Apple's app store policies: What will they provoke? There hasn’t actually been a new policy statement, but Apple has clearly made a change in the eReader side of its business - one that immediately affects Sony, which has brought the issue to light. It is likely that the change will also affect Amazon (it can’t really affect one and not the other) and Barnes and Noble with its …
"The only thing keeping Flash off Apple devices is Adobe"
Flash has ActionScript. It interprets a scripted language, and thus is banned from the App Store due to that reason. Jobs is just diminishing the importance by saying how buggy and bloated Adobe Flash products are (which is true). It's a PR smear campaign trying to convince people they are better off not viewing YouTube or other Flash media.
"you can send it to the Kindle app without Apple taking a cut — and Apple can't do a thing about it unless they want to selectively block downloads, and I don't think that's likely."
No, but they could just block the App as a whole until the developer puts code in that pays Apple 30% when a book is "allowed" to be viewed from iOS. If that "feature" isn't there, they can block it. Just look at Sony. Amazon is bigger, so likely not one to piss off just yet.
That you don't understand the basic workings of commerce.
First off, the "doing nothing" bollocks; credit card processing, advertising, hosting and distribution is not "doing nothing"-it how all shops work, and believe you me, Tesco makes more from a box of PG Tips than Unilever do for instance (it's more than 30% too!). So your 'radical' solution is to bypass the app store by selling your apps online; how do you propose the apps are installed then you boob! This is why people jailbreak their iDevices! The only /legitimate/ way, outside of enterprise deployment, to install apps is via the Appstore. Do keep up.
Apple is not banning anything, or insisting purchases MUST go through them. They're only insisting that IF there is a 3rd party system for getting content that for content which is available in both places, they include BOTH methods to buy it. This is most likely to ensure that the "allowance" system, iTunes gift cards, and for that matter anyone who doeas not own a credit card, always has an alternative method for buying digital content apple otherwise carries. Appe explicitly said, "IF IT INCLUDES a 3rd party system..." they did not say, "soory, have to buy through us" as everyone is reading this.
As for in-app vs web based, it must be in a browser, not in-app, as customers don't get to validate SSL and other security measures if they can't see the nature of the transaction. This is a security restriction, not a money grab.
You don't have to have the bandwidth and CC Payment and stuff.
But this is totally different for a company which has all this in place.
If I'd use an eBay Store or Amazon to sell my stuff, I'd have to share my revenue with them, which would be fine compared to the cost I'd have for setting up my own store.
Amazon, eBay, Sony et.al. do have all that in place and probably much cheaper than I could get it, certainly cheaper than 30%.
On the other hand, can you buy Sony content from Amazon on a B&N Nook?
The more I hear about this, the more convinced I am that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. All we've had is some vague statements from Sony that the eReader has been refused because of inApp purchasing issues. That's IT. All the rest is supposition, speculation, inference and good old-fashioned making shit up.
Apple requires that it gets 30% of in-App purchases. Just like the apps themselves, this is its charge for providing a service, namely the interface and connectivity to make it work seamlessly and easily, the server storage for the thing being purchased, and the payment processing, none of which are easy or cheap to do. One might quibble over the percentage, but that they are providing a service that it is fair to charge for doesn't seem to be in doubt (though I'm sure many will disagree...)
Amazon has chosen not to go this route, and instead provides a link to their website where people can purchase their ebooks from instead. That means that they do their own storage, their own payment processing, and their own transport mechanisms, off their own back, and the prices for all that are figured into the cost of the ebook. This makes sense for them, because they have to do most that anyway for their non-iphone customers.
The key thing here is that nothing that Amazon is doing is costing Apple a penny, and so Apple has no reason to kick up a fuss. For that matter, all the other ebook readers (there's loads of them out there people, iBooks and Kindle are the johnny-come-latelys) do much the same thing. Apple has never had a problem with them either. Sony could equally well have done it too, but they tried to use Apple's service instead, without paying for it, and got told where to get off. Probably they will now go and use Amazon's method too.
