Slashdot Mirror
Apple eBook Rules Changing For Sellers
An anonymous reader writes "In a 'pray I don't alter it again' moment for eBook sellers on apple iPad and iPhone devices, Apple is now requiring third-party eBook sellers like Amazon to also make their titles available through the Apple store, wherein the empire will take an additional 30% cut. 'Apple confirmed Tuesday that it would require app developers that sell e-books outside of their iPad and iPhone apps — through a Web site, for example — to also sell the books inside those apps. And purchases that originate in the app must be made through Apple, which keeps a 30 percent cut.'"
Apple is better than anyone at getting the most revenue out of a product or service while impacting users the least. Sony is one of the worst--look at the crap they tried to do with MiniDiscs. Apple knows where to get money where it won't irritate people to the point of cutting into their market share, and they know where NOT to get money. Good or bad depends on your point of view, but nobody can milk a cash cow like Apple.
In a "pray I don't alter it any further" moment...
Fixed that for you.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
Wish the guy posting a link to the original article would take into account that not everyone has a paying subscription to all of Rupert's products, nor cares to.
Pray I don't alter it any further.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Look folks, it's a we told you so moment. You bought the shiny hardware despite the warnings that you're going to be trapped in a walled garden. You are now at the whims of Apple and it's your own damn fault.
So now, not only do sellers need to give (most) of the money to publishers, they now have to give another 30% to Apple. Since I know at least Amazon sells really close to their own cost (or even less, in some cases), this would mean Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.
Which is probably what this really is all about. Force other eBook sellers to raise prices, and now Apple's own solution looks much more attractive. Sure, they can still sell on their own separate website, but users will likely just choose the easiest option and get turned off by the higher prices, thus not even checking out the website.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
In related news, Ford demands 30% cut on Latte sales at drive up coffee shops citing in-vehicle purchase rules.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
And everybody who sells software that could run on Windows should send Microsoft 30%, right?
Can they sell them at a 43% price premium so they break even after Apple takes their 30% cut?
I'm a fan of Apple and their iOS devices (though I know many are not). But I disagree with this change. To make it an option is all well and good, I'm all for it, but to make it a requirement is a step in the wrong direction. I, for one, will continue to purchase my books from Amazon.com. eReader apps help sell Apple devices. IMO, Apple should treat them with more courtesy than this.
Those who have telepathy have no need to RTFA.
We are recent iPad owners, and my wife really wanted to read Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Since I didn't have an Amazon/Kindle account, I bought it for her through iBooks. Going forward, it seems at first glance that I would want all (or at least the vast majority) of my ebooks to be in the same format, so we won't have to worry as much about portability (once the iPad dies, or if we get a Kindle or an Android tablet). Does anyone have any insight as to whether or not this is very necessary, and if it is, which format/app is the best bet
At first, I thought this story was another reason for me to prefer the Kindle app, but it on a closer reading, it looks like Apple is simply saying that Amazon has to offer all it's books that are readable in the Kindle iPad app for sale in the Kindle iPad app. It doesn't look like they are forcing people to buy it there, or preventing you from reading books in your Kindle account that you bought elsewhere from being read on the iPad. So I see it as Apple using it's market muscle aggressively, but not necessarily unethically.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Apple can't possibly require anyone who sells something over a website to also sell it through an Apple portal. Doesn't even make sense as phrased.
This probably has something to do with vendors who have an iPhone/iPad app that jumps out of the app to a webpage for making purchases and then downloads content consumed by the app--neatly circumventing the Apple 30% cut. Still kinda a dick move, though.
When did Murdoch by the NY Times? Also, article is not behind a paywall (was the link changed?).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
The rules didn't change. You have never been allowed to buy in-app without using Apple's system. Kindle gets around it by taking user's to a website in Safari. That's all Sony needs to do to get around it. This is not a new thing. Sony just got their app rejected and seems to be looking for press because of it, IMO.
So they just charge ~43% more for the book on the Apple store. That way, they get the same price, and nobody buys it from Apple anyway.
It's a smart-yet-foolish move for Apple. 30% cut is a large margin, especially for not doing anything -- that's like giving a 30% tip to a waitress who screwed up your order.
For those who don't care, they'll just continue on sheeping away and giving Apple more money. For those who do, well they'll just use their Android phone, PC, Nook, Kindle, or other device for eBook purposes.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
This proves my theory: Apple can have their apple pie and eat it too!
Charge a penny.
In a "pray I don't alter it any further" moment...
Unless they also have some rule that says the content must be at the same price they will undoubtedly need to alter it further to require that too otherwise I'm sure the content will be made available in the app...with a 30% markup to cover the Apple fee of course. This will result in nobody using the in-app purchase and everyone using the external method.
And there goes the chance that I will buy iPad 2 when it comes out. I refuse to be forced thru their iBooks tool (with an increased price for the uplift) instead of using my Kindle for all my content. REALLY bad decision here guys.
Not feeling like reading Apple's developer agreement in its entirety, I have to ask: is there anything that prevents publishers from providing two links in their app, say one that goes to their website to purchase content and another "Apple Store Enabled" link with a disclaimer that it includes a 30% markup mandated by Apple, Inc? Or simply adding a boilerplate line in the App Store description "This content may be purchased via the publishers website for 30% off"?
I doubt it will happen, but I feel that amazon should just raise all of their prices on itunes / apple services by about 47%. Make sure that any amazon based service that directs to itunes clearly states that the increase in cost is for the use of itunes and it imposed at apples discretion.
I wonder if people would still like itunes if they knew how much apple really cost them...
So those who seek to profit from the platform Apple has built... will have to pay Apple for the privilege. Oh, the horror!
