Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon, Google Cave To Apple, Drop In-App Buttons

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-wanna-play-in-our-hothouse dept.

Apple 307

CWmike writes "Amazon bowed on Monday to Apple's newest App Store rules, and removed a link in its iPhone and iPad Kindle apps that took customers directly to its online store. The move was required to comply with new rules designed to block developers from evading the 30% cut that Apple takes from in-app purchases. In February, Apple CEO Steve Jobs laid down the law. 'Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30% share,' said Jobs in a statement released Feb. 15. 'When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.' Rhapsody updated its iPhone app last week to, among other things, remove the in-app subscribing link. Also on Monday, Google complied with Apple's new rules when it re-released Google Books — which had been yanked from the App Store — minus an in-app purchasing button."

cancel ×

307 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google Cave? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877302)

Is this an unannounced product?

Cave? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877354)

How is it caving? They have no choice, it is Apple's platform after all.

Re:Cave? (3, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877464)

They have a choice. Pull the app.

Re:Cave? (4, Insightful)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877624)

I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?

Re:Cave? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877652)

Because Apple can do no wrong. You must be new here, so I'll forgive your apparent inability to understand Apple's infallibility in all things.

Re:Cave? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877888)

So Apple is really the Pope app.

Re:Cave? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878272)

Please, Steve Jobs can't fart without someone on here screaming that he's going to patent methane emissions.

Re:Cave? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877692)

True; they can't just strip Apple from their search engine completely. First, they have to give Apple a chance to sign on to a deal whereby Google gets a 30% cut of any business that they send Apple's way. Seems to be exactly what Apple is doing. If Apple doesn't agree to the 30% cut for the service of Google bringing a new shopper to their site - then they can remove them from the index.

Re:Cave? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877758)

Because Google has a far, far higher proportion of the search market than Apple has of the mobile device market. Heck, Google has a higher proportion of the mobile device market on top of it.

Re:Cave? (2)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877930)

But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market. WTF does that have to do with anti-competitive behavior? Technically, Google has close to 0% of the mobile device market. HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc all have chunks, but Google (with the exception of the Nexus) has very little. Being a monopoly is not a requirement to being charged with anti-competitive business practices last time I checked.

Re:Cave? (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878062)

But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market

By definition, they are allowed to control their own products. That is not called a monopoly. Otherwise the term "monopoly" becomes meaningless, since every company would be a monopoly.

Re:Cave? (4, Insightful)

gottabeme (590848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878494)

It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.

There is a fundamental confusion caused by the fact that Apple is providing the app store service for free to purchasers of the iPhone, who have paid a one-time fee (carrier subsidies are a different matter). Apple is asserting control over the service as if people were subscribing to it for a monthly fee.

Oh, wait, are their customers the consumers who purchase their products, or the developers who write software for their products? Or are they the media companies who sell music and movies on iTunes?

Apple wants all of them to be its customers--it wants to make money from all of them for everything that happens.

It's got to stop somewhere--and it ought to be at the first-sale doctrine. But the practical solution is to support Android instead. On the other hand, if Apple is allowed to get away with this forever, and they keep growing, it may become the accepted norm--or is it already?

Re:Cave? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877932)

Exactly. No matter how bad of Apple this, Anon hit the target. There are various shades of grey, even when it comes to monopolies.

Re:Cave? (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877860)

Because Google holds a majority of the search engine market, making them the market leader, and by restricting (or removing search results from Apple, or any other company for that matter, they would definitely fall into the 'abuse' area of competition, as that could directly impact Apple sales). In contrast, Apple requiring apps to remove links to external app purchases outside of the app store is leveraged against all developers, not just some, and it could easily be considered a justifiable expense. These purchases are still allowed, but this allows Apple to take it's cut. They most likely justify this as a cost of the service itself (bandwidth, storage, distribution, credit transactions, etc), all of which they provide to the developer for a %30 percent cut. For many developers, the price is worth it since they don't have to deal with storage, distribution, credit, etc. Those that don't like it have a healthy market of competition to go to in Android.

