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

[Oletros]

I get that Android is also overpriced then. Paypal/Visa/Mastercard are much cheaper. However, you know what ? Android's In-App Billing is completely optional, so that's not a problem. If I want to host my application on the Android Market but use my own payment processor instead of Google's In-App Billing, I absolutely am free to do so. No restrictions, no pricing rules, no "if you link to your site you have to pay us 30% of every transaction!" nonsense.

Or you can use another market or no market at all like getjar uses

 

[Liquorpuki]

False analogy, nor Kindle nor Hulu are using Apple "store", they're using their OWN servers, their OWN distribution method and THEIR own ads and marketing

False, they can subscribe from Safari browser, Hulu doesn't needs Apple infrastructure to get a subscriber.

False, they can make this money WITHOUT Apple, they can get subscriptions from the browser.

And the list marksman wrote has NOTHING to do with in-app purchasing as the SAME Apple states. They are only payment processors

Got it?

It's not fair for a Freemium game developer (Zynga for example) to pay $99 for a dev license, put 4-5 games on the app store that are free to download, use Apple's resources to market and distribute their free app, and collect a few million dollars as a result of in-app purchases without Apple getting a cut. If Apple never charged for in-app purchases, you would never see a pay app in the app-store. Everything would be a free download with an in-app payment.

That's why that 70/30 in app purchase split is there. That's why Marksman put that list up there. Because even the developers of free apps are utilizing Apple resources.

And that in-app purchase quote you guys keep repeating is just a disclaimer to programmers to inform them what the Store Kit does. Reread it. Nowhere do they explicitly state that the 30% revenue sharing pays only for payment processing. You guys are projecting.

 

[HarryPot]

It's not fair for a Freemium game developer (Zynga for example) to pay $99 for a dev license, put 4-5 games on the app store that are free to download, use Apple's resources to market and distribute their free app, and collect a few million dollars as a result of in-app purchases without Apple getting a cut. If Apple never charged for in-app purchases, you would never see a pay app in the app-store. Everything would be a free download with an in-app payment.

That's why that 70/30 in app purchase split is there. That's why Marksman put that list up there. Because even the developers of free apps are utilizing Apple resources.

And that in-app purchase quote you guys keep repeating is just a disclaimer to programmers to inform them what the Store Kit does. Reread it. Nowhere do they explicitly state that the 30% revenue sharing pays only for payment processing. You guys are projecting.

What you say makes a lot of sense. And I'm quite sure the reason for what Apple is doing goes along these lines.

 

[KnightWRX]

It's not fair for a Freemium game developer (Zynga for example) to pay $99 for a dev license, put 4-5 games on the app store that are free to download, use Apple's resources to market and distribute their free app, and collect a few million dollars as a result of in-app purchases without Apple getting a cut. If Apple never charged for in-app purchases, you would never see a pay app in the app-store. Everything would be a free download with an in-app payment.

If it's not fair, Apple should adjust their tarifs accordingly and charge more than 99$ for the right to post up apps on the App Store. Or perhaps Apple should do away with free apps and make all apps paid for and collect 30% for those purchases.

But you know what ? Apple knows that if it did do, it would lose many a developer. And the developers are important to Apple, no matter how much contempt Apple seems to have for them. Without the developers, there is no App Store, there is no "There's an app for that", there is no eco-system.

All those free apps and cheap apps ? They are providing Apple with a reason to sell devices. Look at iPad commercials, they are littered with apps and stuff you can do with them.

So Apple derives great value from the 3rd party developers and their apps. Suddenly, hosting all those free apps makes sense right ? Without them, iPads and iPhones are nothing and would soon fail in the market.

A lot of you non-developers seem to take this symbiotic relationship for granted. Apple doesn't need to charge more than 99$/year and 30% of app purchases to get great value out of the app store. It's already making them a mint in device sales and the huge margins they have on those.

And that in-app purchase quote you guys keep repeating is just a disclaimer to programmers to inform them what the Store Kit does. Reread it. Nowhere do they explicitly state that the 30% revenue sharing pays only for payment processing. You guys are projecting.

I read it a hundred times. Storekit and In-app purchase only collects payment. There's a fee attached to In-app purchase. Hence the fee is only for collecting payments.

You might not like it, but that is what it is.

 

[Lennholm]

It's not fair for a Freemium game developer (Zynga for example) to pay $99 for a dev license, put 4-5 games on the app store that are free to download, use Apple's resources to market and distribute their free app, and collect a few million dollars as a result of in-app purchases without Apple getting a cut. If Apple never charged for in-app purchases, you would never see a pay app in the app-store. Everything would be a free download with an in-app payment.