Sounds a lot more like "those who wish to profit and do business with apple at the same time owe apple 30% no matter what they do"... They are basically ensuring that no competitive market on any level (even below the iTunes market) can take hold since they are demanding that all app related items are sold alongside the apps in the store.
how much blood can apple squeeze out of people? I'll never own an i-whatever. Seems like you just end up bending over one way or the other with little choice.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
I repost this re - formatted
by cosmas_c (1079035) on Wednesday February 02, @08:09PM (#35081428) Journal
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes?qt0358500
Memorable quotes for Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
- lol Space Fights V - The Geek Strikes Back
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, @08:13PM (#35081494)
no http link
I prefer the stoner versions.
Star Wars: A New Dope,
Star Wars: The Empire Kicks Back
and Star Wars: Return Of The Red-Eye.
I hope you like this better
English is not my native language and I dont live in the US - but doesn't this violate anti trust laws like Microsoft + Internet Explorer etc.? Apple packaging their own app store, with their own product and massive disadvantaging any competition on the platform?
Please correct me if i'm mistaken I'm not very clued up on the issue.
They didn't change their rules, they just started enforcing rules already on the books.
> 11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
> 11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected
>
> –Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines
So Fanbois, what about Microsoft's business practices again?
Perhaps the filing of a complain to the FCC would be in order, maybe one to the DOJ antitrust division as well.
It worked for Google when Apple tried to pull the same thing with ads.
Arghhh! ...of course I meant a 43% markup to cover the 30% fee!
to buy their iShit deserves what they get....
i can read any ebook downloaded (for free) from anywhere i want on my PC and my Droid... meh....
whilst Amazon locks out other peoples books from their Kindles I don't see that they can go complaining about sharp business practises from Apple.
Looks to me like Amazon could fulfill the requirement by removing the "buy" option from the app entirely, and just having the app access already-bought books. Users could still buy though the web page, they just couldn't get to it directly from the app.
Imagine, if Microsoft did the same: introduce a mandatory app store for windows and charge 30% for all music purchases in iTunes. I hope Amazon will develop a web based ebook reader and screw Apple.
Don't forget, for years under Steve Job's guidance Apple was winning the worse customer support award.
Since the company's inception 34 years ago they have been treating their best customers like vermin.
I don't understand why people choose their products. I know some people choose them because they are tired of the lesser of two evils, so they switch to extreme evil, but their products are not easy to use. Yes, you can get used to them and if you are a tech person, once you are use to them, you can use them fairly quickly.
I look at my grandmother and parents that aren't technical people and the iPod confused them. Especially my grandmother, she has had her iPod for years and still has troubles figuring it out. One of my cousins gave her a Zen which she found easy to use and was using it all the time until the buttons wore out.
The scary part is that the App Store rule that Apple is using to enforce this doesn't specifically say eBooks. It says that any purchase that's available from an app, must also be made available through iTunes in-app purchase. That could apply to any app that allows you to buy anything, including the Amazon.com and Newegg apps. Could you imagine Amazon and Newegg having to put every single product in iTunes and giving Apple a 30% cut? It's even more complicated for Amazon which acts as an intermediary to 3rd party sellers.
...to purchase an Android based tablet/phone
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
"The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."
are you considering raising the costs 30% by taking a cut, 'impacting users the least' ? i want to know which planet you are from. in the one i currently am, costs reflect on the customer.
Read radical news here
Scores of resellers ignore Apple's "request" as it's not enforceable.
Also, in other news, resellers file suit against Apple with the DOJ due to anti-trust concerns.
Think different. Until we have you locked in, at which time we will encourage you to not think at all.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
They are enforcing the original rules, which is that if you make an app that has a notion of in-app purchasing--you have to offer the content via Apple's in-app purchasing model, although you are free to offer the user the choice of two models and there's nothing that says they have to be the same price as far as I know.
how cute does apple look now?
iPhone, iPod, iPad, etc are, and always have been, simply sales platforms for Apple where they leach off of others work.
That would be really awful, and *illegal*. What if you decide to start molesting goats? There are so many things to worry about...
How do they plan on enforcing this? I just don't see how they could.
Not even the government taxes us with 30% ....
Revenue is almost as good as apple-smoked bacon.
This is something that's completely rotten, changing the rules after people have used an app for a long time. If I was Amazon I would just dump the app and serve it through a webapp for the iPhone.. screw apple for locking everything to them and making a lot of money while doing nothing.. As a developer I will think twice before creating an app for iOS..
Nobody is forcing anyone to give Apple 30% of anything. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell anything using the Apple store.
The rule (which has existed for awhile) is that if you offer something via an in-app purchase, you need to offer the customer the choice of making that purchase via Apple's in-app purchase model. If you want to charge difference prices for the two then I don't know of anything which prohibits that.
I think it is a little bit silly rule--but I think the intent is for customers to feel safe making in-app purchases and not feel like they need to give out their payment info to a dozen different companies.
This reminds me of the old days when Standard Oil demanded a percentage of the take from any railroad that dared to ship a competitor's product.
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed an Apple story with a "Sony" tag?
Granted, this is "Sony-like" behavior, Apple regularly out-sony's Sony.
This is just weird. It's almost like Apple's operating as though they have no competition. Example: if an ebook from Amazon or B&N is 30% more expensive on the iPad than it is on, say a Nook or Android tablet (because book sellers will *have* to pass on that extra 30% to the customer), then another tablet is a better option, no? Eventually, it'll squeeze all the other publishers out, and only Apple will be able to sell ebooks on the iPad, which is probably their ultimate goal. I mean, if I were a 3rd party bookseller, I'd rather take my business elsewhere, because Apple's store will always be less expensive on their device. On other devices, however, I'd be able to compete--which increases the value of other devices, and ultimately, hurts Apple.
It would require a 43% markup to give the 3rd parties the same profit per item.
70%^-1 = 143%
Not an iPad owner, but I know that Amazon has some free public domain books in their library. So, under this rule, would Amazon be required to give 30% of $0.00 to Apple, or would they be required to start charging?
Yet another reason to switch to Android. Especially once it hits 3.0 and makes for awesome tablets.
Just post a comment on each of their offerings in the Apple store that the same item can be purchased for 30% less if bought directly, with a link.
