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.'"
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.
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.
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.
The problem comes if they try to force amazon to charge the same price in-app as they do in the web store. I doubt amazon will stick around through a decision like that. They still have to make a profit too. If they can't jack their prices up for the in-app store, then their profit margin might shrink to nothing, or put them in the negative.
Currently, the kindle app is one of the the only reasons I ever pick up the iPad anymore. Apple shouldn't mess with it. I have no qualms about ditching the iPad if they do...
With margins in the single percentage points for most on-line resellers, you think a 30% cut won't impact the users?
This will result either in a) fewer stores offering ebooks and thus less competition and thus greater prices, or b) stores raising their prices to cover the 30% cut, resulting in greater prices.
So tell me again how this won't affect the users?
Yeah, Sony is worthy of loathing here! Don't buy Sony!
... Sony which, in this case, is a very open entity - their e-book readers stuff is built around standards; and generally is more of a far from monolithic consortium, with many divisions almost struggling with each other; actively involved in many universally used standards (of course, those are not remembered as "from Sony"), offering one of most open DAPs, giving us CCDs to create with... even banking, and I don't remember them being involved in recent mess)
(really, it cracks me up how people are able, in their eyes, to single out Sony for boycott
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
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.
I don't know about iBooks, but Amazon/Kindle has made a big deal about how books you buy from them are tied to your account, so it doesn't matter what device you're using or what device you originally bought the books on, you'll have access to all your stuff. I'm pretty sure Barnes & Noble/Nook works the same way. Apple's move is just an attempt to extort more money out of the booksellers, it shouldn't have any affect on the portability of your ebooks.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
What Apple is really saying.. any book purchased through the Kindle app is subject to the same 30% cut [for Apple] that app developers have to give Apple. If you buy a $9 book in the Kindle app, $3ish goes to Apple. This is way less about expanding the iPad/Kindle catalog and more about Apple thinking they deserve a piece.
The big problem with this.. Apple gets their 30% cut from apps because they handle the store, transaction and delivery/updating/maintenance for iOS apps. Kindle purchases don't rely on or require Apple infrastructure, the app is mainly a means to a purchasing end. This is a 'I'm going to take my ball and go home' Apple money grab. What's to stop Microsoft from demanding 30% of any Kindle for PC purchase?
I like Apple, but these kinds of capitalist 'let's invent more ways to make money' motives really rile me.
No, the problem is requiring them to put everything on the Apple Store in the first place.
What happens if Amazon or B&N doesn't yield? Somehow the Kindle or Nook app gets "rescinded", and stops working when next their iphone or ipad updates. And then the other booksellers have to explain to their customers why all of a sudden, paid-for books can no longer be viewed on the device.
This is monopolistic practices: the next step is Apple announcing how they have "the largest selection of books" in the Apple Store, because they've forcibly extorted Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and every other ebook purveyor to put their books in the Apple Store or be cut off from the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad market entirely.
I wonder what happened to the monopoly abuse lawsuit over iPhone only being on AT&T anyways...
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
I'd say that portability (and, by extension, longevity) is very important, especially considering that eBooks are often not cheap. Currently ePub is a decent bet - it's supported by most readers (iPad, nook, Sony's range, etc.) and is a fairly simple open format, so even if it's not directly supported in future devices it will be easy to convert without loss of formatting and so forth. The one notable exception here is the Kindle, which requires books to be converted into its own format before reading.
The real problem, though is that if it's DRM'ed it's not portable, and can't be converted to another format. There are very few DRM free options out there, and none that do exist have the range that the major sellers do. Currently Apple forces sellers to use DRM, whether the author and publisher want to or not - I'm not sure how strong the DRM on Apple purchases is, but even so I'd recommend against supporting that behaviour by purchasing from them.
Which is what Apple wants, because then it's cornered the eBook market on it's platform killing off all competition on it's platform.
This is probably one of the worst examples of anti-competitive behaviour on Apple's behalf to date.
Isn't this more like the opposite of that?
Apple is squeezing itself in as yet another middleman in this instance
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.
How can even 5-10% be justified - any non-zero amount? I paid for my iPad, I paid for my kindle books - how can it be justified at all that I have to pay Apple to use a device I already own to look at content that I already own??? You said it yourself - they do no work, they add no value - they should get $0.00.
Apple is better than anyone at getting the most revenue out of a product or service while impacting users the least.
In comparison to what? I'd like to see a metric for how you qualify "impacting users the least."
