Amazon, B&N, Kobo: iOS aps to be pulled in June

[stonetools]

Apple could shut down the App store completely and the current Kindle and Nook apps would still function in exactly the same fashion. No fuss, no mess, just opening up a browser and selling on the web.

Er no, Apple distributes, hosts, and updates the apps. And Apple certaibnly is contin nuously involved in every sale on their IOS devices. After all, the sales happen on their devices.

What I think you're missing is that people aren't so much opposed to Apple getting a cut of purchases made through their infrastructure, as that they're trying to force people to use their infrastructure just so they can get a cut.

They're saying "you can keep doing business but you have to go through us and hand over a cut to do it."

Well, Apple would say that they are requiring that the various stores doing business on its platform offer consumers the choice of doing an in-app purchase. Of course, that benefits Apple but in fact IOS consumers probably would prefer it.

I think the question is , Would the many books sold on the IOS platform be sold if :

1. THe IOS devices didn't exist
or
2. If IOS was closed in the way the dedicated ereader devices are closed.

What's astounding to me is that the IOS platform is relatively open. All Apple is asking for is a cut. OTOH, the KIndle platform is completely closed, but they are the good guys here, being bullied by EVUL Apple.

[stonetools]

The evidence is in Apple's own guidelines.

I think you would agree that this is an extrapolation based on a few lines in a much bigger document, combined with a definitive statement focused on subscriptions. I think this falls far short of a definitive statement regarding ebooks.
I find it intersting that not a single bookseller has commented on this. THEY apparently believe that Apple's policydoesn't apply to them or if it does, they can work with it.
Or maybe, more likely, they are negotiating modifications.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by stonetools

That's completely irrelevant to the the issue of whether Apple should get a cut of sales made on IOS devices for use on IOS devices.

Should Sony get a cut of the purchase price of every ebook I read on my PRS-505?

Should Microsoft get a cut of every penny I spend on my Windows-based computer?

Should Honda get a cut when I buy gas for my car, and every car wash too?

If not ... then why should Apple be any different?

[M0zza]

Stonetools,

You do know that this thread was started because there was a concern for people on this website who own an iThingie that a lot of ebook content may not be available in the future due to this new missive from Apple. This should be a conversation about the customer and not whether Amazon or B&N or Apple gouge the most.

In my view it is that this is a bad move by Apple. But that is my view and I don't even own an iThingie.

ps. As all you have done is state that Apple deserves all this money. And nothing about the customer. This is why you are seen as an Apple PR person. That and the fact that it seems you have only ever posted in this thread.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er no, Apple distributes, hosts, and updates the apps. And Apple certaibnly is contin nuously involved in every sale on their IOS devices. After all, the sales happen on their devices.

Let me restate:

Let's say I had an iPod touch with the Kindle app on it - and Apple shut down all the App Store servers for 24 hours starting tomorrow. I know it's unlikely to happen, but just go with me.

Even if the app store was down, people who already have the Kindle and Nook apps on their iOS devices would still be able to make purchases with the existing apps. The apps would work and the users would be able purchase books whether the app store was available or not.

This is why the App store and Apple's infrastructure do not have continuous involvement in all transactions.

As for the idea that the sales happen on a device they manufactured and sold is enough to somehow entitle them to a cut of the proceeds: That's a load of codswallop!

If I order pizza online using my cell phone, Motorola doesn't get a cut of the sale because I used their phone, Google doesn't get a cut because my phone uses their operating system.

One of my computers is a Mac: According to your logic, Apple is entitled to a cut of every Amazon order I make using that computer, because it's one of their devices.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by david_e

Mama, Papa, their two children AND Grandma eat the whole pie.
Five are now sharing what used to be shared by four. Some may now get a little less, but everyone still gets SOME.

I am sorry to say but seemingly you are just not capable of following a very simple example. Maybe your abstraction capabilities are severely damaged as well as your logic. Taking your silly example (as family members are not competing companies) why on earth would Grandma get even a crumb of the pie while doing nothing for it? Furthermore the other family members would die of starvation if they indeed agreed to share the pie with Apple, err sorry with Grandma. Why would they want to die? So I have to think you are not the brightest mind (understatement).

And not even new names, but the same names

I call the same thing the same name. Let me help you out, that is called consistence. Quoting outright Apple propaganda lines cannot be named otherwise than what it is. Also as I mentioned I was being generous because I could give an other much more degrading explanation. Maybe that is the correct explanation regarding you.