Perhaps the filing of a complain to the FCC would be in order, maybe one to the DOJ antitrust division as well.
It worked for Google when Apple tried to pull the same thing with ads.
You are confusing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
And, AFAIK, the only thing that "worked" is:
1. There are rumors the FTC launched an investigation, and
2. The FTC did approve Google AdMob acquisition, citing competition from iAd.
What hasn't happened, AFAIK, is any change to what Apple is actually doing with iAd.
Or to put it another way, "Now that we've sold however many iPads to Kindle users with the understanding that they can use the Amazon book store and the Kindle app, well, we changed our minds."
Versatility is the reason we BOUGHT the freakin' things.
Not that I agree with what Apple is doing, but isn't Amazon a direct competitor in the ebook market? Forget for the moment that there's a Kindle App. Amazon sells ebooks for the Kindle. As far as I can tell, there's no in-device "app" or tool within the Kindle to buy Apple ebooks, right? And yet, when Amazon takes advantage of the fact that they can actually sell ebooks within the very popular device of their competitor - everyone jumps on Apple for wanting a cut?
Buy from Apple - $14.49
Yes I do know math: Apple purchase - 10.14 would go to Amazon. The other 30% to Apple. Strange how that works right? 30% take becomes 45% more.
I wonder what people would choose?
Wait they're apple fanboys? The apple book must be better if its $4.50 more, right?
Kind of a dangerous game. Amazon is really like the Walmart of e-commerce. Apple should be kissing their asses not the other way around.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
It is becoming more clear that using an apple device requires one to care about things other than principles... or to not have them to start with.
Buy dead tree, retro is in this decade.
it's another brick in their wall.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Versatility is the reason we BOUGHT the freakin' things.
Well then you bought the wrong freakin' thing.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Apple requiring a 30% cut on in-app purchases like third-party ebooks based on the fiction that they are facilitating the purchase is bad, but it's not the only issue with this. Apple's content restrictions also come into play because of it. If you own a Nook and you buy an ebook from the Erotica section of BN.com (through Safari on your iPhone or through your desktop computer, or whatever), or any other ebook that doesn't meet Apple's PG13 content standards, it'll download that ebook to the Nook app on your iPhone (as well as your Nook) and you can read on whichever device is convenient. But if Apple requires BN to also offer their ebooks for purchase "in app", with them handling the transaction, the iPhone's infamous "no pornography" rule applies. So the only way BN may sell you that delightfully trashy erotic ebook is "out of app"... but Apple requires them to also offer it "in app". It's a Catch-22, which can only be resolved by Apple relenting on the content restrictions, or by BN restricting certain ebooks from loading on iOS apps, or by BN just not selling any ebooks that Apple wouldn't approve, or by BN dropping the Nook app. Only one of those options refrains from interfering with BN's business practices. And with my personal reading practices. As someone who has been known to read books of a trashy sort from time to time, I find myself wondering why Apple is inserting itself into the relationship between me and my chosen bookseller. Three's a crowd, Steve.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
After all, when I currently make a transfer between my checking and savings accounts - using my bank's native iOS app - Apple takes 30% of the transferred funds. That's the price I'm willing to pay for the extra convenience. Why should it be any different with Kindle books?
Just yesterday I was pondering getting an iPhone when my contract expires. Now that you have knocked my senses back into me, I'll get another Android based phone.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So I know this gets called a lot, but I think this seems like an area where the FTC could potentially get involved... Apple is leveraging their dominance in the mobile computing market to force competitors in the e-book market to raise their prices. This might be in violation of existing anti-trust laws.
We must occasionally go back and examine what people said and wrote before they achieved power. Apple, 1984:
"Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology - where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"
I used to view you on a pedestal compared to M$, but since you are now such a greedy, shitty corporation, go fsck yourself. I will NEVER buy ANY Apple products, and when you have fscked enough customers, partners, vendors, and distributors, they will not buy your crappy products either. Burn in hell, greedy bastards!
If Apple thinks that they can strong-arm the publishing industry (like they strong-armed the music and touchscreen industries already), I think they'll probably be looking at an anti-trust lawsuit within a fairly quick amount of time.
Why doesn't Amazon just increase the selling price of their books to accommodate the "Apple tax" and advertise that to their iPad consumers? I would imagine, that after N books, using a Kindle or Android device would soon pay for itself in the Apple Tax savings. Kindle or Android users should of course, only be charged the "regular" price for books ;-)
The iPad, from what I've heard, is actually not a very great device for reading - much like a laptop, it requires a back-lit screen, which tends to give people headaches over time. The best solution for an e-reader will soon be on the market - any Android tablet with a Pixel-Qi screen. They're as easy to read as a newspaper even in direct sunlight and don't suffer from the poor screen-refresh times of the Kindle.
Of course, given Apple's monopolistic tendencies, they'll probably just buy out a controlling interest in Pixel Qi and prevent anyone else from using the technology ;-)
This could be awkward for Apple.
Right now, for example, I can buy a book from Baen Books WebScriptions, and load it into the Stanza app on my iPhone.
So is that OK because Stanza is separate from Baen (in fact, Stanza has been acquired by Amazon)?
If so, Amazon could simply license the ability to download and display Kindle books to a 3rd party app maker (maybe even Stanza, spun back off) and circumvent the limitation.
The only way to avoid such a workaround would be to prohibit apps (and indirectly, users) from loading and displaying 3rd party files.
But a lot of apps do this, so this would be taking away from users a capability that is currently fairly widely used.
That would not go over well with users. Indeed, while I prefer iPhone, this would give me a reason to consider a droid.
Of course, Apple could let Amazon simply tack on the 30% levy to the regular Kindle price. In that case, nobody would buy in-app, since they could just go to Amazon via Safari and save the 30%. This would just make Apple look foolish.
