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).
Apple’s new policy states that all in-application purchases must go through iTunes, because Apple gets a 30% cut of the sales there. However, Apple is taking it all a step further, and also does not allow you to link to a website with a store – even if that store is loaded in a separate Safari instance. And just in case that wasn’t enough – you’re not even allowed to mention the store at all, link or no!
Kobo’s James Dovey:
The store was removed because Apple rejected any updates which included it, period. They also rejected any updates which stated that Apple required its removal, or indeed any mention of ‘compliance with App Store guidelines’. It was further rejected for the cardinal sin of allowing users to create a Kobo account within the app. Then it was rejected for providing a link to let users create an account outside the app. Then it was rejected for simply mentioning that it was possible to sign up, with no direction on where or how one could do that. Then it was rejected for making any mention of the Kobo website. Then for any mention of ^aEUR~our website’ at all, in any language. We additionally cannot make any assertions that Kobo provides content for sale, however obliquely.
What’s interesting is that it wasn’t the App Store review team that rejected Kobo’s attempts at getting their application update into the App Store – they actually approved each of these changes, only to have the approvals rescinded “from above”. What’s interesting about this is that Apple is specifically doing this to block competing content stores, further forcing people to use iTunes, and locking them into it even more. This is especially annoying for me in The Netherlands, since the iTunes Store is completely useless here – no movies, no television series (local or otherwise), barely any books, nothing. It’s a digital wasteland.
Still, some good has come out of this, as Kobo is going to focus on HTML5 from now on for its e-reader application.
“Kobo believes in providing an open platform for users, and our HTML5 development will support the company’s current app strategy to reach a broader base of users worldwide,” said Michael Serbinis, Kobo’s CEO, “HTML5 allows us to add more features and update our popular Reading Life social experience far more quickly, providing an agile method to deliver advanced enhancements to consumers without limitation.”
It seems the only people Apple is hurting with this are iOS users. Considering how petty the company has been about this, I wouldn’t put it past Apple to cripple HTML5 support on mobile Safari just to further frustrate Kobo’s, Amazon’s and others’ experiences.
1. Dangle sparlkley items in front of customers.
2. Abuse customers.
3. Own the market
It’s sounds wierd, but it seems to work. Unfortunately, prior art from the U.S. colonization may invalidate the patent.
Apple didn’t take anything away from me. They told the ebook sellers that there were to be no more sales which circumvented the app store, which they were doing in order to deprive Apple of their cut of the sales.
It’s no different than the rules on ebay. You can’t sell an item on ebay and then circumevent ebay when selling more items to the same customer.
Why is Apple always portrayed as the bad guy? For f***’s sake, they allowed competing vendors (Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, etc.) to to put their ebook apps on the iPad and now people are bitching because Apple wants a cut of the book sales? Do you see Amazon allowing Kindle owners to buy books directly from Apple’s ebook store? Yeah, didn’t think so.
So rather than Apple selling an ebook for $10, they get $3 when it’s sold through one of their competitors. In return, the competitors get access to a huge market of iPad owners.
You are right, it’s not as bad as it sounds. However, I think the issue is they tell EVERYBODY what they can and can’t do. Users, here’s all you can do. Developers, you can only do A, B, C. Vendors, you can only do this. The list of do’s and don’t they require from the whole ecosystem starts to get a little creepy. You start to think they have a bit of an over-inflated image of themselves. At some point, everyone might just move on to friendlier confines. But probably not. Doesn’t mean we can’t all whine about it!
I think the defining moment for me was when the first Mac Mini came out. You could choos a Combo Drive (DRD-Rom/ CDRW) or a Super Drive (DVDRW). Coming from the Windows world, I thought I might get the combo drive and later upgrade it to the Super Drive. Only that was not allowed. No one was allowed to upgrade it to a Super Drive. If a user, a 3rd-party, or even an Apple Store did so it voided the warranty. Instead, your only option was to sell yours and purchase one with a Super Drive. I thought line of reasoning was REALLY strange. I also felt the same about non-relaceable batteries in many of their devices. You had to pay someone to replace the battery for you – at a high premium. Wierd!!
There are two models that have emerged in the tablet market: The curated model that Apple uses, where they review apps, weeding out those that are malicious, unstable, or just poorly done. I realize that this has been an imperfect process, but, to me, it’s a lot better than the Android alternative, which appears to have been modeled after the wild west.
Apple can only deny warranty repairs if a modification, aftermarket service, or third party part has caused the failure. That’s federal law (FTC has info on the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act) and it’s the same one that prevent GM from “voiding the warranty” on your car when you install tires you buy from Tire Rack, spark plugs you buy from AutoZone, and have your oil change by Jiffy Lube.
I bought a Mac Mini. Within two days, I had upgraded the hard drive, RAM, and combo drive. But I understood that I’d be on my own if my workmanship, or the parts I chose, caused a failure.
As to batteries, given some of the shoddy cr*p that’s being sold on ebay, I understand Apple’s desire to not have that stuff put into their products. Guy buys a Chinese battery pack. It fries the contacts in his MacBook’s battery connector, he plugs the Apple battery in, takes it for service. The other issue is that making the batteries replaceable increases the size and weight of the device.
I wonder who would win in that argument, me or Apple?
