No more buying books for Kindle app on ipad/iphone

[Ninaseer]

Yes, I suppose so. It's just so annoying and normally I am a big fan of Apple but even I find this a bit heavy handed.

sent with love from my iPad on IPF

I agree... We're reading books, for crying out loud. I see this as a step toward monopolizing what Apple will allow me to read. What's to say Apple's next step won't be to require 30% royalty for even downloading a book onto my iPad? (straight from the web) The problem is that iBooks has such a poor and overpriced selection, and this is a step in the wrong direction of allowing me to enjoy my iPad ... Makes me wonder if an android tablet might be in my future -- I love everything about iPad except this increasing market strategy to control everything I can do with it.

I agree with you, Gridguy.

 

[thewitt]

The in App purchase royalty has always applied to electronically delivered content. Apple enforces it across the board, taking a royalty on all electronically delivered content sold through in App purchases. It has never been applied to purchases of physical goods.

Should Amazon be allowed to distribute a free App for selling their content on Apples device royalty free? Really? Apple will make money how in this arrangement? Increased iPad sales so people can buy Kindle books? I don't see that happening.

You can still buy Kindle books and read them on your iPad. Amazon could have even left the in App purchase button in their App and paid the royalty, but they decided to make you leave the App and purchase through their website. The Terms and Services for in App purchases always stated they were subject to royalties. It was part of the developer agreement that Amazon signed when they decided to deploy an App in the App Store.

Seems to me you should be upset at Amazon, not Apple, who tried to work around their contract and were called on it.

The more interesting test is being challenged by Sony with the rejection of their Reader App. The rumor is that Sony was rejected because they found a way around the in App purchase mechanism that still allowed for purchases to appear to be seamless within the App. Apple rejected the App saying that it violated the TOS. Sony leaked select segments of the letters between Sony and Apple to make their case to the public before actually going in front of a judge - and these partial quotations appear to contradict the TOS in a number of places. How this one fleshes out will be interesting.

Shopping Apps that sell physical goods have never been subject to any sort of royalty.

-t

 

[Ninaseer]

I have to respectfully disagree with you, t. Kindle has to have been around since 2008 or 2009. All this time've had in app purchases. I'm not sure when the Agency Model when in place, but Nook, Kobo and everyone else has been selling books in app all this time. Maybe Sony was just too scary to compete with as they own so much media.

Folks have been buying computers and now phones as a platform to run their chosen their programs and apps for years. Heck, the whole app world was a big reason why the iPhone and then the iPad was so attractive. Even Microsoft doesn't deliberately limit what the functionality of programs I run on windows. And we all thought they were so anticompetitive. I bought the iPad because it had the most and best apps and therefore many options. That's just not going to continue with Apples policy. Providers will be concerned about investing in a platform that could suddenly be censored.

The thing is, I would willingly have migrated there if they had improved the app. I WANTED to like iBooks. *But they have such a limited selection. *The reader has an awful use of space without any margin control. *The search tools are limited. *And to top it off, prices are often higher and never lower. It's just not a good app. *In contrast iTunes won market leadership because it's a great app. *Every few months I'd go back and look for improvement. *I even bought a few books there, thinking maybe the biographies had enhanced content, like picture...maybe even COLOR pictures. *But nope, same sucky app.

As much as I love my iPad and admired Apple, this is a serious turnoff. I was a big fan. My family owns 3 iPads, 3 iPhones, 2 iTouchs, an Apple TV and a Mac. I was planning to get an IPhone 5. But I am rethinking it. It just frosts me that even aBlackberry user can buy have a book in app, but my iPad can't. Because Apple wants to control the book market. You know nearly 150,000 users have rated their Kindle apps...there have to be 20 times that many users. Hundred have left scathing reviews in the last week blasting Apple. This is very unpopular with eBook reader customers.

Nearly having lost the ability to read my Kindle library( 150+) books, is what really scares me. I bought them from the iPad to read on the iPad. Now I'm thinking twice about buying Kindle books since Apple could decide to impose some other restriction or simply change their rules. Making my iPad much less useful to me.

Maybe I should consider buying EPub so that I'm not tied to any reader and can have some control. *GoodReader and Stanza are good free Reader apps. *Booksonboard.com has books in ePub and other formats, *many without DRM. *With any luck folks will start a napster type lending/piracy site for eBooks and Apple and the publishers battling for control will all lose. *They should all be putting the paying customer first. *









The bigger concern for me is that we nearly lost the app completely.

