11 ms·

iOS Kindle app now has a ‘get book’ button after changes to App Store rules

189 points by diversion 1y ago

havaloc 1y ago
If Apple eventually wins their appeal think among how hard it will be to put the genie back in the bottle.
- goosedragons 1y ago
  Gonna be a looot of apps refusing to update.
  - snkzxbs 1y ago
    I suppose they can just take them down.
    - xp84 1y ago
      They can, and then they’ll have to face their customers directly with it being exactly clear (even to “normies” who don’t follow obscure tech news like this) exactly whose greedy fingers are taking things away from them. Up till now, situations like Kindle were just weird quirks to most people and most people wouldn’t have been able to tell you why you can’t do this very normal-seeming thing on iOS. If/when Apple takes it away, it’ll be obvious to everyone what’s going on.
      - threeseed 1y ago
        There are plenty of no longer supported apps on people's phones. No one is blaming Apple for it.
        goosedragons 1y ago
        I think it'd be a bit different if Kindle, Spotify, Netflix and co. all suddenly stopped working/got worse.
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        And if Apple yoinks them out, then why should the developer respect the "no disparagement" or "no telling your customers about payment/alternatives"? Which to me was always the ultimate expression of Apple absolutely knowing they are being greedy. Not just "You can't tell your customers you can pay less elsewhere", but "You can't even tell your customers about our involvement in your pricing decisions".
  - mvid 1y ago
    Apple will happily have you audit and pay them 30% on those external sales
- granzymes 1y ago
  If this significantly cannibalizes Apple’s App Store revenue I would actually expect that they come up with a different way to monetize (maybe based on installs or number of users). They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules.
  - tmpz22 1y ago
    If Apple penalized apps for having many users that would be cataclysmic to their platform, though I image they'd work out sweetheart deals with Facebook etc.
    - sixothree 1y ago
      One way or the other this is a seismic event for Apple. They did this to themselves though.
    - tantalor 1y ago
      It could be like a platform subscription fee, but the app developer pays instead of the user. The justification would be something like, "a more equitable and transparent system that aligns costs with platform usage and developer access to the user base, while also potentially fostering a more diverse and competitive app ecosystem" (generated)
      - HenryBemis 1y ago
        I left Apple years ago, right on the battery-gate scandal. Since I'm in Android since, I imagine that if Google Play Store would introduce a fee to "a more equitable..." I would do all my 'shopping' to Aurora, APKPure, and others.
  - geoffpado 1y ago
    > They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules. They actually can't, not with the latest ruling that unlocked this Kindle change. Apple annoyed the judge enough with their shenanigans that she shut this down, too. The ruling reads (emphasis mine): "Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users *nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases*."
dhosek 1y ago
I thought that the terms of the entitlement to be able to link to an external purchase point was that you still needed to offer IAP under Apple’s terms. Did I misunderstand that?
- zacwest 1y ago
  Except for 'reader apps' (those that sell digital content, basically) which Amazon is. Plus, Apple's rules are applied unevenly; Amazon is a giant WebView on Apple TV but it's disallowed for everybody else.
  - lxgr 1y ago
    As far as I understand, what "reader apps" were allowed to do was to display content purchased elsewhere in the first place, which is orthogonal to being/not being allowed to link to external purchases, no?
    - zacwest 1y ago
      These are the changes that Apple was forced to make, specifically referencing 3.1.3 (Other Purchase Methods) and 3.1.3(a) (“Reader” Apps): > 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront. > 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action. The bit about the (formerly required in the US) entitlement is: > Reader app developers may apply for the External Link Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in their app to a web site the developer owns or maintains responsibility for in order to create or manage an account. They required you use a trackingless, generic URL that was unvarying per user, so you probably didn't run into it super often. Offhand, the Kobo app did use it.
- ezfe 1y ago
  No, there are no conditions on linking out except that Apple can choose to show an alert along the lines of "You are leaving the app to open a webpage in Safari"
paxys 1y ago
