NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you want to sell content via Apple's App store -- you have to pay Apple.
Lee

But these companies are NOT selling through Apple's App store. They are selling through their own websites.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

But these companies are NOT selling through Apple's App store. They are selling through their own websites.

Via apps they distribute through Apple's store. If they have web apps or web sites then Apple doesn't take a cut. They can't distribute a free app that then just links to their website for the transaction to take place as a way of cutting Apple out.

What Amazon will have to do is remove that in app link to their web site.

Lee

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Piper_

Amazon et al are not asking Apple to be the middle man or allow them to use their infrastructure.

Sure they are, they want to distribute apps via Apple's app store, but cut Apple out of sales by linking to their web sites from within the app.

That's like saying I want to set up a booth inside WalMart, but since I have my own POS machine to handle the credit cards, I don't need to pay WalMart.

Apple's iOS ecosystem (apps via the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad) is not offered for sale as a general computer. It's a curated environment. You can only get apps onto these devices via Apple's app store. If you want to make money with these apps, you have to give Apple a cut.

If you don't like this setup, feel free to develop your own ecosystem or join someone else's.


Lee

[leebase]

Originally Posted by tomsem

- without Apple, there would be no consumer-unfriendly Agency model for ebooks

You mean "without Apple there'd be no competition against Amazon's monopoly"?

Even so, you are wrong. The publishers were going to deal with Amazon one way or another. Amazon would have either agreed to the Agency Model or the publishers would have ceased releasing new ebooks to Amazon during the hard back pricing window.

What Apple's iPad did was persuade Amazon to choose the Agency Model rather than the delayed release model as it was untenable that Apple could have desirable books to sell that Amazon didn't.

Lee

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by leebase

Via apps they distribute through Apple's store. If they have web apps or web sites then Apple doesn't take a cut. They can't distribute a free app that then just links to their website for the transaction to take place as a way of cutting Apple out.

What Amazon will have to do is remove that in app link to their web site.

Lee

I can make arguments both ways for Apple getting a cut, so I understand your POV.

Let's say that Apple is entitled to a cut, for the sake of discussion. If that's the case, it should also make clear to hardware buyers that what content access they have today, they might not have later. That way, hardware buyers know going in: They can be left with iDevices that suddenly don't do what they bought them for. And there should be some kind of remedy for people who've already bought iDevices and are now being affected because of Apple's change of enforcement.

I'm not saying Apple is legally obligated to do this. I'm saying that those are the kind of business practices that I can at least respect as a consumer. What Apple is doing now, IMO, is telling hardware buyers that they cannot count on iDevices to deliver.

[tubemonkey]

Sure glad I don't pay for content for my iPod touch. That way, if apps get pulled or content prices rise due to Apple wanting a piece of the pie, I won't be affected.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Let's say that Apple is entitled to a cut, for the sake of discussion. If that's the case, it should also make clear to hardware buyers that what content access they have today, they might not have later.

Does Microsoft have to inform Zune buyers that they can't buy music from iTunes to play on the Zune? Does Amazon tell folks that their Kindle's won't work with books bought from Barnes and Noble?

When I bought my iPad, there was only 3,300 apps. Apple did not guarantee me that 60,000 apps would be written in the first 9 months. When I bought my iPad, Apple did not promise me that I could buy the Beatles via iTunes (I couldn't at first, that deal was made later).

I'm fairly sure that the Kindle app and the Nook app were not available on the first day -- the day I bought my iPad. I know the Kobo app/borders app wasn't available, and Stanza wasn't available right away.

Apple has FAR more content available via iTunes, and apps via the App Store than anybody else. It's true that my confidence in Apple getting content for my iPad was a big reason for my choice. But there were no guarantees that any particular book store would even release an app, or that ANY magazine apps would be created.

You do make a good observation, though. If Apple's policies result in too few providers being willing to put their content on the iPad, then Apple customers will be unhappy.

I don't even like, personally, every one of Apple's policies. But I like that Apple has been very successful in getting support for the iPad. And Apple's content providers are very happy that Apple has attracted customers like me who are willing to actually pay for some of our content.

Lee

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by leebase

Does Microsoft have to inform Zune buyers that they can't buy music from iTunes to play on the Zune? Does Amazon tell folks that their Kindle's won't work with books bought from Barnes and Noble?

When I bought my iPad, there was only 3,300 apps. Apple did not guarantee me that 60,000 apps would be written in the first 9 months. When I bought my iPad, Apple did not promise me that I could buy the Beatles via iTunes (I couldn't at first, that deal was made later).

