I can make no possible reading of the App Store guidelines that results in this policy - it's clearly new. I guess if Google can't make the Android App Store attractive to developers, Apple sure can. Surely, this cannot be "official" policy, or if it is, it can't be one that lasts more than a couple of weeks. It's not one of those geek-annoying App restrictions that 99% of the iOS target market wouldn't care about even if they knew it - this one affects every end user, and you can bet will be widely publicised by every non-Apple tablet maker.
Realistically, three things can happen to people with App under this policy. Take, e.g., Kindle.
1) They withdraw the Kindle application
2) The add In-App purchasing
3) The add In-App purchasing, but with a 30% price hike
Frankly, 2 is very unlikely - 30% is probably their entire profit margin on the sale. 3 is possible, but makes every Android tablet look vastly better to new purchasers ("The same apps from iOS, but with content 30% cheaper!). 1 is also quite possible - they just EOL it and say "For future Amazon purchases, please grab a Kindle or Android tablet), thus showing a huge chunk of Apples target market a big banner for the competition.
I suppose there's another alternative: that this becomes one of the annoying "Not for big player" rules that they just have a sub-rosa agreement with B & N/Amazon to never enforce. That in itself is pretty underhand.
Overall, my favoured interpretation is this is a re-run of the "Nothing but Objective C Apps in the Store" debacle. Masses of bad press, a dent in developer confidence, and a rescinded policy within a month or two. Apple really are their own worst enemy with this stuff.
Or possibility number 4: Amazon removes any mention of purchasing books from the app. The way I read the statement from Apple, they are not saying that if developers offer purchasing outside the app, then they must offer in-app purchasing. They are saying that if an app offers purchasing options, those have to go through the in-app purchasing model. It's still pretty crappy, but basically, all Amazon would have to do is remove the "buy more books" button if my read of this is correct.
Good point - with a bit of re-parsing, I can see this ready. Still, it's a stupid decision:
"Dear Amazon, Sony, Spotify etc,
Please make your Applications less useful to our users. We're sure they'll still love our devices when your apps are crippled compared to the Android version!.
Thanks, Apple".
Unless there's back-door negotiations going on, they must know no big name will ever go for this (indeed, any size name at all that sells content and can process payments for less than 30% of the price). I'm a pretty strong Apple defender (see my comment history!), but this is just user hostile, through and through - in any reading.
I'm not sure that's right. Even if Kindle App has no purchasing option but accesses content bought on Amazon.com, it should still allow Apple's in-app purchase. Which essentially means, Kindle app is useless. See the excerpt below.
>> If an app lets users access content that they purchased via Amazon's website, for example, then that same app must also let users buy the same book via Apple's own in-app purchase system. If the app developer doesn't want to use Apple's in-app purchases to sell content, then the app can't access content purchased elsewhere either.
In the extreme this would seem to impact just about any app accesses a paid service and loads content from it at run time. Eg. I know a number of apps that host the browser to avoid having to go through the Apple review process for content updates (or even for minor UI updates). If it can be interpreted as "content" and there is money involved at any point in accessing it then you could fall foul of this.
I guess Apple will play the usual game of letting 99% of people get away with this and just use it strategically for anti-competitive purposes against particular companies.
That is Ars' interpretation of Apple's position. The actual quote from Apple was (emphasis is mine):
"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 with in-app purchase."
Doesn't any app that allows you to query an arbitrary URL or web search technically provide customers the ability to purchase books through e.g. Amazon? This way lies madness.
I doubt it. There would still be a non-Apple way to buy books (e.g., through amazon.com).
I hope there is some fair trade law under which Apple can be prosecuted or sued. Apple is, after all, in the book business itself. How does one see this any other way than stifling competition?
I'm guessing the issue is when an app initiates the 'purchasing process' for a specific product, and then transports the user to Safari where whatever payment mechanism the vendor has set up completes the transaction. (And then gives a file to download which will open the original app again.)
Therefore Kindle would be safe, because you cannot search for books inside Kindle, it just has a link to the Amazon website.
That would make a little bit more sense to me, because I can see Apple's objection to 3rd party vendors circumventing the Apple-controlled purchase system when people shop via an iApp. For instance, some users might not even understand that the app has switched them to Safari, where none of the content is approved by Apple in any way. People go from feeling safe about using the AppStore/AppEcosystem, spending money etc., to worrying whether they'll be victims of fraud when ever they make an 'in-App' purchase.