Smart that developers are quickly updating their apps while Apple is still appealing the decision. Once users get used to the added purchase options and cheaper pricing there's no going back, regardless of what the final ruling is.
- beastman82 1y ago
  those users will stick with their Apple products and lose the ability to "get the book" (so to speak). So yes, there is going back.
  - tantalor 1y ago
    > lose the ability What, why? They can complete the purchase flow in a browser instead of the app. What is lost?
    - ewidar 1y ago
      They mean that if apple wins the appeal, the in-app new purchase flow will be removed but users will likely not leave the apple ecosystem
      - nguyenkien 1y ago
        Bút now, they know the web offer cheaper. And likely search before give Apple 30% on other apps
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  This also, long term, could kill the 30% commission. Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a paid product on the App Store? Your discoverability is massively impaired, we already knew that. You also give Apple 30% of your cash. Free app + external web purchase = maximum discoverability at 0% tax. When things get more advanced, that web purchase link will be an authenticated URL - meaning one click to open the web browser already logged in. Register a protocol handler, remember their card information (or, ironically, use Apple Pay), and one tap in the app, a flash of the web browser, and they’re back in the app with purchase complete. Apple needs to address this at WWDC. In the US and EU, there are zero, heck, negative advantages of selling on the App Store. All pain, all fees, no benefit of any kind. That’s a big deal.
Coeur 1y ago
update: thanks for the clarifications! Unfortunately the article does not answer what the button does, which is quite relevant. Does it send the user to the amazon website (which would be allowed under the new rule)? Or does it complete the purchase inside the app using the credit card Amazon has on file for the user without paying Apple anything (which would be quite the affront towards Apple)?
- derefr 1y ago
  You missed it; the article does answer this. > By selecting ‘Get Book’ within the Kindle for iOS app, customers can now complete their purchase through their mobile web browser.
- lb1lf 1y ago
  It does indeed open your web browser and send you to the book's page on the Kindle store. Just checked. (Kindle for iPhone v7.31.3)
  - lxgr 1y ago
    Wow, really? That's frustrating. I'd have expected it to actually make the purchase using my card on file with my Amazon account, just like the physical Kindle does.
    - nik_0_0 1y ago
      That one Apple is still allowed to collect fees on (which I'd love to see the provided justification for!). Per the article: "Apple can no longer collect a 27 percent commission on purchases made outside of apps or restrict how developers can direct users to alternate payment options" This now allows folks to direct users to alternate methods. Before this the Kindle app would just say something along the lines of "you can't get a book here, please use the website".
dmitrygr 1y ago
App Store revenue was a significant source of income for Apple. Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS. I don’t know what sort of idiotic thinking it takes to imagine that they won’t need to find another way to recapture that money. It will probably come in the form of higher costs for development licenses, or hardware. For example, absolutely nothing stops them from charging you for using the SDK. No one said it had to be free. Everyone screaming about how happy they are about this seem to be ignoring the fact that Apple is not a charity
- int_19h 1y ago
  Apple platforms are already kind of notorious for having the highest price sticker to develop/publish apps for.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS. iOS has gotten progressively worse every year since 2012. It may not be the worst idea to turn off the tap.
  - wordofx 1y ago
    How is it worse? It’s better now for me than years ago.
    - lurk2 1y ago
      Off the top of my head: - Substantially poorer performance - Keyboard is less accurate - YouTube videos can’t be played on the lock screen without some tricks - Apple Maps (it is basically at parity now, however). - Translate feature doesn’t have a copy button - The storage bug - No option for manual cache clearing - SMB protocol doesn’t work with Windows and doesn’t display error messages - File transfers are substantially more complicated than they used to be because they want you to pay for iCloud (the workaround here is installing VLC which gives you a drag-and-drop folder you can use through iTunes) - Multitasking (apps should shut down after some time spent idle, instead they have to be manually closed) I haven’t used the most recent versions of iOS so I don’t know if some of these have been addressed.
victorantos 1y ago
