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

[lotrfan]

Stonetools

Even using the analogy of a mall, which is not accurate, when have you seen a mall tell any store that they can't sell their products lower anywhere else? More than the forcing them to the app store and charging 30% this is the biggest offense.

The new policy may make sense for publishers selling directly to Apple (Time, Menshealth etc) but as stated it would also affect Amazon and others that sell subscriptions. No matter how many people buy Amazon books or magazines on the ipad if every sale is a loss to Amazon then they can't make money. This is simple math. If it only affects magazines then maybe Amazon can just have their app only read books and not magazines but if it includes books then they would have to leave.

BTW what Amazon did by locking their device is not the same as Apple because they said so from the beginning. On the other hand people who bought the iPad for reading purposes did so under the understanding that they could read many different formats of books. So in effect Apple lied to them (directly or indirectly) and also allowed subscription apps to “exist” in an effort to attract more people to its platform. In no way is Apple recognizing the important role these apps had/have in them selling th iPad and it is wrong. Whatever anyone can say about MS they understood before anyone else that what made the PC relevant was the software hence their success.

BTW per your comments, and that of others, I would gather that MS has a right to collect a % from every sale made through Internet Explorer. I have had issues with how MS does business but Apple certainly makes them look like saints.

[HansTWN]

I think it is the world against the Apple rep here. He is just singing the company mantra (we are different, we offer more value) but he hasn't convinced anybody. We know that Stonetools keeps repeating Apple's vision statements over and over --- but apparently even your own users don't see it, so Apple has failed in this regard.

Apple can now continue to ignore its users (or they may well say -- those few readers, who cares about them?). That is exactly the reason I don't buy Apple products anymore. It is their way or or the highway --- even for their customers. You don't like a function, part of the interface, whatever? Well, that is too bad. You can't change it. And this ever increasing stranglehold to prevent us from freely using our devices and to suck us dry.

But now you have hit those using the ipad for reading, even avid Apple fans, right where it hurts. And your attitude here is a replay of Steve's first reaction to antennagate: "Don't hold it this way".

[Pushka]

He still hasn't answered my question, as to whether apple thinks they should have a cut of anything purchased online using an ithing. Same principle, actually, even more compelling than the kindle one.

[Worldwalker]

I'll tell you what's really depressing:

Know why the Apple II was so incredibly popular? Because it was an open system when nothing else (at least, nothing else that you didn't build from a kit) was. It had slots. You could buy third-party boards to put in those slots. If you wanted to use it in your business or in your laboratory or in your school, there was hardware for that. And, back when companies like Texas Instruments were threatening lawsuits against anyone who sold software that would run on their computers, the Apple II was an open software platform, too. You could buy just about any software you could imagine for it, or write your own (BASIC was included) or slowly type in code from a magazine, if you liked that sort of thing. It was the ultimate in wide-open freedom. It gave you the power to do anything you could dream of.

In short, it was the exact opposite of everything Apple, and especially the Mac and iPad, are all about today. It was a computer for the people ... one that gave you the freedom to do anything you wanted to do ... rather than giving you the "freedom" to do anything Apple wants you to do, which is not the same thing at all.

In my opinion, the wrong Steve won.

[david_e]

Originally Posted by lotrfan

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.

I really did laugh when I read this, and I do mean this sincerely.

To clarify, I was trying to be as nonspecific as possible as to who gets how much and focus only on the fact that what X can share, X+1 can also share.

I was also in the mood for pie.

[david_e]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

What I am doing is to make noise

This may qualify as the most accurate thing you've ever posted.

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Those guidelines as written make it clear that the policy is not limited to subscription content, regardless of what's been announced.

I agree with what you've said. Now I noticed this evening that Dominos have an iphone/ipad app that allows you to order your pizzas. Now I am not being stupid here, but would Apple expect Domino's to cough up 30% of your order because you used the app? Specifically section 11.2 of the guidelines mentions the sale of content and services. Anyone able to confirm whether this 30% is only for digital content or would it relate to all e-commerce transactions through the apps?

Originally Posted by stonetools

I agree, Apple benefits by having the Kindle and Nook apps on the Ipad. Unfortunately, you seem to miss that Amazon and B&N benefit hugely, to the tune of millions of dollars of books that would not have been sold absent the presence of these apps on IOS. Amazon and B&N understand this, which is why no-one is rushing for the door.

Ummm the reason no-one is running out the door is because until apparently June when the apps will get pulled....well it is business as usual. So for the next 3-4 months Amazon/B&N/Kobo and others don't have to lift a finger. That is why no-one is running away. Not being privy to what is being communicated between those big companies and Apple, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the terms of signing to the new terms right now makes them effective as of right now. So if these new terms will cost people more in the long run...well the longer it can be held off agreeing to them the better off financially they shall be.

I'd also like to ask, how do you know that these companies benefit hugely from apps in IOS?? Seriously from my reading/research it appears most users of the Kindle apps already own a Kindle anyway (and Nook/Kobo etc) and utilise the app as a means of convenience. In terms of complete new customers who own just an iDevice and use the Kindle app....I seriously think the number would be small.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by david_e

and I do mean this sincerely.

Saying this is a quite clear indicator of a lie. This and the fact that you are desparately putting s in your recent posts give away your frustration about that your views are not shared by anybody in this topic - apart from an Apple rep. I wish you were able to sincerely laugh instead of just lying about it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

Saying this is a quite clear indicator of a lie. This and the fact that you are desparately putting s in your recent posts give away your frustration about that your views are not shared by anybody in this topic - apart from an Apple rep. I wish you were able to sincerely laugh instead of just lying about it.

He is an iDevice user who has finally understood Apple's new policies! How can he expected to get out anything but a fake laugh in his desperation?

The only ones left laughing are the ones who work for Google.

[lotrfan]

Originally Posted by david_e

I really did laugh when I read this, and I do mean this sincerely.

To clarify, I was trying to be as nonspecific as possible as to who gets how much and focus only on the fact that what X can share, X+1 can also share.

I was also in the mood for pie.

I understood your intent but it is so overly simplistic that it failed to capture the actual problem. Almost any situation, be it bad or good, can be made to look opposite of what it is by just being misleading (be it misleading or not).

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by david_e

I really did laugh when I read this, and I do mean this sincerely.

To clarify, I was trying to be as nonspecific as possible as to who gets how much and focus only on the fact that what X can share, X+1 can also share.

I was also in the mood for pie.

I hope you got some pie, and yes a pie that can be divided between X+1 just as easily (mathematically speaking) as between X.

The issue here is that that's not what's happening.

To use your pie analogy, it's not Grandma coming and the pie getting redivided - it's the teenage cousin coming to the kids table and saying I want a share of your piece of pie - not the whole pie but that one piece - and that share happens to be the size of the kid's piece of pie.

Apple's deal is with the resellers, not the publishers. The resellers can't give up any of the publishers' share because they don't control it. They can only work with their own subset of the already divided pie.

That's why the pie analogy breaks down.

[wyndslash]

i am just wondering what kind of pie we're talking about here...

personally my favorite one is peach-mango pie o:

[Graham]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

i am just wondering what kind of pie we're talking about here...

Apple pie, presumably.

Graham

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Graham

Apple pie, presumably.

Graham

I'm talking about Cherry Pie like my mother used to make.

[wyndslash]

i've never had cherry pie before! O: *curious*