Google now as greedy as Apple?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Me, I kind of like picking something out of the store and buying it from my phone (rarely, but it's still nice for spur of the moment purchases). Fortunately I can still do it from the eBook devices, so not a huge loss.

In the early days of Windows 10 when they were pushing their Metro apps, I installed the Amazon app. 10 minutes of use showed me I would rather just browse Amazon on Firefox where I can also have other tabs open.

You could just do the same thing on your phone. Uninstall the Amazon app for instance and pin a short cut to the website on your home screen instead. Often now the mobile site is as good as the app and if it is not, places like Amazon and B&N have millions of reasons to work on improving it.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Actually B&N is NOT doing this any more via Android Play Store (can't speak for the Apple App Store but I guess they don't offer in-app sales there either). I don't know if they ever did do it (which is how this thread got started, changes in the Nook App, also changes in the PocketBook App). Apparently, Google just started enforcing this new 30% rate on them and B&N and PocketBook "declined the offer." How could they possibly compete if subject to those terms?

I meant both have infrastructure to sell and do sell their goods using them outside of the app.

Of course with their stranglehold on ebooks Apple and Google should have well over half the market considering the install bases for their phones and other devices.

And yet for the US:

eBook Market Share

Amazon 81%
Nook 9%
Apple Books 7%
Kobo 3%

But don’t quote us, we are going off anecdotal information, and we don’t have data to support these figures

https://booksliced.com/books/the-exa...ome-esitmates/

And while they say not to quote them their figures are in line with other sites as near as I can find. If someone wants to dig deeper by all means feel free. Oddly Google isn’t even on this list though other sites did register them, generally around 3-5%.

Now Apple is beating out Kobo in the US but Kobos US representation has always been fairly poor and I think we can all agree Walmart isn’t doing them a world of good. BN on the other hand is still ahead of Apple though I’ll grant it’s a close race there. Of course they’re all comfortably shut out by Amazon who are under the same restrictions as BN and Kobo in terms of the Apple and Google stores.

Apple has been doing this 30% thing for a long time so if they were going to see some strong results they’d already have come to the forefront. But as it stands at absolute best they’re a far distant second to Amazon who’s lapped them 8 times over.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

In the early days of Windows 10 when they were pushing their Metro apps, I installed the Amazon app. 10 minutes of use showed me I would rather just browse Amazon on Firefox where I can also have other tabs open.

You could just do the same thing on your phone. Uninstall the Amazon app for instance and pin a short cut to the website on your home screen instead. Often now the mobile site is as good as the app and if it is not, places like Amazon and B&N have millions of reasons to work on improving it.

By allowing in-app sales, the PocketBook and Nook (to name two) smartphone app experience can more closely match what you get when using eReaders. If I'm at home I definitely use the browser. The in-app advantage (for me) would be for spur of the moment purchases when on the road or when a sale is announced. There's definitely workarounds, but that doesn't make Google and Apple any less greedy for charging a 30% "extortion tax."

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I meant both have infrastructure to sell and do sell their goods using them outside of the app.

Which they have. In the past they were able to use their infrastructure for in-app purchases as well. Google is now disallowing that.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Of course with their stranglehold on ebooks Apple and Google should have well over half the market considering the install bases for their phones and other devices.

Why "should" they? In-App sales is just one method of buying eBooks. I'm guessing most eBooks are not purchased via smartphones or tablets. What they are doing is giving themselves a huge advantage on their own platforms. And despite that, Google (apparently) barely has a toe-hold in eBook market and Apple (who gamed the system by colluding with the publishers and then by charging a 30% "extortion tax" to its competitors) so far isn't able to overcome Barnes & Noble. So that's good news. Greed doesn't always win out. Maybe Amazon and Barnes & Noble have better prices and a better selection — and a customer base older than Apple's eBook store.
...

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Now Apple is beating out Kobo in the US but Kobos US representation has always been fairly poor and I think we can all agree Walmart isn’t doing them a world of good. BN on the other hand is still ahead of Apple though I’ll grant it’s a close race there. Of course they’re all comfortably shut out by Amazon who are under the same restrictions as BN and Kobo in terms of the Apple and Google stores.

Apple has been doing this 30% thing for a long time so if they were going to see some strong results they’d already have come to the forefront. But as it stands at absolute best they’re a far distant second to Amazon who’s lapped them 8 times over.

