

Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store - jonburs
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/technology/01apple.html

======
drawkbox
As an Apple owner of all their hardware and devices this is pretty lame and
really hope it does not affect Amazon/Kindle. I have never owned a Kindle but
prefer Kindle books and love them. I read them on PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, but
mainly my iPad. If it weren't for Kindle, I may have bought a few more books
on iBooks just for the iPad, but there are far fewer books and I like being
able to read them on multiple devices.

The whole point of an ebook is to read them on multiple devices.

~~~
jefe78
Check out the Kobo. I got one for Christmas and love the way they do things. I
can even pop an SD card, full of PDFS into my ereader with no problems.

~~~
rmc
You can read PDFs on the Kindle fine.

~~~
j2d2j2d2
You can read them, but unless you have the dx it will be difficult. I much
prefer the experience of goodreader on iPad.

------
danielparks
This seems to be incorrect.

Apple is not moving to tighten control; the restriction has been there for a
while. I believe Apple banned non-Apple in-app purchases when they launched
their in-app purchase system (if not before then).

Edit: The article does say Apple "has told some applications developers … that
they can no longer … let customers have access to purchases they have made
outside the App Store."

However, that doesn't seem to be sourced, and when the point is reiterated in
the fourth paragraph, only the existing restriction is mentioned: "Apple told
Sony that from now on, all in-app purchases would have to go through Apple,
said Steve Haber, president of Sony’s digital reading division."

~~~
abbott
Upon review of the iTunes Connect EULA in fall 2010, 3rd party in-app
purchasing is possible as long as a pre-existing service which requires
payments exists prior to the release of an app. For example, Evernote does/did
qualify, because its service exists outside of the iOS app. Zoosk app may have
this implemented — <http://d.pr/oc2F>

~~~
abbott
I forgot to mention, this term includes purchase redirects to mobile Safari.
The Kindle app accomplishes this but it is fairly disjointed. Recurly mobile
payments (<http://recurly.com>) has a solution that is seamless and redirects
back to the app upon checkout completion.

------
snitko
If Apple blocks Kindle, I'm not buying an iPad. Kindle is practically the
reason I was going to buy it. iBooks doesn't work for me, because iTunes does
not accept credit cards from my country.

~~~
mithaler
> Kindle is practically the reason I was going to buy it.

Then why not just buy a Kindle?

~~~
snitko
Because iPad's also perfect for reading the web. I've tried it and it feels so
much better than a computer. You can't effectively browse the web with Kindle.
Now I'm going to consider buying some Android tablet.

------
jeffb
I doubt this is actually true. Apple has always required in-app purchases to
go through Apple. That's why the Kindle app pushes you out to Safari to make
purchases.

Despite what the article says, I bet Sony tried to implement their own in-app
purchase process instead of bumping the user out to Safari. Apple rejected the
app for breaking a well-known rule, and now Sony is whining about it for
publicity. That's my guess anyway.

In fact, the article says "Apple told Sony that from now on, all in-app
purchases would have to go through Apple, said Steve Haber, president of
Sony’s digital reading division."

This isn't a change. In-app purchases have always had to go through Apple.

------
jkincaid
The really interesting bit is where it says that developers won't be able to
"let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store".

Amazon has worked around Apple's rules by always kicking users out to the
browser to complete the transaction. This apparently kills that.

~~~
msmithstubbs
The article does say that, but it's not clear who the source for this is.
Amazon and Apple declined to comment, and the only confirmed report from Sony
is with regard to in-app purchases, and I'm pretty sure that was an existing
condition.

So where is this new rule coming from?

~~~
Tycho
So in other words the entire article could just be FUD? (from an disinterested
party)

------
jammur
I'm wondering if the part about Apple not letting customers have access to
media that was purchased outside the App Store (e.g. Kindle books) is just an
off-the-cuff remark made by some Sony executive who was mad about Apple not
letting them do their own in-app purchases. Seems odd, considering Amazon has
been doing it this whole time with seemingly no protest from Apple.

------
jefe78
How much tighter can they get with their control? I'm looking forward to
buying an Android phone when my (ridiculous!) 3 year contract is up with
Telus(Canada).

------
hsuma
So Apple wants to block companies from allowing people to see content that
wasn't paid for through their system. What's next, blocking paid websites?

Surely Amazon would just set up a website where users could access their
Kindle books, bypassing the whole App Store problem. This is silly on Apple's
part as it decreases the potential audience for their devices, and the ease of
use.

