NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Then think before you post.

Back to the topic at hand...

You should try thinking about this thread. I'll boil it down for you, because you seem to have trouble following it:

1. Many of us on the forum were happily enjoying our Apple devices.
2. The NYT story came out and we wanted clarification from Apple.
3. Apple said it will start enforcing the inside/outside sales.
4. Some of us see negative implications because of Apple's announcement.
5. Some of us decide that that's a deal-breaker when it comes to continuing to buy Apple devices.

The consistency here is that we're all buying devices to serve our needs, not to cling blindly to Apple. Each consumer has different priorities. Some will still be fine with Apple. Apple can serve customers as it sees fit, as customers can spend as they see fit.

[snipenekkid]

Well apparently publisher in Europe don't get it either:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/new...an-publishers/

European publishing groups are set to meet later this month to discuss Apple’s recent policy changes for publishers, according to a mocoNews report. Following Apple’s recent move to reject the Sony Reader app and subsequent announcement that it is “now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase,” the International Newsmedia Marketing Association (INMA)—which represents some 5,000 members in 80 countries—is holding a meeting with the European Online Publishers Association and the magazine association FIPP on February 17 in London to discuss Apple’s new rules. “The relationship between Apple and publishers has always been direct so its very difficult to find out what is happening elsewhere,” said Grzegorz Piechota, the European president of the INMA.

Many publishers who previously relied on web-based forms for handling subscriptions are confused with Apple’s stance. “Some say they feel betrayed,” Piechota said. “They believed that it would be a great way to access content from newspapers and magazines. So they hyped the iPad, and many of them invested in apps for it. By promoting these apps, they promoted the device. Publishers in fact helped to make the iPad successful on the market.” In explaining Apple’s inconsistencies when dealing with publishers, Piechota said, “Apple said yesterday that that in their policy with Sony Reader, they are not changing anything, just enforcing existing rules. But when they talk to publishers direct, they are saying something else. Apple has been contacting some publishers, and not contacting some. Some get emails, others get informal phone calls,” he said. “The whole process of accepting or rejecting apps is not transparent. It’s very hard to explain why some apps are being accepted and some are being refused; some apps allow you to read content that is bought somewhere else and others that won’t let you do this.” Noting that publishers in Belgium and France have taken the matter to authorities, Piechota said, “Legal action is the least wanted solution. It is slow and will damage the relationship between Apple and publishers. The first thing is a dialogue. As publishers we need to know what Apple is playing at.”

[david_e]

I suggest everyone go back and reread the original NYT article.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by david_e

I suggest everyone go back and reread the original NYT article.

The NYT article is now outdated. I'd suggest reading articles with updated info. They abound on the Net. The link that snipenekkid posted is one of 'em.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

That pisses me off. A lot. Its time to start looking for a new phone. Any recs?

Having played with a friend's iPhone, and my own Android phone, I would recommend almost any Android over the iPhone.

As to which one, depends on your needs. You can get one fairly cheaply (I think the Optimus T that I have is free with a new T-mobile account. It is a little underpowered, with some memory lims, but it is pretty good already.)

[david_e]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

The NYT article is now outdated. I'd suggest reading articles with updated info. They abound on the Net. The link that snipenekkid posted is one of 'em.

Really? I thought clarification about access to prior purchased content was what everyone so desperately wanted?

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by david_e

Really? I thought clarification about access to prior purchased content was what everyone so desperately wanted?

Snark removed.

Please reread post No. 211.

[RockdaMan]

Putting aside the war of words with Maggie (apologies Mags), this is a very Apple-like MO.

They take an extreme position, wait out the hue and cry of its users and the threats from the government, and then take a conciliatory step backwards.

This thread and this issue will be almost certainly dead and buried in six to twelve months, and most certainly in 12 to 18.

[david_e]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Snark removed.

Please reread post No. 211.

For what purpose would I need to reread your boorish attempt at reprimanding someone else?

Had you simply reread the article as I suggested you would know the article was amended.

"Correction: February 3, 2011


An article on Tuesday about Apple’s tightening of its control of the App Store misstated part of its policy. While the company is requiring e-book purchases within apps to go through its payment system, customers can still use apps to access e-books and other content they bought elsewhere. It is not the case that access to that content will be cut off."

Isn't that what the real concern was, losing access to existing material?

Why would anyone care if retailers are required to have an in app sale option? Apple can require that the option be available but they certainly can't force any customer to use it.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by david_e

Why would anyone care if retailers are required to have an in app sale option? Apple can require that the option be available but they certainly can't force any customer to use it.

You might understand if you read the thread. There have been multiple posts on that. You don't have to agree, of course. And you might notice that none of us is worried about losing immediate access to books.

