Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jul 2011 21:14 UTC
Apple Petty Apple is petty. Amazon, Kobo, and others have changed their applications to conform to Apple's App Store rules, and if there's one word that describes the situation these booksellers are in, it's petty. Still, it's leading to good things: Kobo has announced it's going to bypass the App Store by writing an HTML5 e-reader for iOS (and thus, for other HTML5-capable mobile devices).
Thread beginning with comment 482801
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales.

It's not Apple's cut though. Apple aren't owed a cut of every sale of every single file that gets loaded onto iOS.

The whole thing is a little like Microsoft demanding a cut for every spreadsheet I save in Excel or report I typed in Word.

I mean, where do you draw the line? Should the manufacturers of the capacitive touch screen also get a cut for every book that's loaded because the iPad would be nothing without one. How about Dennis Ritchie getting a cut for inventing C - the grandfather of the language that's central for the iOS. Surely if Apple can claim rights to an income for a book they had no part in, then Ritchie can have a cut for an OS he had no part in developing?

I know they're absurd examples but the point I'm making is Apple have already charged their commission. Consumers have already bought the device and thus paid for the OS and hardware costs plus mark up. Then the developers have paid for the service to have their apps available on Apples App Store. Both of these I wholeheartedly agree with. However then expecting a percentage of every file loaded and deliberately crippling functions that offer alternative loading mechanisms is completely wrong.

Edited 2011-07-29 20:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

The whole thing is a little like Microsoft demanding a cut for every spreadsheet I save in Excel or report I typed in Word.


But if those are the terms & conditions for using Excel, then you have to adhere to those terms & conditions if you wish to use Excel.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


But if those are the terms & conditions for using Excel, then you have to adhere to those terms & conditions if you wish to use Excel.

Where in Apple's T&C's does it say that you cannot link to your own website in your own application?

Besides, terms and conditions cannot override law.
If Apples T&Cs are stifling fair competition then Apple should be held accountable.

Edited 2011-07-31 09:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

"There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales.

It's not Apple's cut though. Apple aren't owed a cut of every sale of every single file that gets loaded onto iOS.
"

It's their App Store. They set the terms and conditions. If they say that they are owed a cut, then they are owed a cut. If you don't like it, then don't distribute your app through Apple's App Store. What is so confusing about that?

With the iPad having outsold the Kindle at 20 to 1 (and growing), I'm sure that Amazon wants to sell books to Apple's customers. But Apple already sells books through their iTunes store. Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app. Amazon didn't help to pay for the cost to develop the iPad or to set up the App Store. And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


It's their App Store. They set the terms and conditions. If they say that they are owed a cut, then they are owed a cut. If you don't like it, then don't distribute your app through Apple's App Store. What is so confusing about that?

But that's the point: Apple are also trying to get a cut from products not sold via the App Store.

I don't have a problem with however much they choose to charge for use of their distribution mechanism. The issue I have is charging people not to use it as well.

With the iPad having outsold the Kindle at 20 to 1 (and growing), I'm sure that Amazon wants to sell books to Apple's customers. But Apple already sells books through their iTunes store.

...and? There is this thing call "competition".
Just because someone builds a stall on my road selling lemonade, it doesn't mean I can't do the same as well.

Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app.

Why should they? It's Apples app.
Furthermore, Apple didn't pay Amazon to distribute their app either. So your point is moot.

Amazon didn't help to pay for the cost to develop the iPad or to set up the App Store.

No, but the former is covered in iPad sales and the latter should be covered in app sales.
Sales of ebooks et al does not come under either of those two categorise you described.

And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

Again, how does buying a book harm Apple's hardware sales or App sales? It simply doesn't. So your logic is flawed.

This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Well actually legally you can.

However the situation is a little more complicated than your example as walmart don't charge you entry into their supermarket nor dictate that rival shops pay them a percentage for sales that didn't even take place in walmart.

Reply Parent Score: 2