Gruber's commentary on Microsoft abusing monopoly power over access to Windows customers (<a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/05/01/msft-goog" rel="nofollow">http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/05/01/msft-goog</a>):<p>“Who, us? Abuse a monopoly in one area to ram something down our customers’ throats so as to build a new monopoly that damages our leading competitor? What would ever make you think we’d do that?”<p>Gruber's commentary on Apple abusing monopoly power over access to iPhone/iPad customers:<p>"This sucks for Sony because, for now, they’re locked out of the App Store. It sucks for Amazon and Barnes & Noble too, if I’m right that, going forward, they’re going to have to offer in-app purchasing as an option. But you can’t say it’s surprising that the rules are evolving toward more money for Apple while improving the experience for users"<p>See, when Apple does, it's "to be expected". When Microsoft does it, let's unleash the outrage.<p>If Apple is successful in forcing Amazon to fork over 30% for iOS-originating Kindle purchases, then they don't even need to improve their iBooks business - they would get as much money from Amazon for each book sold as they would get directly from a publisher and either destroying Amazon's margins or causing the books to cost 30% more.<p>Neither option is good for customers and the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better. Personally I don't want to see more abuse from Apple and enforced toll-roads for access to users of Apple made (but owned by people who purchase them) devices.<p>It is becoming clearer and clearer that Apple is not satisfied with making bunch of money the ethical way and will use every means available to make even more money unless someone with an ultimate stick steps in and delivers sound beating.
There's a problem with the apparent user experience logic here. By all indications, what Apple really wants (aside from a 30% cut that Sony, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble will gladly give them in hell) is for users to have a single (iTunes) login to purchase any kind of content inside apps.<p>Problem is, a single login is impossible. In any of the ebook cases, users will have to log in twice: Once to authenticate for iTunes, and once to authenticate with the ebook store – otherwise their new purchases remain orphaned on the iPad and their existing library is stranded in the cloud.<p>So, there goes the UX angle. All that's left is the financial angle Apple can't possibly expect the other ebook retailers to cave on. This, then, leads ultimately to the possibility that Apple simply wants them off the App Store. Which decreases the value of the iPad for anyone invested in those ecosystems. Maybe Apple never wanted them as customers, anyway?
This is eerily similar to the situation that Android phone manufacturers face from the carriers—either let Verizon et al get their cut and impose their restrictions or don't get access to their network. Verizon is routinely critizied for sticking their fingers in others' pies. On the other hand Apple gets accused of "improving the experience for users".
Gruber hardly ever gets this close to criticizing Apple. I guess there's a line which even the most ardent Apple defender isn't willing to cross.<p>I'm still waiting to hear more from Apple's side on this but if it turns out that they really do feel they can be this capricious and selectively self-serving in their enforcement of the rules there's no way in hell I'd consider building a business on their platform, no matter how lucrative it might be in the short term.
My concern is this - does this nullify my ability to use Feint or Urban Airship instead of Apple's iAP? If so, that freaking sucks, and it might be the deal breaker for me.<p>I love native apps, and I love Apple, but more than anything, I like choice and ease of use.
This is going to be nasty for nasty for Apple if they push it too far, and they may already have. I wouldn't be surprised to see an AG get involved. Either an app can prompt you to buy books in Safari or not.
Does anyone know what mechanism Sony's app uses for book purchases? Is it all in-app? That seems a clear violation of the rules. The Kindle app doesn't work this way, all purchases are done through the browser.<p>Until this is clarified (by Sony or Apple preferably), how can anyone get all uppity about this?<p>Maybe Sony's app blatantly violates the existing rules.
Let me point out a major inconsistency in Apple's position.<p>You can buy music from Amazon. You can load that into iTunes. You can then play it on your iPhone/iPad/iPod.<p>Why can't you do the same for Kindle (etc) books?<p>For Apple to take this position is terrible for the users. iBooks for example has <i>nothing</i> in Australia (beyond Project Gutenberg). Literally, <i>nothing</i>.<p>For Apple to deny a user access to Kindle books that Apple doesn't themselves offer just because they didn't get their 30% cut is simply ludicrous.<p>Gruber bashing is popular here but let me just quote one part:<p>> Translation: We haven’t changed the rules, but what used to be allowed is no longer allowed.<p>Doesn't sound like Apple apologism to me.<p>I'm really disappointed Apple is playing semantics on this one, arguing their vague rules haven't changed, just that how they've decided to interpret them and the enforcement steps they're taking, have.<p>One could argue Amazon might accept a smaller cut but that is a real problem for Apple. They sell a significant amount of iTunes credit through retail channels and that is sold at a discount of probably 15-30% (eg in Australia you can <i>always</i> find some big retailer selling 2x$20 for $30 <i>or better</i> although better is much rarer).<p>So Apple could decide to take a smaller cut and make a loss on that with retail iTunes credit hoping that the people who pay through credit card balance it out but I have trouble believe that'll happen, particularly since I can't see Amazon accepting anything more than 10%, if that.
Does anyone else find it ironic that much of the Apple store is powered by one-click purchasing, a patent that Apple licensed from Amazon?<p>Jeff Bezos must be kicking himself over that one.
It's downright ridiculous if section 11.2 is applied universally. So does Apple get a cut of Cisco's WebEx contracts whenever a customer decides to fire up the free iOS app? Does Apple get a cut of OverDrive's contract to deliver eBooks and audio books to local libraries if someone downloads the iOS app? This doesn't even make sense.<p>Are Netflix and Hulu going to hand over 30% of their subscription fees to Apple if the user wants to fire up the service on an iOS device? Is that even feasible?<p>Are the Apple tax examiners going to look for login screens and reject apps based solely on that now?<p>No, probably not. It's probably just a cover for Apple to beat up on its competitors (Amazon, Barnes and Noble) and to let everyone else (Netflix, Hulu) get a free pass. Much like how Apple singled out Adobe yet allowed Appcelerator and UNITY to continue without pause.