 

[thewitt]

So you think it's ok for Amazon to make a profit from the IPad without paying Apple one penny from the distribution of electronic media? If Apple offered an iBook reader for Kindle, and sold their books royalty free through Amazon.com would you feel the same way?

-t

 

[Ninaseer]

IPad does not compete with Kindle

It's not the same at all. I can and do expect Apple to continue to allow Amazon to sell books the same why they have for 4 years. Lots of apps are free and all those options and the capabilities they bring increase the sale -ability of the iPad. But you know what, I'd pay $5 for the app if it would give me in app purchasing and some long term assurance of continued future access. But apple would nervier agree to that.

Now that eBook sales are hitting significant numbers Apple wants to get control, not just commissions on apps.

IPads are multi-media tablet computers with Kindle as one of probably 100 apps. ( I have more than that).
My point is apple doesn't make a dedicated reader. Reading is just one app for a tablet. They arent comparable. IPhones are used to talk, text, email, take pics, read, and use apps, a mini multimedia device. They arent a dedicated reader either. ,Kindle is a dedicated reader,made for the sole purpose of reading books from Amazon. It's not a tablet computer. Nook lets you read books you didnt buy there, but it's tpstill about books.
Android tablets and phones allow Kindle, Nook and iBooks to operate normally with in app purchasing. Just not Apple. Are they under the 30%agency agreement or is that arrangement exclusive to apples app store?

 

[thewitt]

Since none of us know the contractual arrangements in the business, it's impossible to answer any of your questions except for those where we can read TOS agreements.

We also can only guess any company's motivation, so saying Apple is trying to control the market is clearly only your opinion and not a statement of fact.

Amazon is welcome to continue to include an in App purchase option if they pay the royalty just like the rest of us do for any other in App purchase today. Why should they get a free pass when the rest of us pay our royalties like real businesses just because they are Amazon?

Answer me this. When Kindle can finally read ePub format - which Amazon continues to only promise - should Amazon allow Apple to distribute their books royalty free on Amazon.com for the Kindle? If not, why not, since you support Amazon distributing their titles through Apple with no royalty.

-t

 

[Bimjo]

It's not the same at all. I can and do expect Apple to continue to allow Amazon to sell books the same why they have for 4 years. Lots of apps are free and all those options and the capabilities they bring increase the sale -ability of the iPad. But you know what, I'd pay $5 for the app if it would give me in app purchasing and some long term assurance of continued future access. But apple would nervier agree to that.

You never had in-app purchasing before. You had a link to the Amazon website that sold ebooks. In effect, Amazon was circumventing the App Store rules. Apple cracked down, only after warning Amazon (and other offenders) to get with the program or get outta Dodge.

 

[DM51]

Apple will make money how in this arrangement? Increased iPad sales so people can buy Kindle books? I don't see that happening.

It is exactly what happens. The Kindle app and the availability of Kindle titles is a significant selling point for the iPad. ​

Amazon could have even left the in App purchase button in their App and paid the royalty, but they decided to make you leave the App and purchase through their website.

Amazon operates on slender margins, which is why their titles are cheaper than others. It is unrealistic to suggest they would be able to fork over 30% of their takings to Apple and remain in profit. If you knew anything about the publishing business, you would know that.​

So you think it's ok for Amazon to make a profit from the IPad without paying Apple one penny from the distribution of electronic media?

Amazon don’t make a profit from the iPad. They make a profit from selling their titles. Apple don’t own the distribution rights to those titles, and have done nothing to earn those rights. ​

… saying Apple is trying to control the market is clearly only your opinion and not a statement of fact.

Nonsense. All manufacturers try to increase their market share. Apple is no different.​

Why should [Amazon] get a free pass when the rest of us pay our royalties like real businesses just because they are Amazon?

They don’t get a free pass. They have paid for the rights to their titles. ​

If Apple offered an iBook reader for Kindle, and sold their books royalty free through Amazon.com would you feel the same way?

Do you mean Apple selling Apple titles royalty free? Do you really think that’s going to happen? Really?