It could just be that Apple wants a piece of the pie, but anything that makes iPad less attractive than Android will hurt its bottom line at the same time.
Think about this from Apple point of view, the Kindle app is free, uses Apple infrastructure, and Apple get nothing out of it, besides the increased usefulness of their devices (which isn't tiny).
I can understand them wanting to get something for this. I am not saying that this is what they believe, because I still think it is crazy.
"Think about this from Microsoft's point of view, the [foobar] app is free, uses Microsoft's infrastructure, and Microsoft get nothing out of it, besides the increased usefulness of their devices (which isn't tiny)."
Yeah, that's right. Even fucking Microsoft is more level-headed and market friendly than Apple.
Apple got the $800 worth of hardware sale + ongoing monthly lock-in to ATT contract. 'nothing', hah. Apple makes a TON off it's users, without having to do anything once the phone is sold.
How about option 3') add in-app purchasing with a price hike but have a bit of text suggesting the users not purchase that way but instead use their Kindles or amazon.com to get a discount!
"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 with in-app purchase."
What ars interprets that to mean (emphasis mine):
"If an app lets users access content that they purchased via Amazon's website, for example, then that same app must also let users buy the same book via Apple's own in-app purchase system"
That's not at all what Apple said. Apple said if the app lets you buy books outside of the app, i.e. you click the buy button inside the app and are then sent to the webpage to purchase the book, then the app must also let you purchase the book without leaving the app by using in-app purchases. Apple says nothing about not letting users access content they paid for from other sources.
There's a slippery slope / definition problem here. This is essentially trying to disallow certain kinds of links from applications to the web: links that lead to a purchase decision, where the thing purchased is related to the app.
Couldn't this argument also be used against all sorts of advertising and up-sell / cross-sell in apps? No matter what way I look at it, it looks like a huge land grab attempt by Apple.
Gramatically you might be correct, but effectually ars is correct.
You will not be allowed to access the content if Kindle does not allow you to buy books through IAP. That is exactly what ars is trying to communicate.
Explain how? Where is Apple saying you can't access content not purchased through them? All I see if Apple saying if the apps sends users someplace else to purchase, then the app should also allow them to purchase from inside the app. There is nothing about what content can and can't be accessed.
"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 with in-app purchase."
The only way you can get access to premium content on the Kindle is through PURCHASING. Apple is implying that you can only access content that has the capacity to be purchased in iOS.
This does not mean the content has to be purchased through Apple's in-app payments. It only means that it has to be purchaseable.
That is, if an app can consume premium content, that content must be purchaseable through the app. Any individual piece of the content can be purchased through the app, or elsewhere.
Apple said if the app lets you buy books outside of the app, i.e. you click the buy button inside the app and are then sent to the webpage to purchase the book, then the app must also let you purchase the book without leaving the app by using in-app purchases.
Okay. But they also said you cannot buy books inside the app unless Apple gets a cut:
It appears as if Sony's app tried to offer a built-in bookstore as well as the ability to download books purchased on other devices, but that idea was shot down when Apple reportedly told Sony that all in-app purchases must go through Apple.
So that basically means if the Kindle app wants to let you buy books from Amazon it can only go through the Amazon website and it has to allow you to purchase books from Apple. How does that make any sense?
"So that basically means if the Kindle app wants to let you buy books from Amazon, it has to go through the Amazon website and it has to allow you to purchase books from Apple? How does that make any sense?"
It doesn't at all and I totally agree with you on that. I was just making it clear what Apple actually said because everyone seems to be latched onto the "Apple won't let you access your own content if you didn't buy it from them" fallacy.
Obviously Apple wants in on the purchasing action, and by forcing both actions to be available (staying in-app to purchase or being sent to a web browser) they are hoping at least some people find in-app purchasing easier/smoother and use it instead.
"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 with in-app purchase."
That is exactly the way the Kindle app on the iPhone works. When you click "Get Books" within the app you are redirected to Amazon's website on Mobile Safari where you can purchase the book then return to your app.
With that in mind I don't see how what you are suggesting is any different than what Ars is saying.
