
Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales - MikeCapone
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/02/apple-responds-to-app-store-furor-says-it-wants-a-cut-of-e-book-sales.ars
======
archgrove
I can make no possible reading of the App Store guidelines that results in
this policy - it's clearly new. I guess if Google can't make the Android App
Store attractive to developers, Apple sure can. Surely, this cannot be
"official" policy, or if it is, it can't be one that lasts more than a couple
of weeks. It's not one of those geek-annoying App restrictions that 99% of the
iOS target market wouldn't care about even if they knew it - this one affects
every end user, and you can bet will be widely publicised by every non-Apple
tablet maker.

Realistically, three things can happen to people with App under this policy.
Take, e.g., Kindle.

1) They withdraw the Kindle application 2) The add In-App purchasing 3) The
add In-App purchasing, but with a 30% price hike

Frankly, 2 is very unlikely - 30% is probably their entire profit margin on
the sale. 3 is possible, but makes every Android tablet look vastly better to
new purchasers ("The same apps from iOS, but with content 30% cheaper!). 1 is
also quite possible - they just EOL it and say "For future Amazon purchases,
please grab a Kindle or Android tablet), thus showing a huge chunk of Apples
target market a big banner for the competition.

I suppose there's another alternative: that this becomes one of the annoying
"Not for big player" rules that they just have a sub-rosa agreement with B &
N/Amazon to never enforce. That in itself is pretty underhand.

Overall, my favoured interpretation is this is a re-run of the "Nothing but
Objective C Apps in the Store" debacle. Masses of bad press, a dent in
developer confidence, and a rescinded policy within a month or two. Apple
really are their own worst enemy with this stuff.

~~~
JunkDNA
Or possibility number 4: Amazon removes any mention of purchasing books from
the app. The way I read the statement from Apple, they are not saying that if
_developers_ offer purchasing outside the app, then they must offer in-app
purchasing. They are saying that if an _app_ offers purchasing options, those
have to go through the in-app purchasing model. It's still pretty crappy, but
basically, all Amazon would have to do is remove the "buy more books" button
if my read of this is correct.

~~~
ruchi
I'm not sure that's right. Even if Kindle App has no purchasing option but
accesses content bought on Amazon.com, it should still allow Apple's in-app
purchase. Which essentially means, Kindle app is useless. See the excerpt
below.

>> If an app lets users access content that they purchased via Amazon's
website, for example, then that same app must also let users buy the same book
via Apple's own in-app purchase system. If the app developer doesn't want to
use Apple's in-app purchases to sell content, then the app can't access
content purchased elsewhere either.

~~~
JunkDNA
That is Ars' interpretation of Apple's position. The actual quote from Apple
was ( _emphasis_ is mine):

"We are now requiring that if an _app_ offers customers the ability to
purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to
customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

~~~
tesseract
Doesn't _any app that allows you to query an arbitrary URL or web search_
technically provide customers the ability to purchase books through e.g.
Amazon? This way lies madness.

------
YooLi
What Apple actually said (emphasis mine):

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to
_purchase_ books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to
customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

What ars interprets that to mean (emphasis mine):

"If an app lets users _access_ content that they purchased via Amazon's
website, for example, then that same app must also let users buy the same book
via Apple's own in-app purchase system"

That's not at all what Apple said. Apple said if the app lets you buy books
outside of the app, i.e. you click the buy button inside the app and are then
sent to the webpage to purchase the book, then the app must also let you
purchase the book without leaving the app by using in-app purchases. Apple
says nothing about not letting users access content they paid for from other
sources.

~~~
naner
_Apple said if the app lets you buy books outside of the app, i.e. you click
the buy button inside the app and are then sent to the webpage to purchase the
book, then the app must also let you purchase the book without leaving the app
by using in-app purchases._

Okay. But they also said you cannot buy books inside the app unless Apple gets
a cut:

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/02/change-in-apple-
po...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/02/change-in-apple-policy-has-e-
book-fans-worried-about-their-apps.ars)

 _It appears as if Sony's app tried to offer a built-in bookstore as well as
the ability to download books purchased on other devices, but that idea was
shot down when Apple reportedly told Sony that all in-app purchases must go
through Apple._

So that basically means if the Kindle app wants to let you buy books from
Amazon it can only go through the Amazon website _and_ it has to allow you to
purchase books from Apple. How does that make any sense?

