For the first time ever, Amazon Kindle users on iOS can tap a button to buy books

Epic v. Apple litigation ushers in minor but user-friendly changes.

See full article...

 

[JustYourAverageJDP]

Both sides have money though...

My point is if the apple executive was a normal person and was caught committing perjury which is a serious criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, they would probably at least spend a night in jail.

Perjury is independent if either side have lots of money in theory. Who ends up being enforced will depend on their status in practice.

Otherwise, why bother telling the truth in court? Spin whatever yarn seems appealing, if you get caught you might get a stern finger wagging.

Apple will continue with malicious compliance, there isnt much consequence. They will find a new angle once the new cycle slows down.

 

[adespoton]

As of an update released today, the iOS app still doesn't allow books to be purchased directly in the app, but you can search Amazon's virtual bookstore inside the app and tap a new "Get Book" button that automatically pops you over to Amazon.com in your phone or tablet's default browser. This is not as convenient for users as allowing them to purchase digital goods or services directly in the app, but it does make things a lot more friendly for users of apps whose developers don't want to pay Apple a cut.

I find this really odd for one specific reason:
While in the Kindle app, I can't buy a book, in the Amazon app, I can. And I can browse book content from within the Amazon app, and once I've purchased a book there, I can click a link in the app, and it'll open in Kindle.

I get that the difference is that one is a shopping app and the other is a book reading app, and Apple doesn't want to mix them. But then enter Apple Books, where you can not only buy new books from Apple, Amazon's competitor, you can ALSO buy audio books from Audible, which is an Amazon company.

So where exactly is the logic here? I'm fine with Apple landing anywhere on this issue, as long as they apply the rules the same for everyone, including themselves.

At this point, if I install the US Kindle app, I can link out to purchase a book in the Amazon app, but if I install the CA Kindle app, I can't. Purchase is done by the exact same app in one, and blocked in the other, an app that Apple already provides through its store.

 

[ghostofchristmas]

Regardless of what happens, if Apple wins on appeal and reverts all of this, it's going to become increasingly obvious to people generally that they're not the good guys here. Sure, they may not be as predatory as Google and Facebook, but a $3 trillion corporation isn't your friend just because they don't sell all of your data to advertisers.

Well how else can Tim Apple afford to lubricate President Trump's slush fund?

 

[sonicmerlin]

Apple already appealed and got shot down. They might be able to appeal some aspect of the ruling but they’re not going to be able to reverse what’s already been decided.

 

[starglider]

You can call me a fanboy if you want, but having my apps and their subscriptions all in one place is worth it to me.

Any app that doesn’t include a “stay here and pay here” option is probably not for me. (Yes even at a premium. How much of a premium? Guess we’ll find out!)

(It’s not like I use all that many apps to begin with so I’m probably not the likeliest customer profile.)

I don’t think you’ll lose much. Presumably, devs will still offer the in-app options but will expect the customer to pay the Apple tax. I’m not sure why they’d remove that option. Most probably will just have a button that say something like “save 25% on you purchase by signing up here.” Then up to you whether the discount is worth the potential hassle of dealing with a third-party subscription. Seems like a win for everyone.

 

[David Mayer]

You can call me a fanboy if you want, but having my apps and their subscriptions all in one place is worth it to me.

Any app that doesn’t include a “stay here and pay here” option is probably not for me. (Yes even at a premium. How much of a premium? Guess we’ll find out!)

(It’s not like I use all that many apps to begin with so I’m probably not the likeliest customer profile.)

That's entirely reasonable if you have a large amount of subscriptions, I personally don't have enough to make that a concern.
But I wouldn't pay a 30% fee to have that feature, no matter how many subscriptions I had, I would rather just get something like rocket money, which would put all my subscriptions (not just the ones I get through my phone) in one place with the ability to cancel most of them through that one app and the rest with clear documentation on how to cancel available. That would cost me about $6 a month, which will usually be less than 30% of your subscriptions (you'd have to spend $20 a month on subscriptions to make this worth it over Apples offering).