I hear dead tree editions have gained ground on this news.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
The poster is correct that Amazon can't jack up prices for Apple's in-app store purchases. 30% is about what Amazon makes on Kindle books to start with, and Apple has a clause on book sales that you can't charge more in their bookstore than anywhere else that the books are sold. That required eBooks to be rounded up to the $x.99 cent mark because Apple apparently can't sell anything that doesn't end in .99 cents. Amazon would have no profit at all on sales through Apple under their contracts with publishers.
Just how many more reasons do we need to quit supporting this Apple walled garden garbage? When I buy a computer it is with the intent that I can load on it what I want to load on it -- not what Apple thinks I should be able to load on it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yeah. Apple has slowly been pushing me away as a consumer with their ridiculous policies. I used to own all apple and only apple products. I've gone from avid keynote follower to keynote "yawner." I've dropped my iPhone for an Android phone, which I didn't like at first, but it really grew on me once I found a decent rom replacement. I'm really not loyal to the iPad at all and have considered dropping it for a real kindle on and off for a while anyway.
Next time I buy myself a new computer I'm heavily considering buying both my wife and I replacement notebooks for our macbook pros with what it would cost for just a single macbook pro. Yeah the Apple product is much much higher quality, but the hardware is half a decade behind the price curve, and I don't need a laptop that can survive a nuclear holocaust....as I replace them every couple years anyway.
Apple needs to introduce consumer opinion back into the products they sell and stop telling us consumers what we're supposed to want. That attitude, along with the marketing they have done over the past 12 months, has really left me, as a consumer, feeling insulted and "talked down to."
Ah no, the "libertarians" will tell you a "private" fee is no such thing. Just like only the government can "censor".
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
This is FUD. There is no way Apple is going to kill the iPad as the best Kindle out there. There is no way the book marketplace would agree to a 30% Apple tax either.
I play Sense, which cancels the effects of your Alter.
Read http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/01/the-kindle-kerfuffle-update/. The only thing that has really changed is that IF the app offers purchase by tossing you in the browser *on the device* THEN it has to sell to offer the same content through the app store. It is is no wise the case that the Kindle App is threaten or that you aren't going to be able to read your kindle books bought through the web normally on the iPad or iPhone. Only one path, in app purchase outside apple store, is in the least affected. I don't know about you but I always buy my books on the Amazon web site, not from within this or any other iApp.
We provide large large amount of Indian and International in form of baskets and bunches along with artificial flowers. --------------- Best florist
I'm never buying anything from you ever again. Talk about abuse of dominant market position.
This is outrageous. To bad most users will never appreciate what's going on here.
ex Apple fan boy
You find a reason to purchase an Android table/phone to be that Apple wants all iOS developers to play by the same rules? Would you like to explain that one?
Because of the rules, and assuming that developers produce equivalent apps for Android phones, you'll be paying 30% less whenever you purchase something on your Android phone as you will be on an iPhone/iPad
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
So it sounds like this is saying that publishers can have two buttons. But if one of those is marked "Buy Here at an inflated price and Apple gets 30%" and the other is marked "Buy at a discount on our website", I just don't see Apple approving that. And even if that exact wording isn't used, customers will quickly come to understand what the two buttons mean. So the next logical step is that Apple will banish the second button.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
What it seems to me that we have here is a huge tempest over a badly worded statement from one of Apple's PR flacks.
The statement in question says that if content for an iOS app is available for purchase outside of the app that it must also be available for purchase inside of the app and through Apple's in-app purchasing framework. What I think it was meant to say is that if content is available for purchase via in-app purchase it must go through Apple's framework, and possibly also that if there is an in-app purchase mechanism that all content that is available for purchase outside of the app must also be available through the in-app mechanism.
I'll tell you why I think the above, it's because of the actions that Apple has taken more than the words they have spoken.
This was all set off by Sony reporting that their app was rejected because of offering an in-app purchase mechanism that did not use Apple's framework. This was a clear violation of the developer guidelines and also clearly done at least in part to bypass Apple's fees. An additional data point is that Apple has approved Amazon's Kindle app and that at the time it was approved much press was made over the fact that Amazon had to redirect people outside of the app to make new purchases (to the Amazon website through Safari), rather than host the Amazon web pages in an in-app browser (which many apps have), in order to comply with Apple's rules and be able to both avoid Apple's fees and avoid Apple's need to approve every individual thing that might be sold for the Kindle (app).
Appleinsider reported that Apple has said that the Kindle app is not in danger. They don't seem to have attributed this headline to a quote that specifically backs it up, so it may just be an overly zealous apple-friendly interpretation of the part of the PR statement that says they (Apple) have not changed any rules. It's hard, therefore, to let this lend too much credence to the argument one way or the other, but is nonetheless part of what went into my thinking.
In the absence of further clarifications from Apple, either in statements about the policy or in rejecting the existing Kindle app, I'm going to go with Apple's (lawyer vetted) written app guidelines and actions over the possibly-off-the-cuff comment of one of their PR minions.
There's nothing to see here, nothing has changed. Sony is whining. Apple is still a little evil, but still makes incredible consumer products.
A Call for Open Standards
Amazon locked themselves into this. They have a DRM that requires a custom app to read. If they sold PDFs or some other open book, then Apple couldn't do anything about it, because to stop Amazon from selling around them, they'd have to cut ever open-format reader from the app store, doing a huge amount of collateral damage to other developers and consumers. Amazon's DRM allows Apple to cut off just Amazon.
Point being - when you buy a kindle book, you can only read it on a kindle reader.
My first reaction to this story was to seethe at Apple too, but Amazon doesn't have clean hands. (And neither do the Publishers.)
Now Apple is proving the point for me. Apple - rotten to the core!
I currently have an iPhone but when I buy my new phone in around a year I'll clearly stay away from Apple..
Android seems like a better option now..
Does anyone know the names of the pills that Apple execs have been taking lately to get their balls so big and brazen? I need to knock down a few walls in my home and using a set of my own big, brass balls would be cheaper than renting a bulldozer. Thanks!
choice be given to the consumer whether to use the Apple in-app purchase or whether to use some other avenue. I don't see anything stopping them from charging more for an in-app purchase.