I’m an electrical engineer who builds satellites for a living. I’m guessing that I’d do alright if Apple wanted to argue.
Edited 2011-07-29 20:46 UTC
This isn’t really a surprise. I suppose Amazon and the others should be grateful that Apple lets them play in their playground at all.
I don’t know what’s the more remarkable – the ease with which Apple can treat another company like their bitch, or the queue of companies willing to be Apple’s bitch.
Of course, this is the real world and business is business, but still… wow.
Even more remarkable is the ease with which Apple can treat customers as their bitch. I have an iPhone and an iPad, but d*mmit Apple, these are my devices, and would like to have a button to the Kindle store in the Kindle app.
It just goes to show that in fact they are NOT your devices. Apple is simply leasing them to you.
You didn’t get the memo, did you?
Your iDevices are leased, not sold.
And your user experience is a leached walk, not a free walk.
People should reads the memo a bit better before opening their wallet. It’s not that hidden [agenda] anymore by Apple, really.
Why should they be grateful? Any other handset would welcome those updates with open arms so Apple are clearly abusing their position.
In fact I think Amazon et al have grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices. The only sticking point would be whether handset market share is critical – what with iOS devices not being nearly as dominant as Apple like to publicise.
Well you’ve taken that quote out of context with the rest of my post, but anyway, duly noted to self: not everyone is aware of rhetorical devices.
No-one is forcing Amazon to put a Kindle app on Apple devices yet they willingly do so knowing Apple’s record and knowing the terms and conditions (which Apple may change at will).
So, if there are grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices, does Amazon:
A) report Apple for anti-competitive practices
B) obey Apple and make the following mild announcement on the forum for the Kindle app: “In order to comply with recent policy changes by Apple, we’ve also removed the “Kindle Store” link from within the app that opened Safari and took you to the Kindle Store. You can still shop as you always have – just open Safari and go to http://www.amazon.com/kindlestore. If you want, you can bookmark that URL. Your Kindle books will be delivered automatically to your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, just as before.”
Hmm… tricky, I know.
(this comment includes rhetorical devices. Deal with it – or not, if you can’t or don’t want to. There are still some freedoms we have and we should cherish, celebrate and take advantage of them while we can!)
Correction: on Apple’s *customers* devices.
Apple devices are sold. They aren’t Apple property, except when they are in Apple Stores or in their stock.
But maybe Apple consider their customers are their property, who know. Maybe it’s written in their EULA, somewhere: all you customer are belong to us!
I predict a big surprise, then. Smartphones owners and geeks are far less brand belovers and far more hype followers (or makers, for some). For a company making now near half of its revenue from this kind of customers, they should care more…
What would be more funny is to add this notice not on their website but… on the second page of every Kindle electronic books they deliver to Apple devices
True. But users of Apple devices and of Kindle get crippled apps. Where the required operation to buy a book becomes more complicated. If the user still wants it then they can go trough the website; The question is that apple is deliberatly adding annoyance where there previously was none.
Sure, both amazon and the users may accept this. But it still does not make it right or particularly fair.
There’s a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales. Every game vendor seems capable of providing in-app purchases that don’t circumvent Apple. It’s not the user’s fault that Amazon wants access to Apple’s entire iPad customer base without paying a percentage when they sell books to those users.
How about bitching about something substantial? Amazon won’t allow Kindle owners to purchase books from Apple to read on their Kindles. They aren’t just demanding a cut from Apple’s sales. They want to be the monopolistic provider of ebooks to every owner of a Kindle.
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
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
11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to buy the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app
Apple is distributing their competitor’s apps, and all they ask is a cut for in-app sales!
Amazon is stifling fair competition. Is Amazon distributing an Apple iBooks app to Kindle owners, allowing them to buy from the iTunes store? Are they distributing Barnes and Noble’s app? Are they distributing Kobo’s e-reader app? Where’s your anger over that? Where is your anger that Amazon is using their Kindle to monopolize ebook sales to Kindle customers?
Face it: This isn’t about logic or reason with you. It’s all about your hatred of Apple.
GET OFF YOUR FUCKING HIGH HORSE!!
I’m as so sick and fucking tired of discussions on here always being lowered to childish drivel like that bullshit.
If you want to make a point, make it. But don’t hide behind some pseudo-intellectual bullshit about myself or anyone else being blinkered to reason because of a petty alliance to one company over another.
So please can we get back to talking about technology and leave the second-rate psychology to another news site.
</rant>
Fair enough then. However I still don’t think that’s fair and I still think Amazon et al could have a case against it for anti-competitive practices. However I’m not a lawyer.
But Apple have no involvement for those in-app sales. They don’t create the content, they didn’t distribute the content, they have no involvement in it what-so-ever thus they have no entitlement to it what-so-ever.
Apple is basically forcing their customers to use Apples own distribution channels or pay a percentage for the privilege of using their own distribution channels. It’s little better than the strong arm tactics that MS and IBM do.
If people opted for Apples distribution channels because they preferred it, then that’s different. Apple can charge what they want and provide whatever service they want as businesses have opted into that service knowing the service they’re going to receive. It would have been an entirely open deal. However to force peoples hand the way Apple do, it’s completely unethical in my opinion.
