Amazon, B&N, Kobo: iOS aps to be pulled in June - Page 20

sapphiresilver · 02-27-2011, 11:30 PM

I love my iPad, but if I can't read Kindle books on it I'll be looking at other options next time I get a tablet. Plenty of Android tablets are looking good. I already have an Android phone that is my secondary ebook reader, so it won't be a big change.

Worldwalker · 02-28-2011, 12:03 AM

You're not the only one. While I tend to shy away from Apple devices (too poor to pay extra for style; I'll take functional but ugly) I was giving serious thought to saving up for an iPad. I was playing around with a demo one and yeah, they're cool. But it seems there's always something (or someone), to remind me why I haven't gotten one up until now, and make sure I don't. That's what our astroturfing little friend has done: reminded me of all the reasons I don't have an iThingie.

Incidentally, there are as of this moment 430 people browsing the MobileRead device forums. 32 of them are in the Apple section. 32 out of 430 ... 7.5% ... that doesn't look very dominant to me.

Pushka · 02-28-2011, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I can't seem to find the posts where you answered my questions. Could you please be so kind as to link them?

Same.

I have a nook and a kindle. The nook is actually replacing the ipad I have. I havent bought an app from the apple store in ages as I am finding all these amazing android apps. The nook is much lighter than the ipad and fits in my bag better. I have the kindle app on the nook (obviously rooted) and presume I can buy books using it. Guess I dont need the ipad anymore...

elcreative · 02-28-2011, 01:26 AM

Currently 14 reading the Android section, 23 the Apple and 29 the Sony out of 790... don't think that you can draw too much inference from the numbers overall as they vary too widely...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

You're not the only one. While I tend to shy away from Apple devices (too poor to pay extra for style; I'll take functional but ugly) I was giving serious thought to saving up for an iPad. I was playing around with a demo one and yeah, they're cool. But it seems there's always something (or someone), to remind me why I haven't gotten one up until now, and make sure I don't. That's what our astroturfing little friend has done: reminded me of all the reasons I don't have an iThingie.

Incidentally, there are as of this moment 430 people browsing the MobileRead device forums. 32 of them are in the Apple section. 32 out of 430 ... 7.5% ... that doesn't look very dominant to me.

murraypaul · 02-28-2011, 05:26 AM

Leaving aside all the name-calling going on in the thread, the iOS app store is different because it reaches far more customers than other mobile platforms, it is the only way of selling to the iOS platform, and being in it is very profitable.
From Amazon's point of view, they have made money selling eBooks to iOS owners. A while ago they said that 20% of their sales were to people who did not own Kindles. I think it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of those were to iOS owners.
So Amazon would lose sales by leaving the app store. Therefore they would be willing to pay a certain level of Apple tax to stay in it. That level would be calculated by balancing how many more sales they get versus how much less they make on each sale. It certainly isn't 30%, it probably is at least 5-10%.
My guess is that Apple don't actually want Amazon to leave. The 'there is an app for that' meme is more valuable than directing a few more sales to the iBookstore. eBooks are, frankly, just not that big of a market to risk the overall platform for. They are more interested in the magazine market, where the iPad doesn't really have any competitors at the same size and capability. They have the chance to define how the digital magazine model will work right from the start. If they think they can take a slice of Amazon's revenue they might well try to do so, but they aren't going to set a level that they know will force Amazon out.
So both sides want to work it out, and I think this is supported by the lack of any real official statements by either side. I imagine deals are being done quietly and this will have turned out to be a storm in a teacup.

TallMomof2 · 02-28-2011, 08:34 AM

Personally, I think Apple would be nuts to force Amazon and B&N out of the app store with their draconian 30% Apple tax. But I was one of those who didn't think Apple would allow their apps on the iPad so what do I know?

This could be a ploy to force more book purchases through the iBooks (I think that's the name) app. Since Amazon and B&N can't set prices now because of the Agency 5 collusion they would be forced to take a loss on every Agency book they sold through their app on the iPad.

