Kobo / Apple purchasing changes

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by stonetools

(Shrug)

Originally Posted by fbrII

(Shrug)

I feel a group shrug coming on

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taming

Surely you cannot be comparing a single use device with an iOS phone or Tablet--apples (no joke) and oranges. If Kobo releases a tablet and you can only buy Kobo books on it, then we will have something to talk about.

Which is what B&N did with the Nook Color.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Which is what B&N did with the Nook Color.

If they would've offered up a large app store similar to Amazon's, I wouldn't care that they've blocked competing apps. But since their app store is a joke, I had no other choice but to jail break my Color.

Amazon is already headed down that path. They've already blocked several competing apps, like Netflix and Nook. It's hard to say what they have in mind when they release their tablet. Will they lock it into their ecosystem like Apple does or will they allow access to Google's app store and allow Nook and Netflix on it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

If they would've offered up a large app store similar to Amazon's, I wouldn't care that they've blocked competing apps. But since their app store is a joke, I had no other choice but to jail break my Color.

Amazon is already headed down that path. They've already blocked several competing apps, like Netflix and Nook. It's hard to say what they have in mind when they release their tablet. Will they lock it into their ecosystem like Apple does or will they allow access to Google's app store and allow Nook and Netflix on it?

I would certainly anticipate that an Amazon tablet would be locked to the Amazon ecosystem. I very much doubt that Amazon will be in the business of selling general-purpose Android tablets. If I want to use a general-purpose tablet, I have my iPad.

[juxtapose]

It looks like NO company that sells ebooks are letting Apple get 30% of all their sales. Not only does it screw up their entire pipeline of publisher/author/book seller fees but it gives Apple far too much money.

Think if Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and others all giving 30% of each ebook sale. Apple would make hundreds of of millions of dollars in a few years. I don't see any ebook selling company caving into Apples rules and letting them get a cut of each sale. All the apps will just pull the stores from the app and thats the end of it,.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by juxtapose

Think if Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and others all giving 30% of each ebook sale. Apple would make hundreds of of millions of dollars in a few years. I don't see any ebook selling company caving into Apples rules and letting them get a cut of each sale. All the apps will just pull the stores from the app and thats the end of it,.

They are "caving in to Apple's rules" in the sense that they are simply removing in-app purchasing. I'm not aware of anyone who's withdrawn an app due to these rules.

[John F]

Originally Posted by stonetools

(Shrug)

All of content providers affected by the rules change have complied. Clearly, they think it's good business for them to remain on Ios platform. ...

How about Sony? Doing a quick Google, it looks like it was pulled from ios in February, and I see no mention of an ios App on Sony's ebook site?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

How about Sony? Doing a quick Google, it looks like it was pulled from ios in February, and I see no mention of an ios App on Sony's ebook site?

It wasn't pulled; it was never released.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not aware of anyone who's withdrawn an app due to these rules.

iFlowReader shut down because of those rules.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by stonetools

My problem here is that I don't know where it is written that it is just fine and dandy for eink devices to be closed, whereas tablets MUST be completely open to all. Please link to this commandment . Thanks in advance.

First of all; all of the bookstore-supplied ebook readers have *always* been locked to one kind of DRM and the vendors are upfront about it. (Just as they are upfront that you can sideload DRM-free content.)
You know what you're getting into.
Others aren't, so it's not *all* eink devices. Most brands actually are totally open, and in fact it is up to the buyer to find content on their own.

The difference is that iPad was (somewhat) open *at release* and now it is less so, so *current* owners find the rules have changed on them *after* the fact.
Some just shrug, others are incensed.
Those that are ticked have a right to be ticked off; this is not what they signed off for. (Now, future buyers, those have no right to be offended.)

Sony did the same thing to the PS3 buyers; after years of branding PS3 as entertainment *computers* and marketting them as cancer-curing, extraterrestrial-hunting LINUX-capable computers, they turned around and decided they really were gaming consoles after all and removed the ability to install alternate OSes from *all* consoles, not just newly-released ones.
Again, some just shrugged; others were incensed.
Some of the incensed were hackers and some were crackers and some of the crackers decided to show Sony how incensed they were, so the rest of us were treated to the "amusing" circus of very public network exploits disrupting Sony's entire business for a month.

The issue is not the changes; Apple owns the platform and feels they own the customer base and feel they need to get a cut of *every* single transaction carried out on *their* hardware.
They can do that, they're Apple.
They have every right to squeeze every last penny they can out of *their* customers.

The issue is timing.
If the iPad had *launched* with that caveat in place from day one, nobody would have a right to complain, just as everybody who buys an iPad from here on out has no right to complain.

It's the retroactive nature (and the context) of the change that has these folks upset.
They bought into one value-proposition and are getting a degraded one foisted upon them with no option or recourse.

Although, with the used iPad market being so healthy, there *is* one form of recourse.

My take is simple: if you don't like how a company does business (be it brand libel, false advertising, preying on the unwary, or other unsavory practices) take your business elsewhere. If you're *really* offended, go elsewhere.

Alternatives always exist.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The difference is that iPad was (somewhat) open *at release* and now it is less so, so *current* owners find the rules have changed on them *after* the fact.

I must respectfully disagree. Buying books through the Safari app rather than through the Kobo or the Amazon app does not (to my mind) make the platform "less open". Why do you believe that it does?

It's a change, sure. But is it a change that makes it "less open"? No, I don't think that it is.

[fbrII]

My take is simple: if you don't like how a company does business (be it brand libel, false advertising, preying on the unwary, or other unsavory practices) take your business elsewhere. If you're *really* offended, go elsewhere.