If the Kindle had the same policy for it’s loadable apps (I will admit I’ve not had any experience in loadable apps for that eBook reader. I only know about the books and hardware specs), then I would also complain about that.
In fact I personally wouldn’t shop from Amazon if I had a choice because of their aggressive policy on DRM – which something Apple get right. But clearly I’m faking an opinion here because I’m just a biased Apple hater….sorry back to raging again. However your comment was moronic to say the least.
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.
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.
…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.
Why should they? It’s Apples app.
Furthermore, Apple didn’t pay Amazon to distribute their app either. So your point is moot.
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.
Again, how does buying a book harm Apple’s hardware sales or App sales? It simply doesn’t. So your logic is flawed.
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.
If you go to Amazon’s web site and buy an ebook, Apple does not charge a cent to Amazon or you. But it’s less convenient for you; Apple wants you to prefer the convenience of in-app purchasing of ebooks from Apple’s iTunes store over web-based purchases from their competitors. Or they want to get a percentage of the competitor’s in-app sales, so that they make more money. It’s called a revenue model.
It’s not “your road.” It’s a public road. The Apple App Store is not publicly owned. Apple can set up whatever terms they like. You tell someone that they can set up a lemonade stand on your lawn if you get a cut from the sales. If they don’t like it, they can’t just set up the stand and then refuse to pay you.
That’s idiotic and blatantly false. Amazon wrote the app and own all legal rights to it. Their copyrights and trademarks are all over it. Apple had nothing to do with the creation of the app and they don’t own any part of it.
Why would Apple pay Amazon when Amazon is providing the Kindle app that takes sales away from Apple? Is critical thinking that hard for you?
Stop being purposely obtuse. Buying a book from Amazon, rather than buying the same book from Apple’s iTunes store, harms Apple. I specifically cited the iTunes store which is where they sell books (not apps or hardware), so stop making straw man arguments.
No, you cannot. Walmart prohibits solicitation in their stores. End of story.
Apple didn’t charge Amazon for entry into the App Store. Nor do they charge customers to enter the App store.
Amazon doesn’t want to pay Apple a percentage, so they removed the in-app purchasing capability. They understand that it’s Apple’s App Store and that Apple has decided to charge for in-app purchases when the apps are distributed through Apple’s App Store.
I was replying to your comment about an Apple app for the Kindle, not Amazon’s app for the iPhone. If you meant the latter then you phrased your comment wrong and hence the confusion here.
No, but clearly it is for you seeming as you gaffed up your earlier post which lead us to this confusion.
(oh look, we can both play the petty insults game – look how productive it is. any chance you can keep this discussion mature?)
lol, you lose an argument so you move the goal posts and then claim victory.
I’ve already pointed out how the various costs you described are already covered with the various costs Apple charge. However feel free to ignore those arguments and throw petty insults as has been the basis of your whole discussion thus far.
Walmart != law.
So I repeat, legally you can. Walmart might request you to leave, but you’re legally entitled to do so.
That’s complete bullshit. Submitting apps to Apple’s App Store is not a free process.
Now I’m not arguing against the cost as I think that charge is fully justified. However the fact remains it’s not a free process thus the earlier point I made.
I know this. You’re just reiterating the same bloody point I’ve been making. So well done for stating the obvious.
However, and the point I keep arguing: I think Apple expecting a percentage for documents not affiliated with Apple nor downloaded via Apple’s distribution mechanisms is wrong. And then expecting developers who actually wish to use their own distribution mechanisms to cripple their own applications to the point where it offers significant and unfair advantages to Apples own distribution mechanisms is anti-competitive and abuse of the “walled garden” that they’d locked consumers into.
Like I said before, if developers which to utilise Apples distribution mechanisms, then I can’t see why Apple shouldn’t charge. But to force users into it is just plain wrong.
The Kindle came out three years before the iPad and you think that Amazon should sue Apple? For what? Making a more appealing product — something that can do more than just display books in greyscale?
I couldn’t think of anything worse than buying an iPad as an eBook reader:
* a backlit LCD would is a horrible strain on the eyes compared to the Kindles eInk.
* a glass screen is a nightmare to read from in bright light where as the Kindles matted display is perfect.
* the battery life on the Kindle runs circles around the iPad.
Sure the iPad is a better multi-functional device than the Kindle, but then the Kindle was never meant to be a tablet PC. However if you’re comparing like for like then the iPad is a much worse eBook reader than the Kindle.
Studies have shown no evidence to support that claim.
And the Kindle’s display is unreadable in a dark bedroom, which is where I often read at night before going to sleep.
My house has electricity. I have a charger that works in my car and on my boat. Not an issue for me.
Much of what I read is either technical books with color photos and illustrations, or full color magazines about the hobbies that interest me. The Kindle is worthless for either of those activities, which is why I had no e-reader prior to the iPad. Not everyone’s reading it Tom Clancy fiction or romance novels.
On ageing eyes (~40+) that’s true, but on younger eyes I am lead to understand that there is still a potential issue.
However trying to use an LCD on the move with bright light reflected and so on would me several magnitudes worse than simply just reading from an LCD in a darkened room
So turn a light on like you’d have to do with an old fashioned book.
I managed that when I was a kid. In fact I thought all bedrooms these days came equipped with a piece of technology called a “bed-side lamp” which is ideal for your sort of problem.
