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

[Worldwalker]

One critical thing to remember, which some of the company partisans here are forgetting:

Apple does not do what is best for the customer; Apple does what is best for Apple.

There are times when what is best for them is to look like what they're doing is best for us. There are times when their interests and ours actually do coincide. But they do what is best for us only, only, when it also happens to be best for them; if impaling their customers on poles in front of their headquarters happened to be best for them ("best" of course including it being legal) then the poles would go up tomorrow.

And you can fill in the name of any other public corporation in place of "Apple".

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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.

All of this is true, although of course profitability varies by app.

So Amazon would lose sales by leaving the app store.

This is undoubtedly true, although the real question is how many sales they would lose. Among the target market (the people reading a book a month or more), the question is whether they would just switch to iBooks (a format completely incompatible with their existing Kindle books), or whether they would instead use a Kindle. Obviously any number is a guess, but I'd guess that at least half of the heavy readers are going to stay with Amazon for books - and maybe many more.

And of course Apple will lose iPad sales as well.

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%.

Yes to part one. As to part two, it's probably closer (or below) 5%. Amazon has very low margins.

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.

I'm sure that there is some negotiating going on. But right now, Apple has said it wants 30%, and that's just impossible for Amazon.

Note that the points I made above in reference to the Kindle/Amazon are likely just as true in reference to the Nook/B&N.

[John F]

"Maybe Apple's New App Subscription Rule Won't Hammer Amazon"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Maybe-....html?x=0&.v=1

[carld]

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's true, given Apple's policy that the iTunes price has to be equal or lower than any other price, Amazon & B&N would have to increase the price of every ebook they sell (to everyone, not just iPad customers) by 30% to compensate for the Apple tax. I can't even imagine the amount of hell they'd catch over something like that.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by John F

"Maybe Apple's New App Subscription Rule Won't Hammer Amazon"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Maybe-....html?x=0&.v=1

On the earlier thread, I made the point that even if this does apply only to subscriptions it could still affect Amazon to a certain extent. At the moment Amazon doesn't offer subscriptions on iOS - unlike on the desktop apps and on Android - and the ruling will make it tricky for them to do so in the future.

If Amazon decided to offer subs that were readable in the iOS Kindle app they would then have to remove the link to the web store from the app, and easy access to purchase their content.

Graham

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Graham

On the earlier thread, I made the point that even if this does apply only to subscriptions it could still affect Amazon to a certain extent. At the moment Amazon doesn't offer subscriptions on iOS - unlike on the desktop apps and on Android - and the ruling will make it tricky for them to do so in the future.

If Amazon decided to offer subs that were readable in the iOS Kindle app they would then have to remove the link to the web store from the app, and easy access to purchase their content.

Graham

What about audio books? I recently purchased a subscription for Audible.com for my husband. I didn't realize that audible.com was owned by Amazon until recently.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

What about audio books? I recently purchased a subscription for Audible.com for my husband. I didn't realize that audible.com was owned by Amazon until recently.

Yeah that happened, much to my concern, a few years ago now (I think it was a good 3-yrs ago but who knows ??? ).

If you have multiple Audible accounts don't get bitten by a very hidden bit of Apple iTunes subterfuge. You can have Audible content from ONLY two Audible accounts at any given time. Many people have multiple accounts in a household for a variety of reasons. But sharing audiobooks has long been a normal thing for me and mine. Until I was trying out that iPod Touch and I discovered the limit. So for me it was a turn of the coffin screw for me and iOS/ We have 5 or 6 Audible accounts, honestly I don't remember. But we need at minimum 4 of them. With those restrictions it's impossible to carry everyone's books on a single device for trips or whatever reason. So instead I am back to use the very old Creative Zen Xtra Jukebox device I upgraded from 30gb to 100gb. It's a good 7yrs old now, and it was a refurb/return at Best Buy when I bought it to begin with. But for me it does not have that iTunes imposed 2-Audible account limitation.

Basically what happens in iTunes is you can add content from an account beyond two but all of the content form one account has to be deleted first. So it's a case of constantly chasing your own tail just to listen to books you legitimately paid for is you go iOS as your only Audible compatible device. Gotta love those Apple policies!!

