3 ms·
I still think this whole thing only applies to apps that let you shop/browse internally and then whisk you away to Safari to coplete the payment. And apple's re
by Tycho 16y ago
I still think this whole thing only applies to apps that let you shop/browse internally and then whisk you away to Safari to coplete the payment. And apple's reason for objecting to this is to protect users from fraudulent payment gateways. Just one customer who had their credit card ripped off after making a 'purchase on an iPhone app' would be extremely damaging to the reputation of the whole iOS ecosystem.
- div 16y agoIf that was the case, they could require Amazon to use their inapp purchasing platform without taking a 30% cut. It seems pretty clear to me that 30% of all Amazon's iOS business would be a nice addition to anyone's bottom line, and Apple feel like they're in a position to take it.
- Tycho 16y agoI don't think they're actually requiring Amazon to do anything, at least not until either party actually confirms this situation. Amazon can sell eBooks from their website to be opened in the Kindle app, just as long as you don't select the product inside the Kindle app. They could allow Amazon to use Apple's payment gateway free of charge, but why bother? It's a simple separation of concerns: if you're going to initiate inapp purchases that are completed in Safari, then to prove trustworthiness you need to offer purchases via Apple in parallel; if you're going to avoid Apple then you lose the privilege of making the purchase seem sanctioned by the iOS ecosystem. How big is 30% of Amazon's ebook sales to iDevices really? I'm betting less than what Amazon's presence means as a boost to Apple unit sales. The parallel purchase option is really a sign of more flexibility from Apple.