Regardless, it is still a portability issue that the Kindle wins against the iPad when comparing like for like.
Plus many people like to read on holiday when at the beach, or on the train / plane or even in the bath.
You don’t see many electrical hook-ups in those locations.
No, but most people are. You’re usage is pretty specific and pretty rare compared to most peoples eBook requirements. Thus eInk makes much more sense for the majority of people.
Edited 2011-07-31 10:15 UTC
“Lead to understand” by whom? Please cite your sources for that claim.
Unlike you, I do not sleep alone. I don’t want to keep my significant other awake if I decide to read in bed for another half an hour or so after she’s ready to drift off.
Of course you can put on a “bed-side lamp” to read. It’s not like you’re going to keep anyone else awake. You know what’s “ideal for your sort of problem”? Single serving frozen dinners.
The iPad has a 9-10 hour battery life. How long do you spend reading in planes, trains, or the bath?
Reading magazines is rare? Do you stop and gawk when you see someone reading Popular Photography, Smithsonian, Rolling Stone, Car and Driver, Boating, Motorcyclist, or Wired? The National Directory of Magazines lists over twenty thousand different magazine titles just in the U.S. and Canada. There are far more magazines sold than books.
You are claiming that it’s rare for people to read non-fiction books with color photos, drawings, graphs, and charts? Is it shocking to you to learn that normal people read things like travel guides, auto repair manuals, books about photography, and textbooks, all of which contain color photos and/or multi-color illustrations?
Normal people are living life; they are enjoying travel, sports, and hobbies, and reading about those things in full-color, glossy (like the screen of an iPad) magazines and richly illustrated books. That’s partly why 29 million iPads have been sold while only 1.5 million Kindles have been sold — despite the Kindle being sold for twice as long and at a fraction of the price.
P.S. With only 61% of the pixel count of the iPad, the Kindle suffers from the small amount of text that fits on its tiny screen. Coupled with page turning that New York Times columnist David Pogue described as “a bizarre, black-white-black flashing sequence,” it is annoying to anyone who reads faster than the typical six year old.
Sorry for the formatting, but OSAlert hosed the nested quotes. They looked fine in the preview, and, in fact, I adjusted the line spacing to make everything neat and readable. But after submission, it italicized nested quotes rather than showing them as quotes.
I think you should be apologising for your juvenile personal attacks more than the formatting, but then maybe I wrongly mistook this playground for being a mature technology debate….
Don’t get all uppity with me after your dripping sarcasm about the “bed-side lamp” being “ideal for [my] sort of problem.” . You wanted to start with the childish attacks and now you’re all pissy when you come out on the losing end. Get over it, wanker (as they say in your country).
lol, so you think one sarcastic yet innocent comment warrants the moronic level you stooped too?
Oh dear.
You’re just trolling, so give up. Your comments grow more labored and outlandish at each turn. You tried to be insulting and sarcastic to your superior and you got your ass handed to you. Move along.
fmaxwell,
Clearly an ereader isn’t for you, that’s fine. But there’s no sense in denying the strengths it has over other tablets including the ipad.
If apple sold an e-ink tablet, chances are you would immediately change your tune just because apple was behind it. I’m getting really tired of this kind of behavior, where people are overly proud of their favorite companies and fail to think objectively, though I suppose it is human nature.
I did not deny that it had strengths over other tablets. I didn’t deny that it had a longer battery life or that the screen was much more readable in bright light. I never said that its lighter weight, lower cost, greater resistance to heat, or available free 3G aren’t advantages either.
I simply argued that the advantages don’t, for most people, outweigh the disadvantages of the smaller screen, lack of color, and its monopolistic nature (you can only buy ebooks from Amazon for it).
Apple makes, and has made, many products that I don’t find to be particularly appealing. Don’t presume to know how I would react to an Apple e-ink tablet.
I laid out clear, rational reasons why I, and apparently millions of others, prefer the iPad to e-ink tablets. Those reasons had nothing to do with the company logos on the devices, and everything to do with the capability of the devices.
If you’ve accomplished so little in your life that you are “overly proud of [your] favorite companies,” companies with which you have no affiliation other than as a consumer, you have my pity.
fmaxwell,
“I simply argued that the advantages don’t, for most people, outweigh the disadvantages of the smaller screen, lack of color…”
It sounded like you were downplaying the utility of those things for people who found them important, but if that was not your intention, then ok.
” and its monopolistic nature (you can only buy ebooks from Amazon for it).”
Apple supporters have absolutely no wiggle room to criticize others about this though.
“Apple makes, and has made, many products that I don’t find to be particularly appealing. Don’t presume to know how I would react to an Apple e-ink tablet.”
If that doesn’t describe you then I am glad, however then you should no doubt recognize the typical hypocrisy from the apple fanboys whom I speak of.
“I laid out clear, rational reasons why I, and apparently millions of others, prefer the iPad to e-ink tablets. Those reasons had nothing to do with the company logos on the devices, and everything to do with the capability of the devices.”
You’re definitely showing quite a lot of pro-apple bias though, almost all your criticisms of amazon apply equally if not more so to apple.
If this was merely a tactic to balance out the conversation, then ok. However if you really believe that amazon is guilty of those things and apple is not, then you may be more of an apple fanboy that you care to admit.
