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

[InfernoShade]

It is give and take. Do you really think it's reasonable to charge a 30% transaction fee on something that's little more credit card processing service (that's all In App Purchases does, btw. They don't provide bandwidth to deliver content or anything), and then require developers use that service instead of a competing service like PayPal?

Is there A SINGLE SOUL in this forum that understand BUSINESS?!

You're example is apples and oranges. They are no where near the same. That 30% is NOTHING like a credit card processing fee. It pays for the whole infrastructure! Just like Android's 30% pays for it's infrastructure. Go read and learn about the industry and stop making completely wrong and silly comparisons.

Actually anyone who voted your post up need to go LEARN about the industry and business. You are know NOTHING.

 

[Oletros]

Is there A SINGLE SOUL in this forum that understand BUSINESS?!

You're example is apples and oranges. They are no where near the same. That 30% is NOTHING like a credit card processing fee. It pays for the whole infrastructure! Just like Android's 30% pays for it's infrastructure. Go read and learn about the industry and stop making completely wrong and silly comparisons.

Actually anyone who voted your post up need to go LEARN about the industry and business. You are know NOTHING.

Before accusing someone of not knowing something you may try to understand what has been said and you may learn what 30% cut in in-app purchases is for and what Apple provides in this case.

Apple doesn't try to create iBooks as a open platform like Amazon does.

Can you show where Amazon publicites Kindle as an open platform?

 

[Lennholm]

You have ZERO idea how business is run.

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.

You keep insisting on how this is standard business practice and claim that Google does the same thing, but you seem confused about what we're discussing here.
We're not talking about the App Store here, where Apple both hosts and delivers the apps. We're talking about In-app subscriptions and in-app purchases where Apple does none of those things, all they do is process the money transaction, like Pay-Pal simply put, and a 30% cut for that is certainly not standard.

 

[diamond.g]

Before accusing someone of not knowing something you may try to understand what has been said and you may learn what 30% cut in in-app purchases is for and what Apple provides in this case.

I was under the impression that we all agreed that for in app purchases the 30% is basically a credit card processing fee??

 

[Oletros]

I was under the impression that we all agreed that for in app purchases the 30% is basically a credit card processing fee??

Tell him, perhaps he will cal you ignorant and that you're missing the point

 

[InfernoShade]

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.

Awesome points and explanation. Wish more people were as well informed as you. You sir, have made my day.

 

[Lennholm]

I was under the impression that we all agreed that for in app purchases the 30% is basically a credit card processing fee??

Apperently we haven't, because no one in their right mind can think this is reasonable

 

[Oletros]

Apperently we haven't, because no one in their right mind can think this is reasonable

One thing is agreeing that is only transaction fees and other thinking it's right

 

[InfernoShade]

You keep insisting on how this is standard business practice and claim that Google does the same thing, but you seem confused about what we're discussing here.
We're not talking about the App Store here, where Apple both hosts and delivers the apps. We're talking about In-app subscriptions and in-app purchases where Apple does none of those things, all they do is process the money transaction, like Pay-Pal simply put, and a 30% cut for that is certainly not standard.

Actually dude, I've been trying to clear it up. I know the issues. It's just that there's these people that keep throwing in random thoughts and I keep trying to answer them. But most people can't seem to even agree that Apple should take 30% for just the app sale. Then when we get to additional in-app transactions, the thoughts go all over the place.

Bottom line: Apple, just like other businesses, wants a percentage of money other make through them.

The type of transactions are still being disputed. Certainly they should get a percentage for the app sale IMHO (though others disagree). Now as to what other types of transactions - digital ebook, or subscriptions, etc - I can see both sides of the argument. But any business person would tell you, it's good business to expect a slice of any money others make through you. So if you understand business, you would not be blindly outraged at Apple (or any other company that does this).

 

[KnightWRX]

You're example is apples and oranges. They are no where near the same. That 30% is NOTHING like a credit card processing fee. It pays for the whole infrastructure!

In the case of In-App Purchases, this is plainly false. The 30% is a transaction processing fee alone, there is no other Apple infrastructure involved. From the documentation of StoreKit :

http://developer.apple.com/library/...roduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008267

Important: In App Purchase only collects payment. You must provide any additional functionality, including unlocking built-in features or downloading content from your own servers.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Notice that Apple has not tried to force Amazon's Kindle app off the iOS platform yet. There's a reason for this: the last thing Apple wants is an antitrust lawsuit, and forcing the Kindle app off the iOS platform so iBooks is the exclusive seller of e-books for iOS devices might violate the product tie-in provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Remember back in the spring when Apple said you could only use Apple's developer tools to write iOS apps? I think when Apple felt the heat of a potential antitrust lawsuit the company had to back down, and now you can use Adobe's Creative Suite 5.5 to write iOS apps.