The kindle app wasn't denied, the Sony app was no one knows exactly how it offered the purchase of ebooks. It could have let the user search for books from within the app and only redirected to the web store for checkout. In that case it definitely "offers the ability to purchase books outside the app" as Apple states.
I think we were all afraid of some move like this. Nobody cares about Sony's ebooks. Everybody (me included) cares about Kindle.
I can sort of understand where Apple is coming from in this. They provide an ecosystem and apps live within their ecosystem.
That being said, I can't see Amazon or any other big player rolling over on a margin of 30%. This is the problem with one fixed margin: it works well for apps and music but not necessarily for other things.
You see the same problem with the Mac App Store: smaller devs love it. Will you see Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop on it? I doubt it. 30% is just too much for those big players to hand over.
I consider Kindle to be a key part of my iPad experience and I can say if the end result of this is that I can't read my Kindle books on my iPad I will be pissed. I bought them specifically because I could.
Ultimately though I think Apple needs to give up control here. They should provide a payment infrastructure and if it's comeplling, people will use it. If it's not, they won't. But don't make me a casualty of war in the names of the the consistency of your 30% cut.
30% can be the entire profit margin for electronic content. The apps themselves are free and the provider has to pay a significant chunk back to the content owner (author, label, studio or publisher), leaving a much smaller margin for the retailer. 30% to Apple simply makes iOS unprofitable.
This also extends to subscription services. Do you expect Netflix or Hulu to hand over 30% of subscription revenue? I don't think so.
I am very happy with my Nook and the no-DRM policies adopted by O'Reilly, Manning Pragmatic and probably others. I am also delighted with the amount of interesting material freely available on Feedbooks (in Kindle-friendly format too)
I too am not happy about losing the ability to read Kindle books on my iPad. But does Amazon allow Apple (and Google and Sony) to sell their ebooks on Kindle? This is shaping up to be a battle of walled gardens. While the gardens battle, Google Books and Android are looking a lot more attractive.
This isn't something Amazon (or another big player) can do, they simply don't have a large enough profit margin to support giving apple 30% of the full purchase price.
This will end up being nothing more than another straw on the camel's back. When (if?) a true competitor comes out, it seems that the best marketing for the new device will be done by Apple themselves.
When debating the openness of platforms, an example oft mentioned is consoles: Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony each own their respective console market, taking a tithe from every transaction occurring on the device. Such an example has frequently been used to justify various of Apple's actions.
I don't buy it, though.
My xbox is just a toy, in essence. It's an entertainment device that I could discard with little loss. A general computing device, which is what I think both smartphones and tablets are, however, are not game consoles. They are not merely entertaining frills. This sort of "landholder" gatekeeper model cannot and will not fly.
Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony each own their respective
console market, taking a tithe from every transaction occurring
on the device
That's why I never owned a console and played games on my computer: consoles and the provided game titles are way too expensive for the value provided, not to mention "features" like multiplayer over the network have been in PC games like Doom since the early '90 or even earlier.
The right comparison should really be versus Microsoft and Windows.
As much as I hated Microsoft's iron hand over the years, seeing Apple in action makes Microsoft look like saints interested in interoperability, openness and innovation for the greater good; the fuck? :-)
How long till I have to pay Apple 30% for ordering a pizza using an iPhone? How long till I have 30% premium to pay for shopping online using a mac computer?
Don't worry, they'll just put a new clause in the agreement that says you can't charge more to iOS users than non-iOS users. Stores won't raise their prices 30% for all users or they'll go out of business. So they'll either give Apple their 30% or not sell through iOS devices at all. Not necessarily an easy choice, especially if you're already established with millions of iOS users.
That 30% will not come out of your pocket; it will come out of the provider's pocket. Apple will see to that, don't worry.
Apple will amend that agreement as many times as they need to in order to maximize the benefit to them. Let's not kid ourselves and think the benefit is for their users. I think we're all wise to that one by now.
This is like saying that FICA is only a 5.65% tax because that's the amount of withholding people see on their paychecks. It neglects that the cost of employing a person also includes another hidden 7.65% that would otherwise go straight to the employee.
What's likely is that either the users will pay and know that they are paying extra, or the users will pay and not know that they are paying extra. The second case already happens with credit card processing fees, and the costs incurred by credit card users are usually spread across all users.
