Amazon, Google Remove In-App Buttons to Comply with Apple Rules

[Tharic-Nar]

Imagine, for a moment, that with the Windows 8 launch, Microsoft decided to instate a rule that would allow it to take a 30% cut of any third-party software sale. It seems silly, and such a move would no doubt raise prices of software all-around - but this is how things are done in the mobile space. Because we're used to such low app prices on such devices though, these 'cuts' are not often thought about.

You can read the rest of our post and discuss here.

 

[Kougar]

I can only hope other companies seize on this opportunity to bring wider support to non-Apple devices, is what I think. The cutback system for hyperlinking to stores online is bad enough, but taking a whopping 30% cut you mentioned in online purchases from the related application (which they didn't even create) is just greedy as hell. I hope that decision comes back around to take a bite out of Apple.

 

[MacMan]

Apple is being greedy because they want a 30% for providing the infrastructure for others to sell their goods?

What hypocrisy!

Amazon also takes a 30% cut for selling, at least Kindle books too, but where's the outrage? People wouldn't complain about that, or did you not know that if it wasn't for Apple, Amazon would still be taking a much larger cut..... 70%! That's what they used to take, and they only lowered it to match Apple's! But since it's not Apple, no problem!

As Tom Restman wrote:

"Apple's 30% cut is outrageous, yet when Amazon took twice that no one cared
The new 70% royalty more than doubles what Amazon currently pays in royalties. The increase was widely seen as Amazon.com's attempt to pre-empt the impact of Apple's entry into the e-book market
via computerworld.com

When rumors of Apple's typical 30/70 split (Apple/publisher) for an eBook store became too realistic to ignore, Amazon moved quickly to match the terms (though they didn't quite do so, putting a few conditions in place).

Until then Amazon had been taking up to 70% and no one questioned it or cared. Yet when Apple announced they'd soon begin taking 30%—their standard cut—of another category of item sold in the App Store everyone flipped out.

On the face of it, it's hard to believe those claiming outrage aren't primarily motivated by the fact that this is Apple, and any Apple headline is "news." Let's face it, "Amazon's 70% Cut is Evil and Publishers Will Perish" is an article few would have read."

http://thesmallwave.com/apples-30-cut-is-outrageous-yet-when-amazon-w
and... Computerworld: https://www.computerworld.com/s/art...ook_royalties_ahead_of_Apple_s_tablet_release

By the way, check out Amazon's own site and you'll see that they still take up to 65% for their standard rates, and that's for an authors own, hard work!

 

[marfig]

Maybe you mistook Apple's intentions or I did MacMan. But Amazon didn't stop anyone from providing links to other stores. This is what Apple is doing.

So what we have here is that you develop some iPad application and cannot have any link on that App to online stores other than Apple's store. Complain as much as you want about people being angered at your precious Apple. But what they are doing is just not right and I hope when the dust settles and all this smartphone and pad craze ends, we have a more just, customer friendly, and competitive mobile market that doesn't try to circumvent market rules of offer and demand by relying on gatekeeping.

EDIT:

Also, I couldn't care any less if Amazon did it too (which to my knowledge doesn't). This news isn't about Amazon. It is about Apple. Two wrongs don't make a right. It wouldn't be because Amazon or any other company enforced practices that damage consumers and content providers that I will suddenly stop complaining. I suggest you do the same, for your own sake. If you like Apple that much as you obviously do, it's in your best interests to always be critic of their actions when they attack your individual interests as a consumer of their products. And if you think none of those individual interests have been attacked, then I'm terribly sorry for you. As a fan of many technological companies as you are, I will always put in front of any company my own personal interests as a consumer.

Trying to justify Apple actions by comparing it to any other company is just lame. I'm sorry, but it is. Try to justify them for what they are. That's what Kougar did; he criticized those actions without comparing Apple to anyone else.

 

[Rob Williams]

Apple is being greedy because they want a 30% for providing the infrastructure for others to sell their goods?

The infrastructure in this case is the OS, nothing more. Amazon developed the app and also the ability to download and read books, not Apple. This infrastructure is no different than a desktop OS. You don't see Apple charging Amazon 30% when people purchase a book through Safari on the desktop, do you? Though it wouldn't surprise me if that started...

It seems that you are a little lenient where mobile stores are concerned, because rather than an "application", we're dealing with "apps", when in effect they're the same thing. Amazon would be using Apple libraries to design its app on either OS X or iOS, so in effect, both the software layers and process of purchasing are none too different.

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

"Take a bite out of Apple". Hehehe. Sorry!

 

[Glider]

Apple went to court for something like this... Belgian Newspapers were creating apps to read the newspaper on iCrap, yet subscription fees had to be payed to Apple, not to the newspapers...

Apple lost...

 

[Kayden]

I can agree with wanting to make a profit but making a profit off of other companies is just ludicrous.