Kobo's sticking it to to Apple.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

No, the revenue to Amazon and others has been completely unchanged for a couple of months.
If they had added in-app purchasing using the iTunes system, then Apple would have taken 30% and left them with nothing, but in fact Apple has received no revenue from their book sales, either in the last couple of months, or now.

Kobo's phrasing when announcing the change in the app was:

Earlier today Apple instituted new rules which affect your experience on iPhone and iPad apps. The biggest change is inability to shop within our app.

So the shopping was done within the app, which would mean that it would be subject to the 30%. At least that was my reasoning.

And I said a couple of months because I remembered that the deadline for the removal of the purchase option was in June, but I see now that it was the end of June, so this situation has been going on for just a month.

Originally Posted by Kolenka

Can you back up this "zero revenues" claim? Apple can't take a cut of a sale that doesn't go through them, and for that to happen, devs have to update their apps. Apple hasn't yanked apps that failed to comply by the deadline, and those that have updated did so by removing links to their store, so I'm not sure where this figure comes from.

Same point of view as my reply to murraypaul.

Originally Posted by Kolenka

Which in this case is semantics. The end result is the same either way.

Except for the fact that when you say a cut, it makes Apple seem like a victim because the book retailers have cleverly avoided paying their dues, while if you say that it's asking for the whole revenue, it makes Apple seem like a feudal lord that overtaxes his vassals.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

...while if you say that it's asking for the whole revenue, it makes Apple seem like a feudal lord that overtaxes his vassals.

An apt description

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So the shopping was done within the app, which would mean that it would be subject to the 30%. At least that was my reasoning.

And I said a couple of months because I remembered that the deadline for the removal of the purchase option was in June, but I see now that it was the end of June, so this situation has been going on for just a month.

Yeah, they need to use Apple's APIs for them to actually get that cut. Since Kobo wasn't, they weren't. Really the policy was saying "Use the APIs, or else", since that 30% did apply since in-app purchases debuted. It just wasn't mandatory to use them if you were selling things in the app.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Except for the fact that when you say a cut, it makes Apple seem like a victim because the book retailers have cleverly avoided paying their dues, while if you say that it's asking for the whole revenue, it makes Apple seem like a feudal lord that overtaxes his vassals.

But that's just it, both views are true, and thus the truth is somewhere in the middle. The app store loses a bit of money for every free app downloaded, like the Kobo app. That same app happens to monetize itself within the app. That is offloading some of the cost of doing business to Apple without compensating them.

But it's also true that Apple's cut happens to also be Kobo's cut and makes it unprofitable to go that route. If I want to be pedantic, I can say that "whole revenue" is an exaggeration in and of itself. It's only 30% of Kobo's revenue through the app, but the rub is that Kobo already promised 70% to the publisher.

Hell, in this situation I'd do exactly what the other retailers have been doing: pulling their in-app store links/etc, and telling their customers to buy directly, using the app as a way to consume the content once purchased. It's the right way to reach those customers on the platform while making a stand and saying Apple's rules stink. Either way, Apple is still taking a loss on these apps because they are hosting them, and they still aren't getting compensated in any way.

The HTML5 approach is interesting to me, more from the aspect that it means being able to browse and grab samples from a browser, do a bit of reading randomly on a device I don't own and so on. The portability of the solution is interesting, and it'll be interesting to see if it works.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Kolenka

Either way, Apple is still taking a loss on these apps because they are hosting them, and they still aren't getting compensated in any way.

It's their own fault by requiring all apps to go through them. So I have absolutely no sympathy for their plight.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Kolenka

The updated policy (as written in the article) explicitly disallows the use of a link inside the app. Plus the discount would be "30%". But the price hike to cover the 30% is 43% (70% of 14.28$ is ~10$). Gotta love percentages.

You don't understand, if the in app link said 'Click here to purchase "Whatsit title", $14.30'; there could be a message that says "Or visit our website at http$://whatever and get it for the discounted price of ten bucks"

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's their own fault by requiring all apps to go through them. So I have absolutely no sympathy for their plight.

Yeah, real hardship for Apple... Guess they'll be filing for Chapter 11 after such serious damage to their bottom line...

[vaughnmr]

You either pay the Apple Tax, or go to the other app store. Oh, wait, there is no other app store allowed. Apple fail, Android win on this one.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Yeah, real hardship for Apple... Guess they'll be filing for Chapter 11 after such serious damage to their bottom line...

Context

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kolenka

See the following article.

Apple Reverses Course On In-App Subscriptions

That does suggest that it is now allowed, whereas the SlashGear article I had read said that both 11.13 and 11.14 were still active, so that if in-app payments were enabled, the price had to be the same. Anyone signed up for the Apple developer program who can confirm?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by wodin

You don't understand, if the in app link said 'Click here to purchase "Whatsit title", $14.30'; there could be a message that says "Or visit our website at http$://whatever and get it for the discounted price of ten bucks"

That is explicitly disallowed by the app store guidelines:

11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app.

The message from Kobo confirmed that this has been taken to include a reference to the external website, even if the reference was not a clickable link.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Context

???? Explain... I was just commenting on your QUOTED remark or didn't you notice?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by elcreative

???? Explain... I was just commenting on your QUOTED remark or didn't you notice?

Context was in reference to my quote; not yours. The only thing at stake is Apple's greed; not their bottom line.

[elcreative]

Sorry, forgot your anti-Apple stance... just for a change, try not to show any anti manufacturer bias for... say a week, it doesn't hurt...

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

That does suggest that it is now allowed, whereas the SlashGear article I had read said that both 11.13 and 11.14 were still active, so that if in-app payments were enabled, the price had to be the same. Anyone signed up for the Apple developer program who can confirm?

11.13 is still there, but it's been completely gutted from what it was. It talks about the 'no linking' policy.

Originally Posted by Apple Review Guidelines

11.13 Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the app, such as a “buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app

And honestly, I don't expect any business of any kind to run a charity. Kobo doesn't, Apple doesn't, your Mom and Pop store doesn't. Shareholders and investors in general don't take kindly to businesses operating parts of their company at a loss for long periods of time (and more of us indirectly fall into this category than you'd think, unless your retirement comes from thin air or social security programs alone).

They will all do what it takes to keep their owners/shareholders happy, and a lot of times it comes in conflict with other businesses. Do I like the approach Apple has taken here? No. Can I see where they are coming from? Yeah. Do I believe that Kobo and the like are smart enough to find a way to profit despite Apple's stance? You bet. Although Sony worries me. They have great engineers, but their business mindset is poorly adapted for Western markets. Kobo has some engineering hurdles to jump before they get my trust as well (new bugs in existing functionality on a regular basis with their devices is not a good thing).

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Sorry, forgot your anti-Apple stance...

That's why I have an iPod touch.