 

[InfernoShade]

In the case of In-App Purchases, this is plainly false. The 30% is a transaction processing fee alone, there is no other Apple infrastructure involved. From the documentation of StoreKit :

http://developer.apple.com/library/...roduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008267

You're right, and good info. I was too quick to type. They are similar.

In the big picture, the justification of transactions fees for credit cards is really similar to this situation with Apple - entities want a slice of money made thru them. And banks would also make the argument it maintains the whole infrastructure. Again, standard business.

 

[gkpm]

In the case of In-App Purchases, this is plainly false. The 30% is a transaction processing fee alone, there is no other Apple infrastructure involved.

Given recent events it also seems to cover patent licensing and Apple's legal assistance when patent trolls chase you for charging in-app payments.

 

[Liquorpuki]

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.

I couldn't find a wifi code exception so you're probably right.

On the otherhand, the restrictions you gave are for free content or continued data usage for content that's already been paid for. The initial paid content caps at 100 MB. You can also transfer via USB. So depending on how they wanna design the app and business model, the data cap is no big deal. The only hurdle would be the generic reader clause. Then again nobody knows what a generic reader is so the courts can decide that.

Regardless I don't really care because viable or not, it would still be pointless for Apple to stick their tiny inferior library on 3rd party hardware. I haven't heard anything about an Apple app being rejected by Amazon so I'm assuming Apple knows this and has chosen not to waste their time.

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

Because the reciprocity is a business decision. The Kindle library is twice as big as iBooks. Apple makes their money selling hardware, not eBooks. Amazon makes their money selling books, not hardware. So if Apple lets Amazon put their Kindle app on its hardware, they both benefit in the form of a symbiotic relationship. But the reciprocal does absolutely nothing.

 

[pdjudd]

Can you show where Amazon publicites Kindle as an open platform?

They make their products available on way more platforms than iBooks does. I have allready provided links before. In contrast, iBooks is an exclusive system like everything else it sells. It's way more of an open platform than iBooks (btw I wasn't trying to imply that it's 100% open - the word carries lots of meanings - I mean open as far as platforms it's available on goes)

Awesome points and explanation. Wish more people were as well informed as you. You sir, have made my day.

I just wish that people read the actual court cases before citing them. I took the time to read the court decisions and it still shocs me that people parrot the same talking points.

Notice that Apple has not tried to force Amazon's Kindle app off the iOS platform yet. There's a reason for this: the last thing Apple wants is an antitrust lawsuit, and forcing the Kindle app off the iOS platform so iBooks is the exclusive seller of e-books for iOS devices might violate the product tie-in provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

I don't think we can assume that at all. Apple has not in any way shape or form said that iBooks is the only ebook seller at all. We do not have any proof of this whatsoever. If Amazon goes away it is because they took a gamble on a terms of service agreement that Amazon did not want to live up to. Apple can remove whatever it wants pretty arbitrarily.

 

[gkpm]

I couldn't find a wifi code exception so you're probably right.

On the otherhand, the restrictions you gave are for free content or continued data usage for content that's already been paid for. The initial paid content caps at 100 MB.

So you are saying I could run a store on Kindle by initially stuffing all my content (limited to 100MB) into a Kindle app that people would have to pay for (not sure what is the minimum price)

There is no update scheme for those apps other than the 100KB/month, so when I added more content users would need to buy another app.

I think we both can see this is no way of running a store, and that's probably how Amazon want's to keep it. The problem is not just the "can't be a generic reader" thing.

Because the reciprocity is a business decision. The Kindle library is twice as big as iBooks. Apple makes their money selling hardware, not eBooks. Amazon makes their money selling books, not hardware. So if Apple lets Amazon put their Kindle app on its hardware, they both benefit in the form of a symbiotic relationship. But the reciprocal does absolutely nothing.

Not sure about that. If Apple dropped Amazon more publishers would join iBooks because the iPad is still a big platform, making more profit for Apple and enticing more users to join the platform's exclusive bookstore.

The Amazon market is already well served by people who have Kindle devices, I would have to see statistics on the number of people buying iPads for the Kindle software to really believe there is such a great benefit for Apple on this.

 

[InfernoShade]

I just wish that people read the actual court cases before citing them. I took the time to read the court decisions and it still shocs me that people parrot the same talking points.


I don't think we can assume that at all. Apple has not in any way shape or form said that iBooks is the only ebook seller at all. We do not have any proof of this whatsoever. If Amazon goes away it is because they took a gamble on a terms of service agreement that Amazon did not want to live up to. Apple can remove whatever it wants pretty arbitrarily.

Again, good points. Certainly iBooks is not the only seller of ebooks. People also seem to be forgetting you can purchase ebooks directly as an app (tons) or download ebooks through apps like Stanza.