I misguidedly adopted iTunes many years ago and continue to be bitten in the ass over it again and again. How many times have you had to migrate your iTunes library to a new machine and then get it all working with your iPhone without losing any apps or media? How much of your media collection is embargoed because of Apple DRM? How much of your media metadata do you need to reapply after a fresh migration? I've had a new machine migration take 6 hours for all of my files and apps and then 10 hours of re-doing media tasks that iTunes screwed up. These are just a few of the well-known issues that pop up for any users of popular Apple devices and/or software
I agree that they're great at squeezing revenue from every possible source but claiming they do this while "impacting their users the least" makes no sense. Do you even use their products because you sound like you don't or are in denial of the realities of being a regular Apple customer.
PS - I'm also involved in a corporate relationship with them and the mealy-mouthed BS from their corporate staff about their non-existent "enterprise" services is even worse than consumer sales and support.
I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
And S/PDIF (what do you think "S" means?). And FDD (what is to greatest extent the FDD, at least), DAT, DV, HDV. What you probably didn't realize. And I'm probably missing some, too.
;) ) software - finding great use by indy artists ... hm, a "competition" for Sony Pictures?)
(is it so hard to google CCD or DAP? But I'll add: apart from tons of imaging sensors - also fabulous and affordable NLE (yeah, I'm bad
Heck, you didn't know anything about the character of their e-book stuff...
One that hath name thou can not otter
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
I like Apple, but these kinds of capitalist 'let's invent more ways to take money' motives really rile me.
There. Fixed that for you.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
So the middleman gets squeezed out ...
Please explain how Author --> Publisher --> Apple --> Amazon --> Reader removed the middleman from what was Amazon's current models of either:
Author --> Publisher --> Amazon --> Reader
or
Author --> Amazon --> Author's mom.
and people save money
How exactly are book sales going to kick an additional percentage to Apple and be cheaper? Do you honestly believe that if Barnes and Noble and Amazon were not alternative shops for eBooks that Apple would have lower eBook prices, when it was Apple that allowed publishers to force Amazon and BN to raise their ebook prices several months back?
Respect the Constitution
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."
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.
Amazon does not include a "buy" option in the app itself--it just forwards the user to Amazon's web site in Safari. This is perhaps not elegant, but it is not a problem. But one reading of Apple's requirements is that any app that offers "outside the app" purchases must also offer "in app" purchases, presumably giving a 30% cut to Apple. Assuming that Apple did not permit Amazon to just tack on 30% to the in-app price (which would basically cause users to do what they do now--use Safari), this would almost certainly be a problem for Amazon.
It's possible that Apple might keep the restriction in place by provide case-by-case exemptions for booksellers (perhaps excluding subscriptions). Losing access to e-booksellers like Amazon and B&N would certainly weaken Apple's competitive position vs. droid.
They are enforcing the original rules, which is that if you make an app that has a notion of in-app purchasing
Kindle App doesn't have in-app purchasing. It has a button for "Kindle Store", but that just opens the browser directing you to the appropriate section of their website, and all books are then purchased there. The trick is that once a book is purchased in the store, it is pushed to Kindle devices that you own - including the Kindle App. It looks like Apple is not happy about this.
Well, I don't see why Amazon should give Apple a cut in the above model, and if they ditch the app, I'm pretty sure I won't be buying iPad 2 (iBooks is meh).
I think it's just a few of us regular posters on Slashdot and the various Linux forums who think this way. I have met less than five people who care about openness at all in real life. Most people either don't care about openness or are totally openness-agnostic.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Pardon? Go back and read the article; Apple is requiring that, if an app developer sells e-books outside the app, they must also sell the e-books inside the app, and all such in-app sales must go through Apple, which will graciously only charge 30% of the sale price for the privilege of being forced to sell through them.
Yes, you are apparently missing something obvious.
If Amazon were forced to sell their content through the app store, with Apple taking a 30% cut of each purchase, they (Amazon) could not profit, or even break even, on those sales, unless they significantly raise their prices when selling through the app store.
But! Apple also prohibits app store sellers from charging a higher price in the app store than they charge when selling the same content through other channels.
In the end there are only a few ways this can end.
1) Amazon will not comply with the requirement to sell its content through the app store, as it would be nothing but red ink on their balance statement. Therefore the Kindle app will be removed from the app store, or at least never updated again. (Which in all likelihood means it stops working with some future iOS update).
2) In order to comply with Apple's requirements, Amazon has to raise eBook prices across the board. This affects anyone who buys Kindle content on any platform.
