Kobo's sticking it to to Apple.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Kolenka

They backpedaled on the "must be the same price or lower" restriction, and that the app must provide a way to buy content if it is available elsewhere (you just can't link to the elsewhere). So it is possible that these retailers can throw Apple's cut on top of their pricing, as long as their contracts with the publishers allow them to. But nobody would honestly believe that would fly. Almost nobody would pay it, so why bother offering it?

I never felt Apple's policy was a means to extort more money but rather a power move to eliminate competition.

The policy in my eye has always been designed to push retailers out of the market and make iBooks the best experience and value.
For a retailer to comply with Apple's policy it must give up most of it's revenue, increase the price of books, or cut off it's ability to grow clientele.

Last year when they entered the market the eBook market was still small, since then it's grown and is starting to outsell hardbacks and paper books.

As the market continues to grow Apple wants to position themselves as a book seller leader.

=X=

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by =X=

I never felt Apple's policy was a mean to extort more money but rather a power move to eliminate competition.

That's pretty much all it appears to be. I'm sure they wouldn't mind getting the extra money from others, but they ultimately want to be the one-stop-shop for everything.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Damage nonetheless. If I purchased books for my iPod, these changes would see me say adios to reading on the iPlatform.

Why? There's nothing to prevent you from buying the content on the web, and either downloading it in the app a la the Kindle, or downloading with calibre, or sideloading.

Apple has done a major retreat on their original policy. Now, the only rule is that if you sell something "in app," i.e., bring it in through the front door, you have to give Apple 30% of the gross price. But if you sell something in any other fashion, and bring it in the back door or through the kitchen window, there's no charge.

I have to say that I rarely buy anything "in app." For one thing, I often find things like subscriptions or books cheaper if I do an internet search. For example, I found a 3 year subscription to the New Yorker, including the paper copy, app access and web access, for $99. I don't remember what the "in app" price was, but it was significantly higher and I don't think it included a paper copy for my wife.

(Unfortunately it doesn't include Kindle access. What's wrong with these people - don't they get the idea that we want to access our books & magazines and subscriptions from all of our devices based on one purchase?)

[anamardoll]

I buy nook books in my Nook 4 Android app -- the B&N mobile website leaves a lot to be desired, or at least it used to. (Maybe it's changed since then.)

I have never understood this decision to "push" customers to iBooks (a futile notion because people usually seem to pick and e-Ink brand and then buy from that store exclusively -- i.e., Kindle, Nook, etc.) at the cost of crippling Apple functions that were previously comparable to Android ones.

I mean, can you not already see the Android vs. Apple commercials where the attractive Android guy can buy in-app but the sweet Apple girl has to exit out to the browser and muck about with web purchasing? (Maybe I've been watching too many of the new Kindle commercials with the pushy blonde and the long-suffering Kindle Guy.)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I have never understood this decision to "push" customers to iBooks (a futile notion because people usually seem to pick and e-Ink brand and then buy from that store exclusively -- i.e., Kindle, Nook, etc.) at the cost of crippling Apple functions that were previously comparable to Android ones.

I don't think it has much to do with pushing people to iBooks. I think Amazon has made it clear that if you want to sell ebooks, the way to do it is to maximize the buyer's ease of use. Of course, I'm wrong about it being clear, since none of the other ebook sellers seem to have grasped that point. (Like you, I tried out B&N and left. Now that I'm in the Kindle ecology, I have little incentive to try that store again.)

Everything Apple has done makes sense if you start with the idea that what they care about is the "rake-off" from other people selling things via Apps.

What they misjudged was the way the rake-off interacted with the profit margin on ebooks.

If Steve Jobs cared about ebooks, Apple would sell something that would replace the dedicated EBR the way the smart phone has replaced the cell phone. I don't know what it would be - that's Steve's job but he doesn't want to do it. I sure wish he did, though.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I don't think it has much to do with pushing people to iBooks. I think Amazon has made it clear that if you want to sell ebooks, the way to do it is to maximize the buyer's ease of use. Of course, I'm wrong about it being clear, since none of the other ebook sellers seem to have grasped that point. (Like you, I tried out B&N and left. Now that I'm in the Kindle ecology, I have little incentive to try that store again.)

