4 ms·

On one hand I suppose nobody should get a free ride. Apple put a lot of hard work into building such cohesive and user-friendly ecosystem. If they have their

by Yhippa 15y ago

On one hand I suppose nobody should get a free ride. Apple put a lot of hard work into building such cohesive and user-friendly ecosystem. If they have their own bookstore they're trying to run why should they enable a competitor's in their own home? On the other hand this stinks for consumers. Slightly. They can still go to the website on their own but Apple made it a bit more inconvenient. If you're already a Kindle or Kobo user this shouldn't be a stretch but if you're a startup you've probably alienated your early adopters.

neuroelectronic 15y ago
| If they have their own bookstore they're trying to run why should they enable a competitor's in their own home? If Microsoft spent so much on R&D for Windows 95 and IE, why shouldn't they build it into the OS? Why shouldn't they lock down their APIs to make it difficult to make competing products inside their OS? Really?
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Forget IE, Microsoft put a lot of effort into Windows Media, Zune, ... Why should they make it easy for Apple to sell music on Windows?
  - neuroelectronic 15y ago
    Interesting approach, but the problem here is Apple doesn't sell books on iPhone (or rather 3rd parties do and they don't do a very good job of it). This is more like a retroactive, me-to I want that market move. The Kindle app product is far superior for reading as I understand. If you're going to release a platform, you shouldn't be doing this kind of stuff. It's a similar situation as net-neutrality.
- pedalpete 15y ago
  I think your argument is flawed (though I also think you are making two somewhat related, yet different points). It isn't about building it into the OS, it's about allowing competitors to provide a service to 'your' users. Microsoft didn't prevent any browsers from being installed on Windows, they didn't require any special processes or try to prevent any competitors from offering competitive or superior services. Microsoft just figured if the baked in stuff was good enough, most people wouldn't bother to change, and they were right. I could would agree with Apple taking a cut of in-app purchases where billing is completed through Apple's infrastructure, but forcing application builders (your community builders) to hamstring their products or pay you a cut is anti-competitive in a sense that I think is worse than anything Microsoft has done. Microsoft helped foster innovation, and then stole it and made it difficult to compete, but you could compete. Apple is just hamstringing the competition so that they can't compete.
fpgeek 15y ago
Free ride? That's ridiculous. Developers and partners make or break a platform. How many iPads did Apple sell because of the Kindle app? While there aren't hard numbers, plenty of bloggers talked about deciding between getting an iPad or a Kindle. Based on ebook sales figures, we also know that iBooks is probably third on their own platform, which is another significant clue about what ebook readers would have chosen. Apple is making a big mistake here and given that these changes have been in the works (and protested) for months, it is not one they're likely to fix quickly, if ever.
- NinaSeer 15y ago
  I totally agree with you. I haven't followed this story until my buy button disappeared in Kindle. I think most app users won't realize until they go to buy a book. I'm surprised there isn't more outrage. Apple deliberately reduced the functionality of an astounding number (has to be millions) of their own customers and we've barely complained...? (btw, Apple did not respond to my online complaint.). Now any android or blackberry user has a more functional reader experience than I do on my $900 iPad? Seriously? Maybe the typical eBook reader hasn't realized what happened. It's the only explanation for the lack of public ire.
ristretto 15y ago
My take: The kindle store is amazing for the books it contains and the community that helps you pick books. This "link removal" won't hurt amazon the least bit. I love reading books on the ipad, but if apple decides to get rid of them (doubtful, it would cause user outrage), i 'd follow amazon .

by Yhippa 15y ago

neuroelectronic 15y ago

| If they have their own bookstore they're trying to run why should they enable a competitor's in their own home? If Microsoft spent so much on R&D for Windows 95 and IE, why shouldn't they build it into the OS? Why shouldn't they lock down their APIs to make it difficult to make competing products inside their OS? Really?

fpgeek 15y ago
Forget IE, Microsoft put a lot of effort into Windows Media, Zune, ... Why should they make it easy for Apple to sell music on Windows?
- neuroelectronic 15y ago
  Interesting approach, but the problem here is Apple doesn't sell books on iPhone (or rather 3rd parties do and they don't do a very good job of it). This is more like a retroactive, me-to I want that market move. The Kindle app product is far superior for reading as I understand. If you're going to release a platform, you shouldn't be doing this kind of stuff. It's a similar situation as net-neutrality.
pedalpete 15y ago
I think your argument is flawed (though I also think you are making two somewhat related, yet different points). It isn't about building it into the OS, it's about allowing competitors to provide a service to 'your' users. Microsoft didn't prevent any browsers from being installed on Windows, they didn't require any special processes or try to prevent any competitors from offering competitive or superior services. Microsoft just figured if the baked in stuff was good enough, most people wouldn't bother to change, and they were right. I could would agree with Apple taking a cut of in-app purchases where billing is completed through Apple's infrastructure, but forcing application builders (your community builders) to hamstring their products or pay you a cut is anti-competitive in a sense that I think is worse than anything Microsoft has done. Microsoft helped foster innovation, and then stole it and made it difficult to compete, but you could compete. Apple is just hamstringing the competition so that they can't compete.

fpgeek 15y ago

Free ride? That's ridiculous. Developers and partners make or break a platform. How many iPads did Apple sell because of the Kindle app? While there aren't hard numbers, plenty of bloggers talked about deciding between getting an iPad or a Kindle. Based on ebook sales figures, we also know that iBooks is probably third on their own platform, which is another significant clue about what ebook readers would have chosen. Apple is making a big mistake here and given that these changes have been in the works (and protested) for months, it is not one they're likely to fix quickly, if ever.

NinaSeer 15y ago
I totally agree with you. I haven't followed this story until my buy button disappeared in Kindle. I think most app users won't realize until they go to buy a book. I'm surprised there isn't more outrage. Apple deliberately reduced the functionality of an astounding number (has to be millions) of their own customers and we've barely complained...? (btw, Apple did not respond to my online complaint.). Now any android or blackberry user has a more functional reader experience than I do on my $900 iPad? Seriously? Maybe the typical eBook reader hasn't realized what happened. It's the only explanation for the lack of public ire.

ristretto 15y ago

My take: The kindle store is amazing for the books it contains and the community that helps you pick books. This "link removal" won't hurt amazon the least bit. I love reading books on the ipad, but if apple decides to get rid of them (doubtful, it would cause user outrage), i 'd follow amazon .