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

[kiljoy616]

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.

Oh your so funny, you own 3 ipads and you do what with them? Can't wait to hear the come back.

I read books on the iPad perfectly and without any issue. I read magazines on the ipad and have never looked back at buying regular magazines. Considering how few if any advertising there is on the digital version I for one am very happy with the product vs the Kindle with that lame washed out technology and lag.

Sure not in direct sunlight but I stay away from direct sunlight as much as I can.

Considering Apple sells books, I see no big deal if Kindle App's goes bye bye.

 

[kiljoy616]

Apple is forcing Amazon (whose Kindle store competes directly with iBooks) to give them a 30% cut of all sales. Sounds like antitrust to me.

They are not forcing anyone to do anything. Amazon does not have to play in the iOS world. Amazon does not get a free pass, take the button down and they are fine, get over it.

 

[lordj4000]

Am I really the only one that loves this idea? I can't stand that i have to use Amazon's terrible mobile site to buy a book. Its the same reason that i don't use Amazon's mp3 store. The only reason i haven't already switched to iBooks is that I had a kindle first and already have 15 or so books with Amazon.

 

[CalBoy]

Not in the slightest. They are not disallowing kindle. They are disallowing kindle with a link to their book store. Not saying whether this is a good or bad policy but it's not antitrust.

They are using their dominant position in the market to either coerce transfers of money to their coffers, or to outright exclude competitors. Even if Amazon were to agree to pay 30%, it would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the iBookstore, and that competitive disadvantage is only caused by Apple's coerce policy. That smells like anti-trust to me.

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.

 

[Nebulance]

Sure not in direct sunlight but I stay away from direct sunlight as much as I can.

Makes sense.

It's like sunglasses -- they're not made for staring directly into the sun. They're made to protect your vision due to all the reflections and refractions of sunlight.

[somewhat irrelevant, but still]

 

[firestarter]

eBooks are a 'killer app' for my iPad and iPhone, and Apple's solution is too limited in it's platform support.

Pulling Kindle completely would seriously affect my long term commitment both to iPad and to Kindle.

 

[ericvmazzone]

Apple better NOT dare kill the Kindle App

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.

 

[dethmaShine]

Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

Do you understand what Anti-trust is? Apple isn't hurting Amazon and Amazon only. These rules have been made for all the publishers and all developers of apps on the App Store.

On another note, what if these rules weren't there in the first place and Amazon would have decided to abandon the app store in favour of the Amazon tablet? What would you have set up then?

Get your facts right.

 

[autrefois]

Considering Apple is suing Amazon over their use of "app store", Amazon might not be too inclined to play by Apple's rules at this point, especially a rule that a lot of developers and companies are adverse to to begin with.

I don't know if I blame Amazon if that's the reason for their non-compliance. But if this means the Kindle app will be removed from the/Apple's App Store, I think everyone will lose out: Amazon, consumers, and Apple. I doubt Apple will activate the "kill switch" on these apps to remove/disable them for people who already have them, but there would be no more updates and no new downloads of the Kindle app. There'd be one more reason for people on the fence to not buy an i-device: no Kindle app, and no way to know what popular app may be the next to be kicked out when Apple decides to change its rules again.

 

[spazzcat]

Apple is forcing Amazon (whose Kindle store competes directly with iBooks) to give them a 30% cut of all sales. Sounds like antitrust to me.

No they are not, they are not allowing the to link to their web site...

 

[pdjudd]

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.

I must be missing the legal ruling that States that Apple has a monopoly and is considered a trust. Care to point that Out. I am sure that Google is perfectly willing to show that they have more devices. Not to mention that Amazon still sells their own device.

 

[belsokar]

They are not forcing anyone to do anything. Amazon does not have to play in the iOS world. Amazon does not get a free pass, take the button down and they are fine, get over it.

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...

 

[pdjudd]

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.

Why would you assume they would do that? They never have used the kill switch on other apps that they have pulled for rule violation.

 

[*LTD*]

Clearly Amazon is not afraid to push Apple's buttons. But I suspect Apple is not afraid to push back. Could Apple actually use their kill switch for this kind of thing?

Who stands to lose the most? Amazon.

We use our iPads and iPhones for lots of things. Reading using the Kindle app is just one of them, and not a major one overall.

 

[spazzcat]

They are using their dominant position in the market to either coerce transfers of money to their coffers, or to outright exclude competitors. Even if Amazon were to agree to pay 30%, it would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the iBookstore, and that competitive disadvantage is only caused by Apple's coerce policy. That smells like anti-trust to me.

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.