My point still stands. Extorting 30% from other eBook sellers for in-app purchases gives Apple a huge advantage on their platform. Without this advantage Apple's market share might be much smaller.

The main point of my original post was to compare Google's "extortion" greed to Apple's. I'm happy to see that greed hasn't gained them a huge chunk of the eBook market.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

By allowing in-app sales, the PocketBook and Nook (to name two) smartphone app experience can more closely match what you get when using eReaders... The in-app advantage (for me) would be for spur of the moment purchases when on the road or when a sale is announced.

But you seem to have missed the second half of my post:

Uninstall the Amazon app for instance and pin a short cut to the website on your home screen instead. Often now the mobile site is as good as the app and if it is not, places like Amazon and B&N have millions of reasons to work on improving it.

Amazon could create a mobile site, say 'm.kindle.amazon.com' or somesuch. Give it the exact design and function of the Kindle app. I'm kind of surprised they haven't done so already to work around Apple's longstanding 30%.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

But you seem to have missed the second half of my post:



Amazon could create a mobile site, say 'm.kindle.amazon.com' or somesuch. Give it the exact design and function of the Kindle app. I'm kind of surprised they haven't done so already to work around Apple's longstanding 30%.

Apple is pretty notorious for dragging their feet in implementing features that web apps need to compete with native ones into Safari. I also believe there's a limit on how much storage a PWA can use, which might not be great for customers that want to keep their entire book collection on their iPhone/iPad.

[ApK]

Stupid, bloated, memory sucking apps where a website would do it better is a subject for vent and rant thread entry for sure.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Why "should" they? In-App sales is just one method of buying eBooks. I'm guessing most eBooks are not purchased via smartphones or tablets. What they are doing is giving themselves a huge advantage on their own platforms. And despite that, Google (apparently) barely has a toe-hold in eBook market and Apple (who gamed the system by colluding with the publishers and then by charging a 30% "extortion tax" to its competitors) so far isn't able to overcome Barnes & Noble. So that's good news. Greed doesn't always win out. Maybe Amazon and Barnes & Noble have better prices and a better selection — and a customer base older than Apple's eBook store.
...

This was less aimed at you and more at those claiming these changes were antitrust violations. Granted the ineffectiveness to topple Amazon doesn’t mean they are antitrust violations, however it’s certainly not the devastating force some want to make it out to be.

My point still stands. Extorting 30% from other eBook sellers for in-app purchases gives Apple a huge advantage on their platform. Without this advantage Apple's market share might be much smaller.

The main point of my original post was to compare Google's "extortion" greed to Apple's. I'm happy to see that greed hasn't gained them a huge chunk of the eBook market.

It’s hardly fair to pretend anyone on that list who isn’t Amazon haven’t made decisions which have kept them from growing. Especially BN who for a long time have seemed to be playing a game of what can we do to sink our ebook business even more. Apple might be exactly where they are regardless of their App Store policy.

If your main gripe is you don’t like Google now matching Apple on in app purchases that’s all well and good. My gripe was with the claim that these policies are antitrust violations. Which thus far seems to be the rallying cry for several people in this thread yet none have been able to give an actual violation. Everyone involved has choices, the apps can still load books purchased, and unless someone has evidence to the contrary Apple nor Google has done nothing to hinder the performance of the app. Meaning it can do everything it’s programmed to do.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ApK

Stupid, bloated, memory sucking apps where a website would do it better is a subject for vent and rant thread entry for sure.

Facebook would like to request this thread not be made due to its feelings being hurt.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You could just do the same thing on your phone. Uninstall the Amazon app for instance and pin a short cut to the website on your home screen instead. Often now the mobile site is as good as the app and if it is not, places like Amazon and B&N have millions of reasons to work on improving it.

Unlike an app, however, the browser only works if you have Internet service. And I've found browsers to be have inconsistent UIs (that often change) and not as feature-rich as the app. Besides, browsers change all the time. I use Firefox on the Android smartphone, would it display the same as it would on Chrome?

That said, I think B&N is suggesting you re-route to a web browser to buy your books. Which is the way I would probably do it (if B&N ever fixes their font size issue on the GL3).

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Unlike an app, however, the browser only works if you have Internet service.

Are you suggesting you can browse and buy from the Amazon app without an internet connection?

And I've found browsers to be have inconsistent UIs (that often change)

...about as much as arbitrary and frequent "updates" to apps. I'm looking at you, Alexa....

and not as feature-rich as the app.