Tell him, perhaps he will cal you ignorant and that you're missing the point

I apologize for calling you names. That was wrong of me.

But I do think you are missing the point. See the other posts I just made.

 

[pdjudd]

Again, good points. Certainly iBooks is not the only seller of ebooks. People also seem to be forgetting you can purchase ebooks directly an app (tons) or download ebooks through apps like Stanza.

It also should be pointed out that users still need to manually download install iBooks on their own. Apple may promote it (it's their own asset so they can do this), but users are not forced into getting iBooks.

 

[Dbrown]

I'm not even sure what market you guys are referring to when you talk about companies being anti-competitive. eBook market? eBook reader market? Tablet market? OS market?

The Kindle is not a market. The iPad is not a market.

The market for paid apps. Apple controls like 90% of it

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

You have ZERO idea how business is run.

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.

You keep insisting on how this is standard business practice and claim that Google does the same thing, but you seem confused about what we're discussing here.
We're not talking about the App Store here, where Apple both hosts and delivers the apps. We're talking about In-app subscriptions and in-app purchases where Apple does none of those things, all they do is process the money transaction, like Pay-Pal simply put, and a 30% cut for that is certainly not standard.

Apple is charging for all those services they provide for those companies when they do in app purchases not just credit card processing. They bear the costs of those services for ALL apps. They choose to make their money from the sales price of pay apps and in app subscriptions. If you don't easily recognize this as a basic business strategy you should read and study more and opine less.

Before accusing someone of not knowing something you may try to understand what has been said and you may learn what 30% cut in in-app purchases is for and what Apple provides in this case.

I was under the impression that we all agreed that for in app purchases the 30% is basically a credit card processing fee??

Only someone with no business experience or understanding would concede that.

 

[Oletros]

They make their products available on way more platforms than iBooks does. I have allready provided links before. In contrast, iBooks is an exclusive system like everything else it sells. It's way more of an open platform than iBooks (btw I wasn't trying to imply that it's 100% open - the word carries lots of meanings - I mean open as far as platforms it's available on goes)

Being available on more than one plataform doesn't make it open.

And no, it's not more open than iBooks, it's more available

 

[InfernoShade]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Apple is charging for all those services they provide for those companies when they do in app purchases not just credit card processing. They bear the costs of those services for ALL apps. They choose to make their money from the sales price of pay apps and in app subscriptions. If you don't easily recognize this as a basic business strategy you should read and study more and opine less.

OMG, thank you Marksman! You are my hero.

Hundreds of posts later and people still don't understand how the business works. I've lost my mind trying to explain and answer tons of questions that derail the pure simple business thinking. Even to the point where some persons were telling me Apple should not take a percent, and should pay the developers! Nuts.

 

[Liquorpuki]

So you are saying I could run a store on Kindle by initially stuffing all my content (limited to 100MB) into a Kindle app that people would have to pay for (not sure what is the minimum price)

There is no update scheme for those apps other than the 100KB/month, so when I added more content users would need to buy another app.

I think we both can see this is no way of running a store, and that's probably how Amazon want's to keep it. The problem is not just the "can't be a generic reader" thing.

You're thinking the reader and storefront is one app and the eBooks are free updates. That model wouldn't work because the eBooks are the purchase. Anyway we could go back and forth on what's technically viable but who cares. Apple has never submitted an app for Amazon to reject yet.

Not sure about that. If Apple dropped Amazon more publishers would join iBooks because the iPad is still a big platform, making more profit for Apple and enticing more users to join the platform's exclusive bookstore.

Possible. But I don't think Apple really wants to spend money and resources to go head to head with Amazon in the eBook market. They'd rather just leverage eBooks to sell more tablets.

The Amazon market is already well served by people who have Kindle devices, I would have to see statistics on the number of people buying iPads for the Kindle software to really believe there is such a great benefit for Apple on this.

The symbiotic relationship between the 2 companies is old news:
http://www.best-ereaders.com/2010/04/06/kindle-app-for-ipad/

 

[diamond.g]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Apple is charging for all those services they provide for those companies when they do in app purchases not just credit card processing. They bear the costs of those services for ALL apps. They choose to make their money from the sales price of pay apps and in app subscriptions. If you don't easily recognize this as a basic business strategy you should read and study more and opine less.

All what services (specifically asking about in app purchases)?

 

[Lennholm]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Apple is charging for all those services they provide for those companies when they do in app purchases not just credit card processing. They bear the costs of those services for ALL apps. They choose to make their money from the sales price of pay apps and in app subscriptions. If you don't easily recognize this as a basic business strategy you should read and study more and opine less.

Which services? Apple provides no service other than the payment processing service when it comes to in-app subscriptions and in-app purchases. As other posters have pointed out, Apple themselves even explicitly states so.