Simple logical and to the point - I think that about sums it up.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I must respectfully disagree. Buying books through the Safari app rather than through the Kobo or the Amazon app does not (to my mind) make the platform "less open". Why do you believe that it does?

It's a change, sure. But is it a change that makes it "less open"? No, I don't think that it is.

I respect your position, but consider the case of a total non-techie that buys an iPad:

They take the iPad home and start looking for apps to install.
"Hey! ebook readers! Lets try them out!"
"Kobo reader."
One install later.
"Okay. How's this thing work? I don't see any books? It says 'Sign in', but there's no way to create an account. Doesn't say where to get an account either. Or what the account offers."
"Useless."
"Let me try Kindle, I hear a lot of people have Kindles..."
"Same thing... Stupidd apps are only good if you *already* have an account..."

Should I continue?
Remember the post from the Kobo dev in the other thread?
How you can't create accounts from the app?
How Apple kept bouncing the Kobo app for even *mentioning* their web site?

Sure, if you're technically literate or already a customer of Kobo/Nook/Amazon, etc, the change is just a matter of running to the browser.
But, let's not kid ourselves, Apple's customer base includes a ton of non-techies who don't have pre-existing accounts or know where to get one.
For those people there is iBooks, which "just works" and the rest, none of which works without jumping through hoops. (Who's going to be happy with an app you have to call user support to find out where to set-up an account?)

Apple's objective is to make iBooks more competive and this move will undoubtedly assure that it offers the "best experience" of any *allowed* app.

Now, I'm not going to argue with you, of all people, but to me, making the platform more hostile to users of competing apps and preventing the apps from even *mentioning* their web sites is a reduction in "open-ness".

It certainly closes one communication channel between the app vendor and the iPad user and probably raises their support costs.

And it raises the bariers to entry to new ebook vendors/apps. Kindle is a household name; Nook and Kobo less so. But any other would-be players? How will they even *tell* app users they *have* an ebook store?

It's not about us, really; we're familiar with the business and hear about every new aspiring player. But the typical iPad newbie? They'll sing the praises of iBooks!

Peace!

[Suzanna]

I just wanted to come back and report on my findings about loading non-Kobo books to the Kobo Touch via the browser. Last night (while in bed ) I used the browser to visit the Project Gutenberg site and download two ebooks to my ereader. Those ebooks showed up on the Kobo's main screen (which all new books do) and I was able to read them.

Reading DRMed ebooks might be a problem, though. I imagine those purchases would still have to go through ADE before they could be read.

Originally Posted by juxtapose

It looks like NO company that sells ebooks are letting Apple get 30% of all their sales. Not only does it screw up their entire pipeline of publisher/author/book seller fees but it gives Apple far too much money.

Think if Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and others all giving 30% of each ebook sale. Apple would make hundreds of of millions of dollars in a few years. I don't see any ebook selling company caving into Apples rules and letting them get a cut of each sale. All the apps will just pull the stores from the app and thats the end of it,.

It's not just a matter of Apple becoming rich off the backs of other bookstores. Under the Agency pricing model (which all six big publishers use) a bookstore gets 30% of each sale. Apple knows this since they were the ones who first brokered the Agency agreements with various publishers. When Apple asks these bookstores to hand over 30% of a sale, they're really saying that they expect these bookstores to make *nothing* on those sales.

As for non-Agency books ... while I have no facts to back this up, I would guess that many of those books are the lower priced ones on the various ebook stores. I doubt the bookstores are making 30% from each book sold, so they'd lose money on every single book sold. The only option open to ebook stores, then, under a proposed model where they'd see at best 0% from each sale, at worst a loss on each sale, would be to remove the in-app link to the store. I'm sure Apple knew this, and doubt very much that they actually expected anyone to agree to their prososed deal.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I respect your position, but consider the case of a total non-techie that buys an iPad:

They take the iPad home and start looking for apps to install.
"Hey! ebook readers! Lets try them out!"
"Kobo reader."
One install later.
"Okay. How's this thing work? I don't see any books? It says 'Sign in', but there's no way to create an account. Doesn't say where to get an account either. Or what the account offers."
"Useless."
"Let me try Kindle, I hear a lot of people have Kindles..."
"Same thing... Stupidd apps are only good if you *already* have an account..."

Should I continue?
Remember the post from the Kobo dev in the other thread?
How you can't create accounts from the app?
How Apple kept bouncing the Kobo app for even *mentioning* their web site?

Sure, if you're technically literate or already a customer of Kobo/Nook/Amazon, etc, the change is just a matter of running to the browser.
But, let's not kid ourselves, Apple's customer base includes a ton of non-techies who don't have pre-existing accounts or know where to get one.
For those people there is iBooks, which "just works" and the rest, none of which works without jumping through hoops. (Who's going to be happy with an app you have to call user support to find out where to set-up an account?)

Apple's objective is to make iBooks more competive and this move will undoubtedly assure that it offers the "best experience" of any *allowed* app.

Now, I'm not going to argue with you, of all people, but to me, making the platform more hostile to users of competing apps and preventing the apps from even *mentioning* their web sites is a reduction in "open-ness".

It certainly closes one communication channel between the app vendor and the iPad user and probably raises their support costs.

And it raises the bariers to entry to new ebook vendors/apps. Kindle is a household name; Nook and Kobo less so. But any other would-be players? How will they even *tell* app users they *have* an ebook store?

It's not about us, really; we're familiar with the business and hear about every new aspiring player. But the typical iPad newbie? They'll sing the praises of iBooks!

Peace!