[snipenekkid]

david:

that would be nice. can ya provide a link to the source of this? If it is not an official press release from Apple it's not fact. Just like if there aren't pictures it never happened, ya know?

I would of thought even if the situation really is as your note indicates, then if the app needed to access that content is no longer an "approved" app then it's no different that blocking content purchased via other options as for all of Sony, B&N & Amazon you need their apps to actually read the books down the road. That leaves the users in a lurch because the app they have installed won't have access to updates -- as app not in the store = ability to no update so no improvements in the app = a progressively less useful and attractive app and thus less reason to own and use the device for many people. I don't need an device just to access the web and check email. A Touch is nice for that but not at the current $300 price tag for a 32gb device with no ability to increase storage capacity or even change the battery.

And if you read the article I posted above, post 212 I believe maybe 213 I dunno but you can find it. But that article indicates the state of confusion among publishers who did indeed follow the Apple model, submitted their app and now some are getting notices that what was already approved is no longer OK. And the confusion is simply because Apple simply is not consistent in their application of their own guidelines. I don't give a crap if they have too many apps to approve to get it right the first time, not a user's problem because as so many are happy to state :...it's Apple's sandbox and their rules so deal with it" Well, apparently Apple can't be counted on to follow their own guidelines/rules nor apply them in a consistent fashion. This sounds more like the IRS than a real business. These are the reasons people are concerned, what is OK today can, at Apple's whim, not be OK tomorrow. And you cannot lay responsibility at the feet of the app developers, it is APPLE who already approved an app as written and with the features already in place.

All of this is no better than what Apple claims their platform offers over the option of Windows, no need to spend time working around what some call problems the user should never need worry about. Well, here is a case of a corporate induced BUG in their system which has users actively seeking other options because if they are going to face these sorts of issues why not use devices with full and real computer functionality and operating systems where how one uses the device is not dictated by the label on the machine. It's about the trade off of freedom and knowing tomorrow when I turn on the device and see an update, that update is not going to stop any of my needed apps from working or eliminate the ability to download updates/upgrades for those apps because Apple has decided after-the-fact to remove it from the App Store.

I think that is all people want, and it needs to be officially addressed by Apple. If an app is approved then it's approved for good, unless the developer adds something in the future that is in violation of the rules as adding a function to an approved app which breaks the guidelines should not be allowed even if prior approval allowed features Apple did not want. If Apple needs do anything it's fire the people who approved the apps in question to begin with and just live with the situation at their expense not the users. Apple is the one vetting the apps for the "safety" everyone, right? Apple is here to "...keep us safe from the big bad internet and the evil competition." But to paraphrase who protects us from Apple [the protectors]?

[david_e]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

david:

that would be nice. can ya provide a link to the source of this?

Yes, it is the original New York Times article that was linked in post #1 that started this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/te....html?_r=1&hpw

[david_e]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

You might understand if you read the thread. There have been multiple posts on that. You don't have to agree, of course. And you might notice that none of us is worried about losing immediate access to books.

Had you followed your own advice and "read the thread" you would know that no one has ever mentioned that the original article you referenced in post #1 of this thread has been corrected and that the correction should allay any fears anyone may have about losing access to previously purchased material.

And what I did notice is how you seem to have conflicting opinions. While you might not feel an 'immediate' worry, you were obviously concerned enough to reference the possible loss of access in three other posts.

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Agreed. I'll leave that to class-action lawyers to argue, though. I'm not OK with this change bigger picture because of that. I wouldn't have bought any tablet without book access. And I'm not gonna keep buying Apple hardware if I hafta wonder what they might try next that might limit my access to books.

Good thing is, Amazon has announced a curated Android app store (no date set yet), and that's what I'm waiting for -- some kinda screening for apps -- because I just want tech to work. I don't want to mess with it. I could if I had to, but I'd rather not.

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

The Sony app isn't the issue, IMO. That brings up a side argument and company baggage that isn't central to my concerns as an iDevice buyer.

Why I will no longer buy Apple devices now:

There's no immediate effect on my access to books even with Apple now enforcing the requirement for app developers to offer buying both inside and outside an app. But I wonder what happens the next time a business dispute crops up between a content provider and Apple. If Apple later decides it wants 31 percent and X company says no, what happens to my access to that company's books? Such possible ripple effects are endless, though my risk is uncertain. But as a consumer, there's no reason I have to risk my access to books over loyalty to Apple. I'm not loyal as a consumer. I look out for myself, so I'll buy another platform.

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I can't speak for others, but I'm not interested in assigning blame.

Apple seems within its rights to start enforcing the apps agreements with developers. As a consumer, all I needed to know was that that might limit my access to books, if not now, later.

As snipenekkid says, we buy devices for the convenience of accessing our content. If Apple is undermining that feature, I don't have reason to keep buying.