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2080003/May-2011-Search-Engine-Market-Share-from-comScore-Compete-Hitwise [searchenginewatch.com]

Now Google could do something like prevent iOS apps from being ported into the Google market and rightly so since they pay infrastructure costs to support, distribute, etc.

Re:Cave? (2)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878026)

I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?

Google pulls sites from their search engine all the time. They do so when the rules are violated. Apple does the same thing with their App Store. Neither are anticompetitive behaviors.

Where did you get this idea?

Re:Cave? (5, Insightful)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878210)

Where did you get this idea?

Oh, silly me. I should have known better to even question Apple's practices. Excuse me while I go and gouge my eyes out now.

Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?

You're right, IANAL, but I do have a brain and a sense of right and wrong and my "greedometer" gets pegged just about daily every time Apple makes a move.

I used to think IBM was a greedy corporation, then Microsoft came along and made them look like Ed McMurray. Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple. One big difference that worries me is that Microsoft seemed to care about the bad press they got and occasionally tried to smooth things over. Apple seem to just give the finger to anyone that complains about their business practices, and yet they manage to maintain a religious following, the likes of which I've never seen in 35 year in the business.

Those old Apple 1984 commercials could not be more ironic.

Re:Cave? (1, Interesting)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878482)

Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?

Apple runs the app store (like the regular iTunes store) at near break even levels. [citation [cnn.com] ] They do it because it sells hardware, not out of any altruism, but claiming Apple's percentage on app sales is exorbitant shows an ignorance about what percentage online retailers normally charge and about Apple's particular numbers. If anything you should be upset that they charge so little and thereby undermine the ability of competitors to get started in the market.

Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple.

There is certainly a lot of PR to that effect, and it seems like the "in thing" among some people to espouse such opinions. In my opinion, that just demonstrates one's ignorance about MS's business practices. Maybe MS finally figured out effective marketing for their brand image.

Re:Cave? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878554)

Every fucking Apple article claims every fucking Apple product and every fucking Apple piece of software is just about breaking even and not making any money. I don't care what your citation states. Statistics and numbers within the organization can be moved around and applied to different products with in the company to make anything look to break even or to make 100% profit. Bottom line, they are making a huge profit every quarter. An example.. There are other online music retailers that do not sell hardware and they are making money and they charge even less than Apple does, how the fuck are they making money but Apple which has 10-20x the volume just "breaking even"?

Re:Cave? (1)

npsimons (32752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878586)

I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?

Because Apple can do no wrong, and Google is the antichrist. /sarcasm.

Re:Cave? (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877794)

The solution is to charge a premium to iPhone users.

Re:Cave? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877892)

Right. Previously, Apple also outlawed that, where they said the price you offer through the app has to be the same price on your website. They took that part out, so now the theoretical "Apple tax" is actually a real thing. If purchasing something through an iOS app, people should expect to see an extra 30% charge, for Apple's share. It's the price people pay for the convenience of buying things through their iOS apps. Vendors can indicate that the price is lower on their site, but they're not allowed to put a link to their site in the app.

Re:Cave? (1)

sortadan (786274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877880)

I would really like to see a major player start promoting jailbreaking in a responsible way. It's completely legal, and they can distribute unsigned applications that do whatever they want without giving anything to apple except the money the consumer gave them when buying the hardware.

I'm so locked in with the apps and games I already have for my iPhone that I'm not going to go to Android any time soon, but I hate the closed platform monopoly. I can take care of loading it on my iPhone, just let me buy the version that doesn't suck because apple is forcing you to cripple it...

Re:Cave? (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877474)

Is a Windows PC "Microsoft's platform"? Is your house built by Acme Inc. "Acme's platform"? Do Microsoft and Acme respectively get to choose what appears on your desktop PC and in your house?

Re:Cave? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877620)

I'd have left the button, but changed the functionality to display a message saying "Sorry, this feature no longer works. You bought an iWhatever, so you'll have to pay 30% more than everybody else because Apple wants their cut."

But then again, I have a tendency to be a dick when people tell me I can't do something.

Re:Cave? (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877708)

That's an even better solution than pulling the app. Places the onus squarely on Apple.

Re:Cave? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877738)

Like Apple would ever allow that.

