Will Kindle App Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance?

[pdjudd]

And actually, the conservative argument isn't that a company has to make profit, it is that it has to maximize profit. And that that should be it's focus and nothing else. The environment shouldn't be the focus, maximizing profit should.

True, I clarified that.

And I doubt that charging 30% for iTunes Store, 30% for the iOS AppStore, 30% for the Mac AppStore is maximizing profit. It looks more like they picked a number and are sticking with it.

They are picking a number that works. Remember they are tying to maximize profit. Part of that is making sure that people don’t say “no” leaving Apple with Zero. They are avoiding loosing money

Should Apple get sued or Jobs be replaced for refusing to maximize profits?

Such a matter is based on the decisions of the board of directors and the shareholders at large. I have seen nothing that indicated that they are displeased at the price that Apple shares are selling at. It’s a judgement call - even they know that you can’t take things too far. Apple knows that too.

So you can't tell me one law that demands the maximization of profit?

I did. Contract law in general demand that. I don’t know the precise statute you want since I am not a lawyer, but I assure you that is fact. If you want cites, I will have to refer to Cmaier who is an actual attorney. I will tell you that contracts are going to differ from company to company but their terms are always going to include terms that they are accountable to the shareholders. I know this. My father is a CFO who has taken companies public several times.

 

[AaronEdwards]

True, I clarified that.


They are picking a number that works. Remember they are tying to maximize profit. Part of that is making sure that people don’t say “no” leaving Apple with Zero. They are avoiding loosing money


Such a matter is based on the decisions of the board of directors and the shareholders at large. I have seen nothing that indicated that they are displeased at the price that Apple shares are selling at. It’s a judgement call - even they know that you can’t take things too far. Apple knows that too.




I did. Contract law in general demand that. I don’t know the precise statute you want since I am not a lawyer, but I assure you that is fact. If you want cites, I will have to refer to Cmaier who is an actual attorney. I will tell you that contracts are going to differ from company to company but their terms are always going to include terms that they are accountable to the shareholders. I know this. My father is a CFO who has taken companies public several times.

Should Apple care about the environment?
Other than what the law forces them to?
Should Apple care about their employees?
Other than what the law forces them to?

The law, according to you, demands maximization of profit.

 

[wtanders]

I think a lot of valid points have been raised, but in the end a contract is only as legal as it is deemed so. If the contract is challenged in court, it might change. If it is not, then it will not change, until the market forcing changes it.

More so, if the ipad, iphones, etc. are viewed as computers, then this will be come like the case against Microsoft and the Explorer issue.

Further more, no computer manufacturer expects a % (or a cut) of any commerce generated wither their devices - even apple. But, if the app-world becomes "monopoly"-like, then future court challenges will start, and not just in the US.

It's rather simple. It's similar as when ATT was required to allow other carriers to use some of their lines.

just some thoughts

 

[pdjudd]

Should Apple care about the environment?

Which environment? If you are talking about the earth, they already do. Great PR.

Other than what the law forces them to?

Apple does this already. Believe it or not, their environmental policies affect their bottom line.

Should Apple care about their employees?
Other than what the law forces them to?

Employees are looked at as a core asset. Depending on their role, they compensate them rather well if they benefit the companies bottom line.

The law, according to you, demands maximization of profit.

The civil, private and contractual laws that employees sign demand this.

Listen. Maximizing profit involves tons of things that are very dependent on the company and it’s goals. The board does not set policy. They don’t decide the specifics that you are asking. The board hires executives who set the policy. The executives set the policies that work in the boards best interests (because often they are on the board themselves). They will do what they can to maximize profits and minimize losses. The board decides if the executives are doing their jobs according to their contractual obligations as an employee. If the board is not happy, they fire and replace the executive (or encourage him to leave) with a person who’s goals are hopefully more in line with the board.

This is not hard to understand. It’s not pure raw profit. Profit involves lots of things.