 

[DaveSimmons]

Yes, so this change will just make it so every app will want to have your credit card number and a separate account with them, but will not save anyone money.

Yay, I guess?

Amazon has had my CC numbers for 25+ years now, so not a big deal for me.

Ideally Spotify, etc. will offer the option to pay through apple, though possibly with the 15-30% fee added on. Then people can choose the method they're comfortable with.

 

[Ben G]

Amazon has had my CC numbers for 25+ years now, so not a big deal for me.

Ideally Spotify, etc. will offer the option to pay through apple, though possibly with the 15-30% fee added on. Then people can choose the method they're comfortable with.

I’m in the same boat for Amazon. I just guess I foresee most app developers removing the in-app payment option. Why would they keep it at this point? Get the benefit of being in the App Store with none of the cost.

We’ll have to see how it plays out, but I’m just not expecting it to be a benefit from a user perspective. Just more hoops to jump through.

 

[SvnLyrBrto]

It's hard to say Apple has been loosing though, right? They're not exactly teetering on the brink of insolvency. This is not even a drop in the bucket. I'd like to see some real penalties come from this: like refunding the 30% they've been scraping from the App Store since the ruling was made. That is at least a drop in the bucket.

Cripes, do none of you remember what it was like to be a small and independent developer before the App Store? Do none of you know what everyone else takes out of your gross when you're the little guy and not already an Amazon-like behemoth? I do, from personal experience. A buddy of mine and I used to have a small but (we thought) useful Mac app that we created and kept up during our spare time before the App Store. It was never anything big. We did it mostly for fun and beer money. But between doing CC checkout ourselves, card processing fees, doing PCI ourselves, handling mail-in checks, LLC fees, advertising, distribution, activation keys and such to fight piracy, and the cost of our wasted time on development outside the core features of the app and management of all those separate business relationships; some months there was less than 30% LEFT for us! On a very good month, our net would approach, but never passed, 50% When the App Store, with it's all-inclusive 30%, we were ecstatic! We re-worked our app for the iPhone, and never looked back. And netting 70% gave us a nice bit of cushion in the 2008-9 recession.

Doing away with the App Store and its 30% is great for the likes of big already-established companies Amazon, Netflix, Uber, and the rest of the Fortune 500; who can afford to hire dedicated people to do each of those and who do enough volume to bargain fees down. Yay... maybe Jeff Bezos can finally buy himself a slightly larger yacht. But what you lot are celebrating with this (And I won't even start on the EU's meddling.) is the regression of the app ecosystem by nearly 20 years and the re-erection of a massive barrier to entry, that Apple took a wrecking ball to, for new developers and small businesses.

 

[Boskone]

Cripes, do none of you remember what it was like to be a small and independent developer before the App Store? Do none of you know what everyone else takes out of your gross when you're the little guy and not already an Amazon-like behemoth? I do, from personal experience. A buddy of mine and I used to have a small but (we thought) useful Mac app that we created and kept up during our spare time before the App Store. It was never anything big. We did it mostly for fun and beer money. But between doing CC checkout ourselves, card processing fees, doing PCI ourselves, handling mail-in checks, LLC fees, advertising, distribution, activation keys and such to fight piracy, and the cost of our wasted time on development outside the core features of the app and management of all those separate business relationships; some months there was less than 30% LEFT for us! On a very good month, our net would approach, but never passed, 50% When the App Store, with it's all-inclusive 30%, we were ecstatic! We re-worked our app for the iPhone, and never looked back. And netting 70% gave us a nice bit of cushion in the 2008-9 recession.

Doing away with the App Store and its 30% is great for the likes of big already-established companies Amazon, Netflix, Uber, and the rest of the Fortune 500; who can afford to hire dedicated people to do each of those and who do enough volume to bargain fees down. Yay... maybe Jeff Bezos can finally buy himself a slightly larger yacht. But what you lot are celebrating with this (And I won't even start on the EU's meddling.) is the regression of the app ecosystem by nearly 20 years and the re-erection of a massive barrier to entry, that Apple took a wrecking ball to, for new developers and small businesses.