Ideally, yes, that's supposed to be the point. It is often not true at all, unfortunately.

Besides, browsers change all the time. I use Firefox on the Android smartphone, would it display the same as it would on Chrome?

I uses them both on my phone as well, and for the most part, yes the same.

But Amazon is pretty good in this regard for shopping. I never use the app, the web site from my phone is perfectly adequate (and really, I mostly shop from a real computer anyway) and my wife likes the added features of the app, so she chooses to use it. Great.

When an app really does add value, awesome.

My ire is toward those companies that either DON'T have a mobile web option, and an app is the only choice, even if the functionality is so stupidly basic that a web site would be ideal, or those that have an intentionally hobbled web experience, and constantly try to goad you into installing their app.
The only reason for these apps is to push intrusive marketing notifications at you. They take up storage, slow down the phone, and often usurp control and options.

Where's that torches-and-pitchforks smiley?

ApK

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ApK

Are you suggesting you can browse and buy from the Amazon app without an internet connection?

No, but you can read without an Internet connection.

Originally Posted by ApK

...about as much as arbitrary and frequent "updates" to apps. I'm looking at you, Alexa....

I don't know much about Alexa. The only device I have it on is my Fire tablet, which I haven't charged in about six months. And I disabled Alexa on that device, though Amazon was constantly nagging me about it. The Fire Tablet is only an 8 GB device and, with every upgrade and new mandatory apps, it became less and less usable.

Originally Posted by ApK

Ideally, yes, that's supposed to be the point. It is often not true at all, unfortunately.

In my opinion (for what it's worth), the Nook App is one of the better reading apps.

Originally Posted by ApK

I uses them both on my phone as well, and for the most part, yes the same.

They display pretty much the same on the phone, but Firefox sometimes won't allow online payments, etc. — though I'm speaking specifically about the desktop (Linux) version. I don't do online banking on my phone and very little buying at all (B&N, Kobo, and the Kindle apps were the exceptions).

Originally Posted by ApK

But Amazon is pretty good in this regard for shopping. I never use the app, the web site from my phone is perfectly adequate (and really, I mostly shop from a real computer anyway) and my wife likes the added features of the app, so she chooses to use it. Great.

I personally don't want a lot of financial information on my phone. When I do buy from the phone (just the apps mentioned above) I use PayPal, which draws from my bank — which (I figure, who knows) gives me two layers of protection. I don't enter the PayPal information on the phone, it's just my preferred payment option for the book sellers. (At least it used to be, I haven't looked into this in a while.)

Originally Posted by ApK

When an app really does add value, awesome.

The value, for me, is mostly being able to read offline.

Originally Posted by ApK

My ire is toward those companies that either DON'T have a mobile web option, and an app is the only choice, even if the functionality is so stupidly basic that a web site would be ideal, or those that have an intentionally hobbled web experience, and constantly try to goad you into installing their app.
The only reason for these apps is to push intrusive marketing notifications at you. They take up storage, slow down the phone, and often usurp control and options.

I turn off most notifications for apps, though B&N is one that I leave on.

Originally Posted by ApK

Where's that torches-and-pitchforks smiley?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In my opinion (for what it's worth), the Nook App is one of the better reading apps.

In my opinion, the Nook App is a totally useless waste of space. But then since B&N never did manage to make it north of the 49th... which made them useless to anyone outside the borders of the USA.

Way back in 2013(?), B&N claimed to be expanding into 32 countries. Sadly, the UK was the only one that actually managed a B&N presence for a short time.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rcentros

No, but you can read without an Internet connection.

We're talking at cross purposes. My rant was about apps that only do what a web site could do as well or better (like just about every app from a restaurant chain, grocery store, retail chain, TV and radio station, social media site... )
And I totally get the appeal of an integrated shopping/reading experience in apps like Kindle and Nook.
And you already pointed out that, while it won't be as nicely integrated an experience without in-app purchasing, you can buy in the browser and read in the app, if nook is really your app of choice for reading.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DNSB

In my opinion, the Nook App is a totally useless waste of space. But then since B&N never did manage to make it north of the 49th... which made them useless to anyone outside the borders of the USA.

Way back in 2013(?), B&N claimed to be expanding into 32 countries. Sadly, the UK was the only one that actually managed a B&N presence for a short time.

I think it's about ten times nicer than the Kindle App, but if you can't use it I can see where it would be useless for you.