I'm fairly sure that the Kindle app and the Nook app were not available on the first day -- the day I bought my iPad. I know the Kobo app/borders app wasn't available, and Stanza wasn't available right away.

Apple has FAR more content available via iTunes, and apps via the App Store than anybody else. It's true that my confidence in Apple getting content for my iPad was a big reason for my choice. But there were no guarantees that any particular book store would even release an app, or that ANY magazine apps would be created.

You do make a good observation, though. If Apple's policies result in too few providers being willing to put their content on the iPad, then Apple customers will be unhappy.

I don't even like, personally, every one of Apple's policies. But I like that Apple has been very successful in getting support for the iPad. And Apple's content providers are very happy that Apple has attracted customers like me who are willing to actually pay for some of our content.

Lee

I can't speak for others, but I bought an iPad for three key things: e-books, e-mail and Internet. I bought an iPad 3G on the first day available, knowing that it had the Kindle app, for instance, because I was already using it on my iPhone. I had already waited years for a viable tablet, and I wouldn't have bought an iPad without Kindle access.

You've seen my posts on various threads, so you might remember that I have no problem paying market rate for content, and that I don't begrudge companies making profits, even deep profits like Apple's. What I won't support as a consumer is buying something that does X today and finding out that the hardware maker can't be counted on to deliver what I bought on day of purchase.

[leebase]

The most likely scenario is that Amazon removes the in-app link to their web store. That would be no hardship for me. I too buy my books via Amazon for my iPad.

Lee

[Xoanon]

Originally Posted by leebase

Sure they are, they want to distribute apps via Apple's app store, but cut Apple out of sales by linking to their web sites from within the app.

I thought all software had to be downloaded and installed via the app store? It's hardly the fault of the 3rd parties if Apple chooses to erect a walled garden.

Give them the option of installing applications via the web so it doesn't cost Apple anything and I'm sure a lot of developers would be happy to take it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by leebase

The most likely scenario is that Amazon removes the in-app link to their web store. That would be no hardship for me. I too buy my books via Amazon for my iPad.

Lee

Except that Apple *specifically* said that could not happen. If a company allows customers to buy content outside the app, then they *have to* also sell content through the app, giving apple its cut.

In other words, Amazon would not be allowed to have an app that allowed you to read its books, even if you couldn't buy anything through the app.

And of course it's pretty clear that Amazon can't give up 30% of the sale price of its books, as it doesn't make anything close to that on books. Leading to the fear that Amazon will pull the Kindle app. (And B&N and Kobo, too).

All of that is based on Apple's statements. Whether Apple really *meant* what they said is another question, of course.

[Graham]

I've realised that even if this does only mean subscriptions - as I think is likely - it still gives Amazon a problem with selling content.

From the press release:

Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

Now, Amazon does sell digital subscriptions via their website, and that content can be read in the app. Therefore by these rules they would have to a) offer Apple's service within their app for those subscriptions, and b) remove the links to the web store from the app.

So even if the rules don't apply to content, they are worded in such a way that they would break the way Amazon sells content.

It seems to say that if Amazon are in the magazine subscription business on the web, then they can't sell content via a link from an app on iOS.

Graham

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by leebase

And Apple's content providers are very happy that Apple has attracted customers like me who are willing to actually pay for some of our content.

And will be equally unhappy to *lose* customers like me. I don't care about the ebooks because I liberate and sode-load everything, and I suppose I could still watch Netflix stuff via my laptop, but Zinio stuff looks terrible on a computer and if I can't read it on the iPad, I'll cancel all my subscriptions with them.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Its the online payment & procurement services. Its like paying postage...

Should microsoft, google etc. expect a cut of all sales made via web browsers since they are supplying as much as apple does if you ignore the payment processing that most companies do not want to be forced to use?

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by leebase

Via apps they distribute through Apple's store. If they have web apps or web sites then Apple doesn't take a cut. They can't distribute a free app that then just links to their website for the transaction to take place as a way of cutting Apple out.

What Amazon will have to do is remove that in app link to their web site.

Actually it looks more like apple want the link replaced with a means that forces people to use apple's own in-app purchasing leading to many companies being forced to pull their apps entirely because it becomes financially non-viable to stay on there.

Comically we have seen some articles that have felt the need to white knight this change by apple by talking about how it is worth it due to the increased number of users a particular service would gain, but this idea falls down when you consider such simple sums as many x 0 = 0 or many x -ve = larger -ve which would be the reality for many services that enhance the current ipad ecosystem.