~~~
YooLi
"So that basically means if the Kindle app wants to let you buy books from
Amazon, it has to go through the Amazon website and it has to allow you to
purchase books from Apple? How does that make any sense?"

It doesn't at all and I totally agree with you on that. I was just making it
clear what Apple actually said because everyone seems to be latched onto the
"Apple won't let you access your own content if you didn't buy it from them"
fallacy.

Obviously Apple wants in on the purchasing action, and by forcing both actions
to be available (staying in-app to purchase or being sent to a web browser)
they are hoping at least some people find in-app purchasing easier/smoother
and use it instead.

------
cletus
I think we were all afraid of some move like this. Nobody cares about Sony's
ebooks. Everybody (me included) cares about Kindle.

I can sort of understand where Apple is coming from in this. They provide an
ecosystem and apps live within their ecosystem.

That being said, I can't see Amazon or any other big player rolling over on a
margin of 30%. This is the problem with one fixed margin: it works well for
apps and music but not necessarily for other things.

You see the same problem with the Mac App Store: smaller devs love it. Will
you see Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop on it? I doubt it. 30% is just too
much for those big players to hand over.

I consider Kindle to be a key part of my iPad experience and I can say if the
end result of this is that I can't read my Kindle books on my iPad I will be
_pissed_. I bought them specifically because I could.

Ultimately though I think Apple needs to give up control here. They should
provide a payment infrastructure and if it's comeplling, people will use it.
If it's not, they won't. But don't make me a casualty of war in the names of
the the consistency of your 30% cut.

~~~
Umalu
I too am not happy about losing the ability to read Kindle books on my iPad.
But does Amazon allow Apple (and Google and Sony) to sell their ebooks on
Kindle? This is shaping up to be a battle of walled gardens. While the gardens
battle, Google Books and Android are looking a lot more attractive.

~~~
wildwood
Anyone can sell e-books on-line and email them to your kindle. Baen's
Webscriptions (<http://www.webscription.net/>) has been doing this for years.

------
tomh-
How long till I have to pay Apple 30% for ordering a pizza using an iPhone?
How long till I have 30% premium to pay for shopping online using a mac
computer?

~~~
JamieEi
Yes, but it will be an iPizza and have amazing industrial design.

~~~
jarek
With insanely great UX.

~~~
stcredzero
Oh, and the _unboxing!_

------
theBobMcCormick
Is it just me, or is this every bit as outrageously greedy as consumer ISP's
(Comcast, etc) wanting to charge Netflix, Youtube, etc.?

~~~
raganwald
It's not just you, but it is far more reminiscent of being every bit as greedy
as console manufacturers demanding licensing fees from cartridge manufacturers
(or whatever we call sharecroppers).

Remember that if a developer makes an app and sells it for money, Apple gets
30% of their revenue, period, full stop. That's the App Store deal, if you
don't like it, you don't develop an iOS app.

So what happens when a developer builds an app that does _almost nothing_. He
givs it away _for free_. But to use the app, you go to the developer's site,
pay money, and download a level or something, like my maze app example above.
Presto! The developer has just done an end run around the App Store, and Apple
doesn't like that.

~~~
potatolicious
It's a hypothetical problem that doesn't _really_ exist in real-life.
Separating people from their money is hard, quadruply so when you expect them
to sign up for a new payments account.

This is also why PayPal is the de facto payments platform on the internet -
consumers are wary of signing up for ever more payment options. You need to be
well established to have enough customer confidence to pull it off - and even
then, you're probably taking a large hit in conversion rate.

So sure, you can ship your app for free and try to make an end run around
Apple - but it won't work. Even if you're a big, trusted name like EA the
number of customers you lose forcing people through yet another payments
process is likely not worth the extra sales you get from just giving Apple
their cut.

The difference here is if the customer _already_ has a payments solution set
up - e.g., Amazon, eBay, etc. In this case the friction is minimal, and you'd
want to keep your 30% margin. I don't see a problem with allowing this.