That's why that 70/30 in app purchase split is there. That's why Marksman put that list up there. Because even the developers of free apps are utilizing Apple resources.

And that in-app purchase quote you guys keep repeating is just a disclaimer to programmers to inform them what the Store Kit does. Reread it. Nowhere do they explicitly state that the 30% revenue sharing pays only for payment processing. You guys are projecting.

Is it also unfair that Apple doesn't get a cut from all the multi-million dollar making music records that were produced in Logic Pro? I mean, it can't be fair that all Apple got was the license cost of the software when the artist and producers make millions, right?
An iOS developer account, the right to submit apps to Apple and, if passing review, have them hosted in the App store and delivered to customers is what you get when you pay the $99 fee. I think the combined income from all developers fees is more than enough to pay for those services, but if it doesn't Apple needs to raise it, simple as that.
I maintain that it's not justified that Apple uses a discounted one-time fee and using a high per-purchase percentage for a simple, automated task to make up for it, but I don't even think that's what Apple is doing.
What about all the free apps that doesn't have either in-app purchases or subscriptions, does Apple really lose money on those? Unlikely. In-app subscriptions was recently introduced, was the app store just a huge loss-leader before then? Because some of you in this thread seem to think the 30% cut for subscriptions is essential for the app store to even get by.

 

[Liquorpuki]

If it's not fair, Apple should adjust their tarifs accordingly and charge more than 99$ for the right to post up apps on the App Store. Or perhaps Apple should do away with free apps and make all apps paid for and collect 30% for those purchases.

But you know what ? Apple knows that if it did do, it would lose many a developer. And the developers are important to Apple, no matter how much contempt Apple seems to have for them. Without the developers, there is no App Store, there is no "There's an app for that", there is no eco-system.

You just argued in a circle. Thank you for agreeing that it does make sense for them to just stick with a 30% flat cut on all revenue (for the reason you gave in your second paragraph).

All those free apps and cheap apps ? They are providing Apple with a reason to sell devices. Look at iPad commercials, they are littered with apps and stuff you can do with them.

So Apple derives great value from the 3rd party developers and their apps. Suddenly, hosting all those free apps makes sense right ? Without them, iPads and iPhones are nothing and would soon fail in the market.

Um, nobody here has a problem with apps that are free since an app that's actually free (IE Yelp, Skype) has no revenue sharing. It's the Freemium apps, the Pay to Play models, the ones that generate 100% revenue off the in-app purchase instead of the initial purchase that are the issue.

A lot of you non-developers seem to take this symbiotic relationship for granted. Apple doesn't need to charge more than 99$/year and 30% of app purchases to get great value out of the app store. It's already making them a mint in device sales and the huge margins they have on those.

Symbiotic goes both ways and means those 3rd party developers need Apple to make money too. Which is why most of them will accept walking away with only 70%.

You'd also have a lot of angry shareholders if Apple decided once they hit some arbitrary level of great value, they could just stop maximizing profits. Business doesn't work that way.

I read it a hundred times. Storekit and In-app purchase only collects payment. There's a fee attached to In-app purchase. Hence the fee is only for collecting payments.

You might not like it, but that is what it is.

Reread it a hundred and one times then. It doesn't say, the 30% we are taking from you covers the payment processing. Your quote is explaining the technical limitations of the Store Kit framework. Which is why if you keep going, the next sentence says

This documentation details the technical requirements of adding a store to your application.

You guys are projecting.

 

[stevensr123]

edit: what is apple's excuse for this policy anyway? have they made any comment on why they have took this stance?

I havent really followed this story so sorry, so apple get 30 percent despite they don't host any of the content?

 

[KnightWRX]

You just argued in a circle. Thank you for agreeing that it does make sense for them to just stick with a 30% flat cut on all revenue (for the reason you gave in your second paragraph).

I never argued such a point nor was my argument in circle. 30% flat cut on App purchases is, I guess fine for all the service offers (hosting, payment processing, listing, reviewing and updates sent to users).

30% for payment processing only on In-app purchases ? I don't agree. The problem though isn't the 30% itself, that's up to Apple to decide if they want to price themselves out of the market or not, what I have issue with is the non-optional nature.

Um, nobody here has a problem with apps that are free since an app that's actually free (IE Yelp, Skype) has no revenue sharing. It's the Freemium apps, the Pay to Play models, the ones that generate 100% revenue off the in-app purchase instead of the initial purchase that are the issue.