Let's be clear: Amazon isn't doing this out of the goodness of their heart or to "provide customers the most convenient experience possible." They're grudgingly complying with a court order while Apple appeals. That spokesperson's PR spin is laughable. The fact that it took LEGAL ACTION to get basic functionality that existed on Kindle e-readers from day one speaks volumes about how these tech giants operate. They'll happily degrade user experience to avoid paying each other's extortionate fees while pretending it's about "ecosystem integrity" or some other corporate doublespeak. And let's not forget Apple's brilliant solution to the court ruling - a slightly smaller 27% tax instead of 30%! How generous! This whole situation perfectly illustrates the duopoly stranglehold that's been choking app developers for years. The most telling part? Amazon "probably isn't going to change its mind about avoiding Apple's 30 percent cut." So even with the court ruling, we're still stuck with a half-measure solution because two trillion-dollar companies can't figure out how to play nice without extracting maximum profit at users' expense. Wake me up when either of these companies actually puts user experience ahead of their bottom line.
- lozenge 1y ago
  Why are you both sidesing this? It's Apple who has been given a court order and Apple who have refused to come to a reasonable compromise with Amazon.
- ec109685 1y ago
  Do you mean Apple isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their heart?
lxgr 1y ago
Amazing! Now if Amazon could also fix the incredibly frustrating, long-standing bug of their iOS app where tapping the screen anywhere does not turn pages, but instead toggles through "page numbers" -> "time left in chapter" -> "time left in book" etc., I'd be happy with it.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  Anywhere? I've never seen that bug. Now, if you tap it near the bottom on the left-hand side, it toggles through that, by design (just as it does on the Kindle tablets)...
  - lxgr 1y ago
    Anywhere for me, but only about 1 out of 10 taps or so. Drives me crazy, and I only swipe to turn pages at this point, which prevents it, but is somewhat uncomfortable.
justanotheratom 1y ago
Apple is generally on the side of customers, but this is a clear example of how anti-customer-friendly their policy was. As a customer, I had to jump through hoops to buy a book on their premium platform.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 1y ago
  > Apple is generally on the side of customers, I'm not convinced; Planned obsolescence, repair issues, phone-home privacy issues, vendor lock-in, etc Apple is certainly innovative which helps consumers, but that's about it. The rest is bare minimum for the price point.
  - Vicinity9635 1y ago
    Apple maps, "Intelligence", siri, etc all run on device because Apple is in the market of selling devices. As many as they can. Whereas google is in the market of selling you to advertisers. It's literally a major difference in their fundamental business models.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Apple does both. Under Tim Cook, services have become nearly as profitable as hardware, and the price of making services compared to hardware is comically low. That's why we have AppleTV and Apple News and Apple Arcade, for all they're worth as a motley crew of subscriptions.
- al_borland 1y ago
  There was also a conflict of interest, considering Apple has their own bookstore.
- adamwk 1y ago
  I guess this is a side-effect where, as things stood, developers were incentivized to just forgo IAP and force users to jump through hoops to find how to give them money; and that in turn wasn’t customer friendly. But in general I much prefer IAP to whatever payment system the developer uses. It makes it so easy to do things like change or cancel any payments I have. In general I think centralized stores are customer friendly but anti developer. As a less controversial example, see how many gamers will wait months or years for a game to leave the Epic game store and go on Steam.
LeicaLatte 1y ago
Add that external payment button and watch my app magically disappear from search results. Sure, they changed the rules on paper, but who's policing their algorithm? Nobody. They can tank my keywords overnight and call it "normal fluctuation." FAANG will be fine, but indies? Gentle reminder that ASO funnels have no customer support. Might just suddenly "stop working." Anyone else afraid to pull the trigger on this?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
moomin 1y ago
I really don’t have a dog in this fight between monopolists, but I’ll admit I’ll be happy to have the button.
vinni2 1y ago
I hope can buy audiobooks from the iOS audible app soon.
- bshacklett 1y ago
  Now that’s an interesting comment. I’ve been buying Audible books on the iOS app as long as I can remember (both in dollars and using credits). I had to double-check to see if I was crazy or misremembering. Perhaps it’s because I have a membership that they’re allowed to bypass the Apple store somehow? I never thought about it until just now.