I imagine Amazon could negotiate a less than 30% cut for in-app purchases.
Selling their books with/without DRM probably isn't Amazon's choice...
This is a good move by Apple. Conventional wisdom might conclude that it's an outrageously stupid move, but that's based on the idea that people will tell Apple to fuck off. They don't; many peopl keep buying iThing crap. As long as people are willing to do that without regard for the consequences, then the consequences effectively don't exist; they're not a market force.
You rewarded evil, so you get more evil.
Ten years ago people thought that the internet would get rid of the middlemen and increase efficiencies. No more record labels; I'll buy straight from the band. The old guard isn't going to take this lying down, though. "But the old guard is dying," you said. No, by old guard, I mean Apple. Same business model as the companies you used to love to hate, but with a new name. Apple is the PC Guy from their own ads.
And what happens if Amazon and B&N just say screw it to Apple? Sure, they will lose sales to iPhone and iPad users, but what happens to the luster of an iPad when it no longer can get ebooks except from Apple? Apple isn't the only player in town. There are a lot of android devices, and not just phones out there or coming very, very soon.
Apple is asserting that the customer be given a choice whether to go through them or another vehicle; as far as I know there is nothing preventing the app from just charging the customer for the Apple tax if they choose to go that route.
I think it is a little bit silly rule, though possibly well-intended, and I expect it to get amended to allow for Amazon, etc.
iOS is a different animal than Windows. That's why it works reliably and people like it.
Do you think Amazon would allow Apple to sell books through the Amazon site without paying Amazon's commish?
I have an iPhone with the Kindle app installed, and I have a Kindle. I hope that Amazon tells Apple to shove it. I'd rather do without the app on the iPhone then have eBook prices be pushed up by this move on Apple's part.
To the best of my knowledge, I've never purchased an Apple product. I've hated them from their proprietary beginning.
Apple has been on a spirited campaign to make electronic appliances that normal people can use and want to use.
The smug technoratti think that electronic devices should only be used freely by geeks who are willing and able to spend a large fraction of their time babysitting those devices.
It's a fucking phone--stop pretending that you are Nelson Mandela.
As opposed to Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Verizon, etc., telling you what you want.
The Slashdot story is wrong. It's nearly right but there is a subtle, crucial difference:
"“We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app,” Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said in a statement. "
This does not force amazon to offer all its wares inside the apple store. But it will prevent Amazon from advertising those wares inside the apple store if it does not offer the through apple.
What they are saying is that if you advertise a route to purchase something in the app then there has to be a way to purchase it through the apple store. Their idea is that free apps should not be used for marketing. Their rationale is that free apps are a burden on apple since they run the apple store. If the free app is generating revenue it has to pay.
Do I agree with this? No. It's my phone and my apps. I don't like apple deciding what apps get offered.
It seems like a reasonable compromise would be to allow app developers who want to offer free apps that are conduits to their own stores to pay a "service fee" to apple for the app. That's justified for added value apple brings to an orderly app store. The problem with this is that unless the service fee is pro-rated to the value of the external sales then it means smaller stores get pinched more by a flat service fee than larger stores that amortize it over many purchases. This brings us back to a per-sale fee which is apple's position.
I think the real problem here is not sales commission but the size of the commission. 30% seems like an exorbitant commission.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'm so glad they did this.
It's going to come back to bite them in the rear hard.
"The more you tighten your grip, Apple, the more customers will slip through your fingers. "
Why would I buy a crippled apple piece of junk for $500 when I can buy any of a few thousand $100 ebook readers? Just the kindle sounds far better to me although you have the same problem with them.
Microsoft's borg persona is annoying but the alternative (which most of the people I know have gravitated to), Apple, is just as bad. A choice between two evils.
Once again our heroes are going to be saved by an Android and maybe a robot.
Apple is trying to make up for shrinking margins due to competition. They already understate their earnings all the time so they get a "surprise" when earnings come out. Sooner or later they won't be able to do that. Only thing they can do to prolong it is increase margins. How do they do it? First the lowered the quality that the iPhone was made from to increase margins, now they are bilking publishers.
I wonder what Apple will say if publisher in turn charge more on their app store to make up the difference. Apple has some big nads strong arming content providers. I mean they already have a huge threat to their business from Android who in turn does not do that to publishers.
For reading books, I prefer e-Ink anyhow. (backlit displays are harder on the eyes when reading over long periods of time) They don't display magazines that well though, though I really only read one magazine (Linux Journal) and I get that one in print.
If they sold PDFs or some other open book, then Apple couldn't do anything about it, because to stop Amazon from selling around them
Kindle Store is more than just getting a file with the book, though. A lot of it is really about convenience - buy it on PC, and it automagically appears on your Kindle right there and then. Read it from one device you have, and current position is tracked across all of them. Those things still require a dedicated app which can still be blocked by Apple - and I think that they are a major part of Kindle's offer for the money.
People can sell ebooks in Adobe Acrobat format. So, will they get rid of Acrobat? I am guessing that they won't because Adobe doesn't sell books directly.
So, the trick is, to take your e-book reader, and turn its development over to a third party company that doesn't sell books, Then, you can have a reader on the device without having to give 30% of the sales to Apple...
Failing that, I would charge a 30% transaction fee for books purchased in the App Store.
So, here is the question... How long before Apple tries to do the same thing on the Macintosh?
This commercial seems strangely appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndhuEUX1kIU&feature=player_embedded
Just raise the price through the Apple store by 100% to cover hassle and aggravation, and a nice little note saying that to get it *half off* come visit our site :)
It's a fucking phone
Actually, it's sort of an entire software and distribution platform. Same difference though. We're talking about the IOS platform and Apple's continued insistence to dominate all aspects of it, not a fucking phone. And, for the record, Apple has been on a spirited campaign to make as much money as they possibly can. It's the people who think they're just getting electronic appliances that are delusional. You're not buying a consumer electronics device, you're buying into the entire Apple ecosystem. That's how they have it set up.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
What are the terms of service going to look like in ten years? "30% of thoughts elicited from an ebook purchased on iTunes must be happy thoughts about Apple?"