Re:Cave? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877842)

I'd have left the button, but changed the functionality to display a message saying "Sorry, this feature no longer works. You bought an iWhatever, so you'll have to pay 30% more than everybody else because Apple wants their cut."

But then again, I have a tendency to be a dick when people tell me I can't do something.

Math. How does it work?
If Apple wants a 30% cut, and an company wants $X for their application across the board, then they have to adjust the price upward to raise the .7X they get (after apple takes .3X) back to 1X.

You have three way of looking at this: .7X + Y = 1X. Y = .3X. Increase the price by .3X, or 30%. This is wrong, as Apple will tax your price increase by 30%. .7X * Y = 1X. Y = 10/7. Increase the price by a factor of 3/7 (multiply by 10/7). This is correct, and results in a 42.857142...% price increase.
10/7 (price to Apple users) * 7/10 (your cut after the Apple tax) = 1.

You can round (assuming you haven't rounded down any fractions of a cent yet) and say your price is 43% more for Apple users. Not just 30%.

The third way of thinking about it is a flat +30%, then realizing you get taxed on that and doing a +30% of the 30%, and then +30% of 30% of 30%, ... for an infinite summation of the form SUM(n = 1, n -> inf) X * .3^n ... which is the same as 10/7 X.

Re:Cave? (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877882)

You have to charge 42.9% more to Apple-sourced customers to cover the 30% commission and still pocket the same amount yourself.

Re:Cave? (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878354)

They have no choice, it is Apple's platform after all.

Actually, if I paid for it, isnt it my platform?

In other news... (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877382)

Customers bowed on Monday to Apple's newest App Store rules, and removed iPhone and iPad from their shopping lists. The move was required to comply with new rules designed to block Apple's competitors from making iDevices worth having.

Re:In other news... (0)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877454)

Yeah, you keep waiting on that. Hold your breath even.

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878000)

Yeah, you keep waiting on that. Hold your breath even.

You're HOLDING it wrong!

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878364)

As an employee of an Apple Specialists and as a Apple user for the past 20 years I'm glad to say that my next mobile devices will NOT be Apple products because of Apple's practices such as these.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878540)

As an actual iPhone Owner and as a Apple user for the past 30 years I'm glad to say that my next mobile devices will be Apple products because of Apple's practices such as these.

Damn you Ballmer!!!!! (3, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877494)

Oh wait......my mistake. Carry on.......

More evidence of Apple's perfidy (1)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877502)

The only question is, is this the worst thing that Steve Jobs has ever done, or just the worst thing lately?

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy (1)

oritpro (679586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877638)

Consumer point of view: The more I read about Steve Jobs lately the happier I am that I never became an Apple customer.

Investor point of view: Go Steve Jobs!

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy (-1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878098)

"Worst thing"? You mean made a platform that is high quality, trusted, easy to use, and secure?

How awful!

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878162)

You got 1 out of 4.

And i'm not sure about easy to use somedays

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878438)

I don't see how channelling funds from the users destined for the app-makers into Apple's account makes it higher quality, more trusted, easier to use, or more secure. In fact, it has nothing to do with any of those things.

Holy crap (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877504)

They get a 30% share? that's nuts. It's a shame that their hardware is such a social status symbol for so many people. Dictator Jobs certainly has a nice scam going on.

Re:Holy crap (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877560)

Livers procured from 16 year old Chinese virgins are expensive.

Re:Holy crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877628)

The go great with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Re:Holy crap (4, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877632)

So, can Amazon just raise all Kindle prices by 30% when accessed by an iPad? Seems like the only fair thing to do. I'd be happy to get a 30% discount on my Android tablet.

Re:Holy crap (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877718)

Apple would get 30% or THAT 30%

Re:Holy crap (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877726)

This is already happening with other software publishers.

I have a Macbook Pro, I installed the App Store for Mac OS, I browsed the app's, went to some of the developer websites, and it was cheaper - easily 20-30% across the board, it is nuts...

Re:Holy crap (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877780)

That would simply give Apple's iBooks a 30% advantage. This is just Apple fucking with people they see as competitors, and abusing their lock on the iProduct userbase to do so.