As of this morning if you look at the top 20 Kindle paid books only 2 of 20 are Agency books with fixed prices. However, of the first 20 books listed on the NYT's bestseller ficiton list 15 of 20 have fixed prices. On any of those Agency books that are sold through the app, Amazon and B&N would have to to hand over 30%. Guess what? 30% is what the Agency books give Amazon and B&N. Amazon and anyone else selling Agency books cannot afford to sell on iOS. There is no extra pie to hand to Apple. Apple would be taking all of Amazon's pie.

What I see is Amazon (and everyone else) negotiating a greatly reduced tax to sell on iOS. I'd rather see them out of iOS completely because any tax like this sets a bad precedence.

BTW, I'm not an Apple hater just terribly disappointed in their products. Even my kids don't use their iPods anymore since it's just as easy to load music and videos on their Android phones. The phones were far, far less expensive than the iPhone. My MacBook only boots into OSX when there is an update, I only boot into Windows since OSX makes it too hard to talk to hardware not officially approved by Apple.

tompe · 02-28-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Since Amazon and B&N can't set prices now because of the Agency 5 collusion they would be forced to take a loss on every Agency book they sold through their app on the iPad.

As far as I remember and what I can find out googling now the agency price is a minimum price. Amazon are allowed to set a higher price.

lotrfan · 02-28-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

As far as I remember and what I can find out googling now the agency price is a minimum price. Amazon are allowed to set a higher price.

Even if that was the case isn't their cut 30% of the sale price? If so it would change nothing. If it is 30% on the minimum price then yes thay can make up the money that way but we, the consumers, would end up paying for it. Why would I need to pay for the "Apple tax" when I don't even own an Apple device.

rwizard · 02-28-2011, 08:57 AM

Well, there is certainty a lot of back and forth on this.

To those that argue that the device equates to a mall and any app that provides additional content is a store front:
This analogy does not work to well. Customers do not buy a mall, they buy products in the mall. In addition, products bought in a mall are usable outside the mall.
Even if you say that the app store is the mall instead of the device being the mall, the mall does not control what price the stores in it charge their customers for products sold in the mall. My understanding is that apple will not let the "store" charge more for products bought through the mall. If this is a service that the customers want, they should not have an issue paying for it themselves instead of expecting the business to pay for it and pass the cost along to all of it's costumers. This happens in normal retail channels. Ever buy food at the mall from a restaurant / fast food establishment? They have to pay more for the space at the mall than they would somewhere else, but they do it because they expect the customers will pay more for the convenience of eating in the mall. This is the biggest point I see against what apple is doing.

To those on the other side of the fence that have stated that Apple is going to collect a fee for content purchased outside the app:
This is not my understanding based on what I have read. They are requiring that the content be available as an in app purchase, where they would get a cut. They are not saying you cannot get the content from outside the app however and they have no way to get a cut if the content is purchased outside the app.

A potential issue that was brought up by the blog that the original post links to is that currently there is a limit of 3000 or 3500 items for the in app purchasing system for any given app. This issue has been largely left untouched. The other arguments a moot if this is true since most on line book stores (certainly B&N and Amazon) have considerably more books than this on offer. I'm not saying it is true; however, if it is true and Apple makes this a requirement then it will be impossible for these book stores to comply. I do not believe there is any argument on this point, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

(Edit)
One thing I did not take into account previously is that for many books in particular they could not raise the price for books sold through in app purchase because of agency pricing regardless of weather or not Apple allows it; however, since Apple is aware of the situation (and for that matter was instrumental is it being setup) I still hold Apple fully accountable for the fact that there is no way for the online book stores to recoup the cost of doing business via in app purchase. If anything this makes it worse since they could not even raise prices across the board to recoup the cost (not that I would want to see that happen either but is is worse for the book stores).

Hellmark · 02-28-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shack70

For those of you on iOS check out Stanza as an alternative with support. It will not read DRMed files but all in all it is a good ebook reader and it is free. Stanza is available for other mobile devices as well I think

Stanza in iTunes Store

Stanza is IOS only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

why? If Amazon's app gets booted then they'll just kill off Stanza themselves since it doesn't generate any direct revenue for Amazon anyway.

