Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

As an Apple owner of all their hardware and devices this is pretty lame and really hope it does not affect Amazon/Kindle. I have never owned a Kindle but prefer Kindle books and love them. I read them on PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, but mainly my iPad. If it weren't for Kindle, I may have bought a few more books on iBooks just for the iPad, but there are far fewer books and I like being able to read them on multiple devices.<p>The whole point of an ebook is to read them on multiple devices.

This seems to be incorrect.<p>Apple is not moving to tighten control; the restriction has been there for a while. I believe Apple banned non-Apple in-app purchases when they launched their in-app purchase system (if not before then).<p>Edit: The article does say Apple "has told some applications developers … that they can no longer … let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store."<p>However, that doesn't seem to be sourced, and when the point is reiterated in the fourth paragraph, only the existing restriction is mentioned: "Apple told Sony that from now on, all in-app purchases would have to go through Apple, said Steve Haber, president of Sony’s digital reading division."

If Apple blocks Kindle, I'm not buying an iPad. Kindle is practically the reason I was going to buy it. iBooks doesn't work for me, because iTunes does not accept credit cards from my country.

I doubt this is actually true. Apple has always required in-app purchases to go through Apple. That's why the Kindle app pushes you out to Safari to make purchases.<p>Despite what the article says, I bet Sony tried to implement their own in-app purchase process instead of bumping the user out to Safari. Apple rejected the app for breaking a well-known rule, and now Sony is whining about it for publicity. That's my guess anyway.<p>In fact, the article says "Apple told Sony that from now on, all in-app purchases would have to go through Apple, said Steve Haber, president of Sony’s digital reading division."<p>This isn't a change. In-app purchases have always had to go through Apple.

The really interesting bit is where it says that developers won't be able to "let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store".<p>Amazon has worked around Apple's rules by always kicking users out to the browser to complete the transaction. This apparently kills that.

I'm wondering if the part about Apple not letting customers have access to media that was purchased outside the App Store (e.g. Kindle books) is just an off-the-cuff remark made by some Sony executive who was mad about Apple not letting them do their own in-app purchases. Seems odd, considering Amazon has been doing it this whole time with seemingly no protest from Apple.

How much tighter can they get with their control? I'm looking forward to buying an Android phone when my (ridiculous!) 3 year contract is up with Telus(Canada).

So Apple wants to block companies from allowing people to see content that wasn't paid for through their system. What's next, blocking paid websites?<p>Surely Amazon would just set up a website where users could access their Kindle books, bypassing the whole App Store problem. This is silly on Apple's part as it decreases the potential audience for their devices, and the ease of use.

Question: can I, in turn, download and read iBooks on my Kindle or my Sony Reader?

It's sad to say, but in my opinion, Apple is so far ahead of the competition, I'll stick with them in spite of this.<p>And yes, I've had several Android phones, up to and including the Nexus S.

I think Sony could probably use the same work-around Amazon appears to be using for its Kindle app: tapping a button to shop for books in the Kindle app opens a browser window allowing you to buy a book on the mobile version of the Amazon.com site. Then when you go back to the app it automatically syncs with your book collection and downloads the book. It makes one wonder what other App store restrictions might be circumvented by clever integration of Native and HTML5 apps.

Lex Friedman speculates that Sony may have tried to add a webkit-enabled quasi-browser based in app purchase feature, arguing that it was the same as Kindle and other apps that push you out to mobile Safari to buy ebooks. But it wasn't push the user out to Safari...<a href="http://blog.lexfriedman.com/post/2856721037/apple-hasnt-changed-in-app-purchasing-rules-one-iota" rel="nofollow">http://blog.lexfriedman.com/post/2856721037/apple-hasnt-chan...</a>

Although this is lame on Apple's part, can we also agree that it's lame on Amazon's part to disallow affiliate links for use on mobile devices or websites aimed at mobile?<p>I have struggled to understand why they would want to keep people (like me) from making apps to drive purchases to Amazon on mobile, and I don't have any good answer at all.<p>Having said that, I can't quite decode this move by Apple yet...

First, I'm curious how much of this is a NYT tech reporter hoping to get a future Sony exclusive by making a big anti-Apple stink of something completely out of context.<p>Second, I hate it when Apple makes me feel internally conflicted. I love so much about the hardware and software, but I deplore their draconian stances on some things. On the other hand, some of those stances are things I like about them when it comes to supporting my families electronics. I need to go look at something shiny...

It's this kind of stuff that makes me worried about the future of Apple without Jobs at the wheel. I can't back this up, but the PR always seems ham-fisted when handled by others.

My app was rejected once for violating the HIG. I really missed out on a PR opportunity to write up a big story about how Apple won't accept apps from gay people!<p>Just because Apple rejects one app does not mean it is a new policy decision. I think these articles, which are, at their core, based on speculation, are frankly dishonest.<p>Apple does not give reasons for rejections to anyone other than the submitter of the app. Over the last two years we've had dozens of these articles about apples "draconian" policies, often about apps that were rejected for other reasons. Of course the original article is spread around by anti-apple zealots, but when it later comes out that Apple has no such policy, or the app appears in the store after fixing the bug.... the retractions? there are none!<p>So called "journalists" feel that they can just speculate on a reason and use it to write a sensational story. Linking to them and giving them the attention they seek is gives them the incentive to continue doing this, rather than go out and get good tech stories. This is why tech "journalism" is so often so lowbrow.<p>On one hand it is a testemant to the integrity of apple and the lack of integrity of the "journalists" who write these hit pieces that Apple doesn't respond. But now we have a generation of android zealots who think that Apple really is "draconian". I had one complete non-techie tell me that I shouldn't write apps for iOS because Apple is draconian. Of course, my experience actually making apps in the app store does not dissuade her perception of what she's heard from her friends and in articles like this.<p>Apple's policy is laudable, they figure eventually the truth will get out. I hope they are right, but I fear they are wrong. There are still many people who believe there is a defect in the iPhone 4's antenna, for instance.

Thank you for linking an article behind a paywall, no seriously I am happy you can reach this piece and I am sure it is very informative.

Apple can do whatever the heck they want. The market will be the sole judge whether their choices are correct or not.<p>So far the history is on their side.

I think this probably has something to do with the new subscription model they're rolling out with Newscorp and the Daily. I'm not so sure it's as cut and dry as this article makes out, and I'd wait to hear from Apple about that "access to purchases they have made outside the App Store" bit. It sounds a bit weird to me. I can think of a hundred ways that's not enforceable or even legal.<p>As I understand it, the only difference here is that the paying for content on an Apple Device now has to go through Apple. Which I think may well be a bonus for end users (in terms of convenience and security), but not so great for people like Sony and Amazon who were expecting to get 100% of the cash but now they'll have to pay 30% (probably) to Apple.<p>They may think it's unfair for Apple to muscle in on their revenue, but they didn't invent iOS or the iPad or the iPhone or the iPod Touch...<p>so..... neeeerh!