Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

tecca.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#21

Post by maayank »

zdw wrote: post #6

Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub. I'm a big fan of O'Reilly's multi-format approach. This is the correct end-run around proprietary stores. Regarding this issue in particular, I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases, and thus as the purchase wouldn't happen "in app" it wouldn't be cove…

"Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub"

But is there any big player in the ebook market which comes even close to Amazon (collection-wise) and sells non-DRMed books/PDFs? From what I've seen there are no viable alternatives for non technical reading... (and no, shopping at several small publishers' websites is not a viable alternative)

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#22

Post by Tycho »

I still think this whole thing only applies to apps that let you shop/browse internally and then whisk you away to Safari to coplete the payment. And apple's reason for objecting to this is to protect users from fraudulent payment gateways. Just one customer who had their credit card ripped off after making a 'purchase on an iPhone app' would be extremely damaging to the reputation of the whole iOS ecosystem.

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#23

Post by jpravetz »

zdw wrote: post #6

Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub. I'm a big fan of O'Reilly's multi-format approach. This is the correct end-run around proprietary stores. Regarding this issue in particular, I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases, and thus as the purchase wouldn't happen "in app" it wouldn't be cove…

In support of unencumbered formats, think about how Apple became dominant. iPod/iTunes initial success + music labels insistence on DRM, lead to lack of content portability, lead to device lock-in, lead to iPod dominance, lead to music labels loosing power.

This is different from Kindle, where they write a player for every platform. But is what you get if you sell through Apple's store for Apple's reader.

O'Reilly wins with their deals. I buy books I wouldn't otherwise.

I bet broadcasters are glad Apple wasn't around when the first TVs were manufactured.

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#24

Post by pietro »

zdw wrote: post #6

Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub. I'm a big fan of O'Reilly's multi-format approach. This is the correct end-run around proprietary stores. Regarding this issue in particular, I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases, and thus as the purchase wouldn't happen "in app" it wouldn't be cove…

That would be a ~43% surcharge, actually. Quite a lot.

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#25

Post by lionhearted »

It's interesting watching rivalries/standoffs develop between companies that didn't seem likely to happen - who would've thought in 2006 that Amazon and Apple would be at each other in 2011?

That was before the iPhone or Kindle came out, never mind the iPad. Interesting to see how these things develop.

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#26

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it.

But it strikes me as an unnatural state of affairs. This idea that I can make a computational device, then own the right for you to put material on that device, is technically correct -- if you think of the iPad as some huge proprietary version of a CD player.

But if you think of it an extension of your brain -- as a prosthesis which helps you share commonly understood experiences in common formats, which it is -- then Apple is basically saying it has control over what you think. That it deserves a cut for any experience you have.

Certainly it's still more of a player than a mind-extension device, but this line will get more and more blurry. It's already making many uncomfortable. My belief is that some sort of change in law is required to clear up this confusion. An iPad is not a record player.

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#27

Post by zdw »

drp wrote: post #4

What if Apple started demanding 30% of all sales transacted on every device they produce? What makes an iPhone so different from a MacBook?

I'm tempted to call the 30% the AppleVAT at this point...

What makes iOS purchases different are two things:

1. Apple has oversight of content being sold (helps avoid malicious software in many cases, and age appropriate content).

2. Ease of use - one password to buy stuff, not multiple accounts everywhere.

That's what you get as a customer. As a developer, you don't have to deal with the payment processing and other consumer financial issues, to a great degree, and they provide marketing.

There's nothing to stop an end-run around any of this - you can still make totally open web apps, content in PDF and ePub formats, etc.

You just can't provide the identical guarantees Apple provides with the oversight of their store (which necessitate a locked down device and limitations on what 3rd parties can do outside of their system).

(edit: formatting fix)

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#28

Post by mooism2 »

pietro wrote: post #24
zdw wrote: post #6

Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub. I'm a big fan of O'Reilly's multi-format approach. This is the correct end-run around proprietary stores. Regarding this issue in particular, I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases, and thus as the purchase wouldn't happen "in app" it wouldn't be cove…

That would be a ~43% surcharge, actually. Quite a lot.

Although Amazon then don't have to pay their own credit card fees. But yes.

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#29

Post by zdw »

maayank wrote: post #21
zdw wrote: post #6

Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub. I'm a big fan of O'Reilly's multi-format approach. This is the correct end-run around proprietary stores. Regarding this issue in particular, I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases, and thus as the purchase wouldn't happen "in app" it wouldn't be cove…

"Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub" But is there any big player in the ebook market which comes even close to Amazon (collection-wise) and sells non-DRMed books/PDFs? From what I've seen there are no viable alternatives for non technical reading... (and no, shopping at several small publishers' websites is not a viable alternative)

I'm betting we'll get there in a few years, the same way it happened with music - DRM for a while, then once people get used to paying for stuff, the DRM goes away in most cases.

Unfortunately, if history is any indication, the last place this will happen is in school textbooks which is honestly where the ebook revolution should start.

Re: Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

#30

Post by Pickhardt »

kmfrk wrote: post #19

So, what do HN recommend that Amazon do now? Or at least expect them to do. * Leave the app as-is. (With what specific motive?) * Jack up the prices. (Perhaps they'll include a notification when the user is on the relevant purchase page.) * Leave the prices as-is and take the 30% hit. * Let Apple kill the app.

I haven't fully analyzed it but my gut instinct would be to raise the prices by 30%, then explicitly state to the end user that the 30% surcharge is because of Apple. This way its transparent to the end user, and it could put some pressure on Apple to lower its fees.
Post reply on HN