~~~
DenisM
It depends on your margins. If your margins are 100% then yeah, the resulting
drop in conversions will likely overshadow the 30% savings. However, if your
profit margin is 31% due to the royalties you have to pay for the content,
you're looking at 30x boost in profits. And if your margins are 29% you are
looking at a difference between profit and loss.

I'm fairly sure ebooks fall into this latter category, hence the kerfuffle.

------
BigZaphod
I'm hoping there's more to this than meets the eye right now. Sadly, I suspect
we won't know until Thursday.

I can think of a couple of scenarios that might fit what we know so far:

1) Apple might simply declare that they want 30% of all in-app purchases.
Amazon will likely freak out. This, to me, would seem to be a seriously
dangerous move on Apple's part.

2) Apple may drop the 30% cut entirely on in-app purchases. That'd be pretty
disruptive but aside from adding a technical hoop to jump through for content
providers to link content with Apple's in-app purchasing system, I don't think
they would be quite so upset about it since they wouldn't really be losing
money on each transaction. Of course this is still pretty harsh on Apple's
part, IMO, but it's better than #1.

3) Apple simply requires developers to link purchased digital content with an
Apple ID via the in-app purchasing system, but not necessarily requiring that
Apple be used for the actual money transfer itself. The purpose of this would
likely be to ensure that purchased digital goods are always linked to an Apple
ID - even if they were purchased externally. If that's the case, then this is
much less of a big deal, IMO, and a huge win for users. For instance, if you
restored your device, you could be assured that all your digital content you
bought via the Kindle app itself would be restored with a single tap - no need
to login to Amazon again or anything like that. Thus Apple can help better
ensure that the user will actually get their content back when the device
restores which is required of all other in-app purchased content using the in-
app purchase API.

~~~
erikpukinskis
_Apple may drop the 30% cut entirely on in-app purchases_

I think it'd be great if they had some sliding scale for different types of
purchases. 30% for virtual goods, 15% for digital media, %7 for physical
goods... that kind of thing.

------
NonMint
If the issue is that Apple wants 30% of all eBook sales for anything that can
be viewed on the platform, that's really scummy and an abuse of standards.

If instead, they just want to make sure that if you can buy it on a
Kindle/whatever and read it on the iPhone that you can also BUY it from the
iPhone in the first place, not such a big deal.

There seems to be some confusion on this issue.

~~~
dablya
My understanding is that it is in fact Apple wanting their 30% (since kinle
app already allows people to purchase books from the iPad through safari). I
don't think it's a big deal as long as the additional cost is not spread to
all kindle content purchasers. iPad users get the ease of use by being able to
do in app purchase vs safari, it's only fair the pay the additional costs.

~~~
runevault
If you ignore the fact that in some cases amazon's cut is 30% of the total
sale to begin with (all books priced from 2.99 to 9.99). So in all those cases
no amazon would not find the ease of use worth it.

------
juiceandjuice
It feels like another FTC investigation over App store policies could arise
out of this.

~~~
relic17
I think you may be right. But that would be unfortunate, as I don't think the
FTC should meddle in Apple's business. I think Apple's management should have
the right to set any policy it considers relevant - after all, this is their
platform. So, I hope the FTC takes no action.

~~~
tshtf
The FTC shouldn't meddle in Apple's business? Apple's management should have
the right to set any policy it considers relevant?

What do you see the role of the FTC as being, and why should Apple be able to
set any policy, even if it may violate the law?