3) Apple backs down.
In the above comment, Barnes&Noble / Nook can be substituted for Amazon / Kindle.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
commodore64love has blacklisted google, so for her/him it must be hard to google CCD or DAP. Probably uses Bing . . . nope, MS is blacklisted. So that leaves yahoo . . . is it hard to yahoo stuff?
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.
The Kindle app that you use to purchase and view the content is free but it's advertised through the iTunes App Store, hosted on the servers, and delivered using the bandwidth. It costs Apple real money to provide a free service to Amazon and now Apple is looking to get some of that money back.
What kind of logic is this? Apple forces all apps to go through their app store exclusively. Implying that the Kindle app is kindly hosted there by the good graces of Apple is sophistry at its best. Then from there, to say that Apple deserves a 30% cut for something they're forcing app publishers to do is just plain... twisted.
Your reasoning is redolent of Stockholm syndrome.
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.
He's flaming, you're inaccurate, let's call the whole thing a wash.
Apple's neither the magical cheapness fairy who saved music, nor some sort of cartoon supervillain who's going to use iPads to take over the universe. What they are is a managed-hardware company with minor arms in software and PC sales. Unfortunately in many respects, they have an institutional habit of trying to use their hardware management to extend vendor lock-in, at the expense of business competition and personal freedom on those devices. In this case, they're trying to prevent superior eBook services from competing on their devices, at least without Apple getting an unearned cut of the proceedings.
TL;DR Version: Just because they made beneficial decisions in the music business (for selfish reasons, and mostly over ten years ago) doesn't mean that they aren't being anti-competitive right now.
Actually, Apple has explicitly refused to say whether Amazon is against the rules (they wouldn't apparently answer when asked if they'll be reviewing whether Amazon's app falls within them). It could be that they have no issue (or rather, would have trouble portraying it as a legitimate one) with Amazon's implementation - I'd say Sony tried to do in-app purchasing via their own store.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I'm a very large fan of Apple Products for the most part, but this is getting out of hand. It may have already been in the agreement, and the developers should have taken the time to read and agree to them before ever writing their first line of code BUT: These moves are chipping away at confidence in these otherwise wonderful Apple devices, Apple has too much to lose in this industry with all the competitors coming to market with more developer freedom.
The Apps MAKE the device, not the other way around, Apple.
If Apple loses the consumer's confidence that they'll be able to run what they want, they won't buy the devices. Without these devices there is no iTunes Music/App/Movie/Candy store raking in cash. With Apple exiting the Pro users/creative they no longer have a core market to fall back on when the trendiness of these devices wears off and the reality comes crashing down around them.
They didn't have much of a choice. Apple's T&Cs require that no product sold on their storefronts cost more than via any other medium, and they have a minimum $0.99 price point, and their prices are all $x.99. Amazon's sellers all had to ramp up their prices on the Amazon store just so that it would cost the same on the iBooks store and not more.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
If by "creative accounting" you mean "how numbers work".
Really, this should be obvious to the average middle-schooler.
Let's say that I buy books from a publisher for $7 and sell them for $10. I would make $3 each time I sold a book. $3 is 30% of $10.
Now, let's say that I want to sell my books at your store. You allow me to sell them if I give you 30% of each sale.
If I sold my books for $10 at your store, you would get $3 (30%) and I would get $7. However, I need to give my $7 to the publishers. That means that you get $3 and I get $7 - $7 = $0 -- That's not a good deal for me.
I want to make $3, so I must raise my prices. How much do I need to raise prices so that I still get $3 after I pay the publisher and you take your 30%?
I can use the formula I gave you earlier: NewPrice = OldPrice * (100/(100-AppleTax))
10 * (100/(100-30)) = 14.2857 (Let's just call that $14.29 )
So, when I sell my book at your store for 14.29, you get 30% ($4.29) and I get $10 of which $7 goes to the publisher. That means I get to keep $10 - $7 = $3 dollars (the amount I was earning before)
That means I need to raise my prices by 43% to keep my profits the same.
To give you 30% means that my customers must pay 43% more than before!
See how easy that is? It's neither tricky or "disingenuous" -- it's perfectly correct and obvious to all but the most numerically illiterate.
This is all moot anyhow, as Amazon was forced on to the agency model -- publishers set the price and give Amazon a 30% cut. (Amazon couldn't raise prices if it wanted to.) To give Apple 30% means that Amazon gets nothing, as explained to you above.
Required reading for internet skeptics