What value have you offered?

What I am doing is to make noise about the fact that Apple is trying to screw customers. If you don't care and want to pay more then go and make a transfer to Apple besides buying their products. I could not care less about what you think about the value I offer. Writing again this stupidity makes me realize that your question does not even make sense. I am a customer and I do what all conscious customers should do: keep an eye on service providers.

While I certainly have no expectation that you be self-aware do you at least see the irony?

I see it very clearly. You are talking about intelligence while being a dumb and illogical person yourself who are not able to understand the simplest abstraction let alone following a simple logic consisting more than one step. Now that is embarrassing.

[Pushka]

Stonetools, Apple is wrong on so many levels. Extrapolate here with your argument. A car manufacturer claiming a percentage of every dollar spent on fuel. A landlord for a business demanding a cut from every sale made from the premises. The media demanding a cut for every sale made from an advertisement in their publication. Really, it is arrogance on apples part.

And I can tell you post from your ithingy. Maybe Apple deserve a cut for everything you buy or do using it.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I think you would agree that this is an extrapolation based on a few lines in a much bigger document, combined with a definitive statement focused on subscriptions. I think this falls far short of a definitive statement regarding ebooks.
I find it intersting that not a single bookseller has commented on this. THEY apparently believe that Apple's policydoesn't apply to them or if it does, they can work with it.
Or maybe, more likely, they are negotiating modifications.

The term "IAP and subscription content" means the rules specifically apply to both subscription and non-subscription content. That's because the conjunction "and" serves to join subscription content to other content for the purposes of the sentence.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by MsAstoria

If only It would sync across devices like amazon does, then it would be perfect!

What people are forgetting for some reason is that Amazon now owns Stanza and if they are booted from iOS the question becomes why would they leave Stanza on the iOS platform if K4iOS is booted.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...=amazon+stanza

And if apps like K4iOS are booted because Apple has decided to enforce a clause in their developer agreement they chose to ignore while originally approving the app, developers/sellers of products and services should stop development for the platform. I mean why waste any more time developing on what is a very moving target with a company that is quite fickle with regard to adhering to their own requirements in an app.

Basically Apple seems to be taking the tactic of once they see an app is successful then and only then will they use everything they chose to ignore at the time of initial approval if doing so means increased revenue to Apple and in spite of the possibility of it meaning the developer will just decide to go in a different direction.

Personally I think ALL of the developers who were approved in spite of not being in full compliance just move to other platforms. Plus they need to get the news media involved as well.

It's sort of funny because what Apple seems to be doing is try to manage their customers, in this case it's the developers who are their on going customers even though the consumer is the customer when we buy the hardware. But Apple is now squeezing the real customer (the developers) and at the same time telling them they are not allowed to even mention being able to purchase directly outside the app. eBay did this a while back with a huge policy change along similar lines. However the difference is eBay is a marketplace and has been from day one so I never took any issue with the new requirements. However Apple is marketing the iOS devices as hardware not a marketplace or what might be better called so sort of "active content catalog"/marketplace hybrid that it seems to be claiming it is now.

It's just an ugly and somewhat underhanded move almost like a bait-n-switch because some MBA looking to justify the desk came up with the idea to make this change in direction.

Maybe life was just better before the we knew about all this crap.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I think the question is , Would the many books sold on the IOS platform be sold if :

1. THe IOS devices didn't exist
or
2. If IOS was closed in the way the dedicated ereader devices are closed.

Would the many books sold on the Windows platform be sold if:

1. The Windows devices didn't exist
or
2. If Windows was closed in the way the dedicated ereader devices are closed?

[stonetools]

The IOS platform is different from

a. Windows
b. Cars
etc.

You just can't compare them. Again, the closest analogy-though not a perfect one-is a shopping mall. Although it is not obvious, the shopping mall DOES take a cut of every purchase made at a shopping mall

[MsAstoria]

You know, when I bought my iPad, I didnt know that Amazon, B&N, etc were going to have apps for book purchases and let's face it, the whole point in these companies offering "free" reader apps was to get customers to buy books from them. I find it rather amazing that Apple even "allowed" them into the walled garden so they could sell their wares in direct competition with iBooks. So, perhaps the lesson has been learned in the Apple kingdom that they couldn't compete with the likes of the super mega stores and are looking for a way to force them out. If so, then the in app surcharge may work.....or not.
Irregardless, if these apps go away, then apple will be like every other "reader" and will only offer their brand app. So,
Amazon=Kindle
B&N=Nook
Sony=Sony ebook store
Apple=iBooks
As long as I can continue to transfer epubs to my iBooks app, I think I can live with it. I rarely buy books anyway. And as other posters have said, the market will tell if this change works or not.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The IOS platform is different from

a. Windows
b. Cars
etc.