Why would Amazon try to kill off something it doesn't own when it also doesn't threaten their revenue either? Being that it is DRM-free only, it cannot open ebooks from amazon, or any of Amazon's competition. It would only be a waste of money for them to kill it.

rwizard · 02-28-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Why would Amazon try to kill off something it doesn't own when it also doesn't threaten their revenue either? Being that it is DRM-free only, it cannot open ebooks from amazon, or any of Amazon's competition. It would only be a waste of money for them to kill it.

I believe there have been posts in the past indicating that Amazon bought the company that makes Stanza. I have not looked into it myself but that is my understanding.

kennyc · 02-28-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwizard

I believe there have been posts in the past indicating that Amazon bought the company that makes Stanza. I have not looked into it myself but that is my understanding.

Yeah, I believe Amazon owns the rights to the mobi format...

rwizard · 02-28-2011, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yeah, I believe Amazon owns the rights to the mobi format...

It does; however, that is not related. Stanza is an epub reader for iOS and has nothing to do with mobi to my knowledge.

Graham · 02-28-2011, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwizard

I believe there have been posts in the past indicating that Amazon bought the company that makes Stanza. I have not looked into it myself but that is my understanding.

http://ireaderreview.com/2009/04/27/...s-the-contest/

Quote:

Amazon continues its relentless take-over of publishing with a take-over of Stanza (or to be more precise the parent company Lexcycle).

Graham

Hellmark · 02-28-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

I completely understood your point. but still put yourself in his shoes for just a moment. I do not like how he has run the company as I think they once had a shot to be a genuinely dominant company in the industry and really in the IBM and HP-Compaq sense of the word they are just a drop in the bucket. But he has created a winning plan whether someone likes him or not that needs to be conceded.

Considering how Apple was in the absence of Jobs, the first time (1985-1996~1997['96 as advisor, '97 back in control]), the company was bad off. It was in that time that MS got all their dominance. Apple nearly folded.

02-28-2011, 08:57 AM	#294
rwizard Connoisseur Posts: 63 Karma: 366 Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Utah Device: iPhone, waiting for reviews on the Notionink Adam	Well, there is certainty a lot of back and forth on this. To those that argue that the device equates to a mall and any app that provides additional content is a store front: This analogy does not work to well. Customers do not buy a mall, they buy products in the mall. In addition, products bought in a mall are usable outside the mall. Even if you say that the app store is the mall instead of the device being the mall, the mall does not control what price the stores in it charge their customers for products sold in the mall. My understanding is that apple will not let the "store" charge more for products bought through the mall. If this is a service that the customers want, they should not have an issue paying for it themselves instead of expecting the business to pay for it and pass the cost along to all of it's costumers. This happens in normal retail channels. Ever buy food at the mall from a restaurant / fast food establishment? They have to pay more for the space at the mall than they would somewhere else, but they do it because they expect the customers will pay more for the convenience of eating in the mall. This is the biggest point I see against what apple is doing. To those on the other side of the fence that have stated that Apple is going to collect a fee for content purchased outside the app: This is not my understanding based on what I have read. They are requiring that the content be available as an in app purchase, where they would get a cut. They are not saying you cannot get the content from outside the app however and they have no way to get a cut if the content is purchased outside the app. A potential issue that was brought up by the blog that the original post links to is that currently there is a limit of 3000 or 3500 items for the in app purchasing system for any given app. This issue has been largely left untouched. The other arguments a moot if this is true since most on line book stores (certainly B&N and Amazon) have considerably more books than this on offer. I'm not saying it is true; however, if it is true and Apple makes this a requirement then it will be impossible for these book stores to comply. I do not believe there is any argument on this point, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. (Edit) One thing I did not take into account previously is that for many books in particular they could not raise the price for books sold through in app purchase because of agency pricing regardless of weather or not Apple allows it; however, since Apple is aware of the situation (and for that matter was instrumental is it being setup) I still hold Apple fully accountable for the fact that there is no way for the online book stores to recoup the cost of doing business via in app purchase. If anything this makes it worse since they could not even raise prices across the board to recoup the cost (not that I would want to see that happen either but is is worse for the book stores). Last edited by rwizard; 02-28-2011 at 09:15 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
myeBooks Mobile app for Android, ePUBs & PDFs with/without DRM - soon for iOS	eAnagnostis	News	0	01-19-2011 11:08 AM
Borders/Kobo bookstore aps	tajreed	Kobo Reader	0	06-29-2010 04:33 PM
Macmillan books pulled from Amazon	Pushka	Amazon Kindle	9	01-30-2010 07:43 PM

02-27-2011, 11:30 PM	#286
sapphiresilver Connoisseur Posts: 51 Karma: 5368 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Australia Device: Amazon Oasis 2, Kobo Clara HD, iPad Pro	I love my iPad, but if I can't read Kindle books on it I'll be looking at other options next time I get a tablet. Plenty of Android tablets are looking good. I already have an Android phone that is my secondary ebook reader, so it won't be a big change.