You mean like Skype that derives its revenues off subscriptions ? A subscription I happen to have and a reason my iPhone has the Skype app installed ? (calling anywhere in the US and Canada for 2.95$/month without using my minutes or long distance charges ? Sign me up!).

Under Apple's new rules, Skype now cannot advertise this service in their app without providing a way for Apple to make 30% off any subscription made through the app.

Lame.

Symbiotic goes both ways and means those 3rd party developers need Apple to make money too. Which is why most of them will accept walking away with only 70%.

Yes, they will, but let them make the choice of which APIs to use or not. Don't force APIs down their throats. Or else they might just leave the platform behind all together, something I do not wish to see as a user, and something frankly I am not comfortable with as a developer.

You'd also have a lot of angry shareholders if Apple decided once they hit some arbitrary level of great value, they could just stop maximizing profits. Business doesn't work that way.

The shareholders were pretty happy with the value derived for the iOS devices pre-In-App Purchases.

Reread it a hundred and one times then. It doesn't say, the 30% we are taking from you covers the payment processing. Your quote is explaining the technical limitations of the Store Kit framework.

Again, as a developer, this is my guide to Apple's services and APIs and it says the service is a payment processing service only and that I need to provide every other bit of infrastructure behind it. As a developer, that's where my 30% is going, payment processing, not anything else.

The right to list my App in the app store was paid for with the 99$/year fee and the 30% cut on the price of my app.

The business side on Apple's end is Apple's problem.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Is it also unfair that Apple doesn't get a cut from all the multi-million dollar making music records that were produced in Logic Pro? I mean, it can't be fair that all Apple got was the license cost of the software when the artist and producers make millions, right?

What a crappy analogy. So if the developer is Little Wayne and he uses Logic Pro as his DAW and Young Money markets his record via radio, fliers and billboards and distributes the record via iTunes, Amazon, and Best Buy, what is Apple supposed to be in this analogy? Eminem or Nicki Minaj?

An iOS developer account, the right to submit apps to Apple and, if passing review, have them hosted in the App store and delivered to customers is what you get when you pay the $99 fee. I think the combined income from all developers fees is more than enough to pay for those services, but if it doesn't Apple needs to raise it, simple as that.

Or maybe they could keep it low as a courtesy to small developers and just absorb the cost through profit sharing. I like how you guys so eager to prove that Apple is screwing over the developers, that you yourself propose alternative solutions that screw over the developers even more.

I maintain that it's not just that Apple uses a discounted one-time fee and using a high per-purchase percentage for a simple, automated task to make up for it, but I don't even think that's what Apple is doing.
What about all the free apps that doesn't have either in-app purchases or subscriptions, does Apple really lose money on those? Unlikely. In-app subscriptions was recently introduced, was the app store just a huge loss-leader before then? Because some of you in this thread seem to think the 30% cut for subscriptions is essential for the app store to even get by.

I have no clue WTF point you're trying to make here

But you should go ask Facebook what they were doing when they introduced Facebook credits. Oh yeah, they were also trying to get a 30% cut off the Freemium market that was piggybacking off their network.

 

[KnightWRX]

Or maybe they could keep it low as a courtesy to small developers and just absorb the cost through profit sharing. I like how you guys so eager to prove that Apple is screwing over the developers, that you yourself propose alternative solutions that screw over the developers even more.

Uh ? You're talking as if the App Store was this big loss leader for Apple until they introduced In App Purchases. Hint : it wasn't. Hint 2: It's still not today. Step away from the bottle you're drinking. Apple was making money off the 99$/year and 30% app purchase fee before In-App Purchases, it still is today.

Heck, this while In App Purchase crap was introduced without ever forcing it on developers, those rules changed even more recently. It reeks of Apple trying to see what the market will bear.

Apple has never been known as an entity that respects its developers. The more they push their stuff for iOS, the more it becomes evident. The platform succeeds despite Apple's hostile behavior. It seems they want to see how far they can go without pushing the developers away, how much they can get away with until it starts hurting the platform.

This is bad for developers and for users alike. It seems that you are so eager to defend Apple that you would propose things that screws the users/developers alike in the name of Apple's profit.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Uh ? You're talking as if the App Store was this big loss leader for Apple until they introduced In App Purchases. Hint : it wasn't. Hint 2: It's still not today. Step away from the bottle you're drinking. Apple was making money off the 99$/year and 30% app purchase fee before In-App Purchases, it still is today.