~~~
relic17
Thanks for bringing up this good point. Let me explain. I think a government
agency should not intervene if there is no law violation. I think this case is
very clear - Apple is neither physically compelling nor defrauding anyone. It
is offering terms of contract - contract between firms engaging in voluntary
trade - and its counterparties are free to accept these terms or to walk away.
However, if the FTC is not sure about this and needs to investigate to
ascertain legality, I would say that the law they would be referring to is not
a very objective one. I think that an essential characteristic of a good law
is that its definition allows a person to understand, before he/she takes an
action, whether that action is forbidden or not, and what the exact
consequences would be if the action is actually forbidden. Clearly, Apple's
management is sophisticated enough to understand an objective law.

About the role of the FTC: My understanding is that the FTC, together with the
Antitrust Division of the DOJ, tries to ensure that companies comply with
antitrust laws. Even though this is a different discussion, based on my
knowledge of this field, I think that antitrust laws, generally, lack in
objectivity. I disagree with many of them. This, however, does not mean that a
company should break them. I would certainly not agree with such an action. A
serious problem for companies is, however, that even with their hordes of
sophisticated lawyers, it is very difficult for them to determine what
constitutes a violation. As proof, consider the lengthy battles Microsoft has
had with the European Commission. After years of fines and appeals, neither
side fully understands the problem and neither side can define the actions
that would guarantee compliance with the law in the future.

------
laujen
This opens up a huge can of worms and will push any company who has a
subscription service out of the App Store. How does this work with freemium,
for instance? And what if the app is not from the company but from a third-
party that uses an API?

We looked at using In App purchase for a large collection of add-ons. Even if
Amazon, Sony and B&N wanted to offer in app purchase as well as through their
stores, Apple's system is a pain in the neck to do that. Their support
structure just isn't designed for a large array of product options.

------
protomyth
[From other thread] I'm having a tough time believing the spokesperson got it
right, because of the Rhapsody, Netflix, and Audible apps. Never mind every
PDF viewer.

It just seems like a really, really bad idea that will bring government
intervention. The Kindle app kicks over to Safari for purchases, but I really
can't imagine them requiring Amazon to add an in app purchase through Apple. I
can't imagine the circumstances that would make that acceptable.

------
jshen
I love apple and I love apple products. I currently use nothing but apple
hardware. If they prevent me from using the kindle app as I do now then I'll
get an android phone and tablet. It's really that simple.

------
kalpeshjoshi
I'd like to say "Apple, you're already bringing in record revenue quarters,
why are you doing this?" But I think the answer would be "because we can,"
Apple is creating a monopolistic market place for media (look at the battle of
record labels providing DRM to Apple and non-DRM to Amazon to lessen-Apple's
grip over their digital content) and applications. I think requiring a big
player like Sony or Amazon to comply with new policies, will not go over well.
I can't see Sony telling Apple "forget it," since I don't know anyone with a
Sony eReader... but I could see Amazon and the Kindle, rightly, starting an
issue over this. Apple has done a great job of making user friendly (see:
locked down) platforms which work well, but the DRM battle and now this could
turn public opinion against them.

Apple is just trying to create a new revenue stream early on as iPad sales
increase and the tablet market heats up; smart move. It'll take a big ereader
player like Amazon to battle them, and if ereader content creates a price hike
war due to Apple's insistence on 30% cuts, then negative public sentiment
towards pricing or not having access to ebook material that has already been
purchased on one platform will hopefully create a retraction in Apple's
policy. But then again, the airlines never got rid the baggage fee, and even
with negative sentiment we all still pay them.

------
lwhi
How is opening an externally bought MP3 in-app, different from opening an
externally bought e-book in-app?

I think Apple is opening a can of worms.

------
37prime
Doesn't the Ars Technica headline sounds too sensationalistic?

I'd like to be the guy from The Neutral Planet and sit this one out until it
sorts itself out.

