Slashdot Mirror
Amazon, Google Cave To Apple, Drop In-App Buttons
CWmike writes "Amazon bowed on Monday to Apple's newest App Store rules, and removed a link in its iPhone and iPad Kindle apps that took customers directly to its online store. The move was required to comply with new rules designed to block developers from evading the 30% cut that Apple takes from in-app purchases. In February, Apple CEO Steve Jobs laid down the law. 'Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30% share,' said Jobs in a statement released Feb. 15. 'When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.' Rhapsody updated its iPhone app last week to, among other things, remove the in-app subscribing link. Also on Monday, Google complied with Apple's new rules when it re-released Google Books — which had been yanked from the App Store — minus an in-app purchasing button."
I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
So, can Amazon just raise all Kindle prices by 30% when accessed by an iPad? Seems like the only fair thing to do. I'd be happy to get a 30% discount on my Android tablet.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Isn't this like Best Buy putting an escape tunnel in a Walmart that leads to a Best Buy store?
Uh, no. It's like Walmart demanding a 30% cut of anything that you buy online from Best-Buy using the computer you bought from Walmart.
No, you have to charge 43% extra to break even when Apple takes a 30% cut. For instance, if a book is 1.00 normally, you need to charge 1.43 because 1.43 * .3 = .429. This means the margin is so high it's not even close to competitive with Apple's own products.
If I understand it correctly though, Apple doesn't just want 30% off of your purchases made through something you downloaded in the app store: If you create an account through your app downloading in the app store, Apple wants to claim 30% of what that customer pays for, ever. Charging someone 30% more than the rest because he happened to sign up to your service originally though an Appstore app doesn't seem to make much sense from a retailer POV.
Where did you get this idea?
Oh, silly me. I should have known better to even question Apple's practices. Excuse me while I go and gouge my eyes out now.
Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?
You're right, IANAL, but I do have a brain and a sense of right and wrong and my "greedometer" gets pegged just about daily every time Apple makes a move.
I used to think IBM was a greedy corporation, then Microsoft came along and made them look like Ed McMurray. Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple. One big difference that worries me is that Microsoft seemed to care about the bad press they got and occasionally tried to smooth things over. Apple seem to just give the finger to anyone that complains about their business practices, and yet they manage to maintain a religious following, the likes of which I've never seen in 35 year in the business.
Those old Apple 1984 commercials could not be more ironic.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.
There is a fundamental confusion caused by the fact that Apple is providing the app store service for free to purchasers of the iPhone, who have paid a one-time fee (carrier subsidies are a different matter). Apple is asserting control over the service as if people were subscribing to it for a monthly fee.
Oh, wait, are their customers the consumers who purchase their products, or the developers who write software for their products? Or are they the media companies who sell music and movies on iTunes?
Apple wants all of them to be its customers--it wants to make money from all of them for everything that happens.
It's got to stop somewhere--and it ought to be at the first-sale doctrine. But the practical solution is to support Android instead. On the other hand, if Apple is allowed to get away with this forever, and they keep growing, it may become the accepted norm--or is it already?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Before agency, Amazon raped publishers. Apple reversed the numbers when they announced iBooks. Seems everyone forgets this fact. If you are an independent author, you are very happy Apple changed the e-book world.
Can't hear you. Can you please take Steve Job's dick out of your mouth first?
I'd hate for GM to not only tell me who was allowed to ride in my car but also that any burger joint I drove my GM product to had to give Apple a 30% cut of any orders I or my passengers made at their drive-in window.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"