No I'm not. I'm actually saying the opposite. That because of In App Purchases, if Apple didn't take a cut, the Freemium model could hurt it. Because as a dev, what would be the point of me charging for an app and letting Apple take 30% if I could just make it free, put an in-app purchase in it to enable it, and walk away with 100% of the profit?

Also, I don't know why you keep pointing out Apple was doing fine before In-App purchases. The Freemium model couldn't have existed back then so of course everything was fine.

Apple has never been known as an entity that respects its developers. The more they push their stuff for iOS, the more it becomes evident. The platform succeeds despite Apple's hostile behavior. It seems they want to see how far they can go without pushing the developers away, how much they can get away with until it starts hurting the platform.

This is bad for developers and for users alike. It seems that you are so eager to defend Apple that you would propose things that screws the users/developers alike in the name of Apple's profit.

I'm not defending Apple. My first few posts in this thread were actually about how stupid it would be for Apple to force Amazon off the iOS market.

But I understand why that 30% cut is place. And my reading comprehension is good enough to know when you guys are projecting.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

No I'm not. I'm actually saying the opposite. That because of In App Purchases, if Apple didn't take a cut, the Freemium model could hurt it. Because as a dev, what would be the point of me charging for an app and letting Apple take 30% if I could just make it free, put an in-app purchase in it to enable it, and walk away with 100% of the profit?

Also, I don't know why you keep pointing out Apple was doing fine before In-App purchases. The Freemium model couldn't have existed back then so of course everything was fine.
.

Difference is on those system that means you have to get a merchant account to handle credit cards. Have a secure system to collect that information and then have a server to address the issue of pushing the content out to iOS. A lot of trouble for a cheap app.

So really the Apple in App system works fine unless you already have an established system out side the app. Now Netflix and Amazon for example have their own system in place already so having to pay Apple a 30% credit card processing fee is a huge rip off to them. They already have a good working system in place that more than likely only take 2-3% of the gross. Why should they pay 10x for a system the already have in place?

 

[Oletros]

It's not fair for a Freemium game developer (Zynga for example) to pay $99 for a dev license, put 4-5 games on the app store that are free to download, use Apple's resources to market and distribute their free app, and collect a few million dollars as a result of in-app purchases without Apple getting a cut. If Apple never charged for in-app purchases, you would never see a pay app in the app-store. Everything would be a free download with an in-app payment.

That's why that 70/30 in app purchase split is there. That's why Marksman put that list up there. Because even the developers of free apps are utilizing Apple resources.

And that in-app purchase quote you guys keep repeating is just a disclaimer to programmers to inform them what the Store Kit does. Reread it. Nowhere do they explicitly state that the 30% revenue sharing pays only for payment processing. You guys are projecting.

Can you show where I have said that when you use in-app purchases Apple doesn't deserve a cut.

 

[Oletros]

Um, nobody here has a problem with apps that are free since an app that's actually free (IE Yelp, Skype) has no revenue sharing. It's the Freemium apps, the Pay to Play models, the ones that generate 100% revenue off the in-app purchase instead of the initial purchase that are the issue.

So, apps that use Admob or other ad companies owe Apple a cut?

 

[KnightWRX]

No I'm not. I'm actually saying the opposite. That because of In App Purchases, if Apple didn't take a cut, the Freemium model could hurt it. Because as a dev, what would be the point of me charging for an app and letting Apple take 30% if I could just make it free, put an in-app purchase in it to enable it, and walk away with 100% of the profit?

The freenium model existed before Apple made In-App Purchases. So now you're saying Apple was fine before, and now that they've introduced their own payment processor, there is no way to survive for them unless they force it on someone ?

I don't get it, how come before they had a payment processor for the freenium apps they were doing ok, but now they aren't doing ok just letting the market decide if their In-App Purchases service is worth the 30% or not ?

Not making much sense here...

Also, I don't know why you keep pointing out Apple was doing fine before In-App purchases. The Freemium model couldn't have existed back then so of course everything was fine.

Uh ? What are you talking about the freenium model didn't exist back then ? Skype, Kindle, Comixology were all there before In-App Purchases and were all offering goods for sale before In-App Purchases.

In-App Purchases if anything was Apple seeing what was being done and wanting a piece of the pie for themselves.

Next you'll be telling me there were no ads in apps before iAds ? 🙄

I'm not defending Apple. My first few posts in this thread were actually about how stupid it would be for Apple to force Amazon off the iOS market.

So we agree that forcing IAP onto developers for sheer greed instead of letting it compete on its merit is wrong and could hurt the platform and ultimately, the end-user ? Good.

