Do recall that Apple's "30% for all in-app content" wasn't anti-competitive, rather it was to head off apps that were "free" and then doing all in-app purchasing via a web view. Although no top-tier developers had done it yet, it would be like downloading a free Angry Birds demo, then buying the "full" version via a web frame inside the app - whereas Apple used to get a 30% cut to support the store, now they'd get nothing, but still be supporting everything.
Unfortunately, a blanket "everything purchased in an app is subject to 30%" ends up sucking a whole lot for things like the Kindle that already had an ecosystem of its own, and was never designed for an extra 30% hit (nor should it).
So, what does Apple do? Let a raft of "freemium" apps flood in that bypass the store, in-app purchasing, and offer a poor user experience (no impulsive "tap to buy" simplicity that Apple and, apparently, users like), or lose out on and make enemies of some very large established companies? Either way Apple was screwed, so they decided to take the lumps and keep it simple - anything bought in the app was subject to the standard 30/70 split.
If anyone can suggest how they'd avoid the freemium debacle I describe above, without angering the very groups they did (Amazon, etc), by all means, I'd love to see an integrative solution to all of this.
Considering that Apple already have a very extensive, draconian even, review process of applications that make it to the App Store this is a non-issues.
I'm quite sure their legal department could come up with a definition of what does and doesn't conform to reasonable use of in-app purchases along the lines you've pointed out.
Perhaps Microsoft should give Apple a taste of their own medicine and charge them 30% for iTunes purchases on Windows. If Apple can charge 30% for purchases made through a native application on their platform why not Microsoft?
Did you even think before you posted? First of all, there is no store required to put an app on Windows just like there is no store required to put an app on Mac OS. In other words if you buy Office for Mac from Microsoft.com you aren't paying Apple anything for it. Secondly, iTunes is a free app so charging 30% or $0 is still /motherfucking/ zero.
Really? Did you actualy think before you posted? You don't need a store to put things on iOS devices. It's how Apple locked the device down. If you unlock iOS devices, you can bypass the Apple App Store, but you still will have to use the crappy iTunes to sync them I guess.
Imagine if Microsoft locked down Windows and charged 30% for evert single 3rd party company to sell/install software on it. Same exact BS. You are just getting crapped on by Apple and taking it.
Developers should not be taking a 30% hit on their sales because they are being forced by Apple to sell their software throug Apple's store. There is significant maintenance for using that interface too. And if you think that one click purchases is what makes that store so awesome, you really haven't installed anything on a PC in a decade.
For Windows, it's not as nice as the native client, but it's nice enough that I'll probably deregister the reader app from my PCs and just use the web. You can use the web client anywhere and it only counts as a single activation on your Kindle account, so if you have several PC's that you occasionally use for reading, it's more convenient than managing all the activations.
I tried this yesterday, and hoooo boy, all it took was one scroll before it felt like junk. It's like night & day difference compared to say another page in safari or the Kindle app.
Someone should make a youtube video. More power to Amazon for building an HTML5 site, but it's definitely a noticeable step down in performance from the Kindle app.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
Back to Article
Pirks - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
FU Apple :Pdarwinosx - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Too bad you couldn't post this from your Playbook since it doesn't come with e-mail. or a a calendar.Pirks - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
You are one dumb idiot. It comes with the best WEB BROWSER among ARM-based tablets. Do you even know what web browser is, ya dumb idiot? :)))Spazweasel - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Because Amazon takes less than a 30% cut of cover price on the physical books it sells, right?Oh, wait.
They take 50%.
F U Amazon.
darwinosx - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Amazon charges 30% themselves to put content on a Kindlee so they are not exactly in a position to complain.steven75 - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Amazon charges 40% to sell a self-published book on Amazon.com.How is that not exactly the same thing?
diamondsw2 - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Do recall that Apple's "30% for all in-app content" wasn't anti-competitive, rather it was to head off apps that were "free" and then doing all in-app purchasing via a web view. Although no top-tier developers had done it yet, it would be like downloading a free Angry Birds demo, then buying the "full" version via a web frame inside the app - whereas Apple used to get a 30% cut to support the store, now they'd get nothing, but still be supporting everything.Unfortunately, a blanket "everything purchased in an app is subject to 30%" ends up sucking a whole lot for things like the Kindle that already had an ecosystem of its own, and was never designed for an extra 30% hit (nor should it).
So, what does Apple do? Let a raft of "freemium" apps flood in that bypass the store, in-app purchasing, and offer a poor user experience (no impulsive "tap to buy" simplicity that Apple and, apparently, users like), or lose out on and make enemies of some very large established companies? Either way Apple was screwed, so they decided to take the lumps and keep it simple - anything bought in the app was subject to the standard 30/70 split.
If anyone can suggest how they'd avoid the freemium debacle I describe above, without angering the very groups they did (Amazon, etc), by all means, I'd love to see an integrative solution to all of this.
Exodite - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Considering that Apple already have a very extensive, draconian even, review process of applications that make it to the App Store this is a non-issues.I'm quite sure their legal department could come up with a definition of what does and doesn't conform to reasonable use of in-app purchases along the lines you've pointed out.
TheHeathen - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Perhaps Microsoft should give Apple a taste of their own medicine and charge them 30% for iTunes purchases on Windows. If Apple can charge 30% for purchases made through a native application on their platform why not Microsoft?steven75 - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Because Microsoft doesn't have a store? /obvioussolipsism - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Did you even think before you posted? First of all, there is no store required to put an app on Windows just like there is no store required to put an app on Mac OS. In other words if you buy Office for Mac from Microsoft.com you aren't paying Apple anything for it. Secondly, iTunes is a free app so charging 30% or $0 is still /motherfucking/ zero.sigmatau - Friday, August 12, 2011 - link
Really? Did you actualy think before you posted? You don't need a store to put things on iOS devices. It's how Apple locked the device down. If you unlock iOS devices, you can bypass the Apple App Store, but you still will have to use the crappy iTunes to sync them I guess.Imagine if Microsoft locked down Windows and charged 30% for evert single 3rd party company to sell/install software on it. Same exact BS. You are just getting crapped on by Apple and taking it.
Developers should not be taking a 30% hit on their sales because they are being forced by Apple to sell their software throug Apple's store. There is significant maintenance for using that interface too. And if you think that one click purchases is what makes that store so awesome, you really haven't installed anything on a PC in a decade.
sigmatau - Friday, August 12, 2011 - link
Meant to say, there is NO significant maintenance in the Appstore. Surely not 30% of sales.I guess Apple wants to be the next Visa/Mastercard and wants a slice of every transaction no matter how insignificant their role was.
Metaluna - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
In Chromium (which is upstream from Chrome).For Windows, it's not as nice as the native client, but it's nice enough that I'll probably deregister the reader app from my PCs and just use the web. You can use the web client anywhere and it only counts as a single activation on your Kindle account, so if you have several PC's that you occasionally use for reading, it's more convenient than managing all the activations.
steven75 - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
Walmart should allow sellers to put inventory in their stores for FREE!Amazon should allow people to sell their books on amazon.com for FREE! (They charge 40%)
Apple should allow sellers to put inventory in their stores and sell their books for FREE!
Oh, wait... THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!
steven75 - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link
I tried this yesterday, and hoooo boy, all it took was one scroll before it felt like junk. It's like night & day difference compared to say another page in safari or the Kindle app.Someone should make a youtube video. More power to Amazon for building an HTML5 site, but it's definitely a noticeable step down in performance from the Kindle app.