Re:Holy crap (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878136)

That would simply give Apple's iBooks a 30% advantage. This is just Apple fucking with people they see as competitors, and abusing their lock on the iProduct userbase to do so.

How, exactly, is this abuse? What stores are you aware of that don't put some sort of mark up on the products they sell?

If you want to use the In App system, you pay Apple, if you don't, you don't. That's fair. The ban on links isn't about "fucking" with anyone, it's about maintaining the user experience of iOS. It's jarring to have an app kick you out to Safari. That's one of the points Apple made when they introduced iAds.

Re:Holy crap (1)

reason (39714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878290)

It's not as straightforward as that. Apple now won't allow app vendors to include a link to their website in their apps, which they have done in the past to avoid using the In App system. And by all reports (http://cnet.co/apple-app-no-buy-link-cnet), "Aside from not having any links to an e-bookstore, you can't even mention your Web site or explain to readers from within the app how to purchase books and get them onto the device."

Re:Holy crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878322)

"How, exactly, is this abuse? What stores are you aware of that don't put some sort of mark up on the products they sell?"

Every store I visit offers their product at or very near the MSRP. In the instances where it's a different price it's because it's lower due to sale or clearance. I've yet to visit any store that sells goods for above the MSRP, and I'd imaging they wouldn't be in business very long.

"If you want to use the In App system, you pay Apple, if you don't, you don't. That's fair."

Except for the fact that I have to use it. No that's not fair, to me or my customers. There's a reason why we don't make apps for any i products, and why more developers are moving away. Apple does NOT deserve 30% of MY profits, and my customers don't deserve to pay higher just to use their shitty plat form.

"The ban on links isn't about "fucking" with anyone, it's about maintaining the user experience of iOS. It's jarring to have an app kick you out to Safari. That's one of the points Apple made when they introduced iAds."

No, what's jarring is have a product tell me I can't use it how I wish. That's jarring, and out right fucking scary.

Re:Holy crap (5, Insightful)

Excelsior (164338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878052)

No, you have to charge 43% extra to break even when Apple takes a 30% cut. For instance, if a book is 1.00 normally, you need to charge 1.43 because 1.43 * .3 = .429. This means the margin is so high it's not even close to competitive with Apple's own products.

Re:Holy crap (1)

smoot123 (1027084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878268)

And IIRC, that was the other part of the license agreement: you had to charge the same amount for in-app and out-of-app purchases. So no, you can't mark up the in-app purchase price to cover the Apple tax.

I'm grudgingly willing to allow that Apple can set whatever rules they want about what apps running in their ecosystem must and must not do. I'm much more pissed off that they're setting pricing policies for third parties, especially for purchases that don't go through any part of the Apple store.

Re:Holy crap (1)

Ziwcam (766621) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878420)

IIRC, there's already terms in the agreement to prevent this behavior.

Re:Holy crap (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878440)

No, actually. By Apple decree, you must keep the same or lower prices on all in-app purchases that users could purchase on other platforms. Amazon could raise ALL of their prices by 30%, or they can attempt to eat the difference, or they can hide the in-app purchase option on some hideously obscure menu option. Or, as is the american way, they can sue.

I suspect the response will be a combination of things, but especially the suing.

Re:Holy crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877742)

If you think 30% is nuts, you should look into the costs and problems associated with selling retail software in stores like Best Buy. 30% is a great deal unless your customer base is already well-developed, which I think includes Amazon.

Re:Holy crap (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877938)

30% is a great deal unless your customer base is already well-developed, which I think includes Amazon.

When your profit margins are already 30% or less, then giving that 30% to Apple is no longer a "great deal".

Re:Holy crap (2)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877840)

It's a shame that their hardware is such a social status symbol for so many people.

That is a shame. It's also a shame that the device and OS are really quite nice. Or to direct our negative emotions more appropriately, it's a shame that Apple is so heavy-handed with their App Store policies and policy against letting the user install things from outside of said store.

The iPad is the most responsive tablet device I've used. Its browser is fantastic (though there are aspects of the Android browser that I prefer.) The email client is light-years ahead of Android's (though that's a relatively recent development.)