NO ONE connected with this has so much as whispered that Apple is going to clamp down on anyone else, and start banning other means of getting ebooks onto their hardware. All they've said is if you want to use the inApp purchasing framework, you gotta pay the fee. That's it. Everything else has been knee-jerk Apple bashing. There's plenty of things that they've actually done to bash them for, without having to invent stuff because its a slow news day.
The more I hear about this, the more convinced I am that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. All we've had is some vague statements from Sony that the eReader has been refused because of inApp purchasing issues. That's IT. All the rest is supposition, speculation, inference and good old-fashioned making shit up.
Apple requires that it gets 30% of in-App purchases. Just like the apps themselves, this is its charge for providing a service, namely the interface and connectivity to make it work seamlessly and easily, the server storage for the thing being purchased, and the payment processing, none of which are easy or cheap to do. One might quibble over the percentage, but that they are providing a service that it is fair to charge for doesn't seem to be in doubt (though I'm sure many will disagree...)
Amazon has chosen not to go this route, and instead provides a link to their website where people can purchase their ebooks from instead. That means that they do their own storage, their own payment processing, and their own transport mechanisms, off their own back, and the prices for all that are figured into the cost of the ebook. This makes sense for them, because they have to do most that anyway for their non-iphone customers.
The key thing here is that nothing that Amazon is doing is costing Apple a penny, and so Apple has no reason to kick up a fuss. For that matter, all the other ebook readers (there's loads of them out there people, iBooks and Kindle are the johnny-come-latelys) do much the same thing. Apple has never had a problem with them either. Sony could equally well have done it too, but they tried to use Apple's service instead, without paying for it, and got told where to get off. Probably they will now go and use Amazon's method too.
NO ONE connected with this has so much as whispered that Apple is going to clamp down on anyone else, and start banning other means of getting ebooks onto their hardware. All they've said is if you want to use the inApp purchasing framework, you gotta pay the fee. That's it. Everything else has been knee-jerk Apple bashing. There's plenty of things that they've actually done to bash them for, without having to invent stuff because its a slow news day.
To quote AllThingsDigital ...
"-- “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” [Apple] spokesperson Trudy Muller told me. “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.”
In other words: You don’t have to buy books, or music, or other media that you consume on iOS apps from Apple. But developers must offer you the option to buy that stuff through Apple and its iTunes-backed system. --"
So basically its a good thing for consumers as it gives more choice!
It doesnt give the consumer more choice, it forces the content provider to run purchases through I tunes and pay 30% of any of that transaction to Apple.
If the consumer wants the content they can buy it via the website, they dont need the additional "choice" of the iTunes store.
What needs to happen is the content providers need to comply but charge 100% more for purchases through iTunes and within the App explain that the same content is available for less outside the iTunes store and then give the customer the "choice" you speak of.
That way the content provider doesnt lose out, Apple gets its pound of flesh for anyone who does buy in App and everyone is happy.
If its not already in the T's and C's I bet you will see a new rule that prices must be the same in and out of app fairly soon.
Sony, as was clear from it's website where it showed pictures of it's app, is doing what Kindle is doing. Apple banned that. Nothing is supposed here. Apple has also sent a missive to other publishers suggesting the same model.
Apple's IAP is not needed in these situations, and Apple is hoping that the internal purchasing will be the route taken by most consumers. It has not said whether it will even allow a link to the external website anymore.
Taking that 30% off gross means that content providers need to have a 43% margin. Considering most will have their own content delivery ( and purchasing) mechanism this is absolute larceny. it renders most business models useless.
--"First off, the "doing nothing" bollocks; credit card processing, advertising, hosting and distribution is not "doing nothing""
True. And it proves such a burdensome task for Apple that they're now the worlds second largest company in terms of market value.
