Kindle App Gets Biggest iOS Change in Over a Decade

[Shanghaichica]

I remember when we used to be able to buy kindle books directly from the app. Nice to finally have an easier way to buy books from our iPhones.

 

[Shanghaichica]

I stop buying kindle books because I can't go thru apple payment system, until that changes I will keep buying thru apple book store.

Wouldn’t mind buying from iBooks if I could read the books on my kindles. I can read my kindle books on my kindles and iPhone, iPads and Mac so they are a better option for me.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I remember when we used to be able to buy kindle books directly from the app. Nice to finally have an easier way to buy books from our iPhones.

I really hope that the Kindle app on my iPad will allow this, too. Would save a LOT of hassle having to open the Amazon.com web site running under Chrome on my iPad Air.

 

[Rogifan]

I stop buying kindle books because I can't go thru apple payment system, until that changes I will keep buying thru apple book store.

Do you buy anything from Amazon?

 

[Rogifan]

I really hope that the Kindle app on my iPad will allow this, too. Would save a LOT of hassle having to open the Amazon.com web site running under Chrome on my iPad Air.

It does. Unfortunately no prices are shown in-app.

 

[Nekronos]

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.

I didn't leave out important considerations. At its core, the relationship is unchanged - as I already stated expectations of a product to work and continue to do so has always existed - products are different but the relationship and expectation is not.

What you refer to is surface level and does not alter the relationship or expectation fundamentally. You seem to completely disregard other markets that have existed well before the mobile era that have the same fundamentals but do not gatekeep in this fashion. The key difference in these markets is the openness in how products are designed, controlled and marketed. For both Windows and macOS where app stores also exist but do not dominate - PCs do not suffer the same gatekeeping issue.

You fail to acknowledge the monopolistic way in which Google and Apple control mobile app stores. Your examples are grasping at straws and ignore the fundamentals behind a device/OS manufacturer in addition to the co-dependent relationship that exists between hardware/OS and developers for these platforms.

 

[sparksd]

Is Kindle still a thing? Assumed Amazon had moved on, once they'd decimated the independent bookseller industry.

Absolutely. I have over 900 Kindle ebooks and a Kindle Scribe. I own zero Apple ebooks.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

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.

Just like Amazon knows that Google deserves a cut, and gives it, they knew that Apple deserved a cut. Guess what would happen if Amazon didn’t give Google a cut? Want to make a guess? Google would say, “Oh, no, that’s fine, we’ll continue to highlight your products when people use US to get to you!”? Is that the way the world works when the word “Apple” isn’t involved?

Apple and Amazon agreed that’s the way things would work primarily because Apple had the customers and Amazon REALLLY wanted access to those customers.

Apple does not "acquire" customers or sales in meaningful numbers.

It would appear that Amazon disagrees with you. Because, if they felt there wasn’t a significant number of people buying things from their Apple iPhones through the Apple App Store, they wouldn’t have taken the effort to stop it. It’s why they’ve added a “buy” button IN the app.

There have been online payment (and software licensing) services for a long time - that charged a fraction of the 30% Apple does.

“The number” is “commissions”. There’s already neat little lists out there you can find that shows commission rates across a wide range of companies. Some are above 30%, but the majority are in the range of 15-30%

 

[AppliedMicro]

Just like Amazon knows that Google deserves a cut, and gives it, they knew that Apple deserved a cut. Guess what would happen if Amazon didn’t give Google a cut? Want to make a guess? Google would say, “Oh, no, that’s fine, we’ll continue to highlight your products when people use US to get to you!”? Is that the way the world works when the word “Apple” isn’t involved?

Google deserves a cut for (paid) highlighting, that showing Amazon ads.
They don’t deserve a cut for merely including an Amazon product listing in their search results.

Simple as that.

Because, if they felt there wasn’t a significant number of people buying things from their Apple iPhones through the Apple App Store, they wouldn’t have taken the effort to stop it

Amazon wants sales - no matter what.
They’ve got no problem with it at all - and they don’t care where they’re acquired.

They just don’t want to pay anyone more in acquisition costs than they feel is reasonable and “deserved”.
That’s why there used to be no in-app purchases or links.

Some are above 30%, but the majority are in the range of 15-30%

They are not.
A few high-profile ones achieve to charge 30% - the majority does not.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

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?

What’s the difference between:
Going to Google, searching finding an Amazon link for a product, clicking it and buying it
and
going directly to Amazon.com searching for a product, clicking and buying it?

You may argue that there’s no difference. And, it’s fine if you believe there’s no difference. “Not believing it” isn’t going to stop the checks flowing from Amazon to Google, though.

It’s nothing new, it’s how these things have worked since back before brick and mortar stores. It’s only because “Apple” is in the statement that people have a problem with it

 

[diamond.g]

What’s the difference between:
Going to Google, searching finding an Amazon link for a product, clicking it and buying it
and
going directly to Amazon.com searching for a product, clicking and buying it?

You may argue that there’s no difference. And, it’s fine if you believe there’s no difference. “Not believing it” isn’t going to stop the checks flowing from Amazon to Google, though.

It’s nothing new, it’s how these things have worked since back before brick and mortar stores. It’s only because “Apple” is in the statement that people have a problem with it

So should Apple treat all (physical) products in the Amazon App the same as they treat Kindle books?