Edited 2011-07-31 20:08 UTC
Since I made it a point to even name advantages that the other poster had not mentioned, it’s pretty clear that I’m not trying to downplay anything.
My iPad has ebook readers from Amazon (Kindle), Barnes & Noble (Nook), and Kobo, all advertised on and, and downloaded from, Apple’s App Store. To the best of my knowledge, Apple charged no fees to any of those competitors.
By contrast, I see no Amazon-provided facility through which Kindle users can install ebook readers from Amazon’s competitors (correct me if I am wrong, as I don’t profess to be expert on Amazon’s Kindle marketplace). In light of that, I believe that there is plenty of room to criticize about monopolistic practices.
Again, how?
Does Amazon distribute an Apple-supplied iBook app for the Kindle? No.
Does Amazon provide a means by which their users can purchase and read ebooks from Apple, or any other competing vendor? No.
Has Amazon provided a huge marketplace to Apple in which to sell ebooks? No.
Yet Apple provides all of those things for Amazon in return is a cut from sales of ebooks. Amazon has a big headline on their web site “Newspapers and magazines in color on iPad and iPhone.” It sure sounds like Amazon recognizes the importance of color, even if some of their vocal customers do not.
Think about this: Apple has sold 29 million iPads, over 100 million iPhones (as of March 2011), and tons (how’s that for specificity?) of iPod Touchs. Had Apple played hardball, prohibiting the distribution of competing ebook readers through the App Store, Amazon would be stuck trying to market to their 1.5 million Kindle buyers. Instead, they have access to Apple’s massive consumer market. In return, if they want the convenience of in-app purchases, they pay a percentage to Apple.
What’s your alternative model? Apple distributes Amazon’s app for free and lets Amazon lure away sales from Apple’s own iTunes store and Apple gets no compensation? And in return, Amazon continues to prohibit Kindle owners from buying content from Apple?
Siding with the company that wants a cut from competitor’s in-app sales versus siding with a company that prohibits competitors from selling at all hardly sounds like bias.
You mean like how you cited your sources? lol
No need to get catty. I have a girlfriend ans she likes to dress up. We share a bed and occasionally have sex too.
I’ll assume you wanted to know all these details seeming as you brought up my personal life.
Surely the back light on an iPad is just as bad as having a bedside light on in that respect?!
I can’t speak for your “significant other”, but my girlfriend can’t sleep if I’m playing on my phone and that chucks out half the light that a tablet would.
Lay off the oestrogen will you; I’m trying to have a mature discussion here.
There is this little thing called “context”.
As far as I know, (and I’m open to being proved wrong if you can provide hard statistical evidence), magazines are seldom bought and read on eBook-like devices compared to novels.
These devices are built and sold to people who are heavy readers. It might be quite a specific niche, but it’s still a huge market. eMagazine sales, in comparison to eBook sales, are significantly lower.
No, I said it’s rare for people to read technical manuals (which you specified) in comparison to novels.
Again, please don’t drop the context to just win an argument as you’ll ultimately just make this whole discussion pointless.
Most people who bought an iPad didn’t buy it because they were specifically just after an eBook reader. Again, you’re failing to compare like for like.
If you wanted something that could read magazines AND surf the internet, then yes a tablet such as the iPad is a better purchase. However if you JUST want to read books then it isn’t.
I appreciate your specific usage means you happen to prefer the iPad. That’s fine. We all have a preference in these things. However don’t think that just because you prefer LCD to eInk that everyone else should or would. And, most importantly, don’t lower discussions to personal jabs as you just undermine your whole credibility – as a wise man once said: if you can’t reason with logic then you have no reason to begin with.
And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?
If you think they would, I have ocean front property in Iowa that I’d love to sell you.
What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?
If you do, I’ll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.
Edited 2011-07-26 23:14 UTC
Well, I don’t believe Google places the same kind of restrictions on their app store that Apple does, in that they don’t demand that all apps MUST have purchases done inside the app so that Google gets a cut. So yeah, in this case, Apple is the more ‘evil’ of the two.
The author of this piece is right… the ones that suffer the most from this is iOS users, which is really dumb, when you consider that app developers are just removing purchasing options altogether (as opposed to paying the Apple tax), so it’s not like Apple is going to accomplish anything out of this, except pissing off its customers.
Edited 2011-07-26 23:29 UTC
“the ones that suffer the most from this is iOS users”
And where would these users be without Apple and their products. Do you remember the world before iPhone? There would not be an Android without iPhone.
ezylstra,
“And where would these users be without Apple and their products. Do you remember the world before iPhone? There would not be an Android without iPhone.”
Nonsense!
Would you say “there would be no personal computers without microsoft”?
The personal computing revolution was the result of a combination of things: increasing purchasing power of the consumer, discovery of new CPU fabrication techniques, dropping electronics prices, good education, long term investment, etc. Microsoft was a product of it’s environment more than the other way around. As much as MS enjoys having been there to take the credit, the personal computing revolution would have arrived whether or not they were on board.
In the same sense, apple products are a product of today’s environment as well. Don’t forget that apple’s first tablets 1.5 decades ago were a total flop.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad apple’s here to the extent that more competition is better. But as controversial as it may seem to some, the tech world doesn’t rotate around apple. All else being equal, had apple gone under in the dot com bubble, there’s absolutely no reason to think that others would be unable to bring tablet computers to the masses today.
