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

[stonetools]

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

You should now expect to be read out and damned as a lackey of the evil empire. And how dare you say that the reader apps have anything to do with selling books. They are just computer programs, like Word or Notepad. NOTHING to do with making money :-).

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Pushka

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?

actually, and I hate supporting that argument, but most malls and some shopping centers do expect a percentage of a retailers sales in addition to rent. The rational is the rent is to cover the property overhead and the percentage is a "use based" charge that lets retailers pay more if their customers represent a greater use of the facility. Yeah, I know I don't fully get it either, but at least that is also evenly enforced and stated up front.

I still wanna know what happens to the California State Sales Tax once Apple becomes agent for the transaction by claiming all sales/transactions take place in their "mall/marketplace" that is based in California. It means CA residents should be required to pay sales tax even if the product/service is from Amazon who is located in Washington state or Brazil for that matter. For that reason I don't see the CA State AG being all that willing to say this is anything they want to stop because of the potential to get back a large portion of the sales tax revenue lost to internet sales.

[Lemurion]

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

How is it different?

More particularly, how is it different from using an Apple computer to purchase a Kindle book online?

In both cases Apple provides the hardware and the OS, but Amazon provides the infrastructure for the purchase - not Apple.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

How is it different?

More particularly, how is it different from using an Apple computer to purchase a Kindle book online?

In both cases Apple provides the hardware and the OS, but Amazon provides the infrastructure for the purchase - not Apple.

Originally Posted by Pushka

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

And I am still waiting an answer for this too.

Thank goodness for fixed commercial leases in Australia then because landlords don't have access to profits. If they did then they should also be liable for a share of the losses too.

[stonetools]

How is it different?

More particularly, how is it different from using an Apple computer to purchase a Kindle book online?

In both cases Apple provides the hardware and the OS, but Amazon provides the infrastructure for the purchase - not Apple.

Convenience. You're buying buying convenience buying your book on the Ipad for immediate use on the Ipad.That would be a difference.
Now answer MY questions.

1.Why if this Apple policy change is so deadly to the booksellers, have the booksellers not objected to the change?
2. What really is the true value of an app that is really a storefront through which the seller can potentially make millions of dollars.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Convenience. You're buying buying convenience buying your book on the Ipad for immediate use on the Ipad.That would be a difference.
Now answer MY questions.

1.Why if this Apple policy change is so deadly to the booksellers, have the booksellers not objected to the change?
2. What really is the true value of an app that is really a storefront through which the seller can potentially make millions of dollars.

For a great many people using things like kindle or nook, it doesn't matter where they buy it, they are buying the convenience of the whole buy once and read anywhere that has little to do with apple beyond them currently being part of that anywhere until they force these companies out in order to free up the market for the lacklustre and horribly restricted ibooks.

The problem with this ongoing claim of yours that the app is a storefront overlooks the obvious point that these rules would seem to prevent companies like amazon from simply removing the purchase option completely from the app and leave it as purely a reading app compatible with kindle books.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Convenience. You're buying buying convenience buying your book on the Ipad for immediate use on the Ipad.That would be a difference.
Now answer MY questions.

1.Why if this Apple policy change is so deadly to the booksellers, have the booksellers not objected to the change?
2. What really is the true value of an app that is really a storefront through which the seller can potentially make millions of dollars.

So by your line of reasoning, if I install iTunes on my Windows computer, Apple should pay Microsoft 30%, right?

[leebase]

Remind me again how to buy Apple books from a kindle, or kindle books from a Nook? This story is clearly bogus. It was the same kind of cr@p before the iPad was released. Surely they wouldn't allow Amazon even though Amazon was on the iPhone.

The worst case scenario is that they'll have to remove the in app link to their web store. Big deal.

Lee

[stonetools]

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.

Except that IOS has been a marketplace since 2003, when Itunes opened.Itunes is the world's largest music store and the App Store is the world's largest software store. Apple is known for both its great marketing and its great customer service. Its also known as THE place where developers make money. Apple's new policy can even be regarded as pro-customer, since it streamlines the buying, subscription, and un-subscription process. I've bought stuff through Itunes and through other stores and there is no doubt that its an easier experience on Itunes. I Bwould note that at every step of the development of the IOS platform, there have been a gazillion naysayers predicting failure.