I was simply trying to provide information that I thought some would find useful. While it may no longer be of interest to you, it certainly may be of interest to others.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by david_e

Had you followed your own advice and "read the thread" you would know that no one has ever mentioned that the original article you referenced in post #1 of this thread has been corrected and that the correction should allay any fears anyone may have about losing access to previously purchased material.

And what I did notice is how you seem to have conflicting opinions. While you might not feel an 'immediate' worry, you were obviously concerned enough to reference the possible loss of access in three other posts. ...


I was simply trying to provide information that I thought some would find useful. While it may no longer be of interest to you, it certainly may be of interest to others.

I saw no need for us to correct the NYT, because the story signaled only that losing book access was a possibility. Others and I e-mailed Apple, hoping for clarification, because we didn't assume that the info was true. If you feel need to correct the NYT, you're certainly free to, of course. I doubted immediate loss of books was likely, and when no one else confirmed that, I figured it wasn't an issue.

What Apple did come out and say to other media outlets, about enforcing inside/outside sales (and the implications of that), that was the deal-breaker for me. As I posted, that meant to me that I could no longer count on Apple to deliver a key feature that led me to buy an iPad. Of course I'm concerned about the possible loss of books longer term. I spelled that out in my posts.

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by david_e

Yes, it is the original New York Times article that was linked in post #1 that started this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/te....html?_r=1&hpw

Hi David, I do appreciate your pointing out that the original story was revised - it does clarify the immediate-term concern.

However, I agree with Maggie that it is the subsequent addition - the inclusion of Apple's statement from February 2nd - that is raising most of the concern.

Let me take you through what I understand, and if I've made an error in logic or understanding, I'd sincerely appreciate it being pointed out.

Apple has said that apps can continue to access content purchased outside of an app, but if they do, they are required to offer the ability to purchase the same content through the in-app purchase system.

This may be, worst case scenario that you can only offer content that is also available from Apple (and I hope this isn't the extreme they are moving towards) or just that you need to offer the content via Apple's purchase system, regardless of whether it's available in the iBookstore.

Now, does that read correctly? That is what I'm interpreting from Apple's statement.

Second premise is an assumption which may or may not prove correct in this case but is a current precedent for content: Apple charges 30% of the total sale when transactions are processed through the in-app purchase model.

Third premise: Amazon's acquiecence to the agency model has, for many titles, limited them to a total gross margin of 30% of the retail price of the book. That's before whispernet, advertising, overhead, etc.

And remember, just because you purchased a title on the iOs, it doesn't mean you won't also be downloading it to your other devices via whispernet - which is alway free to the user.

Fourth premise: If Amazon was required to offer in-app purchasing of titles, and Apple demanded 30% of the gross sale, Amazon would lose money on each in-app sale.

Fifth premise: If, as Apple claims, the in-app purchased mode proves to be much more popular with users, Amazon will operate on the iOs platform at a net loss, while simultaneously providing Apple, a bookstore competitor, with extensive customer information and their ebook buying history.

Sixth premise: Amazon would reluctantly have to depart the iOs platform, rather than maintain a loss while also providing key strategic business information to a competitor.

For Amazon, substitute B&N, Kobo, etc. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Now, this whole stack of cards stands or collapses on premise number 2, the 30% figure. And that's why I think Apple is being vague. If they think they can get away with killing the competition and making iBookstore the sole iOs ebook supplier, they'll happily do so. If, on the other hand, if they realize that would cause a huge backlash, which is has begun to, they'll like come out all innocent and present it as just a POS convenience service, at some rate greater than the usual POS margin of 2-3% but less than a crippling 20%. I vote for 5-10%, a figure the developer at Kobo already mentioned.

But, I'm still unsure if they worst case scenerio - 30% margin, Amazon goes away - might still be a likely path. Or if the notion of turning over strategic information might be even harder for Amazon to swallow.

And it's the uncertainty, now, in the past and presumably in the future, that makes me wonder if it's really as great as I think inside this walled garden, and if I should turn off my admitted default buy-next-iOs-release-product zombie mode, and start looking outside the garden. The fact that Apple seems to like changing the de-facto rules, often while denying that they're changing them, make this a platform with a certain risk and unpredictability, often seeming to turn on a whim. Heck, I bought the Google voice app... two days before they pulled it, and thereby pulled the update path to ensure it continued to work.

Don't get me wrong, I quite like my Apple products, but, like some foreign aid, they always seem to come with ideological compromises attached. I've worked with software companies before as a developer, but Apple has mastered the art of shortcomings as features, by playing them off as ideological principals. Like, for example, not supporting bluetooth keyboards in iOs for 3 years because it's "not the iPhone way."