Of course, the providers could decide to just make less profit from now on, but that seems fairly unlikely to me.
It's not just you, but it is far more reminiscent of being every bit as greedy as console manufacturers demanding licensing fees from cartridge manufacturers (or whatever we call sharecroppers).
Remember that if a developer makes an app and sells it for money, Apple gets 30% of their revenue, period, full stop. That's the App Store deal, if you don't like it, you don't develop an iOS app.
So what happens when a developer builds an app that does almost nothing. He givs it away for free. But to use the app, you go to the developer's site, pay money, and download a level or something, like my maze app example above. Presto! The developer has just done an end run around the App Store, and Apple doesn't like that.
It's a hypothetical problem that doesn't really exist in real-life. Separating people from their money is hard, quadruply so when you expect them to sign up for a new payments account.
This is also why PayPal is the de facto payments platform on the internet - consumers are wary of signing up for ever more payment options. You need to be well established to have enough customer confidence to pull it off - and even then, you're probably taking a large hit in conversion rate.
So sure, you can ship your app for free and try to make an end run around Apple - but it won't work. Even if you're a big, trusted name like EA the number of customers you lose forcing people through yet another payments process is likely not worth the extra sales you get from just giving Apple their cut.
The difference here is if the customer already has a payments solution set up - e.g., Amazon, eBay, etc. In this case the friction is minimal, and you'd want to keep your 30% margin. I don't see a problem with allowing this.
It depends on your margins. If your margins are 100% then yeah, the resulting drop in conversions will likely overshadow the 30% savings. However, if your profit margin is 31% due to the royalties you have to pay for the content, you're looking at 30x boost in profits. And if your margins are 29% you are looking at a difference between profit and loss.
I'm fairly sure ebooks fall into this latter category, hence the kerfuffle.
So what happens when a developer builds an app that does almost nothing. He givs it away for free. But to use the app, you go to the developer's site, pay money, and download a level or something, like my maze app example above. Presto! The developer has just done an end run around the App Store, and Apple doesn't like that.
The problem I have with this is that it is exactly what Apple said they were supporting when they launched the iphone:
Now they are positioning themselves to cut off this mode of delivery to the iphone. I understand that this isn't what has happened yet, but it's a troubling step.
I'm hoping there's more to this than meets the eye right now. Sadly, I suspect we won't know until Thursday.
I can think of a couple of scenarios that might fit what we know so far:
1) Apple might simply declare that they want 30% of all in-app purchases. Amazon will likely freak out. This, to me, would seem to be a seriously dangerous move on Apple's part.
2) Apple may drop the 30% cut entirely on in-app purchases. That'd be pretty disruptive but aside from adding a technical hoop to jump through for content providers to link content with Apple's in-app purchasing system, I don't think they would be quite so upset about it since they wouldn't really be losing money on each transaction. Of course this is still pretty harsh on Apple's part, IMO, but it's better than #1.
3) Apple simply requires developers to link purchased digital content with an Apple ID via the in-app purchasing system, but not necessarily requiring that Apple be used for the actual money transfer itself. The purpose of this would likely be to ensure that purchased digital goods are always linked to an Apple ID - even if they were purchased externally. If that's the case, then this is much less of a big deal, IMO, and a huge win for users. For instance, if you restored your device, you could be assured that all your digital content you bought via the Kindle app itself would be restored with a single tap - no need to login to Amazon again or anything like that. Thus Apple can help better ensure that the user will actually get their content back when the device restores which is required of all other in-app purchased content using the in-app purchase API.
Apple may drop the 30% cut entirely on in-app purchases
I think it'd be great if they had some sliding scale for different types of purchases. 30% for virtual goods, 15% for digital media, %7 for physical goods... that kind of thing.
The purpose of this would likely be to ensure that purchased digital goods are always linked to an Apple ID - even if they were purchased externally.
>>Are you effing Idiot! What about User privacy?? Why should the user tell Apple about all ebooks he is purchasing??
For instance, if you restored your device, you could be assured that all your digital content you bought via the Kindle app itself would be restored with a single tap
>> Another idiotic comment, Apple does not stores the "content" how the hell it can restore it??? Only the true provider in this case Amazon can restore it.