But I understand why that 30% cut is place. And my reading comprehension is good enough to know when you guys are projecting.

But it's bad enough that you don't get that my point isn't the 30%. No matter my personal opinion on the 30%, this isn't the issue. The issue is IAP being forced unto developers. Maybe if you'd stop derailing the conversation so much away from that very point...

 

[cmaier]

The freenium model existed before Apple made In-App Purchases. So now you're saying Apple was fine before, and now that they've introduced their own payment processor, there is no way to survive for them unless they force it on someone ?

I don't get it, how come before they had a payment processor for the freenium apps they were doing ok, but now they aren't doing ok just letting the market decide if their In-App Purchases service is worth the 30% or not ?

Not making much sense here...



Uh ? What are you talking about the freenium model didn't exist back then ? Skype, Kindle, Comixology were all there before In-App Purchases and were all offering goods for sale before In-App Purchases.

In-App Purchases if anything was Apple seeing what was being done and wanting a piece of the pie for themselves.

Next you'll be telling me there were no ads in apps before iAds ? 🙄



So we agree that forcing IAP onto developers for sheer greed instead of letting it compete on its merit is wrong and could hurt the platform and ultimately, the end-user ? Good.



But it's bad enough that you don't get that my point isn't the 30%. No matter my personal opinion on the 30%, this isn't the issue. The issue is IAP being forced unto developers. Maybe if you'd stop derailing the conversation so much away from that very point...

Nothing is forced onto developers. Developers can always refuse and go develop for other platforms instead.

 

[Oletros]

Nothing is forced onto developers. Developers can always refuse and go develop for other platforms instead.

😕

 

[cmaier]

😕

The point being that if apple's policy is as horrible as some people claim, apple will soon pay the price in lost developers.

If the developers stick around, clearly some people are making too big a deal of this.

 

[KnightWRX]

Nothing is forced onto developers. Developers can always refuse and go develop for other platforms instead.

Something I as a end-user of iOS devices don't want to see. Why does this need to be so black and white with Apple ? iAds is not forced upon anyone, and developers are still free to use AdMob (even though Apple sure did a number on analytics with the introduction of iAd).

I don't get why Apple always needs to be so controlling and hostile towards the people that built their great eco-system. What does having a Kindle app without the possibility of even linking back to the web store serve Apple exactly, aside from making their platform less attractive than other platforms with Kindle apps that "Just work!" ?

The point being that if apple's policy is as horrible as some people claim, apple will soon pay the price in lost developers.

If the developers stick around, clearly some people are making too big a deal of this.

The developers will stick around now that the rules have been "relaxed". They wouldn't if they hadn't. However, the new relaxed rules make for a sub-par user experience for end-users. Either that, or pay up 30% and be forced to use IAP.

There will be no great developer bleed this time either as Apple backs down once again from draconian rules to merely nuisance rules. However, again, the developers and end-user pay the price.

 

[Oletros]

The point being that if apple's policy is as horrible as some people claim, apple will soon pay the price in lost developers.

If the developers stick around, clearly some people are making too big a deal of this.

Perhaps it's not horrible, perhaps some people leave, perhaps some people makes a big deal, but the fact is that Apple is forcing a set of rules, bad rules, good rules, with all the right or not but forcing them

 

[cmaier]

Something I as a end-user of iOS devices don't want to see. Why does this need to be so black and white with Apple ? iAds is not forced upon anyone, and developers are still free to use AdMob (even though Apple sure did a number on analytics with the introduction of iAd).

I don't get why Apple always needs to be so controlling and hostile towards the people that built their great eco-system. What does having a Kindle app without the possibility of even linking back to the web store serve Apple exactly, aside from making their platform less attractive than other platforms with Kindle apps that "Just work!".

I find apple to be the friendliest of all the platforms. Ever try developing for kindle? I have tried. I was specifically invited by a guy there to do so. I gave up.

RIM? Nightmare.

webOS? Ditto.

Android? It's a mess.

The combination of platform homogeneity, sdk capabilities, transactional services, technology (obj c rocks), audience size, etc. makes ios a very friendly place to be. And if android or some other platform surpasses it, then developers will go there instead. I predict it won't happen anytime soon.

 

[KnightWRX]

I find apple to be the friendliest of all the platforms. Ever try developing for kindle? I have tried. I was specifically invited by a guy there to do so. I gave up.

RIM? Nightmare.

webOS? Ditto.

Android? It's a mess.