~~~
dhimes
_What's next, blocking paid websites?_

I fear this.

~~~
cubicle67
I don't

~~~
dhimes
Because you don't think it can happen?

~~~
cubicle67
correct. no way on earth Apple would do this. they may make some decisions we
don't agree with, but they're not stupid

------
nickpp
Question: can I, in turn, download and read iBooks on my Kindle or my Sony
Reader?

------
runjake
It's sad to say, but in my opinion, Apple is so far ahead of the competition,
I'll stick with them in spite of this.

And yes, I've had several Android phones, up to and including the Nexus S.

------
mlinsey
I think Sony could probably use the same work-around Amazon appears to be
using for its Kindle app: tapping a button to shop for books in the Kindle app
opens a browser window allowing you to buy a book on the mobile version of the
Amazon.com site. Then when you go back to the app it automatically syncs with
your book collection and downloads the book. It makes one wonder what other
App store restrictions might be circumvented by clever integration of Native
and HTML5 apps.

~~~
jkincaid
It sounds like that's banned too though.

"The company has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they
can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, _or let customers
have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store_."

~~~
mlinsey
This is possible, but it's so difficult to enforce that I assume it must be a
reporting error. Will the dropbox app prevent me from accessing more than 2GB
of my folder? Will they force the Pandora app to keep playing music after 40
hours even if haven't paid for a subscription? Will I now have to buy a
separate Netflix plan for my iPad that I buy in iTunes instead of getting that
with my regular plan?

The minute you allow any sort of third party authentication systems in an app,
it becomes basically impossible to know whether or not someone is using those
credentials to buy something on a website somewhere that enables access to
more data in your app.

~~~
jkincaid
Well, remember Apple has a screening process so they don't have to detect
credentials — they can just have the reviewer try buying something.

And they probably only really care about the big content sellers (Amazon,
Google, etc.) so they wouldn't have that many apps to enforce it on.

As for the variety of different apps, Apple isn't exactly known for being
consistent. I'm sure they could come up with different rules for subscription
vs. a la carte downloads.

------
apress
Lex Friedman speculates that Sony may have tried to add a webkit-enabled
quasi-browser based in app purchase feature, arguing that it was the same as
Kindle and other apps that push you out to mobile Safari to buy ebooks. But it
wasn't push the user out to
Safari...[http://blog.lexfriedman.com/post/2856721037/apple-hasnt-
chan...](http://blog.lexfriedman.com/post/2856721037/apple-hasnt-changed-in-
app-purchasing-rules-one-iota)

------
egb
Although this is lame on Apple's part, can we also agree that it's lame on
Amazon's part to disallow affiliate links for use on mobile devices or
websites aimed at mobile?

I have struggled to understand why they would want to keep people (like me)
from making apps to drive purchases to Amazon on mobile, and I don't have any
good answer at all.

Having said that, I can't quite decode this move by Apple yet...

------
SoftwareMaven
First, I'm curious how much of this is a NYT tech reporter hoping to get a
future Sony exclusive by making a big anti-Apple stink of something completely
out of context.

Second, I hate it when Apple makes me feel internally conflicted. I love so
much about the hardware and software, but I deplore their draconian stances on
some things. On the other hand, some of those stances are things I like about
them when it comes to supporting my families electronics. I need to go look at
something shiny...

------
projectileboy
It's this kind of stuff that makes me worried about the future of Apple
without Jobs at the wheel. I can't back this up, but the PR always seems ham-
fisted when handled by others.

------
nika
My app was rejected once for violating the HIG. I really missed out on a PR
opportunity to write up a big story about how Apple won't accept apps from gay
people!