189 points by diversion 1y ago

havaloc 1y ago

If Apple eventually wins their appeal think among how hard it will be to put the genie back in the bottle.

goosedragons 1y ago
Gonna be a looot of apps refusing to update.
- snkzxbs 1y ago
  I suppose they can just take them down.
  - xp84 1y ago
    They can, and then they’ll have to face their customers directly with it being exactly clear (even to “normies” who don’t follow obscure tech news like this) exactly whose greedy fingers are taking things away from them. Up till now, situations like Kindle were just weird quirks to most people and most people wouldn’t have been able to tell you why you can’t do this very normal-seeming thing on iOS. If/when Apple takes it away, it’ll be obvious to everyone what’s going on.
    - threeseed 1y ago
      There are plenty of no longer supported apps on people's phones. No one is blaming Apple for it.
      - goosedragons 1y ago
        I think it'd be a bit different if Kindle, Spotify, Netflix and co. all suddenly stopped working/got worse.
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        And if Apple yoinks them out, then why should the developer respect the "no disparagement" or "no telling your customers about payment/alternatives"? Which to me was always the ultimate expression of Apple absolutely knowing they are being greedy. Not just "You can't tell your customers you can pay less elsewhere", but "You can't even tell your customers about our involvement in your pricing decisions".
- mvid 1y ago
  Apple will happily have you audit and pay them 30% on those external sales
granzymes 1y ago
If this significantly cannibalizes Apple’s App Store revenue I would actually expect that they come up with a different way to monetize (maybe based on installs or number of users). They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules.
- tmpz22 1y ago
  If Apple penalized apps for having many users that would be cataclysmic to their platform, though I image they'd work out sweetheart deals with Facebook etc.
  - sixothree 1y ago
    One way or the other this is a seismic event for Apple. They did this to themselves though.
  - tantalor 1y ago
    It could be like a platform subscription fee, but the app developer pays instead of the user. The justification would be something like, "a more equitable and transparent system that aligns costs with platform usage and developer access to the user base, while also potentially fostering a more diverse and competitive app ecosystem" (generated)
    - HenryBemis 1y ago
      I left Apple years ago, right on the battery-gate scandal. Since I'm in Android since, I imagine that if Google Play Store would introduce a fee to "a more equitable..." I would do all my 'shopping' to Aurora, APKPure, and others.
- geoffpado 1y ago
  > They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules. They actually can't, not with the latest ruling that unlocked this Kindle change. Apple annoyed the judge enough with their shenanigans that she shut this down, too. The ruling reads (emphasis mine): "Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users *nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases*."

dhosek 1y ago

I thought that the terms of the entitlement to be able to link to an external purchase point was that you still needed to offer IAP under Apple’s terms. Did I misunderstand that?

zacwest 1y ago
Except for 'reader apps' (those that sell digital content, basically) which Amazon is. Plus, Apple's rules are applied unevenly; Amazon is a giant WebView on Apple TV but it's disallowed for everybody else.
- lxgr 1y ago
  As far as I understand, what "reader apps" were allowed to do was to display content purchased elsewhere in the first place, which is orthogonal to being/not being allowed to link to external purchases, no?
  - zacwest 1y ago
    These are the changes that Apple was forced to make, specifically referencing 3.1.3 (Other Purchase Methods) and 3.1.3(a) (“Reader” Apps): > 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront. > 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action. The bit about the (formerly required in the US) entitlement is: > Reader app developers may apply for the External Link Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in their app to a web site the developer owns or maintains responsibility for in order to create or manage an account. They required you use a trackingless, generic URL that was unvarying per user, so you probably didn't run into it super often. Offhand, the Kobo app did use it.
ezfe 1y ago
No, there are no conditions on linking out except that Apple can choose to show an alert along the lines of "You are leaving the app to open a webpage in Safari"

paxys 1y ago

Smart that developers are quickly updating their apps while Apple is still appealing the decision. Once users get used to the added purchase options and cheaper pricing there's no going back, regardless of what the final ruling is.