You just can't compare them. Again, the closest analogy-though not a perfect one-is a shopping mall. Although it is not obvious, the shopping mall DOES take a cut of every purchase made at a shopping mall

You are suggesting that the commercial rent is therefore based on profit? Not in our country!

I love apple products but all they do is make available the kindle app. Updates are done through amazon. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot because people may consider buying the iPad as it has available, but does not host, the kindle app.

As I said before, does apple deserve a cut from anything you buy using your safari browser on your Ithing?

[stonetools]

And if apps like K4iOS are booted because Apple has decided to enforce a clause in their developer agreement they chose to ignore while originally approving the app, developers/sellers of products and services should stop development for the platform. I mean why waste any more time developing on what is a very moving target with a company that is quite fickle with regard to adhering to their own requirements in an app.

Probably because they can make money. Apple developers may not love the developer guidelines, but they love making money.
Again, it is odd that not one of the booksellers have said that the new Apple policy will ruin them, drive them off the platform, bring Western civilization to an end, etc, etc. So far as I can tell, Amazon appears completely unconcerned that K4IOS will be booted out come June. I'll invite those on this forum to consider the distant possibility that Amazon may know about their business prospects and Apple's intentions than we do. JUst sayin.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er no, Apple distributes, hosts, and updates the apps. And Apple certaibnly is contin nuously involved in every sale on their IOS devices. After all, the sales happen on their devices.



Well, Apple would say that they are requiring that the various stores doing business on its platform offer consumers the choice of doing an in-app purchase. Of course, that benefits Apple but in fact IOS consumers probably would prefer it.

I think the question is , Would the many books sold on the IOS platform be sold if :

1. THe IOS devices didn't exist
or
2. If IOS was closed in the way the dedicated ereader devices are closed.

What's astounding to me is that the IOS platform is relatively open. All Apple is asking for is a cut. OTOH, the KIndle platform is completely closed, but they are the good guys here, being bullied by EVUL Apple.

wrt "closed" vs. "open" platforms in terms of content. I offer that it's more the format-drm providers rather than the device makers or even store that dictate how closed a reader is. ADE has the requirement that no other DRM content can be read on a device ADE is licensed for. The same goes for DRM'd MOBI/Amazon content. The device is not allowed to also read any other DRM content. BUT, this is stated upfront and Amazon does offer conversion services, I believe for a fee now, as long as the content is not DRM'd.

But a Kindle is no more closed than a Sony because all one needs to do is convert the formats using whatever utility. And I am not talking about removing DRM but simple format shifting. Even devices like those from Pocketbook, are forced to be somewhat closed just for the ability to read ADE content. They have a choice of going ADE or helping to port a version of the Kindle Reader app but it has to be exclusive of each other. I find this silly but it's a known restriction.

But this is where multipurpose devices like, oooohhhh I dunno-say an iPad, enter the picture because these are not dedicated reading devices but sold as multifunction/purpose devices. No Apple comes along and decided "...well, just hold on now, we have some things we are going to start enforcing now that we already have a foothold on the market". Suddenly the device millions of people bought because it was an all inclusive type device offering the ability to read all of your content in a single device regardless of the DRM issue, but now there exists the possibility that the reasons a person bought into the iOS platform will be gone pretty much overnight. Even if the version of the app you have installed still will run, and I don't see how Apple could legally stop that from being the case, but since the only way to load content is via iTunes all Apple has to do is close off that option by refusing to allow drag-n-drop of content to the device via iTunes if it was not purchased or at minimum available for purchase through the iTunes marketplace. And then it's jail-break time moving the device into the gadget freak community rather than a more mainstream device it's claimed to be.

There is more and likely better ways to state it all but this is just a rehash of the same argument for the gawds only know how many pages. Apple is risking their very reputation with even their most staunch customer base with this issue. And of course time will tell, and to be honest I hope calmer heads at Apple will prevail understanding they need to offer the sellers some reason to support their marketplace rather than try and force compliance after the fact as it appears they are trying now.