to absurd conclusions — a slippery slope toward what I’d call conceptual bestiality.

For example:

If the App Store only sold books, you’d have a case.

If Kindle didn’t host the books it sells, you’d also have a case.

But none of those foundational facts overlap — they’re not shared properties.

Here’s some evidence:

The App Store doesn’t sell dating arrangements, right? But if a developer builds a dating service and publishes it as an app, the moment it’s available on the App Store, Apple — by policy — begins selling dating arrangements. It doesn’t host the service, doesn’t provide the infrastructure, ... — yet it claims exclusive rights to monetize across the iPhone users population. Take for instance a math teacher providing and selling remote lessons through his App... same thing. These businesses aren’t fundamentally about the App.

You could argue that these rules were established and that the market accepted them. Fair enough. But it’s also clear that the App Store presented itself as one thing — a marketplace for apps — and evolved into something else entirely: a mechanism for controlling and taxing transactions, even when the object of those transactions is not the use of the App alone — dating arrangements, books, movies, music, online classes, game streams, voip calls, video conferencing or whatever — at Apple discretion.

This power is tied not to the intrinsic value of the App Store itself, but to the popularity and ubiquity of the iPhone — which is much more than just an app platform. Do you see your iPhone as an App platform with APIs and what not? Ironically an ubuiquity that third party business surely helped to build. Apple now operates at the scale of a gatekeeper, extracting fees and enforcing control over entire business models at its discretion across billions because you my friend don’t see it. A magicians play.

That’s a completely different animal from Kindle’s business model where you pay for what you get. Bought a book and that is it, you don’t pay to turn pages. Do you think that the developers are the ones paying for the Platform and APIs that you don’t see? No, it is you that pay for those fees every time you purchase anything in app after you spent 1000k on the device.

Anyway, no matter how many times it’s demonstrated with evidence that such comparisons are fallacious people still do them. As I’ve said, false equivalences are at first sight quite attractive.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The Kindle app utilizes Apple's intellectual property and APIs.

So does Apple use my internet service provider’s IP and infrastructure. Does that mean they should begin blocking traffic from Apple and CDN to deserve extort a30% commission on Apple’s services revenue?

or create the perverse incentive for Apple to limit support for older devices

No new incentive needs to be “created”.
That’s what Apple has been doing anyway.
My 2013 MacBook Air is capable and powerful enough to do internet browsing and Office work, even on recently new operating systems systems. It’s just that Apple has onlystopped supporting it - but actively remove necessary software components to make new OS unable to run.

Developers providing free software incur no costs. Unlike organized crime groups, Apple genuinely gives services to developers.

…as long as it benefits them (having a rich app ecosystem to sell devices).
And until they’ve reached enough market share to make developers depend on on them.

One option is to treat their platforms as loss leaders for hardware sales, which may impede API development or create the perverse incentive for Apple to limit support for older devices, encouraging users to make new purchases. Alternatively, Apple could shift the costs directly onto end users by charging for software updates and service fees for features like maps, weather, Siri server requests, and more

Third option: compete by offering an in-app payment transaction service at competitive rates(that third party developer will want to use without being forced to)

Fourth: begin charging for App Store purchases per app/download.

No one forces Apple to offer their service for free.
They could make every download a $0.99 purchase - which would be a much fairer allocation of costs to developers than today