With apple out of the picture, former apple fanatics would need some other entity to latch onto. Conceivably that could be google.
Apple was just the first to take use of the new hardware that was coming commercially available at the time (touch screens, mobile gpus, faster cpus). Without Apple, someone else would have been first.
As it stands, it looks like Apple invented everything, but in reality they have very little stake in designing the hardware that runs it all. Kudos to Apple for making it a nice software package, but they hardly deserve all the credit.
What Apple did do, is anticipate that these products could be made for X amount of dollars before any other company even looked at it.
It almost looks like Apple already had their products ready before they could be produced.
That is why it feels (or felt like) the rest is playing catch up.
The pioneer in this field was Palm. Think of those first Palms – a home screen with rows of icons, touch screens, gestures to write. Apple merely polished things, which they are very good at. The innovation award goes to Palm. Everyone is still copying them. It is a shame what happened to the company. The lost their way around version 5.0 of the OS. My last Palm, the Centro, was a wonderful device. Sony was the real pioneer in bringing multimedia capabilities to PalmOS devices. Their line of Clie devices caused everyone to rethink the PDA. How quickly people forget.
ps – I think Handspring also brought innvovation in terms of storage cards and the Visor phone.
Edited 2011-07-27 20:17 UTC
They’d have a life?
It’s very telling that every comment BUT yours has high moderation despite the fact that your link is the only one that offers a sense of reason. I gave you a point. Enjoy it while you can.
Edited 2011-07-27 00:29 UTC
I think you confuse “sense of reason” with “in my opinion”.
No, I meant what I said.
Are you reading the same comment as everyone else?
His comment not only lacked any links, but his arguments are also very easily disproved (not that he even made any concrete arguments; it was mostly speculation)
Except Amazon doesn’t have a device as robust and app-friendly as the iOS devices (yet; I know they are rumored to have an Android tablet on the way). We can’t pass judgement on them until we see what they do.
As for Google…as others have pointed out, they do indeed allow such things as in-app purchases via third party payment processors, in-app account management, and in-app links and ads by the app publisher. Anyone with an Android device can attest to that. Not only that, you don’t even have to use Google’s Android Market app store if you don’t want to. Amazon’s app store works great and has an amazing selection (and free paid apps daily), and there are other app stores too. With iOS, short of jailbreaking you are locked in to Apple’s store and the limitations that come with it.
I’ve always been a big fan of Apple’s OSes (and their hardware to a lesser extent) but their business practices have always rubbed me the wrong way. This is becoming ridiculous. I know what you might say, that it’s their App Store and they have a right to do what they want with it, including heavy-handed restrictions. And you would be right; as they are not a monopoly they can get away with a few anti-competitive things for now. And with the strong and growing presence of Android, I doubt iOS will ever be the dominant mobile platform. In the end, this will only hurt the consumers first, and Apple second.
Edited 2011-07-27 01:10 UTC
I would rather Amazon concentrate on the Kindle which is pretty ACE … Going to buy one as soon as I can afford one.
I bought a Kindle for my girlfriend a few months ago, and as an e-book reader they are very nice. In fact, I’d say they are the one to beat in the standalone reader market, and they intentionally left out flashy features so there is no distraction from reading your books.
I have a friend with a Nook Color, and while he did buy it with the intention of using it as a cheap Android tablet, I couldn’t imagine using it for its original intent. All the notifications and the poor battery life (compared to the Kindle) would be too much of a distraction from reading. I know this because I try to use my Android phone as an e-book reader and it happens to me. I just can’t stay focused on the content.
I’m waiting for the new Kindles to come out so I can get one of the current generation for $99 (if that rumor pans out anyway).
That’s kind of an apples (NPI) and oranges comparison. Take a look at Nook Touch (Nook 2) vs. kindle and the nook comes out pretty well. Which is why I have one.
Hmmm. Looking at B&N’s Nook comparison page, it seems there are really no advantages over the Kindle apart from memory expansion and battery life, and a few shortcomings (no 3G internet, no audio books, no landscape support). Given the comparable price, I think it comes down to personal preference rather than “one is better than the other”.
As a pure reading device, I maintain that the Kindle (and the Nook Touch for that matter) are far better than any “do everything” tablet like the Nook Color or any other Android based phones/tablets. You get a Kindle or other e-ink unit to read, not to play games or browse the web or check your email.
Anyway, I got her what she wanted, not what I wanted her to have. If she had wanted a Nook Touch she would have gotten one.
And, really, that is the important thing, am I right?
Way to try and create a straw man argument there. The fact is these same apps are available on Android, so we know exactly how Google would react in the same situation. It’s quite different than the path Apple chose.
WAIT…
So it is like this:
Step 1:
Software, Apple gets 30%.
Step 2:
Media content, Apple gets 30% (currently under implementation).
And you are actually ok with this, because someone else might do the same…..
AFAIK you’re not locked into Amazons book store on the Kindle. Thus you could download from Apples online portals and equally have links in books that reference back to Apple.
Why not. It’s been proven time and time again that Google Market is very loosely (too loosely in fact) moderated.
Furthermore, you’re not locked into Google’s Market on Android. In fact Amazon (for example) already have their own Android repository.