[stonetools]

I think the Yahoo Finance article is pretty encouraging. If Steve Jobs himself says the new model was meant to apply solely to publishing companies, then neither Amazon or Netflix is affected The complete silence of all the booksellers-ALL of them - is pretty good evidence that they don't think they are affected.
One other piece of solid evidence. There is an app for the Ipad called Amazon Windowshop. It repackages the Amazon Marketplace as an app, offeringa very good inapp browsing and purchasing experience for everything except Kindle books. See a review here

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2010/10/w...-shop-amazon/#

Amazon brought this out last October, and it strains credulity to believe that Apple is going to push away Amazon or that Amazon is going to leave Apple given this commitment.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict with 90 per cent confidence that booksellers will not be affected by this.
Well, its been real fellas. What this shows the absolute, foaming at the mouth paronoia that any move by Apple engenders. Its been quite a show.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, its been real fellas.... Its been quite a show.

So, are you going to stick around on your own time? Or do you have to go do something else now?

[stonetools]

So, are you going to stick around on your own time? Or do you have to go do something else now?

Well, one thing I will do is to continue to ignore all posters who are so dumb that they can't formulate arguments without descending to the level of personal insults and moronic ad hominems. GOODBYE!!

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

So basically it boils down to: They're entitled to it because they think they can get away with it. They think access to their platform is valuable enough that they should get baksheesh for transactions in which they take no part.

That's pretty much it...other than denying Apple's it's role in creating the platform and marketing it.

Oh...and it's not enough for Apple to value it's platform, OTHER folks have to value it. So far, seems abundantly clear, that plenty of folks agree that the Apple platform is valuable.

Now perhaps YOU don't value it quite so much. Maybe some publishers won't either. That's business as usual. I have no problem walking by stores like Gucci, Nordstrom -- any high price brand. I don't even bother to go in. I don't value what they sell anywhere near the prices they ask. I've never even gone into one of those "if you have to ask the price..." car dealers though I might well admire the look of their cars from the sidewalk.

That's like you and the other Apple naysayers. Perfectly legitimate.

But those businesses do what they do because THEY value their own products and have a clientelle that does as well.

The mall example is a rather fitting one. Some malls can command higher fees than others because they draw a higher paying clientelle. I'm sure folks that shop at Gucci and the like don't care how Wal-Mart runs their business.

Listening to some of these discussions is rather like hearing the WalMart crowd criticize how Gucci runs it's business.

Lee

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, one thing I will do is to continue to ignore all posters who are so dumb that they can't formulate arguments without descending to the level of personal insults and moronic ad hominems. GOODBYE!!

[tubemonkey]

I don't care if Apple takes 30%, because I don't pay for anything I put on my iPod. So these companies can all pull their apps and I won't miss them.

As to Apple, let's just say that I don't like them and we'll leave it at that. As soon as a viable Android version of the touch is released, I'll ditch my one and only Apple device.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by lotrfan

The other problem is that malls are only as good as the stores in it and if the rent becomes too high that the stores can't have any profits then no amount of sales will allow them to survive in said mall.

What you bring up as a difference is actually an example of how they are the same. Apple has to attract content and apps to it's platform. It's essential. If Apple truly does drive too many of such businesses away from it's platform, the platform will fail.

It's exactly like a mall. You have to have the stores to bring in the people. But you don't have to have ALL the stores. Maybe you turn off Gucci, but you land Prada.

Lee

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by leebase

What you bring up as a difference is actually an example of how they are the same. Apple has to attract content and apps to it's platform. It's essential. If Apple truly does drive too many of such businesses away from it's platform, the platform will fail.

How is that different from Microsoft?

Look at personal computers: if you ask people why they don't buy a Mac, they'll tell you either "it's too expensive" or "it doesn't run the programs I want." Expense is a rather subjective thing, and rather hard to quantify. But not running the programs you want is pretty solid. Microsoft has done a better job of attracting developers to Windows than Apple has done for the Macintosh OS, so people buy Windows machines.

Any developer or vendor of an operating system needs to have programs and content for it. Apple does. Microsoft does. The Linux people do. There is no difference between them. My desktop computer is just as much a "mall" as my netbook, which is just as much so as an iPad.

Of course, Microsoft is probably kicking themselves for not thinking to collect money for every sale made on their Windows platform. Think of how much money they could have had!

...Think of how badly it would have sucked to be us.