02-28-2011, 12:03 AM	#287
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	You're not the only one. While I tend to shy away from Apple devices (too poor to pay extra for style; I'll take functional but ugly) I was giving serious thought to saving up for an iPad. I was playing around with a demo one and yeah, they're cool. But it seems there's always something (or someone), to remind me why I haven't gotten one up until now, and make sure I don't. That's what our astroturfing little friend has done: reminded me of all the reasons I don't have an iThingie. Incidentally, there are as of this moment 430 people browsing the MobileRead device forums. 32 of them are in the Apple section. 32 out of 430 ... 7.5% ... that doesn't look very dominant to me.

02-28-2011, 05:26 AM	#290
murraypaul Interested Bystander Posts: 3,726 Karma: 19728152 Join Date: Jun 2008 Device: Note 4, Kobo One	Leaving aside all the name-calling going on in the thread, the iOS app store is different because it reaches far more customers than other mobile platforms, it is the only way of selling to the iOS platform, and being in it is very profitable. From Amazon's point of view, they have made money selling eBooks to iOS owners. A while ago they said that 20% of their sales were to people who did not own Kindles. I think it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of those were to iOS owners. So Amazon would lose sales by leaving the app store. Therefore they would be willing to pay a certain level of Apple tax to stay in it. That level would be calculated by balancing how many more sales they get versus how much less they make on each sale. It certainly isn't 30%, it probably is at least 5-10%. My guess is that Apple don't actually want Amazon to leave. The 'there is an app for that' meme is more valuable than directing a few more sales to the iBookstore. eBooks are, frankly, just not that big of a market to risk the overall platform for. They are more interested in the magazine market, where the iPad doesn't really have any competitors at the same size and capability. They have the chance to define how the digital magazine model will work right from the start. If they think they can take a slice of Amazon's revenue they might well try to do so, but they aren't going to set a level that they know will force Amazon out. So both sides want to work it out, and I think this is supported by the lack of any real official statements by either side. I imagine deals are being done quietly and this will have turned out to be a storm in a teacup.

02-28-2011, 08:34 AM	#291
TallMomof2 Kindlephilia Posts: 2,017 Karma: 1139255 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Snowpacolypse 2010 Device: Too many to count	Personally, I think Apple would be nuts to force Amazon and B&N out of the app store with their draconian 30% Apple tax. But I was one of those who didn't think Apple would allow their apps on the iPad so what do I know? This could be a ploy to force more book purchases through the iBooks (I think that's the name) app. Since Amazon and B&N can't set prices now because of the Agency 5 collusion they would be forced to take a loss on every Agency book they sold through their app on the iPad. As of this morning if you look at the top 20 Kindle paid books only 2 of 20 are Agency books with fixed prices. However, of the first 20 books listed on the NYT's bestseller ficiton list 15 of 20 have fixed prices. On any of those Agency books that are sold through the app, Amazon and B&N would have to to hand over 30%. Guess what? 30% is what the Agency books give Amazon and B&N. Amazon and anyone else selling Agency books cannot afford to sell on iOS. There is no extra pie to hand to Apple. Apple would be taking all of Amazon's pie. What I see is Amazon (and everyone else) negotiating a greatly reduced tax to sell on iOS. I'd rather see them out of iOS completely because any tax like this sets a bad precedence. BTW, I'm not an Apple hater just terribly disappointed in their products. Even my kids don't use their iPods anymore since it's just as easy to load music and videos on their Android phones. The phones were far, far less expensive than the iPhone. My MacBook only boots into OSX when there is an update, I only boot into Windows since OSX makes it too hard to talk to hardware not officially approved by Apple.