Isn't this basically the same as Facebook wanting to force all app developers to use Facebook credits for their cash->in-game currency transactions [with Facebook getting a 30% cut]?
Can you coherently explain what, exactly is wrong with the current implementation of Kindle Store as used by Kindle on iOS, and why "normal people" can't or don't want to use that, requiring Apple to intervene?
Apple is on a spirited campaign to line Steve's pockets with more cash, and little else.
I don't see anything about Apple requiring Netflix to provide App Store In-App purchases when I watch a TV episode or a movie. I haven't heard anything about Apple taking a 30% cut for each Audiobook purchased from Audible (who also has a subscription but still offers book purchases beyond the subscription).
I suppose Amazon could do a monthly subscription where the price automatically "adjusts" based on the number and price of the books I download.
Why do you imagine this? Apple is (in)famous for using its ownership of hardware to shut out competitors; for example, any number of music stores with more content back in the early iTunes days. If Amazon flounces, well, it would be a setback for the iPad users, but most of them are already bought into the device for $500+; they're unlikely to drop the device entirely, and any software they buy through it goes through Apple.
It's at least as likely that Apple will either find partners willing to play by their rules, or, if all else fails, offer a sweeter deal to a weaker competitor (or a number of weaker competitors).
THIS. As soon as the Motorola Xoom is available (within the next 2-3 weeks), my iPad is going on Ebay. Fark Apple.
yay Apple yay Apple yay Apple yay Apple yay Apple.
sent from my ipad
Totally. I love these iconoclastic posts -- "gonna crush it with a bucketloader!" Sure you are, basement-dweller. If you even own one.
If Amazon resists Apple, and Apple somehow makes my Kindle app not work any more, I'll just buy (another) Kindle. I won't be hounded into buying books through Apple, but I also won't be foolish enough to toss out all the cool stuff I can do with the iPad, which ranges *far* beyond just reading books.
If Amazon capitulates, I probably won't even notice.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As for me, chalk another line on the list of "reasons why I don't develop for iOS"
I guess there may be programmers desperate enough who don't have a choice. I'm just happy I'm not one of them.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
I guess this calls for Slashdot to create a new icon for Apple: devil's tail and pitchfork!
Amazon and others bring this upon themselves. If they sold DRM-free ebooks, this rule would be unenforceable. I buy and read DRM free ebooks and their is no way Apple can even know where I got them.
Avoiding the whole Amazon universe for the moment.
I admit to using the Starbucks application to purchase coffee. I flash the iPhone app at the register to purchase the beverage thereby *intentionally* bypassing Apple's 30% cut. Starbucks should obviously be their next target.
So what's the extent of the market to which Apple lays claim? Audio purchased through Shazam? Movie tickets? Meals bought through reservations made through OpenTable? Plane tickets? I have an app which is specifically designed only to purchase lodging through a particular hotel chain. Are they also going to be subject to an Apple tax?
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
How is this any different than buying books from Apple that use Apple's (Fairplay) DRM scheme?
Your argument cuts Apple as much as it cuts Amazon.
Perhaps Amazon should stop selling Apple devices in their store, and ignore Apple's request to give them 30%.
Let Apple squeeze the Kindle app off their device.
I suspect Apple will suffer more from this than Amazon.
Does Apple force Apple Store prices to be set no higher than alternative stores, (ironically) just like Amazon is doing with its Android market?
If not, Amazon can just price 30% higher in the Apple Store.
That's because you didn't look. If you offer anything at all for sale through the Apple store, that must be the lowest price for that item anywhere on the planet. Period. No exceptions. So if your book costs $4.49 on Amazon, you can't set the apple price to $4.99 or something, you have to set it to $3.99 (Remember also that Apple prices categorically must end in .99)
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
And tomorrow, amazon spins out a new company which only sells kindle reader apps for phones and tablets.
Selling their books with/without DRM probably isn't Amazon's choice...
Of course it is. Even if they only allowed it as an option for publishers, it would be better than selling everything in their proprietary format.
The thing is, Amazon is perfectly happy to lock you in to their proprietary format.
...when Steve Jobs steps out of the room
A replay of 20-25 years ago. I remember in 1990 - 1991 you had the "friendly" Mac vs. the "command line" hell of the PC. However, it never seemed that there was an easily accessible tool to develop software on the Mac, and it seemed for every Mac used in the computing / business world, there were 4 PC's. Jump 20 years into the future, and you have the Andriod vs. the iOS. The biggest turnoff of iOS devices is the fact that as a developer, you have to pay Apple $100 a year to work on their platform, and "register" with them. What if I just wanted to recreationally write my own code? For me, the choice is clear. IMHO I think Apple, with its "closed architecture", will lose out to Android (and/or other) platforms. Even with Microsoft's mobile platform, I don't see this level of heavy handed control.
It's not at all different. I'm a prime candidate for ebooks - many devices, love digital, plenty of disposable income, love to read...
And I'm collecting paper books. In all the time you could only buy DRM music, I only acquired a handful of songs, sticking mostly with CDs - or more often - just boycotted. (Make it hard to buy, I won't buy.)
But I don't like seeing Apple use their customers as weapons.
Now f*ck off.
We could just buy books the old fashion way. I think it used to involve trees being turned into these thin sheets of white stuff that ink was then "printed" onto? Not sure, it's been so long it's kind of fuzzy now.
With Apple assisted Agency Pricing in effect, Amazon cannot raise the prices on ebooks.
As opposed to Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Verizon, etc., telling you what you want.
He's referring to how Apple doesn't do market research for their products because they go on the assumption that the consumer doesn't know what he/she wants.