​

Or do you mean Apple selling Kindle titles royalty free? Unless Apple were to pay Amazon for the distribution rights, that would be piracy. So that’s not going to happen either.​

When Kindle can finally read ePub format - which Amazon continues to only promise - should Amazon allow Apple to distribute their books royalty free on Amazon.com for the Kindle?

As above. If distribution rights are paid for, that would be fine. Otherwise, it would be piracy.​

If not, why not, since you support Amazon distributing their titles through Apple with no royalty.

Amazon has paid for the rights to their titles. Readers pay Amazon for the right to read them. Apple has not paid for the rights to Amazon titles.​

You seem to be a bit confused about the ownership of intellectual property rights. What you are suggesting is analogous in one sense to car ownership. If you owned a Chevrolet, would you consider it reasonable for General Motors to charge a 30% fee every time you filled it up at an Esso gas station?​

 

[thewitt]

You don't see the hypocrisy in your point at all do you...

It's OK for Amazon to make money off Apple, but Not for Apple to make money off Amazon?

As for Amazons margins, neither you or I know what those are, however having my own electronic content distributed via another publisher, I can guarantee you they are not slim - though that has been suggested here incorrectly and echoed by others.

I do not feel sorry for anyone here - consumer included - since no one has lost the ability to buy or sell on the iPad.

If big mean nasty Apple was really trying to control the market they would simply not allow any third party book readers, and leverage their domination of the tablet market to pressure more publishers to support the platform. As it stands now there is no incentive for publishers to support the ePub format since virtually any format has a free reader available for the iPad

-t

 

[thewitt]

Oh and I understand IP very well. I also understand retail, and clearly Amazon is getting a free ride here, where they should be paying for the right to sell through Apple's retail channel.

-t

 

[DM51]

There is no hypocrisy; and I have a good understanding of the publishing business.

It is no good just repeating "Amazon makes money off Apple." They don’t, any more than Esso makes money off GM whenever people fill up their Chevrolets.

Equally, Apple won’t be making money off Amazon, who have quite reasonably decided that the 30% Apple was demanding was too steep.

As for your suggestion that Apple could control the market by disallowing third party books… that is absurd. They would be committing corporate suicide as far as that the e-book market is concerned. There would be an immediate stampede to other platforms. Apple would instantly lose market share, not gain it. That’s why they haven’t done it – they aren’t stupid.

 

[singlestick]

So you think it's ok for Amazon to make a profit from the IPad without paying Apple one penny from the distribution of electronic media? If Apple offered an iBook reader for Kindle, and sold their books royalty free through Amazon.com would you feel the same way?

-t

I would answer "yes" to both questions. Also, Apple is not a publisher, so what they are charging is not a royalty.

Further, Apple's stupid policy here alienates users and makes the Kindle app and similar apps more difficult to use, particularly for new and non techie users. A fellow commuter who recently won an iPad 2, for example, is having a hard time figuring out how to make Kindle purchases, even though friends have tried to help here with this.

Ultimately this hurts Apple as much as it hurts Amazon since it undermines the iPad user experience. I would have thought that the Apple people would be smarter than this. People buy iPads to uses them, not to admire them or to praise Steve Jobs' ingenuity. Even what the Apple people think is a sound business decision is a mistake if it results in people having a bad experience in using the iPad.

Apple's focus should be on getting people to use the device with the best and most user friendly and most easily accessible apps possible. This is their greatest competitive advantage over their competitors. And to be blunt, even if Apple charged nothing for apps, they would still make a profit.

And although it is unlikely that Apple would drop the Kindle app altogether, this fear is not good PR for Apple and decreases the goodwill associated with the iPad.

There are a host of reasons for Apple to treat book vendors and magazine publishers differently than they do other app developers. But ultimately Apple can do whatever it wants. So can current and potential iPad customers. And as the Blackberry executives have found out, there is no such thing as brand loyalty when people believe that they can find better value elsewhere.

 

[Kaykaykay]

So you think it's ok for Amazon to make a profit from the IPad without paying Apple one penny from the distribution of electronic media? If Apple offered an iBook reader for Kindle, and sold their books royalty free through Amazon.com would you feel the same way?

-t

I would answer "yes" to both questions. Also, Apple is not a publisher, so what they are charging is not a royalty.