 

[pdjudd]

I think a lot of valid points have been raised, but in the end a contract is only as legal as it is deemed so. If the contract is challenged in court, it might change. If it is not, then it will not change, until the market forcing changes it.

Thats true. In my mind, there is more than enough competitors out there making tablets and selling eBooks. Apple is not the only game in town. They have the advantage of having a really good mousetrap that people really like.

More so, if the ipad, iphones, etc. are viewed as computers, then this will be come like the case against Microsoft and the Explorer issue.

I don’t think so. The case with Microsoft was very different. One big different is that MS was demanding things as an OS licensee when they were a Monopoly. There literally was no competition at the time that was seen as viable. Today we have multiple viable OS’s being sold on many different manufacturers hardware.

The US v Microsoft case was really complicated. Seriously. Don’t cite it unless you know the details. MS was operating about a thousand times worse with waay more power than Apple has.

Further more, no computer manufacturer expects a % (or a cut) of any commerce generated wither their devices - even apple. But, if the app-world becomes "monopoly"-like, then future court challenges will start, and not just in the US.

As long as they are private businesses, they don’t have to do business with anybody. We see this in the retail chain every single day.

It's rather simple. It's similar as when ATT was required to allow other carriers to use some of their lines.

AT&T is a utility based company that had a government regulated monopoly. The comparison isn’t the same.

 

[wtanders]

Quote:
The US v Microsoft case was really complicated. Seriously. Don’t cite it unless you know the details. MS was operating about a thousand times worse with waay more power than Apple has.


I was thinking of the EU case against MS. It's not an exact comparison, but it's an example of legal action that occurred in the past, and the company's activities changed as a result.

 

[gkpm]

Also, all the talk about the Kindle being a closed platform is BS. A Kindle Dev Kit is out - Apple is free to waste money to come up with an iBooks app if it wants to.

Before spewing off your own BS go read the Kindle Dev Kit ( amazon.com/kdk ) and explain how can anyone operate a store using that. According to Amazon, "active content" (eg an app) can only charge:

1) a one time purchase or
2) a monthly subscription.

There is also an added restriction on data usage of 100KB per month per "app".

Finally Amazon says that "User revenue will be split 70% to the developer and 30% to Amazon net of delivery fees of $0.15 / MB"

So given these Amazon terms for their product why should Apple give in to Amazon again? I think there should be a reciprocous policy guaranteeing access on equal grounds for these things.

 

[pdjudd]

Quote:
The US v Microsoft case was really complicated. Seriously. Don’t cite it unless you know the details. MS was operating about a thousand times worse with waay more power than Apple has.


I was thinking of the EU case against MS. It's not an exact comparison, but it's an example of legal action that occurred in the past, and the company's activities changed as a result.

And their actions were largely the result of the fact that they were a monopoly in the OS market. They were forced to make concessions in the US too (although in my opinion the justices were soft).

Seriously. Back then MS had a platform OS market share of around 97-98 percent (maybe a few points). That was factoring in Mac OS and Linux and other OS’s. Nowadays the platform is way different (and we need to look at platforms here - not form factors like tablets). Any one of us can cite figures showing that Google and Apple activate huge number of devices per day globally (I think its in the hundreds of thousands each day). And that doesn’t factor other platforms like RIM, MS, Nokia, and Palm. Making the same case is going to be exponentially harder to do given Google’s position alone.

Apple’s biggest ant-trust problem in the UK was over it’s contractual obligations with DRM. Those legal problems are completely different than a simple business choice. If Sony, MS, and Nintendo can all operate closed platforms that they control with an iron grip (and believe me they do) without ever facing problems - Apple should be able to as well.

Anti-trust law is very different and very particular based on individual circumstances. Just citing a case nearly a decade ago doesn’t mean that the same thing is going on here. We need specific and valid arguments how Apple is preventing Amazon and the Kindle is prevented from competing in the Market. The presence of iBooks (which is way behind in marketshare) isn’t relevant. We need overt action. In this case it’s very hard given that all the big booksellers are not absolutely dependent on Apple - they have many platform choices and even their own products. The only way (in my mind) that Apple could be in trouble is if they banned all e-book readers or they treated other eBook readers differently compared to iBooks. The only way that would be possible is with the 30% IAP which Apple probably handles already (I think that they charge the same prices anyway). My guess is that Apple just says “we are paying ourselves our own fees - it’s a different department” and that is enough.