Just because Apple rejects one app does not mean it is a new policy decision.
I think these articles, which are, at their core, based on speculation, are
frankly dishonest.

Apple does not give reasons for rejections to anyone other than the submitter
of the app. Over the last two years we've had dozens of these articles about
apples "draconian" policies, often about apps that were rejected for other
reasons. Of course the original article is spread around by anti-apple
zealots, but when it later comes out that Apple has no such policy, or the app
appears in the store after fixing the bug.... the retractions? there are none!

So called "journalists" feel that they can just speculate on a reason and use
it to write a sensational story. Linking to them and giving them the attention
they seek is gives them the incentive to continue doing this, rather than go
out and get good tech stories. This is why tech "journalism" is so often so
lowbrow.

On one hand it is a testemant to the integrity of apple and the lack of
integrity of the "journalists" who write these hit pieces that Apple doesn't
respond. But now we have a generation of android zealots who think that Apple
really is "draconian". I had one complete non-techie tell me that I shouldn't
write apps for iOS because Apple is draconian. Of course, my experience
actually making apps in the app store does not dissuade her perception of what
she's heard from her friends and in articles like this.

Apple's policy is laudable, they figure eventually the truth will get out. I
hope they are right, but I fear they are wrong. There are still many people
who believe there is a defect in the iPhone 4's antenna, for instance.

~~~
dhimes
_There are still many people who believe there is a defect in the iPhone 4's
antenna, for instance._

You should have quit while you were ahead. The antenna fails, but the problem
is fixed with a case. Furthermore , here's something else that I never saw
anyone mention: The receiver has a terrible echo in some locations. Possibly
because there is a rock cliff behind my house (I live on the coast of the
Atlantic Ocean, so the rocks are, shall we say, moist). I imagine that has
something to do with the origin of the echo, but it's awfully close (the
round-trip time for the radio signal would be imperceptible, so something else
must be going on; if it was a tower problem I would think others would have
mentioned it). I can fix the echo, sometimes by moving and other times by
simply turning the phone.

I have an iphone 4. The others in my family have had or currently have iphones
1, 2, and 3. The iphones area all lousy as phones (my circa 2006 motorola Razr
was a much better phone). The iphone rocks in many ways, but as a phone, no.

~~~
nika
The reason there is no problem with the iphone 4 antenna is not that it is
impossible to obscure the signal or cause signal loss, but because the new
design pulls in signals better-- over all-- than the previous design. The
issues you can cause it to have exist on other phones as well.

It is a better design than previous versions, yet people seem to think there
is a defect that makes it worse.

I don't doubt there may be better phones out there, and as you note the
results will vary by location, and I'd add, carrier.

~~~
dhimes
The antenna apparently has more gain, but the design flaw was that its
conducting parts were on the outside of the case. That's just asking for
trouble in a hand-held device.

But they are apparently on top of it. As soon as the flurry of complaints came
in, they posted a job opening for an antenna engineer!

------
tehjones
Thank you for linking an article behind a paywall, no seriously I am happy you
can reach this piece and I am sure it is very informative.

~~~
smackfu
NYTimes isn't a pay wall, it's a registration wall.

Like it has been for the last 10 years or so. Welcome to the internet.

------
jscore
Apple can do whatever the heck they want. The market will be the sole judge
whether their choices are correct or not.

So far the history is on their side.

------
tomelders
I think this probably has something to do with the new subscription model
they're rolling out with Newscorp and the Daily. I'm not so sure it's as cut
and dry as this article makes out, and I'd wait to hear from Apple about that
"access to purchases they have made outside the App Store" bit. It sounds a
bit weird to me. I can think of a hundred ways that's not enforceable or even
legal.

As I understand it, the only difference here is that the paying for content on
an Apple Device now has to go through Apple. Which I think may well be a bonus
for end users (in terms of convenience and security), but not so great for
people like Sony and Amazon who were expecting to get 100% of the cash but now
they'll have to pay 30% (probably) to Apple.

They may think it's unfair for Apple to muscle in on their revenue, but they
didn't invent iOS or the iPad or the iPhone or the iPod Touch...

so..... neeeerh!