------
zacharypinter
It'll be interesting to see how Gruber spins this one.

------
fbailey
easily solved:

Buy this book for 10$ on amazon.com Buy this book for 13$ with your itunes
account*

*explanation

~~~
Dylanlacey
This is the first solution I hit upon: show the user the pricing of each
option and see what happens.

I wonder what creative solution Apple will come up with. Bah, it won't be
creative, it'll be:

* An app will not charge consumers more to purchase content in-app then they would in other locations.

~~~
memetichazard
Amazon responds. Buy directly from Amazon.com and receive a 30% credit towards
your next Amazon purchase!

~~~
Dylanlacey
Touche.

------
tomelders
From a user, with an iTunes account, this is a big win for me. I don't
particularly like sharing my bank details with all and sundry.

~~~
eggnet
I'm glad to hear that's worth a 43% tax to you.

It's a little steep for me.

------
raganwald
This doesn't seem ridiculous to me _as a user_. I read this as saying is that
_if_ an app plays content I can purchase elsewhere, _then_ Apple wants to be
able to _also_ sell the content in the app.

If I have it correct, I as a developer can make a maze application and sell
mazes on my own web site, but I must also give users the option of buying them
in the app and fork over 30% to Apple. If I do this, it's up to me to convince
users that the experience of buying mazes on my web site is superior to the
experience of buying them right in the app.

As long as Apple doesn't prohibit applications from "playing" content
purchased elsewhere, as a _user_ I have no problem with this, because it gives
me another choice for purchasing new content that offers a smooth and easy
purchasing experience.

Amazon, et. al. probably hate the idea, but that comes down to two lords
arguing over which one gets to exploit the serfs.

~~~
thisisananth
"Apple also allegedly told Sony that the app couldn't access content purchased
on other Sony Reader devices, which is where most of the outrage was focused"
- I think this is a big problem. If I have bought the book from amazon I
should be able to read it everywhere isn't it?

~~~
YooLi
Apple's official response:

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase
books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers
from within the app with in-app purchase."

It's talking about purchasing from inside the app, not access content that you
purchased somewhere else.

~~~
lwhi
Not quite. Another way of describing this; if the content is available for
sale outside of the app .. it can't be accessed within the app, unless it's
also available for sale via Apple's store.

~~~
YooLi
What? Read their statement again.

"...if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the
app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the
app.."

It says if the app lets you purchase books from somewhere that is not the app,
the app should also let users purchase through the app. Apple said nothing
about "content...can't be accessed within the app, unless it's also available
for sale via Apples store." There was nothing said about what content can and
can't be accessed.

~~~
lwhi
But if you extrapolate:

1) All possible electronic commerce is likely to utilise web-based
technologies.

2) In Amazon's case, they used a mobile website to allow sale of their
e-books.

3) If Apple is going to state that directing the user to a mobile website to
purchase a book, constitutes an 'in-app purchase' - where is the line drawn?

4) Will app developers be able to advertise any alternative methods of
purchase, within their apps, without also allowing purchase via the Appstore?

My guess is, no; they'll simply deny the app in question access to the
marketplace - which will prevent users from viewing _any_ externally bought
content, that can't also be bought via the Appstore.

In-effect Apple are holding these developers over a barrel.

------
FaceKicker
This makes sense to me as a general policy. Without this policy, every
developer could simply bypass giving Apple a cut of their revenue by offering
their app through the app store for free and then charging users through an
external payment system to use the application's functionality.

Obviously Apple wouldn't approve such an app, meaning they should have some
explicit policy against using external payment systems for any application
functionality, such as the ability to read a particular book on the Kindle
app.

If you disagree with Apple taking a cut of app developer profits at all,
that's another discussion entirely, but assuming that it's okay for Apple to
take a cut of developers' profits, I think this policy is reasonable, if not
necessary, new or not.

------
i386
IMNAL nor familiar with American Antitrust laws, but wouldn't Apple actions
fall under laws against Coercive Monopolies?

Apple are potentially forcing Amazon to price purchases through its iOS
application at a higher price to make up on lost margins on sales due to
Apples surcharge. Someone is going to pay for that: either Amazon will eat the
cost or the consumer will.

What they are effectively creating is a barrier to entry for Amazon conducting
business on their platform all the while Apple have a competing offering that
is unencumbered by the surcharge.

Now if Apple didn't have there own competing business to Amazons ebook
business I wouldn't be as concerned since there is no competitive stake hold
in the surcharge. IMO, this issue has Antitrust written all over it.

------
bphogan
I prefer to see apple.com as the source of any posts titled "Apple Responds".
Otherwise it's just accusations, hyperbole, and speculation combined with bad
"journalism", with a heavy emphasis on the quotes around journalism.

------
arjunnarayan
Developers should simply add a 42% "Apple shipping and handling" tax to all
in-app purchases, to let end-users know what is going on. That is the only way
to attack Apple: to get the end users on your side.