It's idiots like you and two people who upvoted you, who are ruining HN.
If the issue is that Apple wants 30% of all eBook sales for anything that can be viewed on the platform, that's really scummy and an abuse of standards.
If instead, they just want to make sure that if you can buy it on a Kindle/whatever and read it on the iPhone that you can also BUY it from the iPhone in the first place, not such a big deal.
My understanding is that it is in fact Apple wanting their 30% (since kinle app already allows people to purchase books from the iPad through safari). I don't think it's a big deal as long as the additional cost is not spread to all kindle content purchasers. iPad users get the ease of use by being able to do in app purchase vs safari, it's only fair the pay the additional costs.
If you ignore the fact that in some cases amazon's cut is 30% of the total sale to begin with (all books priced from 2.99 to 9.99). So in all those cases no amazon would not find the ease of use worth it.
I think you may be right. But that would be unfortunate, as I don't think the FTC should meddle in Apple's business. I think Apple's management should have the right to set any policy it considers relevant - after all, this is their platform. So, I hope the FTC takes no action.
Thanks for bringing up this good point. Let me explain. I think a government agency should not intervene if there is no law violation. I think this case is very clear - Apple is neither physically compelling nor defrauding anyone. It is offering terms of contract - contract between firms engaging in voluntary trade - and its counterparties are free to accept these terms or to walk away. However, if the FTC is not sure about this and needs to investigate to ascertain legality, I would say that the law they would be referring to is not a very objective one. I think that an essential characteristic of a good law is that its definition allows a person to understand, before he/she takes an action, whether that action is forbidden or not, and what the exact consequences would be if the action is actually forbidden. Clearly, Apple's management is sophisticated enough to understand an objective law.
About the role of the FTC: My understanding is that the FTC, together with the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, tries to ensure that companies comply with antitrust laws. Even though this is a different discussion, based on my knowledge of this field, I think that antitrust laws, generally, lack in objectivity. I disagree with many of them. This, however, does not mean that a company should break them. I would certainly not agree with such an action. A serious problem for companies is, however, that even with their hordes of sophisticated lawyers, it is very difficult for them to determine what constitutes a violation. As proof, consider the lengthy battles Microsoft has had with the European Commission. After years of fines and appeals, neither side fully understands the problem and neither side can define the actions that would guarantee compliance with the law in the future.
This opens up a huge can of worms and will push any company who has a subscription service out of the App Store. How does this work with freemium, for instance? And what if the app is not from the company but from a third-party that uses an API?
We looked at using In App purchase for a large collection of add-ons. Even if Amazon, Sony and B&N wanted to offer in app purchase as well as through their stores, Apple's system is a pain in the neck to do that. Their support structure just isn't designed for a large array of product options.
[From other thread] I'm having a tough time believing the spokesperson got it right, because of the Rhapsody, Netflix, and Audible apps. Never mind every PDF viewer.
It just seems like a really, really bad idea that will bring government intervention. The Kindle app kicks over to Safari for purchases, but I really can't imagine them requiring Amazon to add an in app purchase through Apple. I can't imagine the circumstances that would make that acceptable.
I love apple and I love apple products. I currently use nothing but apple hardware. If they prevent me from using the kindle app as I do now then I'll get an android phone and tablet. It's really that simple.
I'd like to say "Apple, you're already bringing in record revenue quarters, why are you doing this?" But I think the answer would be "because we can," Apple is creating a monopolistic market place for media (look at the battle of record labels providing DRM to Apple and non-DRM to Amazon to lessen-Apple's grip over their digital content) and applications. I think requiring a big player like Sony or Amazon to comply with new policies, will not go over well. I can't see Sony telling Apple "forget it," since I don't know anyone with a Sony eReader... but I could see Amazon and the Kindle, rightly, starting an issue over this. Apple has done a great job of making user friendly (see: locked down) platforms which work well, but the DRM battle and now this could turn public opinion against them.
Apple is just trying to create a new revenue stream early on as iPad sales increase and the tablet market heats up; smart move. It'll take a big ereader player like Amazon to battle them, and if ereader content creates a price hike war due to Apple's insistence on 30% cuts, then negative public sentiment towards pricing or not having access to ebook material that has already been purchased on one platform will hopefully create a retraction in Apple's policy. But then again, the airlines never got rid the baggage fee, and even with negative sentiment we all still pay them.
