No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, you can't put a link to Safari to buy a digital good.
Spotify can't put a link to spotify.com to buy a subscription, can they?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will Kindle App Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, it does, you can't put a link to Safari to buy a digital good.
Spotify can't put a link to spotify.com to buy a subscription, can they?
I think most people know the in-app purchase gives Apple a cut.
But even without the cut, Apple benefits from keeping the Kindle app on its iPad through increased hardware sales. Anyone in the market for an e-Reader is more willing to buy an iPad since it has the best e-Reader app / eBook store on the market. Anyone looking to replace their Kindle is more willing to buy an iPad because they can transfer their library over. And Apple doesn't have to spend money on developing that inferior app called iBooks (they can just let it rot like they've been doing) or trying to get all publishers on board (which they stopped trying to do after the hype went away). Instead they can just let Amazon do all the work that makes the iPad a viable e-Reader for them and make money off the hardware.
Basically it would be stupid for them to drop the Kindle app when they have nothing to replace it. iBooks doesn't count.
I guess since books take up more room, there's not as much of a chance to create an HTML5 web app for Amazon. The beauty of the native app is that it gets the resources of the device including memory.
With regards to what Amazon will do, I'm wondering if they'll just rely on pre-existing customers for a while? Most everyone who would install the Kindle app, already have. Might as well let those users run their course for a while before you update the app to remove the link. If they don't update, the apps will remain on the iOS devices that have them already installed and theoretically there won't be any new installs from the app store. So, the choices are
1) Take a 30% hit from new and existing iOS app sales
2) Take 100% revenue from existing iOS app installations with no new installations.
Let me help you understand where your argument is falling apart:
It's [Microsoft]'s [OS], they have a right to dictate what is [installed] on it and their position is reasonable. They're not [blocking other browsers], they're simply saying that if [customers] want to [install] [Netscape]'s [software], [Microsoft] ought to get something out of the deal.
Apple currently has 90+ percent of the tablet market in the US.
Microsoft had 90+ percent of the PC operating system market in the 1990s.
OK, Vizin, I hate to say this, but you sir really don't know what you are talking about.
You have no understanding of advertising or marketing. You also have no understanding of business. Did you not read my post about new revenue streams?! Yes some apps make the platform more attractive. But NO, if you are a dev, you CANNOT turn this around. Apple makes the revenue stream, devs pay to be part of it. End of story. Go learn business!
Also, Apple doesn't only put free apps in their ads, it's a mix with some paid apps. Not that has anything to do with anything.
I'm through with you sir!
Last edited:
You mean like they do for music with iTMS?
Or like music distrobutors did before them?
...Will it ever stop?
Apple's argument would be that they don't. They don't want people originating transactions with Apps from their store without giving them equal opportunity. I don't really agree with Apple on this because companies like Netflix, Kindle, B&N, and Hulu add value to the platform.
It was not a big deal for content owners, since they pay more in affiliate fees then Apple's cut, but the policy hurts middle men, and some of those middle men are very good for iOS.
Perhaps not if you read the post out of context, within the context of this thread it should be clear what was meant.
So Apple, Google, MS etc have to pay a cut to AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone, etc for providing a new revenue stream like mobile market?
You mean like they do for music with iTMS?
Or like music distrobutors did before them?
...Will it ever stop?
At least, with iTMS they store and distribute the content
It doesn't matter what anyone or I thinks. The justice department and FTC are investigating Apple for their subscription model. Removing Kindle is not going to help their cause.
If you define the market as mobile apps, Apple has a monopoly, unquestionably. Just ask any app developer.
If you define the market as mobile apps, Apple has a monopoly, unquestionably. Just ask any app developer.
Last edited:
Well, if you follow the prior discussion and read the original blog post it can be implicit
Apple wasn't showing third party apps to help them grow. Apple was showing third party apps to sell their hardware.
Do you think that if iBooks had been available since 2007 like Kindle books that the ads would have been about the possibility to read Kindle books on the iPad? No, they would have been about iBooks.
I for one, absolutely love books.
Got a few on the desk now, they're paper books, I flick through them, scribble in them, smell them, bend them, throw them in the boot of my car and drop them in swimming pools. They're great.
I've got a few on Kindle/iBooks, and as much as I persevere with the ePub revolution, I'm always going back to bloody wonderful paper books.
Anyone with me on this?
...oh just me then!
Got a few on the desk now, they're paper books, I flick through them, scribble in them, smell them, bend them, throw them in the boot of my car and drop them in swimming pools. They're great.
I've got a few on Kindle/iBooks, and as much as I persevere with the ePub revolution, I'm always going back to bloody wonderful paper books.
Anyone with me on this?
...oh just me then!
Not per transaction, but the model is largely irrelevant. Whether the payment is a general one to support the ecosystem or a cut of each sale.
Are you brain damaged? Or are you pulling my leg?
Everyone has to make deals with the carriers. And in case you didn't know it's the same in the cable/tv industry.
I can't believe you would even ask such a silly question.
Sir, I am also through with you.
Really? You're not going to open that crazy can of worms again are you?
As far as "their" device, lets just say the device they created that allows all the business access to a new revenue stream. Hope that covers it.
It's not the device, it's the control of the store. Basically Apple doesn't want to distribute in the App Store other "stores" of digital content unless it gets a cut. Nothing wrong with that, after all those other stores are competitors. Still, Apple is making huge amount of money selling devices (hardware+OS), I'm wondering if trying to control the digital content market as well will be in the long run a winning move for them, surely not for consumers.
Last edited:
Maybe you should read the context more carefully. Sometimes a conversation veers tangentially (or worse) from the point of the thread. Oletros is all over the place in his arguments.
Apart from insulting, can you provide any argument or answer any question?
Perhaps the brain damaged and fanatic are not the ones you're insulting when they doesn't have your opinion