~~~
warmfuzzykitten
Sounds like an excellent way to get your app removed from the App Store.

~~~
anonymoushn
Does Apple have a policy that states you can't charge 43% more for something
than you do elsewhere?

------
octopus
I think it will be interesting to see how this dispute will end. In any case
the user will loose, take Amazon for example, I see two possibilities: 1\.
Amazon will leave App Store. We loose because we can not use our iPads and
iPhones to access Kindle books. 2\. Amazon will comply with the Apple demand
and they will cut 30% for Apple ... hmmm ... Basically they will be forced to
rise the price of their books to allow for some profit. We loose.

~~~
Dylanlacey
Mmmyes, but APPLE wins. And really, isn't that what everyone wants? Doesn't
Steve DESERVE more money? After all, his shiny things are Oh So Shiny.

------
loewenskind
It sounds like Apple wants apps to stop cheating by redirecting to a browser.
Personally I do find this annoying about the Kindle App. I would prefer to do
my purchasing inside the app.

In my opinion the solution is for apple to not charge the app sale percentage
(30%) on in-app sales. An app sale charge is a one time thing, you could have
an infinite amount of in-game sales, why would each transaction cost the same
as the initial one?

------
deepGem
This is probably one of the reasons I stayed away from iOS. Too much policing.
It is absolutely ridiculous to force Amazon, Sony to offer purchases through
the app store and give 30% of their cut to Apple. I hope Amazon and Sony takes
off their apps or charge an additional 30% if the purchase is done from the
respective iOS apps.

------
dhyasama
I have yet to read anything saying the ability to make in-app purchases via
the app store must receive equal billing to the ability to make out-of-app
purchases. If this is true, then Amazon, for example, could keep their current
UI and bury the option to buy through Apple deep within the app where you
won't easily find it.

------
anthonycerra
If this article is accurate, this is the problem with "integrated" systems. I
love my iPhone and iPad, but if this continues I'll be switching to Android.

This is also a taste of problems to come if the rumors of iPhone 5 NFC
payments are true.

------
DenisM
I would just hike my price to offset the 30% cut exclusively for iOS and be
done with it. Or if that's too obnoxious, provide a "limited-time 30%
discount" on my own site off the "list price".

------
VladRussian
i still don't get why people allow legal system where producer of the hammer
you bought has legal power to limit your applications of the hammer only to a
approved set of nails

------
antihero
Could they not simply charge 130% for books purchased through Apple's system
whilst offering them elsewhere at a normal price?

------
seshagiric
New car from Apple. Its called iCar.

If you use it as a taxi, you pay 30% of the taxi fare.

If you use it to go to a mall, they pay Apple 30% of your spend.

------
jfm3
jfm3 has responded to the furor over changes in his imaginary App Store and
its policies that many believe could affect the popular Kindle, Nook, and Sony
Reader apps. The man claims he has not changed any of its guidelines given to
developers in his imagination, but he indirectly confirms that accessing
content purchased elsewhere could be a no-no if that content isn't also
available to be purchased through jfm3's own system.