beastman82 1y ago
those users will stick with their Apple products and lose the ability to "get the book" (so to speak). So yes, there is going back.
- tantalor 1y ago
  > lose the ability What, why? They can complete the purchase flow in a browser instead of the app. What is lost?
  - ewidar 1y ago
    They mean that if apple wins the appeal, the in-app new purchase flow will be removed but users will likely not leave the apple ecosystem
    - nguyenkien 1y ago
      Bút now, they know the web offer cheaper. And likely search before give Apple 30% on other apps
gjsman-1000 1y ago
This also, long term, could kill the 30% commission. Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a paid product on the App Store? Your discoverability is massively impaired, we already knew that. You also give Apple 30% of your cash. Free app + external web purchase = maximum discoverability at 0% tax. When things get more advanced, that web purchase link will be an authenticated URL - meaning one click to open the web browser already logged in. Register a protocol handler, remember their card information (or, ironically, use Apple Pay), and one tap in the app, a flash of the web browser, and they’re back in the app with purchase complete. Apple needs to address this at WWDC. In the US and EU, there are zero, heck, negative advantages of selling on the App Store. All pain, all fees, no benefit of any kind. That’s a big deal.

Coeur 1y ago

update: thanks for the clarifications! Unfortunately the article does not answer what the button does, which is quite relevant. Does it send the user to the amazon website (which would be allowed under the new rule)? Or does it complete the purchase inside the app using the credit card Amazon has on file for the user without paying Apple anything (which would be quite the affront towards Apple)?

derefr 1y ago
You missed it; the article does answer this. > By selecting ‘Get Book’ within the Kindle for iOS app, customers can now complete their purchase through their mobile web browser.
lb1lf 1y ago
It does indeed open your web browser and send you to the book's page on the Kindle store. Just checked. (Kindle for iPhone v7.31.3)
- lxgr 1y ago
  Wow, really? That's frustrating. I'd have expected it to actually make the purchase using my card on file with my Amazon account, just like the physical Kindle does.
  - nik_0_0 1y ago
    That one Apple is still allowed to collect fees on (which I'd love to see the provided justification for!). Per the article: "Apple can no longer collect a 27 percent commission on purchases made outside of apps or restrict how developers can direct users to alternate payment options" This now allows folks to direct users to alternate methods. Before this the Kindle app would just say something along the lines of "you can't get a book here, please use the website".

dmitrygr 1y ago

App Store revenue was a significant source of income for Apple. Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS. I don’t know what sort of idiotic thinking it takes to imagine that they won’t need to find another way to recapture that money. It will probably come in the form of higher costs for development licenses, or hardware. For example, absolutely nothing stops them from charging you for using the SDK. No one said it had to be free. Everyone screaming about how happy they are about this seem to be ignoring the fact that Apple is not a charity

int_19h 1y ago
Apple platforms are already kind of notorious for having the highest price sticker to develop/publish apps for.
lurk2 1y ago
> Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS. iOS has gotten progressively worse every year since 2012. It may not be the worst idea to turn off the tap.
- wordofx 1y ago
  How is it worse? It’s better now for me than years ago.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    Off the top of my head: - Substantially poorer performance - Keyboard is less accurate - YouTube videos can’t be played on the lock screen without some tricks - Apple Maps (it is basically at parity now, however). - Translate feature doesn’t have a copy button - The storage bug - No option for manual cache clearing - SMB protocol doesn’t work with Windows and doesn’t display error messages - File transfers are substantially more complicated than they used to be because they want you to pay for iCloud (the workaround here is installing VLC which gives you a drag-and-drop folder you can use through iTunes) - Multitasking (apps should shut down after some time spent idle, instead they have to be manually closed) I haven’t used the most recent versions of iOS so I don’t know if some of these have been addressed.

victorantos 1y ago

Let's be clear: Amazon isn't doing this out of the goodness of their heart or to "provide customers the most convenient experience possible." They're grudgingly complying with a court order while Apple appeals. That spokesperson's PR spin is laughable. The fact that it took LEGAL ACTION to get basic functionality that existed on Kindle e-readers from day one speaks volumes about how these tech giants operate. They'll happily degrade user experience to avoid paying each other's extortionate fees while pretending it's about "ecosystem integrity" or some other corporate doublespeak. And let's not forget Apple's brilliant solution to the court ruling - a slightly smaller 27% tax instead of 30%! How generous! This whole situation perfectly illustrates the duopoly stranglehold that's been choking app developers for years. The most telling part? Amazon "probably isn't going to change its mind about avoiding Apple's 30 percent cut." So even with the court ruling, we're still stuck with a half-measure solution because two trillion-dollar companies can't figure out how to play nice without extracting maximum profit at users' expense. Wake me up when either of these companies actually puts user experience ahead of their bottom line.

lozenge 1y ago
Why are you both sidesing this? It's Apple who has been given a court order and Apple who have refused to come to a reasonable compromise with Amazon.
ec109685 1y ago
Do you mean Apple isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their heart?

lxgr 1y ago

Amazing! Now if Amazon could also fix the incredibly frustrating, long-standing bug of their iOS app where tapping the screen anywhere does not turn pages, but instead toggles through "page numbers" -> "time left in chapter" -> "time left in book" etc., I'd be happy with it.

FireBeyond 1y ago
Anywhere? I've never seen that bug. Now, if you tap it near the bottom on the left-hand side, it toggles through that, by design (just as it does on the Kindle tablets)...
- lxgr 1y ago
  Anywhere for me, but only about 1 out of 10 taps or so. Drives me crazy, and I only swipe to turn pages at this point, which prevents it, but is somewhat uncomfortable.

justanotheratom 1y ago

Apple is generally on the side of customers, but this is a clear example of how anti-customer-friendly their policy was. As a customer, I had to jump through hoops to buy a book on their premium platform.

OsrsNeedsf2P 1y ago
> Apple is generally on the side of customers, I'm not convinced; Planned obsolescence, repair issues, phone-home privacy issues, vendor lock-in, etc Apple is certainly innovative which helps consumers, but that's about it. The rest is bare minimum for the price point.
- Vicinity9635 1y ago
  Apple maps, "Intelligence", siri, etc all run on device because Apple is in the market of selling devices. As many as they can. Whereas google is in the market of selling you to advertisers. It's literally a major difference in their fundamental business models.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Apple does both. Under Tim Cook, services have become nearly as profitable as hardware, and the price of making services compared to hardware is comically low. That's why we have AppleTV and Apple News and Apple Arcade, for all they're worth as a motley crew of subscriptions.
al_borland 1y ago
There was also a conflict of interest, considering Apple has their own bookstore.
adamwk 1y ago
I guess this is a side-effect where, as things stood, developers were incentivized to just forgo IAP and force users to jump through hoops to find how to give them money; and that in turn wasn’t customer friendly. But in general I much prefer IAP to whatever payment system the developer uses. It makes it so easy to do things like change or cancel any payments I have. In general I think centralized stores are customer friendly but anti developer. As a less controversial example, see how many gamers will wait months or years for a game to leave the Epic game store and go on Steam.

LeicaLatte 1y ago

Add that external payment button and watch my app magically disappear from search results. Sure, they changed the rules on paper, but who's policing their algorithm? Nobody. They can tank my keywords overnight and call it "normal fluctuation." FAANG will be fine, but indies? Gentle reminder that ASO funnels have no customer support. Might just suddenly "stop working." Anyone else afraid to pull the trigger on this?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

moomin 1y ago

I really don’t have a dog in this fight between monopolists, but I’ll admit I’ll be happy to have the button.

vinni2 1y ago

I hope can buy audiobooks from the iOS audible app soon.

bshacklett 1y ago
Now that’s an interesting comment. I’ve been buying Audible books on the iOS app as long as I can remember (both in dollars and using credits). I had to double-check to see if I was crazy or misremembering. Perhaps it’s because I have a membership that they’re allowed to bypass the Apple store somehow? I never thought about it until just now.