Apple Responds to Uproar Over Sony, And Kindle, And Nook...

[Jeff Campbell]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/01/apple_denies_claim_that_sony_reader_kindle_in_danger_on_ios_app_store.html' target='_blank'>http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._app_store.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Apple issued a surprisingly timely response to a claim made by the New York Times that suggested the company might bar iOS apps that sell content outside of Apple's software market within iTunes."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1296665324.usr105634.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>It's been quite the story since yesterday, with Sony coming in late to the e-reader app game and getting shut down by Apple, while existing e-book apps such as Kindle and Nook are still allowed to go out of app for purchases. And it took less than a day for Apple to issue a response, and in fact it came out the same day as they tried to do damage control with the "end of the world" <a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Apple-Pushing-InApp-EBook-Purchase-Policy-Alienating-Sony-863069/?kc=rss&amp;utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+RSS/tech+(eWEEK+Technology+News)" target="_blank">story lines</a> that were cropping up. According to Apple, and also independent developers, the guidelines have not changed but they have changed how they are making developers comply with them. Apple wants apps to allow users to purchase in-app obviously since they get a 30% cut, so if they can purchase outside the app Apple wants the option for the same purchase to be available in-app. Seems reasonable since Apple is bringing the infrastructure for sales to the table, all they ask is the "option" for a piece of the pie. That being said, I do see why developers would be upset about it because, if the price were the same either way, why wouldn't I take the easy route and go in-app, thus cutting into the developers payment. While some would pay attention to this and make sure developers got their share by going outside the app, most people would go in-app due to convenience. What are your thoughts now that the dust has settled on this issue? Any predictions about what will happen to the existing apps such as the Kindle?</p>

[Brad Adrian]

The way I look at it, the fact that I can even use Kindle books on an iPad is a bonus that Apple did not have to include; in an earlier time, Apple would've kept their system 100% closed, forcing users to buy directly from them. So, if I were a developer, I'd probably see a glass half-full and try to appreciate that the iPad isn't more closed than it is.

I'm obviously not a developer, though, and I'm sure my view is fairly naive. So, I'd welcome the opportunity for a developer to (kindly and respectfully) help me understand your side of the fence.

[Jason Dunn]

Re-posting my comment from the other thread:

Apple is showing their true colours on this issue, and it's the ugly, greedy, controlling side of them. *This* is the company I feel very conflicted about supporting. :mad:

They're pissed that iBooks has such strong competition from Kindle - they want to control ebook distribution in the same way they control music and video content distribution, but they can't, because Kindle is such a massively superior platform, able to put ebooks on a huge variety of devices. Apple refuses to acknowledge that reading on a 1.5 pound, back-lit screen, $500+ device isn't the best way to consume ebooks...but rather than letting people choose what they want to view it on.

This is going to blow up in Apple's face, because their naked ambition and greed are exposed to the world on this issue.

[Sven Johannsen]

I buy my Kindle stuff on Amazon's web page. My wife buys her Nook stuff from her Nook. We will occaisionally read the content on the iPad, if it is convenient. No incentive to buy from there. It's a bonus, as Brad said. If it went away, no skin off my nose. Just one less thing Apple iPad has that Android tablets and Windows tablets do. We prefer to READ, on the dedicated READERS. They are lighter, smaller, visible in any lighting condition you could read a book (outside on the deck), and last more than a day of use. I think it will just be a financial call for the book companies. I suppose they need to decide whether the lack of an app on iPad is going to cost them more than the 30% hit on the sales from that source. Or they could just boost the price of in-app purchases, driving the savvy to the web to buy the product. Apple would probably kill it, but what if they just added a 30% convinience fee at checkout from the in-app purchase ;)

[Dyvim]

but what if they just added a 30% convinience fee at checkout from the in-app purchase ;)
Actually, they'd need to add a 43% convenience fee, so that after Apple's 30% cut of the higher amount, they'd be left with the original amount. So a $10 book would need to cost $14.29!

I really hope Kindle on iPad doesn't go away. I don't even own a Kindle (I do a lot of reading in the dark) but have done a lot of reading via Kindle on both my iPhone and iPad.