"I do not actually run an App Store," said jfm3, "but if I did, and I managed
to make all you bitches have to use it all the time, I'd totally want a piece
of every single drop of hint of money that could possibly pass through there."

"I can't believe you're paying for that crap," he added, in between sips of
his excellent tea. "What the hell kind of hackers are you?"

------
jluxenberg
So, I can purchase books thru Safari but not thru the Amazon Kindle App? How
does this make sense?

Seems like a workaround might be to link to the Amazon mobile site from the
Kindle App. But maybe that is too close to "selling" content thru the Kindle
App.

~~~
laujen
That is what Amazon does today. If this is correct then Apple is saying you
can't do this anymore.

------
kirbman89
The evil empire is dictating its power over developers. Will this lead to
Apple killing our innovation and creativity? It's time for us developers to
revolt and move to an open source platform!

~~~
tomelders
The second they start making second rate products, I'll jump ship with you.

~~~
burgerbrain
You sell out cheap.

------
tomelders
Has everyone forgotten about Books already?

------
drivebyacct2
I don't want to seem like I'm overreacting or hating on Apple or anything like
that, but this seems to be in a whole new realm of greedy/controlling for
Apple. Or is it really reasonable to force apps to use your payment platform?

edit: It seems in other threads on the front page that this is likely Sony
blowing things out of proportion. Most of the "news" is all speculation and
discussion. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what policies or actions
Apple actually takes.

~~~
jws
The consistent, simple user experience is the key to the platform. I think
it's reasonable to require it. I know as a customer I don't want to be
hassling with multiple payment accounts.

Presumably it is permissible for Sony to bump the price up on in app purchases
to cover the 30% "shipping and handling" charge from Apple. I wonder if they
can show it as "Apple™ brand Shipping and Handling" on the screen.

~~~
chc
You're conflating two different questions — requiring the simple interface for
payments, and imposing a fee on purchases. If the goal of this change is to
create a consistent, simple user experience, Apple doesn't need to charge a
30% fee to do that. If Apple chooses to force a 30% fee on developers, that is
a cash grab, plain and simple. The tax does not improve the UX.

~~~
kj12345
Exactly, it's not about "in-app purchasing" in general. They're specifically
requiring Apple's In-App Purchase(tm) system:

[http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Networ...](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html)

------
pedanticfreak
This reminds me of the "no intermediate code" snafu that was later repealed.
Apple keeps testing the boundaries of what we will tolerate because it knows
it can get away with it while the competition still lags behind.

This newest development sets a truly frightening precedent, though. Any
subscription service that sees significant growth through their iOS app is
vulnerable to Apple's tax collectors. As soon as it looks like you're making
money, Apple can jump in and extort 30% of your gross revenue or sink your
whole business. Granted, maybe you owe some thanks to Apple, but 30% can
quickly turn a sustainable business into a bankrupt one.

Considering Amazon already loses money on each Kindle book sold, losing an
extra 30% on top of that may not be a financially viable option. Apple is
effectively trying to edge Amazon out of its marketplace.

~~~
thestoicattack
> Apple keeps testing the boundaries of what we will tolerate because it knows
> it can get away with it while the competition still lags behind.

I'm not convinced the competition will lag forever. If Apple were not the
market leader, would consumers or developers continue to give them the same
leeway?

~~~
pedanticfreak
The point is the competition still lags, so Apple still has a free pass with
users and developers. And if the competition suddenly caught up, Apple only
needs pull back just enough to make us all forget.

Really, it's stunts like this that shows how much iOS leads the competition.
Like electing a convicted murderer to public office because his competition is
that incompetent. Android isn't forcing Apple to compete on its terms at all.

------
svlla
maybe we'll finally get kindle for the web out of this.

------
threejay
It appears Steve Jobs has taken a medical leave of absence.