Two questions we need to ask ourselves:
1) Is Apple preventing Amazon from competing in the eBook platform - no Kindle takes care of this by spreading their wares on lots of platforms. Apple doesn’t have to accommodate Amazon so long as there is choice in platform.
2) Is Apple treating competitors any differently than they are treating their own. Apple doesn’t bundle iBooks and I would be stunned if they didn’t internally do the IAP and account for it somewhere. As long as Apple doesn’t discriminate other readers and that iBook marketshare remains low, it will be darned hard to argue that Apple is harming competition.

 

[extradryny]

The iPhone and iPad provide lousy e-book reading experiences anyway, IMHO. The Kindle and e-ink excel for reading books.

As a Kindle owner, I think the iPhone 4 reading experience is pretty great. On the go when I don't have my Kindle on me, I love being able to fire up the Kindle app and have it synch to where I left off. Unlike the iPad's headache-inducing flicker (for reading books), the retina display is wonderful for reading.

By the way, among all the devices I own, my Kindle would be the LAST I would give up. My love affair with it is passionate.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Before spewing off your own BS go read the Kindle Dev Kit ( amazon.com/kdk ) and explain how can anyone operate a store using that. According to Amazon, "active content" (eg an app) can only charge:

1) a one time purchase or
2) a monthly subscription.

There is also an added restriction on data usage of 100KB per month per "app".

Finally Amazon says that "User revenue will be split 70% to the developer and 30% to Amazon net of delivery fees of $0.15 / MB"

So given these Amazon terms for their product why should Apple give in to Amazon again? I think there should be a reciprocous policy guaranteeing access on equal grounds for these things.

Exactly where I did say Apple should give into Amazon? Wasn't I just responding the notion that the Kindle is a closed system? If the Kindle was a closed system, why the hell would they have a dev kit out? Why are you guys talking about 3rd Party Kindle apps not existing when they already do?

As for operating a store on those conditions, have the app download over wi-fi only and process payments externally and all your problems are solved. But that wouldn't make it any less of a pointless waste of money.

And I'd love to know why you think reciprocity should be mandatory.

 

[ilovemyibook]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

If Apple does flip the kill switch on the Kindle App removing it from my iOS devices, I will be wiping them to base line specs and returning both my iPhone 3GS (purchased on day one) and iPad (last September) to the Apple Store. I WILL NOT take no returns for an answer.

Not allowing updates, okay. Killing the App entirely, I WILL destroy Apple.

You show them! Hahahaha that was the dumbest thing I've heard this week.

 

[theshadow07039]

Well its pass midnight and the kindle app is still there. Honestly as much as Kindle is a competitor to Apple, its become such a ubiquitous app in the Smartphone OS market that losing it would have a glaring dent that would scare away developers. And since the war of OS is no longer carrier based but who can attract the best and most developers, Apple might need to bite the bullet on this one. It's 12:12 and the Kindle still exists in the app store. Massive Hysteria 0 - Good Business Sense 1

 

[RalfTheDog]

The iPhone and iPad provide lousy e-book reading experiences anyway, IMHO. The Kindle and e-ink excel for reading books. I own 3 iPads and 2 Kindles so I think I'm pretty qualified to make that statement.

It depends on where you read. I mostly read in dark places. For me, the iPad is great and the Kindle just does not work. If I were reading at the beach, it would be the other way around.

It's not about "forcing" people to do anything...it's about creating an atmosphere that is anti-competitive. Apple is essentially saying to compete with us, you have to give us 30% of your revenue, or else you aren't allowed to "compete" with us...