Given you’ve been wrong on both counts, can I assume that you’re also wrong about having a property for sale :p
Durr, last I checked the Kindle’s an ebook reader & not a general-purpose tablet or smartphone that runs 3rd party apps.
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but Amazon will happily sell you an iPad and they don’t seem to care that they don’t get a cut of any “iBook” sales that happen as a result.
What about them? I doubt they’d give two shits if Apple decided to release a fullblown Android version of the iTunes store… or hell, a version OF Android with the iTunes store integrated into it. A far cry from the “waaaah, it’s our sandbox and we’re going to tweak the rules endlessly so we get our way” BS that Apple loves.
Probably not… too bad that isn’t at all analogous to Apple’s actions here. Clearly you started that paragraph to make a comparison with Android, then realized how badly Apple would look in that comparison, and posted some non-sequitur BS about ads instead.
Oh, hyuck, hyuck, hyuck. Don’t quit your day job, Chuckles.
It only goes to show how dark the computing age would be if Apple would be in charge.
I like their products. MacOS X (NextStep actually) is a very nice operating system.
But if I look at how Apple behaves, I am glad it doesn’t own that much products in the IT world.
Apple is paranoid and twisted.
Maybe this has something to do with Lodsys?
Wow, as an iPhone user I am so frustrated. This is SOOO hard. I have to use a web browser (Safari, Firefox, iCab/whatever I have installed on my iPhone) to buy a book on the Kindle/Nook/whatever website, and then when I launch my Kindle/Nook/whatever application that book is magically there so I can read it. Wow! That was so hard to do! I feel so hobbled and my apps are so crippled that they just almost do not function at all any more. The iPhone is going DOWN because of this, I just know it.
Good grief, people, when I woke up this morning the planet was still turning, despite this horrible thing happening. Amazing.
Sweet merciful crap, get some new material already. If you’re going to rely so heavily on obviously fallacious arguments, at least try for some variety instead of ALWAYS resorting to reductio ad absurdum & hand-waving melodrama.
So the only problems that matter are those that literally impede the planet’s rotation? Congrats, you’ve just preemptively invalidated nearly every complaint you could ever possibly make… about anything.
(See? Two can play at the “ridiculously stupid exaggerations” game.)
TBH, he was just pointing out the work around was soo fucking easy that Thom had blown it out of proportion …
Yay … anyone who makes anti apple comments gets voted up for shit like “Apple is twisted” … however someone does a little sarcasm and makes light of it and they get down modded to hell.
Group think …
Except it’s not exactly easy compared to the method on Android (and Blackberry/WP7/webOS for some apps). For example: On my Android device I have the Kindle reading app. From within the app, I can browse for books, buy books, and download them. I never have to leave the app, and as soon as the book is purchased and synced (usually just a few seconds on either “4G” or WiFi) I can start reading.
On the iPhone/iPod touch I have to open Safari, go to Amazon (and log in if not already), resize the page to suit my screen, find a link for the Kindle store, resize the page again, search, resize, read a summary about the book (possibly dragging the screen around to accomplish this), zoom out to find the purchase button, tap it, tell it to sync to my iDevice, go back to the Springboard and open the Kindle app. This frustrating process is probably less laborious on the iPad due to the screen size. But it’s still a hassle compared to just buying through the reader app, which (on other devices) already has an integrated store perfectly adjusted for the screen, and no need to switch apps.
And I’m not making that process up. I did exactly that on an iPod touch and it was annoying as hell. It’s much easier to just use iBooks since it works the same way Kindle reader does on Android devices. Do you see now why this might be a big deal for a lot of folks, especially those who are not technically inclined (the target iDevice market)? To them, “Kindle on iPhone is hard, I’ll just use iBooks” which automatically makes Apple money and possibly turns a person off of Kindle altogether. Smart, but shitty tactics if you ask me.
It truly depends on the article at hand. I’ve seen on more than one occasion those of us who like Apple products (raising my hand here) get modded down for expressing that sentiment. Thom himself gets accused of being an Apple fanboy in nearly every thread that the company is mentioned, but I think he is a jaded former fan if anything.
Because a lot of us don’t agree with you this week? That’s life; one day there will be a discussion here that goes along exactly with your way of thinking, and you will get all butthurt because one person doesn’t think the way everyone else, including you, does. It goes both ways, my friend.
I am not butt hurt … I was commenting this place has a problem with group think … that is my opinion and as you have pointed out, not everyone will agree with me.
And good thing that Apple fanboys aren’t known for harping on about minor usability differences, otherwise the comment would have been hypocritical to boot.
Or maybe it got modded down because it was an obvious cop-out by a well-known fanboy, trying to ridicule & dismiss a criticism of Apple (rather than actually address it). And given how fond iFanboys are of that tactic, it could practically be a dictionary definition.
Yes, it certainly is… the delusions/fantasies of persecution that iFanboys are prone to, that is.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?482362
I’m sorry, is there something about that comment that we’re supposed to find objectionable…?
Yeah, it totally non-constructive … not remotely amusing … and that is okay … however someone with what is a fairly well written bit of sarcasm to make a point … gets voted down …
Edited 2011-07-29 07:49 UTC
All of which apply equally (if not more so) to this comment:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482309
And yet it’s modded up to +9, go figure.
