21–30 of 129 posts
If instead, they just want to make sure that if you can buy it on a Kindle/whatever and read it on the iPhone that you can also BUY it from the iPhone in the first place, not such a big deal.
There seems to be some confusion on this issue.
I can think of a couple of scenarios that might fit what we know so far:
1) Apple might simply declare that they want 30% of all in-app purchases. Amazon will likely freak out. This, to me, would seem to be a seriously dangerous move on Apple's part.
2) Apple may drop the 30% cut entirely on in-app purchases. That'd be pretty disruptive but aside from adding a technical hoop to jump through for content providers to link content with Apple's in-app purchasing system, I don't think they would be quite so upset about it since they wouldn't really be losing money on each transaction. Of course this is still pretty harsh on Apple's part, IMO, but it's better than #1.
3) Apple simply requires developers to link purchased digital content with an Apple ID via the in-app purchasing system, but not necessarily requiring that Apple be used for the actual money transfer itself. The purpose of this would likely be to ensure that purchased digital goods are always linked to an Apple ID - even if they were purchased externally. If that's the case, then this is much less of a big deal, IMO, and a huge win for users. For instance, if you restored your device, you could be assured that all your digital content you bought via the Kindle app itself would be restored with a single tap - no need to login to Amazon again or anything like that. Thus Apple can help better ensure that the user will actually get their content back when the device restores which is required of all other in-app purchased content using the in-app purchase API.
I don't want to seem like I'm overreacting or hating on Apple or anything like that, but this seems to be in a whole new realm of greedy/controlling for Apple. Or is it really reasonable to force apps to use your payment platform? edit: It seems in other threads on the front page that this is likely Sony blowing things out of proportion. Most of the "news" is all speculation and discussion. I suppose we'll have to wa…
The consistent, simple user experience is the key to the platform. I think it's reasonable to require it. I know as a customer I don't want to be hassling with multiple payment accounts. Presumably it is permissible for Sony to bump the price up on in app purchases to cover the 30% "shipping and handling" charge from Apple. I wonder if they can show it as "Apple™ brand Shipping and Handling" on the screen.
*) I'm aware that it's about the Sony app, but it might equally affect the Kindle app.
How long till I have to pay Apple 30% for ordering a pizza using an iPhone? How long till I have 30% premium to pay for shopping online using a mac computer?
What Apple actually said (emphasis mine): "We are 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." What ars interprets that to mean (emphasis mine): "If an app lets users access content that they purchased via Amazon's website, for example, then that same app must also let user…
Okay. But they also said you cannot buy books inside the app unless Apple gets a cut:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/02/change-in-apple-po...
It appears as if Sony's app tried to offer a built-in bookstore as well as the ability to download books purchased on other devices, but that idea was shot down when Apple reportedly told Sony that all in-app purchases must go through Apple.
So that basically means if the Kindle app wants to let you buy books from Amazon it can only go through the Amazon website and it has to allow you to purchase books from Apple. How does that make any sense?
This newest development sets a truly frightening precedent, though. Any subscription service that sees significant growth through their iOS app is vulnerable to Apple's tax collectors. As soon as it looks like you're making money, Apple can jump in and extort 30% of your gross revenue or sink your whole business. Granted, maybe you owe some thanks to Apple, but 30% can quickly turn a sustainable business into a bankrupt one.
Considering Amazon already loses money on each Kindle book sold, losing an extra 30% on top of that may not be a financially viable option. Apple is effectively trying to edge Amazon out of its marketplace.
I can sort of understand where Apple is coming from in this. They provide an ecosystem and apps live within their ecosystem.
That being said, I can't see Amazon or any other big player rolling over on a margin of 30%. This is the problem with one fixed margin: it works well for apps and music but not necessarily for other things.
You see the same problem with the Mac App Store: smaller devs love it. Will you see Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop on it? I doubt it. 30% is just too much for those big players to hand over.
I consider Kindle to be a key part of my iPad experience and I can say if the end result of this is that I can't read my Kindle books on my iPad I will be pissed. I bought them specifically because I could.
Ultimately though I think Apple needs to give up control here. They should provide a payment infrastructure and if it's comeplling, people will use it. If it's not, they won't. But don't make me a casualty of war in the names of the the consistency of your 30% cut.
What Apple actually said (emphasis mine): "We are 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." What ars interprets that to mean (emphasis mine): "If an app lets users access content that they purchased via Amazon's website, for example, then that same app must also let user…
You will not be allowed to access the content if Kindle does not allow you to buy books through IAP. That is exactly what ars is trying to communicate.