[Brad Adrian]

...They are lighter, smaller, visible in any lighting condition you could read a book (outside on the deck), and last more than a day of use...
Yep. I definitely didn't buy an iPad simply to read e-Books, but I'll use it for that because it's there. Even though the iPad's got a great form factor for lots of things, it is still a pretty heavy device to use for books.

[Deslock]

Re-posting my comment from the other thread:

Apple is showing their true colours on this issue, and it's the ugly, greedy, controlling side of them. *This* is the company I feel very conflicted about supporting. :mad:

They're pissed that iBooks has such strong competition from Kindle - they want to control ebook distribution in the same way they control music and video content distribution, but they can't, because Kindle is such a massively superior platform, able to put ebooks on a huge variety of devices. Apple refuses to acknowledge that reading on a 1.5 pound, back-lit screen, $500+ device isn't the best way to consume ebooks...but rather than letting people choose what they want to view it on.

This is going to blow up in Apple's face, because their naked ambition and greed are exposed to the world on this issue.

Wow, after reading Jason's rant, I was ready to throw my iPad in the garbage. Then I read the Wall Street Journal blogger's post about the situation:

You don’t have to buy books, or music, or other media that you consume on iOS apps from Apple. But developers must offer you the option to buy that stuff through Apple and its iTunes-backed system.

If that's true, then this seems like a non-issue.

(For the record, I buy Kindle books, not iBooks... and people can relax as there's no way Apple will pull Kindle support)

[Sven Johannsen]

... and people can relax as there's no way Apple will pull Kindle support)
They will if Amazon doesn't change to in app purchases at their next update. At least that is what the Sony denial implies. Would lose face if they denied Sony, and let Amazon and B&N slide. Then the question becomes, do they take a 30% hit on sales through Apple, which I'm sure they don't want, or charge 43% more which I'm sure Apple would block. Wonder what Apple would do if they just didn't have an in app purchase option at all in iOS readers. Likely could still use Safari to visit the sites if desired.

[Jason Dunn]

Wow, after reading Jason's rant, I was ready to throw my iPad in the garbage. Then I read the Wall Street Journal blogger's post about the situation

My apolgies if it made it sound like Apple was going to block Kindle books from their device. It was always about the cost; Apple wants a cut of the pie that they have no right to get. It's pure greed.

If that's true, then this seems like a non-issue. (For the record, I buy Kindle books, not iBooks... and people can relax as there's no way Apple will pull Kindle support)

Sure, you don't *have* to buy the Kindle books on the device, but do you really want to have to pay 42% more to get the book right then and there, or fire up a browser (or a Kindle) in order to buy the book, then download it to your device, then read it? There's something inherantly anti-consumer about that, and I think Apple is making a grave mistake.

Apple has, historically, blocked apps that duplicate built-in functions. Right now the iBooks app is something you download, right? What if in a future version of the OS it's built in. Apple could block any other eBook reader if they wanted. Do I think they'll do it? Probably not, but it's possible...

And what about other apps that offer some form of in-app purchase - Apple wants 30% of all of those as well. Freemium games that cost nothing to download but sell you add-ons...Apple wants to make 30% off every transaction, forever. That's just not cool.

[Jason Dunn]

Wonder what Apple would do if they just didn't have an in app purchase option at all in iOS readers. Likely could still use Safari to visit the sites if desired.

I personally think that's the best option for Amazon. Make it a reader, but not a purchasing tool. Irritating, yes, but Amazon can quite fairly point to Apple and say "They made us do this".

[The Yaz]

At this point, I've got books with Borders, Kindle, & Nook. I'd hate to see those reader apps for them while I'm waiting for my wife to get me an iPad in the near future (hint, hint).

Instead of charging a markup on purchases through iOS, the companies should offer coupons that can only be used on their websites, avoiding the transaction through the app. Instead of giving up 30% to Apple, they can offer 15% to the customer. Either way, you know the prices of the books are going to be increased regardless. The question is who is going to get the discount.