This doesn't seem ridiculous to me as a user. I read this as saying is that if an app plays content I can purchase elsewhere, then Apple wants to be able to also sell the content in the app.
If I have it correct, I as a developer can make a maze application and sell mazes on my own web site, but I must also give users the option of buying them in the app and fork over 30% to Apple. If I do this, it's up to me to convince users that the experience of buying mazes on my web site is superior to the experience of buying them right in the app.
As long as Apple doesn't prohibit applications from "playing" content purchased elsewhere, as a user I have no problem with this, because it gives me another choice for purchasing new content that offers a smooth and easy purchasing experience.
Amazon, et. al. probably hate the idea, but that comes down to two lords arguing over which one gets to exploit the serfs.
"Apple also allegedly told Sony that the app couldn't access content purchased on other Sony Reader devices, which is where most of the outrage was focused" - I think this is a big problem. If I have bought the book from amazon I should be able to read it everywhere isn't it?
"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 with in-app purchase."
It's talking about purchasing from inside the app, not access content that you purchased somewhere else.
Not quite. Another way of describing this; if the content is available for sale outside of the app .. it can't be accessed within the app, unless it's also available for sale via Apple's store.
"...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.."
It says if the app lets you purchase books from somewhere that is not the app, the app should also let users purchase through the app. Apple said nothing about "content...can't be accessed within the app, unless it's also available for sale via Apples store." There was nothing said about what content can and can't be accessed.
1) All possible electronic commerce is likely to utilise web-based technologies.
2) In Amazon's case, they used a mobile website to allow sale of their e-books.
3) If Apple is going to state that directing the user to a mobile website to purchase a book, constitutes an 'in-app purchase' - where is the line drawn?
4) Will app developers be able to advertise any alternative methods of purchase, within their apps, without also allowing purchase via the Appstore?
My guess is, no; they'll simply deny the app in question access to the marketplace - which will prevent users from viewing any externally bought content, that can't also be bought via the Appstore.
In-effect Apple are holding these developers over a barrel.
AFAIK Amazon uses kind of a loophole by directing the user to their site in Safari to buy Kindle books (that's how it was explained to me, i don't own an iPad or used the app). I don't see what's not ridiculous about Apple's desire to receive 30% of that money. And I as a (potential) user don't appreciate it as I'll end up paying for Apple's cut.
This makes sense to me as a general policy. Without this policy, every developer could simply bypass giving Apple a cut of their revenue by offering their app through the app store for free and then charging users through an external payment system to use the application's functionality.
Obviously Apple wouldn't approve such an app, meaning they should have some explicit policy against using external payment systems for any application functionality, such as the ability to read a particular book on the Kindle app.
If you disagree with Apple taking a cut of app developer profits at all, that's another discussion entirely, but assuming that it's okay for Apple to take a cut of developers' profits, I think this policy is reasonable, if not necessary, new or not.
IMNAL nor familiar with American Antitrust laws, but wouldn't Apple actions fall under laws against Coercive Monopolies?
Apple are potentially forcing Amazon to price purchases through its iOS application at a higher price to make up on lost margins on sales due to Apples surcharge. Someone is going to pay for that: either Amazon will eat the cost or the consumer will.
What they are effectively creating is a barrier to entry for Amazon conducting business on their platform all the while Apple have a competing offering that is unencumbered by the surcharge.
Now if Apple didn't have there own competing business to Amazons ebook business I wouldn't be as concerned since there is no competitive stake hold in the surcharge. IMO, this issue has Antitrust written all over it.
I prefer to see apple.com as the source of any posts titled "Apple Responds". Otherwise it's just accusations, hyperbole, and speculation combined with bad "journalism", with a heavy emphasis on the quotes around journalism.
Developers should simply add a 42% "Apple shipping and handling" tax to all in-app purchases, to let end-users know what is going on. That is the only way to attack Apple: to get the end users on your side.
I think it will be interesting to see how this dispute will end. In any case the user will loose, take Amazon for example, I see two possibilities:
1. Amazon will leave App Store. We loose because we can not use our iPads and iPhones to access Kindle books.
2. Amazon will comply with the Apple demand and they will cut 30% for Apple ... hmmm ... Basically they will be forced to rise the price of their books to allow for some profit. We loose.