Apple has a few "mad men" of it's own. They've decided to leverage their position in the market but they may have made the decision too soon. Apple will undoubtedly find resistance from publishers, authors, and maybe even from consumers. It appears as though Apple is simply identifying itself as a primary distribution channel and charging a 30% distribution fee but I still don't understand how they can make any other requirements regarding the rights of developers and publishers.
Reading this inscrutable summary, I feel as if I must have just hit my head. The article is behind a registration wall, so it's not being read.
Is Apple requiring 3rd party applications running on the iPad to give Apple 30% of the sales price of ebooks and magazines made through the application?
Or, is Apple requiring 3d party applications running on the iPad to redirect attempted purchases of ebooks and magazines to Apple's ebook store?
In addition to one of these two, is Apple requiring that 3rd party applications capable of reading ebooks and magazines purchased outside of the application to also make in-app purchase available? (eg a Kindle book bought on the Amazon store and delivered to the Kindle iPad app)
This does make some sense, if you think about it.
Apple charges a 30% tarrif on things sold through their store. Part of this is the cost that the developer pays to have crazy amounts of customer visibility. (Think: Walmart takes a cut to cover operational costs, and their own profits, in trade, the manufacturer gets a ton of views.)
So, the last thing that Apple, as a company, will want to do is allow you, as a manufacturer, the ability to use Apple's platform to give away an app that is essentially a platform of it's own. Amazon, as an example, will give away the app on the appstore, and take 100% of the profit through their own book site. They get all of the benefits of Apple's appstore, without any of the costs.
When are the frikkin apple sheep going to wake up and reliase they have been wellied and shagged and continue to do so untill they chuk all apple junk in the trash can after hiting it with a suitable heavy object (suggest you drive a road roller over it a dozen times ) wake up sheep ..
This is not true:
Apple is NOT requiring Amazon's books to be listed in the Apple iBook Store. It's requiring the Kindle app to allow users to buy books within the Kindle app. Right now the Kindle app gives you a link to the Amazon website, where you can buy books.
It sounds like users can still go to the Amazon website to buy books, and not have to pay the 30% fee. Amazon just needs to give users the OPTION of buying books in-app and paying a 30% fee.
Last I checked, there was nothing to stop me from saving my own PDF files to my iPad, either by syncing with iTunes or by downloading them using the iPad itself, then viewing them with Apple iBooks or Stanza or any number of other reader apps.
Therefore, the solution I'd really like to see is for Amazon and other booksellers to offer their eBooks as plain old PDF files, instead of some proprietary and/or DRM-crippled format.
(And no, they wouldn't sell exactly one copy of each book. Many people understand that the author and publisher need to be paid, and are still willing to pay a reasonable price for the real thing.)
The article is just a very bad summary of a sony press release about how they were not allowed to circumvent the apple 30% cut of _in App_ purchases by creating their own purchasing system in their app. Nothing has changed about Apple's terms.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110201/apple-on-sony-reader-we-have-not-changed-our-guidelines/
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
Apple is just requiring that the Sony Reader app doesn't include functionality to launch the web browser to purchase content from inside the app. If you're able to purchase content from within the App, it has to be through Apple's API (which gives a 30% cut to Apple). Not very newsworthy if you ask me...
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
I for one welcome our new Apple overlo...
Wait, no I don't.
Or ones competing with Apple products. Or ones that failed to pass their unstated criteria for selection (in that the application of their stated criteria allowed other apps through on options that failed their app.) Or ones they've sued for "patent infringement" or "copyright infringement" when there are other apps doing similar things and/or no such infringement exists.
There's still a problem with Apple's logic here.
Since the Kindle network allows you to synchronize your bookmarks, where you left off reading, etc., you can just download a book on your non-Apple device and then sync your Apple device, downloading the latest book and continue your reading.
On a side-note, does anyone else find reading on backlit LED/LCD screens to be tiring to the eyes? I really can't see how my girlfriend reads on her Droid; this is exactly why I have the Kindle.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
What stores allowed you to buy singles at 99c before iTunes? Besides, Apple never stopped any store from selling non-DRM'd music in either MP3 or AAC format that worked fine on the iPod.
In fact, when the industry tried to pressure Apple into licensing it's DRM, Steve Jobs in his famous "Thoughts on Music" posting gave the industry the alternative of allowing everyone to sell non-DRM encumbered music that would work across players.
Right now as far as "shutting out competitors", there is a Rhapsody client available for iOS that competes directly with iTunes for music Hulu and Netflix both compete with iTunes for movies and TV shows. Netflix is even available for the AppleTV.
But on the other hand, where else can I buy e-books that work on the Kindle?
The big difference I see between Amazon's DRM and most other schemes is the number of devices that you can read their e-books on.
Ipods, Ipads, Android devices, your PC, your laptop, and of course your Kindle. I'm sure by next year they'll have a reader out for the dashboard in your car!
I bet this will not affect Amazon (or B&N or Sony or ...) at all.
The problem as Apple sees it is that there is starting to be apps that you can download free from the store which say things like "Call of the Wild book here." When you run these apps you get presented with a list of books you can buy, directly from the scum that is selling them. Since the kindle app isn't marketed as "hey, look at me, I have this fancy book you want to read and you can get me free," but rather "with me you can read any of the books you can already read on any other platform which supports kindle books" (and thus isn't advertizing within the app store or in the app itself any particular book), this restriction wouldn't apply.
Now, Apple wouldn't mind at all if Amazon interpreted this as applying to them and complied, however unlikely that is.
Really, Amazon's 3 choices here are:
1. Do nothing (believing Apple will not touch the Kindle app).
2. Do nothing (let Apple catch bad press for removing the Kindle app). Consider coming back to the Apple store after being removed.
3. Change now (under the impression that Apple would remove their app and that it would affect profits more than a 43% price increase)
It seems to me that this is a no-brainer to Amazon. Do nothing now, and at worst you get blocked for a few days while having a large opportunity to give Apple bad PR (think of it now, a kindle vs ipad commercial during the superbowl which looks just like the mac vs pc ones apple used to run).