Re:Holy crap (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877968)

They get a 30% share? that's nuts.

Yeah, the good people at Google and Amazon only get 30%!!

Re:Holy crap (2)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878474)

Google and Amazon take about 30% of apps that are purchased directly on their stores. They don't get a 30% cut of in-app purchase transactions that don't involve them. They also both allow other stores / marketplaces onto their devices... The Amazon marketplace is available from WITHIN the Google marketplace, for example.

Now, a lot of what is in the Android Marketplace is ad-supported, with ads being Google's specialty. But that's an optional thing.

30%! (1)

Locq (2372448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877518)

this must inhibit new stores like amazon in submitting an app. dose this apply to all app purchases, not just store apps?

Re:30%! (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877958)

Correct, all in-app purchases are taxed. Vendors are not allowed to link to their websites, all purchases inside the app must go through the app.

Why isn't this... (1)

hsmyers (142611) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877522)

restraint of trade? Could someone more sec/lawyered up than I explain this to me?

Re:Why isn't this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877770)

Is Apple a monopoly?

Re:Why isn't this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877876)

How would it be? Amazon, Google and such aren't being restrained from their respective trades. Apple wants 30% for creating the installed base and distribution network that enables a sale made from within an iOS app.

Now, 30% is probably more than these people want to share, specifically because they don't need Apple's network to make a sale. But Amazon certainly can do so, if it chooses. It chooses not to. That isn't a contractual restraint of trade.

I know we are all supposed to be against this but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877556)

Isn't this like Best Buy putting an escape tunnel in a Walmart that leads to a Best Buy store? It's sole intent was to keep all the profits for itself and stiff Apple. Do they allow an iTunes button on the Kindle?

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877772)

Isn't this like Best Buy putting an escape tunnel in a Walmart that leads to a Best Buy store?

Uh, no. It's like Walmart demanding a 30% cut of anything that you buy online from Best-Buy using the computer you bought from Walmart.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878108)

Not using the computer you bought there, but using the catalog. Best Buy can't put an ad in Walmart's circular advertising the product at Best Buy. Amazon can't put an app in Apple's store that leads customers away from Apple.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878468)

That would be true if you could buy a computer at Wal-mart that only let you shop Wal-Mart's catalog.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878172)

Um, what? You can buy Kindle books directly from Amazon on iOS, without using In App purchases.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b (1)

reason (39714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878306)

Yes, but Amazon aren't allowed to tell people that in their iOS app.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b (0)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878452)

Once I buy something from Walmart, is that yours or Walmart's?

Once you bought an iPhone, is that yours or Apple's?

Defiition of "brings" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877588)

So when I use an application created by Amazon to buy books from Amazon, it's Apple that is "bringing the subscriber"...? I guess the definition of the word "bring" must be different inside the Apple Reality Distortion Field.

I hope Google and Amazon increase the price for iOS users by 30%. Failing to do that would mean that people using other platforms would effectively be subsidizing Apple. I for one won't be buying any e-books from Google or Amazon as long as their prices aren't adjusted to reflect this.

Re:Defiition of "brings" (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878212)

And what do you do when you go into a bookstore? Do you not buy books unless the store doesn't add any mark up? How much did you pay for your computer parts at Fry's? I bet you paid more than Fry's paid the manufacturers.

Or what about the Android Market? Do you think Google runs it for free? Or Amazon itself?

And all this whining about Apple, Amazon's pricing policies for books and music have always been as bad, or worse, than Apple's.

Re:Defiition of "brings" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878598)

The bookstore provides a service. If I'm buying an e-book from Amazon, using the Amazon app, what service is Apple providing? They're trying to add a 30% tax simply because you're buying the e-book using an Apple device. Maybe your car manufacturer should charge you 30% of the cost of every song you listen to while you're driving...

If iOS users want to keep getting milked and locked in, that's their business. But the extra costs of doing business with Apple are going to end up being paid by consumers, and Amazon (and Google, and everyone else) should make it very clear to iOS users that they will be the ones paying that extra cost, not everyone else.