It sounds like Apple wants apps to stop cheating by redirecting to a browser. Personally I do find this annoying about the Kindle App. I would prefer to do my purchasing inside the app.
In my opinion the solution is for apple to not charge the app sale percentage (30%) on in-app sales. An app sale charge is a one time thing, you could have an infinite amount of in-game sales, why would each transaction cost the same as the initial one?
This is probably one of the reasons I stayed away from iOS. Too much policing. It is absolutely ridiculous to force Amazon, Sony to offer purchases through the app store and give 30% of their cut to Apple. I hope Amazon and Sony takes off their apps or charge an additional 30% if the purchase is done from the respective iOS apps.
I have yet to read anything saying the ability to make in-app purchases via the app store must receive equal billing to the ability to make out-of-app purchases. If this is true, then Amazon, for example, could keep their current UI and bury the option to buy through Apple deep within the app where you won't easily find it.
If this article is accurate, this is the problem with "integrated" systems. I love my iPhone and iPad, but if this continues I'll be switching to Android.
This is also a taste of problems to come if the rumors of iPhone 5 NFC payments are true.
I would just hike my price to offset the 30% cut exclusively for iOS and be done with it. Or if that's too obnoxious, provide a "limited-time 30% discount" on my own site off the "list price".
i still don't get why people allow legal system where producer of the hammer you bought has legal power to limit your applications of the hammer only to a approved set of nails
jfm3 has responded to the furor over changes in his imaginary App Store and its policies that many believe could affect the popular Kindle, Nook, and Sony Reader apps. The man claims he has not changed any of its guidelines given to developers in his imagination, but he indirectly confirms that accessing content purchased elsewhere could be a no-no if that content isn't also available to be purchased through jfm3's own system.
"I do not actually run an App Store," said jfm3, "but if I did, and I managed to make all you bitches have to use it all the time, I'd totally want a piece of every single drop of hint of money that could possibly pass through there."
"I can't believe you're paying for that crap," he added, in between sips of his excellent tea. "What the hell kind of hackers are you?"
So, I can purchase books thru Safari but not thru the Amazon Kindle App? How does this make sense?
Seems like a workaround might be to link to the Amazon mobile site from the Kindle App. But maybe that is too close to "selling" content thru the Kindle App.
The evil empire is dictating its power over developers. Will this lead to Apple killing our innovation and creativity? It's time for us developers to revolt and move to an open source platform!
I don't want to seem like I'm overreacting or hating on Apple or anything like that, but this seems to be in a whole new realm of greedy/controlling for Apple. Or is it really reasonable to force apps to use your payment platform?
edit: It seems in other threads on the front page that this is likely Sony blowing things out of proportion. Most of the "news" is all speculation and discussion. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what policies or actions Apple actually takes.
The only thing unreasonable is that lack of consistency. A 3rd party enters the app market under certain rules, some quite core to their business model. Then Apple changes those rules.
Apple of course is smart enough to reserve the right to make such changes, but apparently not smart enough to not exercise it in idiotic fashion. These actions concern me personally as the line between mobile embedded systems and computers running a traditional OS become blurred, primarily as a software developer.
The consistent, simple user experience is the key to the platform. I think it's reasonable to require it. I know as a customer I don't want to be hassling with multiple payment accounts.
Presumably it is permissible for Sony to bump the price up on in app purchases to cover the 30% "shipping and handling" charge from Apple. I wonder if they can show it as "Apple™ brand Shipping and Handling" on the screen.
Even if it's your Amazon or eBay account that you already have?
This stinks of Apple trying to tip the playing field in their favor. Despite the flashy, polished app, it appears that Kindle is trouncing Apple on its own platform in the eBooks realm. This reeks of Apple trying to cut out the competition.
There's IMHO no need to enforce this sort of thing. If Nameless iPhone Game wants me to buy downloadable content and expects me to sign up for a payments account, they're not getting my money, period. For the majority of things being sold in-app, Apple's payments platform makes sense, and generates customers. For the ones where the systems makes no sense, there's usually good reason.
You're conflating two different questions — requiring the simple interface for payments, and imposing a fee on purchases. If the goal of this change is to create a consistent, simple user experience, Apple doesn't need to charge a 30% fee to do that. If Apple chooses to force a 30% fee on developers, that is a cash grab, plain and simple. The tax does not improve the UX.
I disagree. If a user buys a Kindle book* he is aware of the fact that it is bought from Amazon. Why would he want another party involved? Just for payment, along with an additional fee?
*) I'm aware that it's about the Sony app, but it might equally affect the Kindle app.
This reminds me of the "no intermediate code" snafu that was later repealed. Apple keeps testing the boundaries of what we will tolerate because it knows it can get away with it while the competition still lags behind.
This newest development sets a truly frightening precedent, though. Any subscription service that sees significant growth through their iOS app is vulnerable to Apple's tax collectors. As soon as it looks like you're making money, Apple can jump in and extort 30% of your gross revenue or sink your whole business. Granted, maybe you owe some thanks to Apple, but 30% can quickly turn a sustainable business into a bankrupt one.
Considering Amazon already loses money on each Kindle book sold, losing an extra 30% on top of that may not be a financially viable option. Apple is effectively trying to edge Amazon out of its marketplace.
> Apple keeps testing the boundaries of what we will tolerate because it knows it can get away with it while the competition still lags behind.
I'm not convinced the competition will lag forever. If Apple were not the market leader, would consumers or developers continue to give them the same leeway?
The point is the competition still lags, so Apple still has a free pass with users and developers. And if the competition suddenly caught up, Apple only needs pull back just enough to make us all forget.
Really, it's stunts like this that shows how much iOS leads the competition. Like electing a convicted murderer to public office because his competition is that incompetent. Android isn't forcing Apple to compete on its terms at all.
> Although Amazon does not disclose sales or profit data for its Kindle e-reader or content, many believe it derives more profit from digital books than from its Kindle devices and say that content is a better bet for its long-term growth.
My understanding is that Amazon was guaranteeing some publishers the same profit per sale that they would get from a hardback book in exchange for allowing Amazon to fix the price at $9.99. In some cases the profit was more than the $9.99 Amazon was charging so Amazon had to pony up $1 or $2 on each sale.
I think more recently Amazon has allowed publishers to use an alternative agency model that lets the publishers set their own prices and Amazon takes a fixed percentage cut of the sale. This doesn't cause Amazon to lose money, but now publishers can sell eBooks at nearly the same price as paper books which hurts the Kindle's attractiveness and slows adoption.
Regardless, this is an unworkable situation Apple has constructed. Amazon barely makes 30% of the sale price of each book if it even makes that much at all. It can hardly afford to give away its entire fee and then some to Apple.
This is either a strong arm attempt to get Amazon to agree to a strategic agreement for a fraction of the revenue or Apple is simply trying to destroy the Amazon Kindle app entirely. Either way Apple wins and Amazon loses. I suppose consumers can come out ahead if the strategic agreement allows in app purchasing of Kindle books for the same price, but it could also be bad if the iOS Kindle app disappears.
I wonder if Apple might use this as a way of phasing out BookShelf and making the Kindle app the standard reading software for the iPhone. If the Kindle app shipped on every new iPhone, that might be worth it to Amazon to give Apple a respectable cut of the action.
Realistically, three things can happen to people with App under this policy. Take, e.g., Kindle.
1) They withdraw the Kindle application 2) The add In-App purchasing 3) The add In-App purchasing, but with a 30% price hike
Frankly, 2 is very unlikely - 30% is probably their entire profit margin on the sale. 3 is possible, but makes every Android tablet look vastly better to new purchasers ("The same apps from iOS, but with content 30% cheaper!). 1 is also quite possible - they just EOL it and say "For future Amazon purchases, please grab a Kindle or Android tablet), thus showing a huge chunk of Apples target market a big banner for the competition.
I suppose there's another alternative: that this becomes one of the annoying "Not for big player" rules that they just have a sub-rosa agreement with B & N/Amazon to never enforce. That in itself is pretty underhand.
Overall, my favoured interpretation is this is a re-run of the "Nothing but Objective C Apps in the Store" debacle. Masses of bad press, a dent in developer confidence, and a rescinded policy within a month or two. Apple really are their own worst enemy with this stuff.