[Dyvim]

And what about other apps that offer some form of in-app purchase - Apple wants 30% of all of those as well. Freemium games that cost nothing to download but sell you add-ons...Apple wants to make 30% off every transaction, forever. That's just not cool.
I don't have a problem with this part of it. Apple gets a 30% cut of app sales. That's been the case since the store opened 2.5y ago and most people think the cut is quite reasonable in exchange for what they provide (payment tx, website hosting, downloads, unlimited updates, etc.), esp. compared to similar sites like MobiHand. If in-app purchases weren't subject to the same rate, then no developer would sell a $10 app (to get $7) when they could sell a free limited version with a $10 in-app purchase to enable full functionality (a model I actually prefer, e.g. latest Twitterific). So in-app purchases (at least those to "unlock" the app), kind of need to be subject to the same cut.

Content, though, is a different story since (a) it doesn't necessarily need to go at all through Apple's servers, and (b) shouldn't add significantly to Apple's costs. Not sure how that should be handled. A smaller payment transaction fee or a cut similar to iTune's lower music cut would be more palatable.

I was ok with the current solution, which is that readers can't sell anything within the app unless it's through Apple. Hence, Kindle just redirects you to their website in Mobile Safari. You can quickly buy a book there with 1-click ordering and it will even automatically relaunch Kindle and immediately download your purchase. Sure it would be easier to purchase the book directly from within the app, but it's not too tedious either. My beef is the bit about blocking apps such as these unless they also feature in-app purchase via Apple.

[DaleReeck]

Plus, let's not forget the authors. If Apple takes 30 perecent of the pie, who's cut does that come out of? Amazon's? The author's royalities? That's a legal battle right there. As someone mentioned earlier, they would have to up the price of the books to cover's Apple's cut and keep the cuts of the others the same.

[Sven Johannsen]

I personally think that's the best option for Amazon. Make it a reader, but not a purchasing tool. Irritating, yes, but Amazon can quite fairly point to Apple and say "They made us do this".
Actually with some of the things I'm reading now, that isn't an option. Wording seems to say if a subscription option is available, there WILL be one in-app that funnels money to Apple. Sounds like things like WSJ are being put on notice too. Still got the 'who sucks up the cost' question. I wonder how the structure would work. Would Amazon have to set up a special area that is only accessible from iDevices? Right now all the Kindle app browse/purchase button does is launch Safari in the Kindle section. Its no more than a URL behind a button. Creating the infrastructure to track and pay Apple may be more complex. This will be interesting to see how this plays out. Does seem like Apple is wanting money for doing virtually nothing. Apps and app enhancements, are at least hosted and managed by Apple servers. This stuff doesn't go near Apple until it shows up on your iPad.

[Jason Dunn]

Actually with some of the things I'm reading now, that isn't an option. Wording seems to say if a subscription option is available, there WILL be one in-app that funnels money to Apple.

I don't understand that. You're saying that Apple wouldn't allow a Kindle app in their store that would just be used for reading books? That because Amazon allows users to purchase books elsewhere, the app would have to have the same feature? I don't understand how Apple could force Amazon's hand like that. Even if Apple booted a pure read-only Kindle app out of the app store, user pressure would get it back in. Apple would catch so much flack for it.

[Sven Johannsen]

Well, from Apple to Tighten Control of How Magazines, Content Are Sold for iPad - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120531458250932.html?mod=rss_Europe_Technology)

Apple is now requiring publishers that conduct sales of content—which includes books as well subscriptions—to offer a way to do so within apps, which will be handled by the iTunes billing system. The policy, which the company says isn't new, was cited in Apple's rejection of a Sony (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=SNE) Corp. app for reading digital books earlier this week......

Apple has indicated the sales outside of iTunes can continue, as long as sales through its store are provided as an option.




Sounds like in-app, via iTunes, is required. As far as flak, who gets it, Apple or Amazon? Apple for denying, or Amazon for not providing a compliant app? Would Amazon lose folks to B&N if the latter had an app and Amazon didn't? Take a chance?

[Jason Dunn]

Sounds like in-app, via iTunes, is required.

Good grief. I really think Apple is overreaching this time, and they're going to get burned (assuming people actually hold them accountable for this stupid decision, which may not happen - people are very forgiving toward Apple).

[Sven Johannsen]

people are very forgiving toward Apple).
That they are :rolleyes: