4 ms·

There is no stand. Apple required it. Same thing happened to Kobo.

by bradshaw1965 15y ago

dean 15y ago
I realize Apple required it. But Amazon still had a choice. They could have complied with Apple's rules and paid 30% of their revenue to Apple for ebooks sold from within the app. And passed the price increase on to consumers. I view it as standing up to Apple that Amazon did not do this. I think this will be better, if a little inconvenient, for consumers in the long run because it will ultimately keep ebook prices lower.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  The real standing up would be if Amazon had refused to remove the link and let Apple reject and/or pull the Kindle app. Then the ire of people unable to read their Kindle books would be directed at Apple. This action by Amazon seems to be capitulation since there was no way that the in app purchasing system would support so many hundred thousands of books anyway.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    Agreed. Instead the ire will be directed at Amazon as users will be confused on how to buy books. I guess they figured it was a better move than allow the app to be pulled (implementing IAP was probably economically untenable).
  - dean 15y ago
    That's a fair point. It would have been nice to see something like that.
  - matwood 15y ago
    The real standing up would be if Amazon had refused to remove the link and let Apple reject and/or pull the Kindle app. Exactly. I was hoping that Amazon and the other large content providers would simply call Apples bluff. Let Apple shoot itself in the foot and remove all the big content reasons that people buy iOS devices to start with.
    - nivals 15y ago
      Make no mistake the bluff was called. Apple themselves removed the app (of at least one of the impacted few) and then required that the alternate version be posted for sale. The choice was either have no app available for your customers or have the neutered version up. FYI, most folks were smart enough to have their own 'no store link' neutered version ready and waiting so that the app approval process delay wouldn't stop customers from downloading and Apple forced their hand.
      - fpgeek 15y ago
        Having a 'no store link' version ready-to-go isn't calling Apple's bluff. Calling Apple's bluff would have been not submitting a replacement version and directly telling your customers why the app was gone.
- bradshaw1965 15y ago
  Here is a post from a Kobo developer outlining their experience with their store. It doesn't sound like there was any room for taking a stand in their case and that they got boxed into not being able to communicate anything about their product. It does sound like there may be a different set of rules for different apps enforced capriciously but I doubt it had much about Amazon taking a stand. http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/8045895465/my-review-of-the-kobo-app http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/8045895465/my-review-of-th...
- cgranade 15y ago
  I remember at one point, Apple forbid pricing things higher on iOS' App Store to compensate for the 30% cut. Is that still the case? If so, then Amazon's choices are a lot narrower: kill the link or kill the app.
- GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
  Don't forget that Amazon has already worked out their margins for books and spent a long time convincing publishers to list most books under ten dollars. Along comes Apple and demands 30% off the gross. I don't know if Amazon had any choice but to remove the store.

There is no stand. Apple required it. Same thing happened to Kobo.

dean 15y ago

I realize Apple required it. But Amazon still had a choice. They could have complied with Apple's rules and paid 30% of their revenue to Apple for ebooks sold from within the app. And passed the price increase on to consumers. I view it as standing up to Apple that Amazon did not do this. I think this will be better, if a little inconvenient, for consumers in the long run because it will ultimately keep ebook prices lower.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
The real standing up would be if Amazon had refused to remove the link and let Apple reject and/or pull the Kindle app. Then the ire of people unable to read their Kindle books would be directed at Apple. This action by Amazon seems to be capitulation since there was no way that the in app purchasing system would support so many hundred thousands of books anyway.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Agreed. Instead the ire will be directed at Amazon as users will be confused on how to buy books. I guess they figured it was a better move than allow the app to be pulled (implementing IAP was probably economically untenable).
- dean 15y ago
  That's a fair point. It would have been nice to see something like that.
- matwood 15y ago
  The real standing up would be if Amazon had refused to remove the link and let Apple reject and/or pull the Kindle app. Exactly. I was hoping that Amazon and the other large content providers would simply call Apples bluff. Let Apple shoot itself in the foot and remove all the big content reasons that people buy iOS devices to start with.
  - nivals 15y ago
    Make no mistake the bluff was called. Apple themselves removed the app (of at least one of the impacted few) and then required that the alternate version be posted for sale. The choice was either have no app available for your customers or have the neutered version up. FYI, most folks were smart enough to have their own 'no store link' neutered version ready and waiting so that the app approval process delay wouldn't stop customers from downloading and Apple forced their hand.
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      Having a 'no store link' version ready-to-go isn't calling Apple's bluff. Calling Apple's bluff would have been not submitting a replacement version and directly telling your customers why the app was gone.
bradshaw1965 15y ago
Here is a post from a Kobo developer outlining their experience with their store. It doesn't sound like there was any room for taking a stand in their case and that they got boxed into not being able to communicate anything about their product. It does sound like there may be a different set of rules for different apps enforced capriciously but I doubt it had much about Amazon taking a stand. http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/8045895465/my-review-of-the-kobo-app http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/8045895465/my-review-of-th...
cgranade 15y ago
I remember at one point, Apple forbid pricing things higher on iOS' App Store to compensate for the 30% cut. Is that still the case? If so, then Amazon's choices are a lot narrower: kill the link or kill the app.
GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
Don't forget that Amazon has already worked out their margins for books and spent a long time convincing publishers to list most books under ten dollars. Along comes Apple and demands 30% off the gross. I don't know if Amazon had any choice but to remove the store.