The combination of platform homogeneity, sdk capabilities, transactional services, technology (obj c rocks), audience size, etc. makes ios a very friendly place to be. And if android or some other platform surpasses it, then developers will go there instead. I predict it won't happen anytime soon.

You're talking tools. I'm not questioning the tools. Xcode, the SDK are quite good, as is the collection of APIs available and the different levels of each (Audio Queue Services to AVPlayer depending on what kind of control you need). The documentation sometimes leave a little to be desired (again, Audio Queue Services, *shakes fist*), but it's usually not a problem to get things working.

The problem is the "Our way or the highway" attitude. What is so wrong with letting IAP be a choice ? If a developer already has a great payment processing system in place, why can't he simply use that ? If IAP is so great, it won't need rules to force it anyone for it to catch on. Just let the developers choose for themselves if setting up a payment processor or using their own is better for them than going through IAP. Don't force it.

That's where Apple gets hostile. It's in the rules of the App Store and sometimes pushing their stuff unto developers that don't need it. Why should Amazon bother implementing IAP when they already have all that infrastructure in place to deal with payments ?

Answer : They won't. They'll remove the "purchase" link and Kindle for iOS will become just an eReader software with no chance to buy books and download them directly to your device while on the road (unless you happen to know where to go in Safari Mobile on your own).

As for tools themselves, I've heard quite different from WebOS developers. I won't question Android/RIM as I've heard the horror (and success in case of Android) stories there too and since I haven't dabbled in them (not having a device means I have no motivation to) I can't comment on their toolchains personally.

 

[cmaier]

You're talking tools. I'm not questioning the tools. Xcode, the SDK are quite good, as is the collection of APIs available and the different levels of each (Audio Queue Services to AVPlayer depending on what kind of control you need). The documentation sometimes leave a little to be desired (again, Audio Queue Services, *shakes fist*), but it's usually not a problem to get things working.

The problem is the "Our way or the highway" attitude. What is so wrong with letting IAP be a choice ? If a developer already has a great payment processing system in place, why can't he simply use that ? If IAP is so great, it won't need rules to force it anyone for it to catch on. Just let the developers choose for themselves if setting up a payment processor or using their own is better for them than going through IAP. Don't force it.

That's where Apple gets hostile. It's in the rules of the App Store and sometimes pushing their stuff unto developers that don't need it. Why should Amazon bother implementing IAP when they already have all that infrastructure in place to deal with payments ?

Answer : They won't. They'll remove the "purchase" link and Kindle for iOS will become just an eReader software with no chance to buy books and download them directly to your device while on the road (unless you happen to know where to go in Safari Mobile on your own).

As for tools themselves, I've heard quite different from WebOS developers. I won't question Android/RIM as I've heard the horror (and success in case of Android) stories there too and since I haven't dabbled in them (not having a device means I have no motivation to) I can't comment on their toolchains personally.

I'm not just talking tools - audience size, homogeneity of devices, etc. are not "tools."

But in the end it's trade offs. Apple is very controlling. Ok. That's been a pain in some cases. In exchange we get homogeneity. It's easy to target all ios devices and hit a massive audience. As consumers we get better battery life, peace of mind re malware, comfort in knowing almost any app will run on our choice of ios device, etc.

In the end apple's philosophy makes life hard in some ways and great in others. Same as every other platform. I predict apple's platform will continue to dominate developer mind share because the positives far outweigh the negatives. If the negatives go to far, then apple will have shot themselves in the foot. But I am sure they haven't done so yet.

I was one of the early anti-control voices on this very board. I admit I was wrong. Apple's overly controlling ways make the platform better for both developers and device owners. The things that can't be done are nothing compared to the benefits that are achieved.

 

[Vizin]

.

 

[hans1972]

It is about controlling its own destiny + profit

I don't get why Apple always needs to be so controlling and hostile towards the people that built their great eco-system. What does having a Kindle app without the possibility of even linking back to the web store serve Apple exactly, aside from making their platform less attractive than other platforms with Kindle apps that "Just work!" ?

Apple needs to be controlling or else they don´t control their own destiny which is extremely important to them. Let us say they let app developers use other payment processes and the non-Apple ones became dominant. Then Apple does some huge changes to iOS6 that breaks every single payment process. Now they are beholden to the companies that operate the payment processes.

It is the same reason they don´t allow Flash on their devices either.

In addition, if they can establish that it is acceptable that the platform owner are entitled to a large percentage of all the revenue generated on the platform, it might provide a new and huge channel for revenue in the future.