I'm a huge apple fanboy (in my recent past owning everything Apple and loving it)...I make a living developing apps for iPhone and iPad...and this smells alot like Microsoft to me...I know many people more well versed in microsoft antitrust history may say it's a huge difference...and I'm not saying it's apples and apples, but it just feels wrong to me...and I recall all the Microsoft supporters in their day claiming "Windows" was a Microsoft product, and they were free to make whatever rules they wanted, and didn't have to allow more competitive behavior because it was their product...but that never stood up in the courts...and I think eventually some people may make the argument that since iOS is the ONLY OS that can run on the iPhone platform, and since there's no alternatives for someone like Amazon, then they are forced to compete with Apple's e-bookstore and Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage by allowing itself a "Buy" link and not allowing competitors a "Buy" link unless they pony up some cash, thus putting their products at a disadvantage...once again, creating an atmosphere that is limiting competition...

just my two cents...

Apple and Amazon have two things in common. The both exist to make money (and they both start with an A). Amazon pays Apple nothing for the Kindle store. Apple has not seen a single dime for any download of the Kindle store or any Kindle book. Why should Apple be forced to give it's service away for free. Perhaps they can come to some kind of agreement where Amazon gives Apple lots of free advertising on the Amazon site in exchange for the buy button.

 

[Oletros]

Why should Apple be forced to give it's service away for free.

Which service is giving for free?

 

[Prallethrin]

LOL at all the antitrust talk, when Amazon is the one that has you by the balls.

You must use the platform Amazon dictates to you or you can forget about accessing the ebooks you bought.

 

[Oletros]

You must use the platform Amazon dictates to you or you can forget about accessing the ebooks you bought.

What?

 

[gkpm]

If the Kindle was a closed system, why the hell would they have a dev kit out? Why are you guys talking about 3rd Party Kindle apps not existing when they already do?

You're right, it's not a fully closed system. It's actually more similar to the iPad than I originally thought as you can run some interactive content written in Java. So it has a browser, it runs limited apps and consumes e-books/music.

So close, but...

As for operating a store on those conditions, have the app download over wi-fi only and process payments externally and all your problems are solved. But that wouldn't make it any less of a pointless waste of money.

Except you can't do that with their current API, since it limits you to distribution of the app via Amazon (+ 3 test devices) and the 100KB/month data restriction (too low for a store).

If there's a download via Wifi option on the API please point it out. But looks like my dreams of running my own e-store on the Kindle and reach tens of millions of users for free have been dashed.

And I'd love to know why you think reciprocity should be mandatory.

And I would love to know why you think it shouldn't be reciprocous?

 

[AaronEdwards]

Which environment? If you are talking about the earth, they already do. Great PR.


Apple does this already. Believe it or not, their environmental policies affect their bottom line.



Employees are looked at as a core asset. Depending on their role, they compensate them rather well if they benefit the companies bottom line.


The civil, private and contractual laws that employees sign demand this.

Listen. Maximizing profit involves tons of things that are very dependent on the company and it’s goals. The board does not set policy. They don’t decide the specifics that you are asking. The board hires executives who set the policy. The executives set the policies that work in the boards best interests (because often they are on the board themselves). They will do what they can to maximize profits and minimize losses. The board decides if the executives are doing their jobs according to their contractual obligations as an employee. If the board is not happy, they fire and replace the executive (or encourage him to leave) with a person who’s goals are hopefully more in line with the board.

This is not hard to understand. It’s not pure raw profit. Profit involves lots of things.

You don't seem to understand.

The argument is that according to law, maximizing profit is what companies should do.

Does Apple have any studies that show that caring about, and spending money on, the environment or their employees gives them a higher profit?
If not, then they should, for example, dump waste in a lake if it's cheaper than taking care of it. (As long as they can get away with it without breaking any laws.)

 

[pdjudd]

You don't seem to understand.

The argument is that according to law, maximizing profit is what companies should do.

Does Apple have any studies that show that caring about, and spending money on, the environment or their employees gives them a higher profit?
If not, then they should, for example, dump waste in a lake if it's cheaper than taking care of it. (As long as they can get away with it without breaking any laws.)