--"So your 'radical' solution is to bypass the app store by selling your apps online; how do you propose the apps are installed then you boob!"
I remember a system like that. Back then Apps were called "software", and you could write it and sell it to work with various operating platform without paying the vendor for such platforms a single damn penny.
How times have moved on.
They spend money, time and resources on writing an application for iPhone/iPad, only to find that it was actually a complete waste because Apple have a chip on their shoulders.
Even more it is a shame because they could have spent the same money, time and resources writing an application for other platforms and already be making money from their creation by now without facing any of this dystopian nonsense.
"They spend money, time and resources on writing an application for iPhone/iPad, only to find that it was actually a complete waste because Apple have a chip on their shoulders."
Back in the real-world, you don't normally build a house, and then apply for planning permission - you get permission first to avoid the risk of refusal.
Or if you prefer another analogy, countries that offer an unreliable rule-of-law, like Russia or Zimbabwe, find it relatively difficult to persuade companies to invest in them. The risk of their assets being confiscated is too great.
Apple will eventually realise that developers of apps need the same respect, and provide an up-front permission system and transparency of adjudication. If they don't, deveopers will work elsewhere, and the Apple platform will die out and Apple will return once again to being a niche player.
And so, if competition from Android helps Apple sit up and stop acting like a dictatorship and more like a civilised country, it will be to the benefit of everyone involved.
To me, what Apple is doing, is just plain wrong. A user can have a reasonable expectation of being able to run applications of their choosing, the taking away of Aps that were out and in production is a bad thing. Consumers can of course go buy something else, but in iPads, there's not much else at the moment (give it a couple of months), so Apple is abusing it's monopolistic position.
That said, the solution for magazine subscriptions is actually dirt simple. Sell the subscription for a year (or two) as an application. Say TimeMagazine2011. Then each week/month, update the application with the new magazine. Apple would have to either outlaw or start charging for application updates. Apple might just think about doing that, but chances are unlikely it would go that far.
"It is likely that the change will also affect Amazon (it can’t really affect one and not the other) and Barnes and Noble with its Nook eReader application, and it is either going to put Apple into the middle of an anti-trust suit or lose huge market share to Google’s Android."
No, it won't. Apple licensed Amazon's One Click technology in 2000. That technology is used throughout the iTunes and App Stores. Thus, for that reason, Amazon will get a "pass"
The Apple apologists are out in force. Let me correct some points ( I say this as an iOS dev).
1) Apple's IAP does not host content, nor distribute it, nor anything else. The very fact that Amazon can go outside the app to buy and then download ( via it's servers) proves that point. Apple has no reason to get involved here except greed.
2) IAP itself is not fit for purpose. Devs have to input all their data again to iTunes connect, but it is limited to 3,000 product IDs. Which means you have to use product Ids like com.mycompany.cheapbook rather than the name. Furthermore it uses it's own tiered pricing system which is useless unless you want the exact same pricing model.
3) IF apple wants a seamless UI experience it can use KeyChain to keep all the passwords.
4) The demand to have IAP in the app has not been fully explained by Apple The question is will Apple allow a UI to have two buttons with different prices - one called Buy Online, the other Buy Internally. If so - which is unlikely - no big deal because people will go for the cheaper option. That makes no sense to APple so they will insist that the IAP has a button to buy internally only, and you find your own way to the vendor's website. That kills the product, or taxes the consumer.
5) Apple are changing the rules behind dev's back ( not just Sony) after said devs have spent money on a product. This, for instance, is a new re-interpretation of a rule. They can do that again. Making developing for the App Store a precarious process.
Whilst I agree that Apple appear to be taking the micky here, the reason I don't have an idiotPad or a Kindle is that you can't actually BUY anything for them. You get a very limited licence that seriously restricts what you can or cannot do with the content you have 'bought'.
When these guys decide to actually pass ownership of content to me then I might reconsider. But as it is the batteries in my paper books seem to last for decades . .
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