You can still use Apple's payment systems and whatnot, they just can't require you do so.

There's no regression, there's just more options available.

 

[Chuckstar]

I find this really odd for one specific reason:
While in the Kindle app, I can't buy a book, in the Amazon app, I can. And I can browse book content from within the Amazon app, and once I've purchased a book there, I can click a link in the app, and it'll open in Kindle.

I get that the difference is that one is a shopping app and the other is a book reading app, and Apple doesn't want to mix them. But then enter Apple Books, where you can not only buy new books from Apple, Amazon's competitor, you can ALSO buy audio books from Audible, which is an Amazon company.

So where exactly is the logic here? I'm fine with Apple landing anywhere on this issue, as long as they apply the rules the same for everyone, including themselves.

At this point, if I install the US Kindle app, I can link out to purchase a book in the Amazon app, but if I install the CA Kindle app, I can't. Purchase is done by the exact same app in one, and blocked in the other, an app that Apple already provides through its store.

Where’s the logic? Are you saying buying a book through Apple’s app isn’t using Apple’s payment system?

 

[Chuckstar]

Maybe what Apple should do is make their fee competitive with running one’s own separate payment system or using a third-party.

They could probably even charge a little more, sort of like how name brand prices don’t fully drop to the same level as a generic, when a competitive generic enters the market.

I know… crazy talk.

 

[macosandlinux]

Regardless of what happens, if Apple wins on appeal and reverts all of this, it's going to become increasingly obvious to people generally that they're not the good guys here. Sure, they may not be as predatory as Google and Facebook, but a $3 trillion corporation isn't your friend just because they don't sell all of your data to advertisers.

Apple had a great thing (for them) going for a decade plus. Time to end the monopolistic shenanigans, and open the store to the rest of the world in the same way. Or does Apple not see how this (just for the US now) rule will make other countries' users hopefully want the same.

 

[Doddler]

Yeah, I was afraid (and expected) that Apple would limit these changes to the US. My Canadian Kindle app still doesn't include the new "Get Book" button.

I can only hope the next phase of this drama involves figuring out whether Apple, as a US business, are allowed to ignore the court order with relation to products from other US businesses, but only if the end user is Canadian.

 

[mrsilver]

To quote Ian Betteridge (yes, of that law):

Apple is -- supposedly -- one of the greatest user experience companies in the world. If it can't make it's native solution for buying apps, installed on every device, better than a solution which will always involve shitty splash screens and more clicks for the user, maybe it doesn't deserve the money anyway?

Apple can nip all of this in the bud by providing a payment acceptance solution that is a better product at a competitive price.

 

[Acin]

To quote Ian Betteridge (yes, of that law):

Apple can nip all of this in the bud by providing a payment acceptance solution that is a better product at a competitive price.

Problem is that their in-app solution is better for the user, but they do not see it simply as a payment system, but as access to their whole ecosystem including development tools, app distribution, updates, notifications… Hence the 30% cut and the onerous terms for third party stores

 

[bernstein]

really don't care where the multinationals collect their money and how much comission they have to pay each other. i want that indies & small companies with a handful of employees are exempt from commissions. also i want sideloading.

 

[mrochester]

Is Apple going to have to switch to a per service fee if they can no longer charge a commission? What are the advantages and disadvantages to users and developers of each option?

 

[phraemer]

Bandcamp next please!

 

[mysciencefriend]

I can only hope the next phase of this drama involves figuring out whether Apple, as a US business, are allowed to ignore the court order with relation to products from other US businesses, but only if the end user is Canadian.

If there's one thing us Canadians aren't getting enough of these days, it's being caught up in US legal and political nonsense!

 

[s73v3r]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, and thank you for spelling it out so well. I would STILL like to see some meaningful payouts from Apple, and direct that money to the people who were most affected: the consumers.

How were the consumers more affected than the developers?

 

[s73v3r]

That is quite valuable to me as an average customer. I wonder if there is a way for Apple to still be able to show subs there while still complying with this ruling.