They can't do that since local laws would forbid that. There are laws that they don't bother with since getting away with them is really hard to do or that they are expensive. Perspective please. Companies like Apple tend to dispose of things properly since the local laws demand it, and they make good PR out their actions without much effort.

Companies conduct financial forecasting to determine what they can and cannot do to meet reasonable expectations that their board will like. They just don't go insane and driven by pure financial ideologue - there's no way they can operate on that thought alone. They determine what areas they want to focus on profit (like the iOS platform) and where things they need to do things right since they involve legal regulation such as employment and environmental laws.

Trust me, I have some direct experience with this - my Dad does this all the time. You bet darn right that they plan these things out. When he makes his disclosures to the board and the government, he justifies areas where the financials are good and why they aren't good. Some areas are always not going to be profitable and the board is going to be fine about it. Apple operates the iOS store because it is a profitable area that, outside of R&D and operational costs, has few areas that can loose money and tons of areas that they can profit over. I have seen Apple's financials - they try to make lots of money because they have to make up huge costs that they invest and the companies investors don't want profitable areas to end up being money pits. They like easy money.

 

[pdjudd]

What?

Amazon's commercial ebooks are all DRM'ed - you need Amazon's software to read them.

 

[Shivetya]

Amazon's commercial ebooks are all DRM'ed - you need Amazon's software to read them.

At least you can read them outdoors on a kindle, I have yet to figure out why anyone would want to use the iPad as a book reader, it is useless outdoors.

I seriously hope that when e-ink becomes color and affordable Apple jumps on it, I want devices that work as easily outdoors and indoors

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple forcing In-App payment and In-App subscription on developers is ridiculous. It's a payment processor service, that's all it does. Developers should be free to use any payment processor they want once the app is on the user's device.

Apple needs to butt out with all their rules. The developer already pays 30% of the cost of the App on purchase and already pays 99$ per year for his app. Why should he be forced to pay more for In-App purchases if he can provide the payment processing himself at reduced cost ?

It makes no sense. Again, this is Apple trying to force relevance of one of its services through draconian App Store rules.

 

[Oletros]

Amazon's commercial ebooks are all DRM'ed - you need Amazon's software to read them.

Apple commeciral ebooks are all DRM'd you need an Apple device (not software) to read them

and I forgive to quote the first paragraph:

LOL at all the antitrust talk, when Amazon is the one that has you by the balls.

 

[pdjudd]

Apple commercial ebooks are all DRM'd you need an Apple device (not software) to read them

and I forgive to quote the first paragraph:

Apple doesn't try to create iBooks as a open platform like Amazon does. Apple makes no bones about iBooks being an closed platform. Nobody is suggesting iBooks as being anti-trust since they are a tiny minority of books sales and Apple (near as anybody can tell) doesn't do anything with iBooks that gives it any unfair competitive advantage (unless Apple is far stupider than I believe them to be).

Apple doesn't pitch iBooks as a platform like Amazon does - they license their Tech - Apple doesn't. Amazon has some power here since they can and have pulled content from people's devices. They can do this because of their DRM system that they have wide variability.

 

[InfernoShade]

All this does is prove what a bunch of [expletives] run Apple. Their GREED (trying for FORCE other companies to pay them 30% of the take for doing NOTHING) is beyond the pale despicable. I consider Steve Jobs and company total SCUM at this point. Products should be sold on MERIT not pushy low-down 'protection money' tactics. But competition is the last thing Apple wants and they prove it time and time again by doing everything in their power to not compete or to compete as little as possible in any given situation (they are clearly afraid others can do it better and especially cheaper). I have no respect for Steve Jobs or Apple as a whole when it comes to morality.

That 30% is standard, and Google/Android does the same thing. Apple and Google have created new revenue for these companies - that means these companies are making money because of things like iPhone and Andriod. So as standard business practice they take a percentage of sales. That percentage pays for the infrastructure which in turn allows the companies new ways to make money.