The Ipod will fail. Its an expensive toy. No one will ever buy it.

ITunes will fail. None will pay 99 cents for a single.Apple should never have got in the music retail business.

The Iphone will fail. Its an expensive toy. No one will ever buy it.

The App Store will fail. Developers cannot possibly pay 30 per cent of their revenue to Apple and make a living. It will drive them off the platform, leading to Apple's ruin as the best developers leave , leading to a loss of content and a poorer experience for Apple IOS customers.

The Ipad will fail.Its an expensive toy. No one will ever buy it.


Anyone see a pattern? I think based on Apple's record with the IOS over the past decade that Apple knows what its doing. I'm betting that the "experts" will be wrong once again.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Convenience. You're buying buying convenience buying your book on the Ipad for immediate use on the Ipad.That would be a difference.

What convenience? I have the Kindle App on my Mac and could be buying the book on the Mac for immediate use on the Mac.

There's no difference.

In both cases I'm using an Apple device to buy Kindle content to consume on that Apple device.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Now answer MY questions.

1.Why if this Apple policy change is so deadly to the booksellers, have the booksellers not objected to the change?
2. What really is the true value of an app that is really a storefront through which the seller can potentially make millions of dollars.

1) The only one who has currently been affected by the policy change is Sony, and they have objected.

2) That's irrelevant. The fact that Amazon's app can potentially generate millions of dollars in sales for Amazon has absolutely no bearing on whether Apple is entitled to a cut of sales in which they took no part.

[stonetools]

Er, Sony was rejected because it used sony's in app purchasing API , which was a known no-no. The rejection happened before the policy change.
Since the policy change, none of the booksellers have objected to the supposedly deadly change. That leads me to the conclusion that they think they can live with it. Maybe they know something we don't .

The fact That the app can generate millions of sales does seem to indicate that apple be foolish for charging just 99 dollars and hosting costs. It would be like selling a two karat diamond for a hundred bucks. And of course buying a book on the iPad through the kindle app WOULD involve the Kindle app, since the purchase would begin by clicking on the Kindle Store link.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The IOS platform is different from

a. Windows
b. Cars
etc.

How is the iPad different from a laptop? How is IOS different from Windows?

You just can't compare them.

You keep saying this. You give no reasons.

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

No, it doesn't.

I've managed a mall store.

It's possible that other malls do things differently, of course, but in the mall (a moderately large regional mall) I worked in, my store paid a fixed rent, and the mall management did not collect a cut of every dollar spent in the store.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

It's possible that other malls do things differently, of course, but in the mall (a moderately large regional mall) I worked in, my store paid a fixed rent, and the mall management did not collect a cut of every dollar spent in the store.

it's my understanding that the malls where i've been to here charge a rent based on the size of the store, but the rent is so expensive that it's almost like they took a cut of each sale D: i do agree that each mall management does things differently.

[lotrfan]

Originally Posted by david_e

Let us see if this is 'simple' enough for you...

Mama and Papa have two children. Every Sunday Mama makes pie. Mama, Papa, and their two children eat the whole pie. One day Grandma comes to live with Mama, Papa, and their two children. On Sunday Mama makes pie in the SAME PAN she always used. Mama, Papa, their two children AND Grandma eat the whole pie.

See how simple that was? Five are now sharing what used to be shared by four. Some may now get a little less, but everyone still gets SOME.

Bad analogy.

Apple has no involvement in the making of the pie. What Apple is doing would be like the landlord insisting on a piece of the pie just because he provides the house (for which they pay). Also you seem to forget that the profits Amazon and such make are part of the 30% therefore it wouldn't be slicing the pie five times like before but only four times and someone dies of hunger.

[M0zza]

I'm sure most companies would not tell an outside person (the mall) how much they made. Firstly a private company is not required to tell anyone. And secondly if high profits were made it would impact rental contracts in the future.