Rewritten Title that makes sense... (1)

UCFFool (832674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877634)

"Amazon and Google Give Into Apple's Demands; Drop In-App Purchase Buttons"

The only winning move... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877656)

...is not to play with Apple.

Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the world (1)

Flector (1702640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877744)

Can kiss my ass.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877990)

ever notice that the recession has been more or less tied to the rise of apple and its iphone?

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878070)

This is one of the stupidest comments I've seen on Slashdot. Imagine that.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo (2)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878144)

shut up steve, we're on to you

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878340)

And this is one of the most obvious/least funny comments I've seen on Slashdot. Keep 'em coming.

TAC9O (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877806)

open platform, least of which is to predict *BSND's users. Surprise personal rivalries contact to see if decentralized continues to lose

Ok, so.... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877812)

...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?

Re:Ok, so.... (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36877986)

Assuming your prices are the same on every device. Or, you could raise prices appropriately for people on iOS devices and make the same amount for any purchase. Just the people using iOS devices would pay more for the same thing (which apparently is not a problem for them anyway, since they already bought the Apple hardware).

Re:Ok, so.... (5, Insightful)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878072)

If I understand it correctly though, Apple doesn't just want 30% off of your purchases made through something you downloaded in the app store: If you create an account through your app downloading in the app store, Apple wants to claim 30% of what that customer pays for, ever. Charging someone 30% more than the rest because he happened to sign up to your service originally though an Appstore app doesn't seem to make much sense from a retailer POV.

Re:Ok, so.... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878170)

Good point.

Re:Ok, so.... (1, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878238)

...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?

That depends. Are you going to use an established store? Because they all take commission. And if you aren't going to use a store, you'll have overhead involved with billing and sales and support.

The next question is how many sales you can expect to make developing for some other platform. 70% of a large number is better than 84% of a small number.

All your money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877866)

... belong to us!!! Or at least 30%... ;-)

What Google Books?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877896)

Do you mean the books that Google copied and distributes without permission?

Disappointing comments in here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36877964)

The comments here are really uneducated and sad. This summary is terrible as well.

None of these companies are using Apple's in-app purchasing system so there is no 30% cut. At all.

FYI Google charges 30% on their store and for Android in-app purchases as well.

Protested by deleting iBooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878020)

Also I've just created a Facebook page at http://on.fb.me/pWHRaW . Please like it and share it with your friends. If enough of us delete iBooks, it might make Apple change its mind.

Re:Protested by deleting iBooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878092)

Link that works: http://on.fb.me/pWHRaW [on.fb.me]

apple earns nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878130)

'When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.'

You know, except for the cost of the device.

google, amazon should remove all links to apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878208)

or same rules, 30% from each apple product sold due google seach.

The best part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878326)

is watching geeks foam at the mouth. Despite the fact that most of you don't use Apple products. But I guess ya'll need something to rage at the machine about.

Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds (2)

JimLynch (684194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878414)

Here's my take on it. Apple's greed is amazing to behold. And you have to love the conflict of interest between being owning the platform and also competing with Amazon via iBooks. How is it one company gets to take 30% of the sales of their competitor? Apple, Greed and the Amazon Kindle App http://jimlynch.com/2011/07/25/apple-greed-and-the-amazon-kindle-app/ [jimlynch.com]

Give in? (2)

Thinine (869482) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878434)

How does this give in to Apple's demands? By eliminating the in app subscription/purchase capability, they've actually denied Apple any income from their sales. Seems like they refused Apple's demands, not gave into them.

lol at amazon and google getting slapped around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36878448)

Apples bitch. iBooks ftw.

Milking pristine brand till it sours (1)

levander (35581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36878476)

The only reason they're doing this is because they can. But neither their dominance in design nor their trendy fashionabilityy is going to last forever. There's going to come a time in the next 5 years when Apple's going to have to compete more on price. And, people are going to remember how Apple treated people back when..

Apple is milking their pristine brand for all its worth and with a step like this, it's going to sour.

I bought $6K of $AAPL over 10 years ago that's now worth over $150K. Moves like this by AAPL just remind me there's going to come a time in the next 5 years, that I need to sell and get the hell out.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?