So delusions of persecution propped up by confirmation bias, then.
Only if you define “well written bit of sarcasm” as paint-by-numbers Strawman arguments combined with lazy, obvious attempts to dodge the point.
Actually, Apple doesn’t allow Firefox, iCab/whatever on their phone.
Just Firefox Home, which uses Safari and just gets your bookmarks from ‘the cloud’ where your Firefox stored it with Firefox Sync and Opera Mini which uses Opera’s proxy-servers to generated interactive-images of webpages.
There is only one browser on iPhone and iPad, that is Safari (AFAIK, I don’t own such a device so I didn’t check. This is just want I read/know about).
Actually I think Opera mini uses the presto engine ( they did have a massive campaign daring apple to block them).
Another browser is Skyfire (whose claim to fame is being Opera mini but with flash).
Doesn’t allow iCab? What’s this then? http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/icab-mobile-web-browser/id308111628?…
There is no such thing as a HTML5 compatible device. Not iOS, not anything else. HTML5 is not finished, and no browser is even close to implementing even half of it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/2255581637_a59a956bfe.jpg
Thom, your best comment yet
…I don’t get it :$
Really? It’s a blade splitting a hair. “Splitting hairs” is an expression that is quite common here in the States (and apparently in Thom’s corner too). It’s another way of saying someone is being pedantic, or that they are arguing incessantly about a minor detail while ignoring the bigger picture. In other words, they don’t have a real argument but still want to argue.
Sure.. okay, but the word HTML5 is still annoyingly overused. I predict a lot of confusion from the misuse of the concept.
It really is a shame. I love my iPod Nano. The only sticking point so far is that I am [more or less] saddled to iTunes. The way Apple has been behaving lately I’m seriously going to have to reconsider buying any of their products. I’ve already boycotted Sony. I guess adding Apple to the mix won’t hurt me too much.
You are not required to buy your music on iTunes to load it onto your iPod.
I’m well aware of that.
My two bits for what it’s worth, I’ve been a long time fan of Cowon. Much better quality than Apple, my last from them is the iAudio J3. Major perk with Cowon is it’ll play everything from mp3 to FLAC/OGG.
Feel the competition power!
I know it’s popular to hate Apple now a days, because they’re making headlines ( I certainly don’t agree with what they’re doing here, though it is their choice and If I don’t like it I can go elsewhere ). I don’t even remember the last time I felt the need to hate M$, since they barely do anything anymore ( Besides their Android “Licensing” nonsense ). However, when it comes to eBook publishing Apple is the publishing industry’s hero. Do any of you actually know what how Amazon treats us? “Apple takes 30% of everything we sell!”. Boy do I feel sorry for you. Oh wait, I don’t. That’s because Amazon takes 70% of all books priced over $9.99, which most of ours are. Let’s do math. If I sell a book for $9.99 then i get $7, that’s fine. However, if I sell a book for $10.99 I get $3.30! Obviously, I would never sell at $10.99. So when does it change? Well I’d have to sell a book for a little over $23 to get the same royalty as I would for selling the same book for $9.99. Luckily, we have a choice and can sell the books that need to cost over $9.99 on iTunes and those that don’t will be sold on both.
PS. If you’re one of those people who think that eBooks should cost almost nothing because there’s no printing ( wow a whole dollar ), shipping or storage then you should go talk to that guy selling property in Iowa. Too many people think eBooks must have no costs associated with project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties.
I have no objection to paying a fair price for an ebook. I do object with being charged the price of a hardback for an ebook. Yes there are project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties. The discount should come from the lack of printing costs, distrubition costs and so on… You cant just claim you are due the same figure for an ebook becuse the costs are not the same. (I am not saying the costs are zero as that would be stupid)
I agree and we always sell our eBooks for less than the cost of our print editions.
The last time I got a book ?
I just download the ebook ‘illegally’ (which it isn’t in my country) and donate my money directly with a PayPal button to the author on his site.
It was cheaper for me.
And the author got more money from me (the publisher didn’t, sorry O’Reilly !)
Edited 2011-07-27 22:45 UTC
“What’s interesting about this is that Apple is specifically doing this to block competing content stores, further forcing people to use iTunes, and locking them into it even more”
No. Any competitor can make a web app that is not controlled nor distributed by Apple and does not require iTunes.
I walk into Target, I don’t see Walmart placing advertising there and selling their wares in the Target store.
I walk into a Honda dealer, and Ford isn’t there selling their cars.
Steve can beat me all night and I’ll pay him big bucks so long as he wears that sexy white latex corset!
If I was a developer of mobile applications, I would never choose Apple.
You have to pay a overpriced charge to actually get your damn app on the store before Apple complains to you about it not being suitable.
I can remember when I made an RSS Reader for iOS, spent all that time to find out I had to pay some money. WTF Apple?
These companies spend all this money developing apps for Apple for Apple to turn them down, I don’t understand how these companies havne’t quit.
… for helping Android platform to offer a better user experience by reducing your own platform’s one.
Seriously.
1) First, they will ignore you.
2) Then, they will laugh at you.
3) Then, they will fight you.
4) And then, you win.
Apple, step 3 already. Care to give a look at next one?
Edited 2011-07-28 00:06 UTC