 

[bcortens]

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.

Apple also has so much money that they spent more money on share buybacks than they did on R&D, so I really don’t buy the notion that somehow iOS API development depends on the IAP fees.

 

[bcortens]

Just like Amazon knows that Google deserves a cut, and gives it, they knew that Apple deserved a cut. Guess what would happen if Amazon didn’t give Google a cut? Want to make a guess? Google would say, “Oh, no, that’s fine, we’ll continue to highlight your products when people use US to get to you!”? Is that the way the world works when the word “Apple” isn’t involved?

Amazon pays for sponsored placement, that is different than organic placement in search results.
Websites don’t have to pay google for search placement.

Apple and Amazon agreed that’s the way things would work primarily because Apple had the customers and Amazon REALLLY wanted access to those customers.

The whole reason Kindle didn’t support in-app payments is the same reason Spotify doesn’t, it’s not profitable. You can claim that they can just raise prices but this is why Apple keeps getting hit by anti-competitive practices. Apple doesn’t have to pay that commission. Apple wants to have its cake and eat it too, creating the platform and competing on the platform.
Apple can offer music or e-books for $10 and give $7 to the publishers/rights holders, if Amazon and Spotify want to do the same they would have to either charge more money (to give the same to the publishers) or take a loss on each sale.

It would appear that Amazon disagrees with you. Because, if they felt there wasn’t a significant number of people buying things from their Apple iPhones through the Apple App Store, they wouldn’t have taken the effort to stop it. It’s why they’ve added a “buy” button IN the app.

Amazon doesn’t disagree, because they only put the buy button back in when it was possible to do so without paying Apple a commission. If the commission comes back that buy button will disappear again. Giving iOS customers more convenience is great but Amazon will not take a loss on every book sold just for that convenience.

“The number” is “commissions”. There’s already neat little lists out there you can find that shows commission rates across a wide range of companies. Some are above 30%, but the majority are in the range of 15-30%

Commission is only justified when I pay within Apple’s store or via Apple’s payment processor. Apple doesn’t host the e-books, they don’t process the payment, they aren’t the reason I want to download the Kindle app… There is no referral commission here, Apple didn’t facilitate the sale…

 

[AppliedMicro]

What’s the difference between:

I'll answer that:

Going to Google, searching finding an Amazon link for a product, clicking it and buying it
and
going directly to Amazon.com searching for a product, clicking and buying it?

Google's web site belongs to Google.
Amazon's web site belongs to Amazon.

👉 When Google put an ad/referral link on their web site referring to a third party (Amazon), they deserve to get paid.


Similarly, the Apple App Store belongs to Apple.
And the Kindle app belongs to Amazon.

👉 When Apple advertise a Kindle book purchase on the Apple App Store (or the iBooks app), they deserve to get paid.
👉 When Amazon advertise an eBook purchase in their own app, they deserve to get paid - not Apple.


When I went to Google search five years ago...
searching for "download eBooks online" five years ago...
discovered that Amazon.com is a great place to buy eBooks five years ago...
and, today, type "amazon.com" in my internet browser and click a link to buy another eBook from Amazon...
👉 ...does Google get paid today for merely referring me to Amazon five years ago?


Back to my iPadOS device:
I "discovered" the Amazon Kindle app through its listing in Apple's App Store five years ago.
I've been going directly (opening) to the Kindle app on my iPad every day ever since, to read my ebooks.
👉 Same thing as going directly to Amazon.com - it's not Apple acquiring that purchase.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

they should do like Valve and just have a better service. They already take a fee for being allowed to sell the app and a cut of the first sale. Provide a compelling reason and they will use your In App Purchasing mechanism voluntarily despite alternatives.

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.

the unfortunate truth here is they aren't using any API's that apple owns. the APIs are on device and they just access them. as we have seen in many instances developers are more than willing and capable to develop their own APIs to provide useful functions .

or Apple could just increase the yearly fee you have to pay to distribute apps in their store.
Apps doesn't "include" the full API libraries within their application bundle. They just make system calls to access the dynamic libraries and frameworks that are already present on the user's iOS device.
Think of it like this:

• The iOS device is a city with a well-established library system (the pre-installed frameworks and APIs).
• Your app is like a book you're writing.
• Instead of including copies of entire reference books within your book, you include citations or references to specific sections in the city's library.
• When someone reads your book and encounters a citation, they go to the city library (the iOS system) to access that information.​

And demanding a cut for this process is absurd on it's face.

So should Apple treat all (physical) products in the Amazon App the same as they treat Kindle books?

they absolutely should. it uses the same infrastructure and resources. if a user with apps such as Temu, Amazon or the McDonald's app to purchase any thing, apple should take a 30% cut.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

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.

The answer to the question is not in what Apple invest in iOS to sell more iPhones and its merits. Of course if more people buy iPhones Apple wins and App Developers can win.

 

[danpass]

Ha! Joke is on them! I would go to amazon.com in Safari, 'Request desktop site', buy the Kindle version, and then go to Kindle and download the book.

 

[Shanghaichica]

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.

Yep we even have colour kindles and larger displays with styli now.