Prediction:
Apple is not going to try to grab a cut of Amazon or Barnes&Noble book sales. Apple will not reject Amazon's Kindle app for allowing users to use access books purchased through Amazon's web site. Apple's users wouldn't stand for it, and Apple knows this.
Direct purchases from an app, as opposed to forwarding users to Safari, will have to go through Apple's system, and Apple will take a cut. This allows Apple to maintain the curated character of the app store. A kid won't be able to bypass parental restrictions on the iPhone buy buying an app that downloads porn outside of Apple's controls.
Apple may insist that subscriptions (i.e. e-magazines as opposed to e-books) go through Apple's store
Apple will ultimately revise their guidelines to make these points more clear.
But on the other hand, where else can I buy e-books that work on the Kindle?
Anywhere, since Kindle supports .mobi files. Or, if you really want all your books in Amazon format, Calibre can convert them for you.
Because the Editor and the Marketer are much more expensive. Paper is cheap, Printing is done by robots these days. And you do need to do layout for eBooks as well. Chapters, Heading etc pp. is still there in a well made eBook.
Well, maybe the several music stores that were cheaper on a per-song basis than the iTunes store, at the time of the iTunes store? Granted most of them were subscription-based, but come on. iTunes pricing isn't actually revolutionary - if you look at it by album, it's pretty well matched up with previous offerings, and if you look at it by song, it's matched up with other e-Stores. This isn't to say that the iTunes store itself isn't revolutionary, just that price isn't their Sunday punch.
Also, iTunes opened as a pure DRM shop - and yes, it was largely due to vendor concerns. They ALSO refused to license their DRM scheme across platforms, using their dominant position in the e-music market to sell iPod hardware. Hell, that's largely why they settled on AAC in the first place - and why they spent so long fighting community efforts to build AAC transcoders, before their change of heart.
People are saying that this decision, which is specifically targeted at e-Book Apps, is shutting out competition in the area of e-Book Apps. If they aren't being anticompetitive toward music Apps, awesome, but it doesn't change what's going on over here in e-Book land.
Webscriptions.net. Hell, anywhere that sells non-DRM eBooks and handles mobi format, which is basically everywhere that handles non-DRM e-Books. My example even has functionality to use the Kindle's push functionality, to send the book directly to your Kindle.
Now, riddle me this - once Apple demands that every book on the iPad/iPhone come through their store, where else will I be able to buy books for my iPhone?
Look, I'm far from being a Mac-hater - I'm typing this on my Macbook pro, while listening to my iPod. But seriously - Apple's control issues are not news, and shouldn't be news to anyone who's done even cursory research.
This "article" is nothing more than trollbait. Apple hasn't changed anything. They are simply enforcing the policies they already have in place.
There is nothing requiring the book to be sold on the Apple Store. This is an in-app purchase.
There were no other music stores besides subscription music stores selling music from the big four, they all used some sort of proprietary DRM that Apple would have had to license, and they all failed or were failing before iTunes was introduced
Albums on iTunes back then usually were $9,99 -- cheaper than CD's sold in the store But the "revolution" is that you didn't have to buy the whole album -- just the songs you wanted.
This was originally posted on Apple's front page. There was a lot of publicity about it back in the day.
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/12543/
Basically the story is:
1. The music industry wanted Apple to license their DRM,
2. He gave the music industry two alternatives to make music interoperable -- either a) Apple could license their DRM or b) the music industry could allow Apple and anyone else to sell DRM free music. He said if the music industry would allow it, Apple would be more than willing to sell DRM free music.
3. "Slashdot Wisdom" was that Apple knew that the music industry would never allow anyone to sell DRM free music and that it was a bluff,
4. The music industry wanted variable price music and at first they wanted an upfront payment for the privilege. Apple refused both.
5. EMI allowed DRM free music and Apple started selling "iTunes Plus".
6. The music industry tried and failed to force Apple's hand by allowing everyone else to sell DRM free music.
7. Apple had to allow variable pricing because they wanted to be able to sell music over the cell network for the iPhone..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
Apple had nothing to do with the development or licensing of AAC. Apple isn't even part of the patent pool for AAC. It is a licensable format that was introduced 4 years before the iPod was ever introduced.
Apple chose AAC because it was a better format.
Just like anyone could always sell DRM free music and video that worked on the iPod, anyone can sell DRM free books that work on the iPad.
Apple is demanding no such thing. Apple is demanding that if you allow outside purchases of content, you also must allow in-app purchases. They are not forbidding outside purchases.
I am mistaken on AAC - I was remembering the DRM-AAC issues as generic AAC issues.
"Thoughts on Music" hit in 2007. Not exactly "from the get-go," there. Keep in mind, the iTunes music store opened four years previously.
Also, the issue I was discussing wasn't whether Apple had DRM or not, or whether they licensed the other DRM schemes - it's that Apple REFUSED TO LICENSE FAIRPLAY. Thus, if you wanted to buy music from iTunes, you had to own an iPod, or else circumvent their DRM. Which was easy (if you were willing to spend CDs and sacrifice quality), but which was still illegal, and thus out of scope as far as Apple's business plan.
Not in an App, they can't - at least if they aren't a direct publisher. At least not without essentially adding 30% to their prices.
Now, as to whether you can buy it online and drag-and-drop, etc, well, that's probably not covered; but that's an extra layer of inconvenience, introduced by Apple. And why are they introducing it?
Annnnnnd, since Apple demands that their content partners agree not to charge more for e-Books outside the Apple Store than inside, and since Amazon isn't actually direct publisher, but a distributor/retailer who operates their own online store...
Connect the dots here, seriously. Unless Apple stops enforcing one of the two rules, it does, in fact, mean exactly what I said it means.
Here, let's try something - you tell me what you think Apple's motivation is for this decision. Because I can't see a reason for it that's not anti-competitive.
Could it be also that Amazon is starting to offer streaming video services and on demand services... Not something Apple wants...