Everything Apple has done makes sense if you start with the idea that what they care about is the "rake-off" from other people selling things via Apps.

What they misjudged was the way the rake-off interacted with the profit margin on ebooks.

If Steve Jobs cared about ebooks, Apple would sell something that would replace the dedicated EBR the way the smart phone has replaced the cell phone. I don't know what it would be - that's Steve's job but he doesn't want to do it. I sure wish he did, though.

His interference in ebooks has affected us people who don't want his products. So in the future I hope he stays away from books

[kjk]

Originally Posted by rdfry

His interference in ebooks has affected us people who don't want his products. So in the future I hope he stays away from books

Lol, "his" interference is meaningless unless users find his products useful, and do want his products. Never understood why people blame Apple for the current state of the eBook Market. I don't buy the thinking that without Apple, we'd all be enjoying a more competitive eBook pricing situation. But then, I don't consider Apple as a major player in the eBook Market, yet.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kjk

Lol, "his" interference is meaningless unless users find his products useful, and do want his products. Never understood why people blame Apple for the current state of the eBook Market. I don't buy the thinking that without Apple, we'd all be enjoying a more competitive eBook pricing situation.

Apple did change the way that the big ebook sellers had to deal with publishers. Remember the whole "agency model" kerfluffle?

I'm not sure who came out ahead on that, if anyone. Except, somehow, Apple...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kjk

But then, I don't consider Apple as a major player in the eBook Market, yet.

If ever.

I've always thought that the point of iBook was just to skim off some money that was undoubtedly out there for the taking.

I mean, a certain percentage of iPad purchasers were bound to want ebooks, and even with ebook apps from Amazon etc., there were undoubtedly some who would buy from an iBook store.

Apple probably ran the numbers, decided that there was a profit to be made without a whole lot of effort, & said, "why not?" Easy money.

My guess is that Apple figures that they can make more money putting any extra effort into other things.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I mean, a certain percentage of iPad purchasers were bound to want ebooks, and even with ebook apps from Amazon etc., there were undoubtedly some who would buy from an iBook store.

I agree. Apple wants content available-movies, TV, music, books and magazines, to sell the hardware delivery system.

But I've seen little evidence to date that they see that content to be a major revenue stream (unlike Amazon and B&N, who see the content as the major revenue stream, and want as many devices as possible to serve as the delivery system).

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by kjk

But I've seen little evidence to date that they see that content to be a major revenue stream (unlike Amazon and B&N, who see the content as the major revenue stream, and want as many devices as possible to serve as the delivery system).

Somewhat less than "as many devices as possible" since they ignore linux.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Somewhat less than "as many devices as possible" since they ignore linux.

Actually that always puzzled me a bit. I know Linux on a desktop (as opposed to server/appliances) doesn't have a big user base compared to Windows/Mac-but they do have an active one, and seems like it would be worth addressing.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by kjk

Actually that always puzzled me a bit. I know Linux on a desktop (as opposed to server/appliances) doesn't have a big user base compared to Windows/Mac-but they do have an active one, and seems like it would be worth addressing.

They hate our freedom.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I mean, can you not already see the Android vs. Apple commercials where the attractive Android guy can buy in-app but the sweet Apple girl has to exit out to the browser and muck about with web purchasing? (Maybe I've been watching too many of the new Kindle commercials with the pushy blonde and the long-suffering Kindle Guy.)

I hate those commercials, lol. And I really have started to dislike the blonde. I have wi-fi access to d/l books instantly- yet somehow I manage to still buy DTBs. I have an ereader and yet I still manage to have a gigantic purse that carries everything but the kitchen sink.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by kjk

Actually that always puzzled me a bit. I know Linux on a desktop (as opposed to server/appliances) doesn't have a big user base compared to Windows/Mac-but they do have an active one, and seems like it would be worth addressing.

Because it's a swine to develop a program for Linux if you are going for complete compatability, which Kernel do you develop for? do you aim for GNOME or KDE? or do you just develop it to work on Red Hat or Ubuntu and have the rest of the Linux community complain at you.

And to be fair, Amazon don't supply an app for windows prior to XP SP2 or Android prior to 2.1 or Mac prior to OS X 10.5.

And why does no one make apps for the Symbian OS?