Expect the part where companies that have started selling subs through the app store have seen big gains in new subs...

 

[Rocketman]

It's not personal, it's business. I bet Apple gives them 30 days leeway from the start date if they hear they intend to comply.

Rocketman

http://communities.intel.com/thread/1111

 

[roadbloc]

Who stands to lose the most? Amazon.

Very unlikely since Amazon's Kindle device is selling excellently well and Kindle is still available on Mac, PC, Android, Gameboy Colour etc. The Kindle is the most popular, largest and arguably the best eBook store, Amazon is in no trouble.

The only losers here are the iOS users. Which, to be honest, isn't brilliant.

 

[ULFoaf]

A shame if Amazon quits selling for Kindle for iPhone

I don't know what will happen, but using the Kindle app on the iPhone has been a pleasure ,one of the best things about owning an iPhone. Good selection, good service, nice, usable app. Of course, you don't really purchase in the app. It takes you to a webpage to pay and downloads to your iPhone.

B&N doesn't even come close, unless there are great improvements in the last year. Bad selection, bad service, bad, slow app.

I haven't tried to look for much on iBooks, but it seems a little slow on the iPhone 3G. Selection didn't appear to be as good as for Kindle.

I haven't bought a book in several years, except used for under $5.

 

[BobVB]

I don't think it infringes

I took 's policy change to now make it about individual items - if there were a button by a list of books to buy it = violation, but just a web link to the generic store, at one spot in the program? No, what would be the point? They could ju8st replace it with the in app web browser and then the person would type in kindle.com and get to the same place.

Apple would be an idiot to make a big deal about this when all it would do is make a slight change and give them massive negative pr.

 

[a.gomez]

good luck with that, just going to take a feature away from people who will not dump their Amazon collection anyway.

I moved over to a galaxy tab 7 for e-books after my old Kindle (iphone screen was to small) - so not an issue for me really.

I see people on the train trying to read off their ipads on the train standing up sometimes - it just looks ridiculous.

 

[Mak47]

They are using their dominant position in the market to either coerce transfers of money to their coffers, or to outright exclude competitors. Even if Amazon were to agree to pay 30%, it would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the iBookstore, and that competitive disadvantage is only caused by Apple's coerce policy. That smells like anti-trust to me.

In fact, every iPad owner with a Kindle app could potentially sue Apple under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and receive 3 times their damages.

It's Apple's store, they have a right to dictate what is sold in it and their position is reasonable. They're not killing the app, they're simply saying that if Amazon wants to profit from Apple's store, Apple ought to get something out of the deal.

Think of it this way, if you open a store that sells physical books you choose what to sell in that store. You probably also have a competitor down the street who does the same. If that competitor came into your store and asked to sell books in your space--and give you nothing in exchange-- you would laugh them out the door.

It would not be in your interest to let someone else use your valuable space to sell items that you already offer. No, not just not in your interest...completely and utterly ridiculous.

No one is stopping Amazon from selling books, nor are they stopping Kindle users from reading them in iOS. They're simply saying that if you want a shelf in Apple's shop, you need to pay for that. Otherwise your customers can use the less convenient option of going to your store on their own to buy.

Hopefully they do pull the buy button. Maybe more people will try iBooks as a result. It's a vastly superior app and the store offers a ton of easily accessible free titles. I only use Kindle now if iBooks doesnt have what I'm looking for, pulling the buy button wouldn't bother me in the least.

 

[Bubba Satori]

The irony of it all ... once upon a time the Apple flew a pirate flag and led a revolt against uptight corporate types like IBM. Now, Apple has become IBM. Orwell would be pleased.

+1

Every rebel secretly desires to lead an empire.
It's an historic inevitability.

 

[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)

The rules are pretty clear, if they don't pull the button Apple have to pull the app from the store.

And, by the way, the title is a little misleading. I highly doubt Kindle as a whole will suffer from pulling Kindle iOS app from the App Store

Yeah because there are more kindles than iOS devices

 

[Lagmonster]

Apple would be setting itself up for antitrust trouble if they do not allow kindle. If not the US then the EU. Beside apple would be hurt a lot more than amazon if they block the kindle app

^^^ This. They are in the cross-hairs, push a little more and it's going to get ugly.

 

[NoNothing]

Stupid rule.

The In App purchase is a cool technology for developers to be able use if the want to. Period. If they want to. It makes sense for some things and not for others.

Magazines? Makes 100% sense. Vouge pays the distribution channels about the same.

Distributers of goods? 30% for being the middle man? Crazy talk. Apple needs to wake up and realize the difference between original content publishing and re-distribution of content.