Further, Apple's stupid policy here alienates users and makes the Kindle app and similar apps more difficult to use, particularly for new and non techie users. A fellow commuter who recently won an iPad 2, for example, is having a hard time figuring out how to make Kindle purchases, even though friends have tried to help here with this.

Ultimately this hurts Apple as much as it hurts Amazon since it undermines the iPad user experience. I would have thought that the Apple people would be smarter than this. People buy iPads to uses them, not to admire them or to praise Steve Jobs' ingenuity. Even what the Apple people think is a sound business decision is a mistake if it results in people having a bad experience in using the iPad.

Apple's focus should be on getting people to use the device with the best and most user friendly and most easily accessible apps possible. This is their greatest competitive advantage over their competitors. And to be blunt, even if Apple charged nothing for apps, they would still make a profit.

And although it is unlikely that Apple would drop the Kindle app altogether, this fear is not good PR for Apple and decreases the goodwill associated with the iPad.

There are a host of reasons for Apple to treat book vendors and magazine publishers differently than they do other app developers. But ultimately Apple can do whatever it wants. So can current and potential iPad customers. And as the Blackberry executives have found out, there is no such thing as brand loyalty when people believe that they can find better value elsewhere.

+1 for this post.

Apple can charge whatever it wants. Of course, I know how to buy books without the app. Thing is, Apple could've asked for a reasonable amount, considering profit margins for book sales aren't extravagant, and Amazon probably would've paid. What's happened is that my iPad has lost a feature, and when I go comparing hardware each time I want a new tablet, that will be a consideration.

No company is good or evil to me. They're all out to make profits, and that's perfectly legal and expected. But there's no point diminishing your own hardware's features and not making money at the same time, as Apple has done by demanding 30 percent and getting nothing instead.

 

[bdegrande]

So you think it's ok for Amazon to make a profit from the IPad without paying Apple one penny from the distribution of electronic media? If Apple offered an iBook reader for Kindle, and sold their books royalty free through Amazon.com would you feel the same way?

-t

I would answer "yes" to both questions. Also, Apple is not a publisher, so what they are charging is not a royalty.

Further, Apple's stupid policy here alienates users and makes the Kindle app and similar apps more difficult to use, particularly for new and non techie users. A fellow commuter who recently won an iPad 2, for example, is having a hard time figuring out how to make Kindle purchases, even though friends have tried to help here with this.

Ultimately this hurts Apple as much as it hurts Amazon since it undermines the iPad user experience. I would have thought that the Apple people would be smarter than this. People buy iPads to uses them, not to admire them or to praise Steve Jobs' ingenuity. Even what the Apple people think is a sound business decision is a mistake if it results in people having a bad experience in using the iPad.

Apple's focus should be on getting people to use the device with the best and most user friendly and most easily accessible apps possible. This is their greatest competitive advantage over their competitors. And to be blunt, even if Apple charged nothing for apps, they would still make a profit.

And although it is unlikely that Apple would drop the Kindle app altogether, this fear is not good PR for Apple and decreases the goodwill associated with the iPad.

There are a host of reasons for Apple to treat book vendors and magazine publishers differently than they do other app developers. But ultimately Apple can do whatever it wants. So can current and potential iPad customers. And as the Blackberry executives have found out, there is no such thing as brand loyalty when people believe that they can find better value elsewhere.

I agree, there is a big difference between publishers and other apps, and 30 per cent is completely out of the question. This is a loss all around for everyone, Apple, Amazon, and the eBook readers. I say this as someone it has NO effect on - I buy almost all of my books in the Kindle format, and I always use the computer as I like the interface better than buying directly on the iPad.

 

[thewitt]

Why are so many arguments in thus discussion so off base

Amazon is not publishing these books, they are retailing them. Margins are not thin, they simply are not willing to leave you the inApp purchase button and pay Apple like the rest of us do for inApp purchases.

They remove the button and make you go to their website to purchase content for their app and Apple is a demon because of it?

I'm sorry but I disagree.

I guess I'm out of this discussion because I'm clearly taking a position that no one wants to acknowledge, however this is NOT a publishing issue, it's a retail issue on a product with no physical carrying costs that's being sold at a 200% markup.

If Amazon wants to sell this through the inApp purchase rules they agreed to in their development agreement, they need to pay their commission payment like the rest of us.

-t