Admittedly that section on my device only shows a few of my subs because most of my subs were cheaper direct from the company instead of going through Apple (or just not available via Apple).

In the very unlikely case that Apple allows both cheap subs direct plus better tracking of direct subs, that’d be a clear win-win.

Apple can still offer it's payment option. They just can't mandate that it be the only one.

 

[s73v3r]

Surely this will lead to reduced costs for consumers! /s

Consumers aren't the only party involved. Developers are part of this too.

 

[s73v3r]

Cripes, do none of you remember what it was like to be a small and independent developer before the App Store? Do none of you know what everyone else takes out of your gross when you're the little guy and not already an Amazon-like behemoth? I do, from personal experience. A buddy of mine and I used to have a small but (we thought) useful Mac app that we created and kept up during our spare time before the App Store. It was never anything big. We did it mostly for fun and beer money. But between doing CC checkout ourselves, card processing fees, doing PCI ourselves, handling mail-in checks, LLC fees, advertising, distribution, activation keys and such to fight piracy, and the cost of our wasted time on development outside the core features of the app and management of all those separate business relationships; some months there was less than 30% LEFT for us! On a very good month, our net would approach, but never passed, 50% When the App Store, with it's all-inclusive 30%, we were ecstatic! We re-worked our app for the iPhone, and never looked back. And netting 70% gave us a nice bit of cushion in the 2008-9 recession.

Doing away with the App Store and its 30% is great for the likes of big already-established companies Amazon, Netflix, Uber, and the rest of the Fortune 500; who can afford to hire dedicated people to do each of those and who do enough volume to bargain fees down. Yay... maybe Jeff Bezos can finally buy himself a slightly larger yacht. But what you lot are celebrating with this (And I won't even start on the EU's meddling.) is the regression of the app ecosystem by nearly 20 years and the re-erection of a massive barrier to entry, that Apple took a wrecking ball to, for new developers and small businesses.

No. I'm also an app developer, and what you're saying is absolute nonsense. The App Store is still there. If you want to use Apple payment methods, you still can. Literally nothing has changed for you.

 

[Voldenuit]

Can I wish for Amazon and Epic to also be taken to task for anticompetitive behavior?

Amazon locks in small authors with Kindle Direct Publishing.

A court order forcing Amazon to open the Kindle to competing ebook sellers would also be great for end-users.

 

[rogifan]

I find this really odd for one specific reason:
While in the Kindle app, I can't buy a book, in the Amazon app, I can. And I can browse book content from within the Amazon app, and once I've purchased a book there, I can click a link in the app, and it'll open in Kindle.

I get that the difference is that one is a shopping app and the other is a book reading app, and Apple doesn't want to mix them. But then enter Apple Books, where you can not only buy new books from Apple, Amazon's competitor, you can ALSO buy audio books from Audible, which is an Amazon company.

So where exactly is the logic here? I'm fine with Apple landing anywhere on this issue, as long as they apply the rules the same for everyone, including themselves.

At this point, if I install the US Kindle app, I can link out to purchase a book in the Amazon app, but if I install the CA Kindle app, I can't. Purchase is done by the exact same app in one, and blocked in the other, an app that Apple already provides through its store.

In Apple’s mind, because an e-book is consumed on device (i.e. an iPhone or iPad) they deserve 30%. Of course they couldn’t get away with it because they directly compete with Amazon. Hence why they created the ‘reader’ category of apps (that doesn’t require in-app purchase) and put Kindle in that category. Now the judges said apps can link-out for payment without having to give Apple any cut. No way in hell is Apple going to allow in-app payments where they don’t get a cut, unless the Supreme Court forced them to. In Apple’s mind, being kicked to the browser to complete payment is just enough friction that a lot of people will still use IAP. Though in the case of the Kindle app there is only being kicked to the browser so either Apple isn’t requiring IAP alongside non-IAP options or they’re letting certain big fish get away with it but games will have to offer both. I’m sure games is where Apple makes most of it’s App Store revenue anyway.