NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[Bpine]

Originally Posted by Crowl

This idea of reciprocity overlooks some fairly crucial points, most of the sony ereaders do not include any store on them with all sales being done away from the device.

Apple could have made their store available to all epub-capable devices in the first place, but firstly chose to ignore the option of supporting the
most common drm option and in any case do not actually offer their books on a non-ios let alone other mobile hardware.

Apple actually gets a benefit from allowing other reader apps on their device because it means that people are able to buy and move to apple hardware without abandoning purchases made from other stores, but have no such option with any ibooks leading to them tending to be locked into the apple products so apple probably don't actually want to be available on other hardware.

Good point. Apple's decision is not a good thing, but to do this as an attempt to gain exclusivity to the e-book market makes absolutely no sense as a business strategy, especially if they are trying to maximize market share for hardware devices. Didn't they try something like this with iTunes and fail?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Bpine

Good point. Apple's decision is not a good thing, but to do this as an attempt to gain exclusivity to the e-book market makes absolutely no sense as a business strategy, especially if they are trying to maximize market share for hardware devices. Didn't they try something like this with iTunes and fail?

True, but they have so many examples of other retailers doing the same thing - how could they not try? I don't think it will work in the long term, but I've been expecting this to occur as soon as they mentioned they would start selling books.

[sufue]

Originally Posted by Alex Bowden

Strange how manipulatable people are.
So, do Sony facilitate and allow Apple's eReader software to run on the Sony machine and to buy books directly on that machine?

No, but my Sony PRS-300 DOES allow any ADE ePub books and all non-DRM ePub books, regardless of whether purchased at the Sony store or elsewhere (e.g. Kobo, Books on Board, etc.). And also I can read ePub downloads borrowed from libraries. That's plenty open enough for me.

I think the most telling thing for me is that I had bought ONE Sony e-reader, a PRS-500, back in the days of proprietary Sony. And that was more out of curiosity than anything else, since I did most of my e-reading on my PDA. The PRS-500 mostly languished in a drawer since the books at the Sony Store were too expensive and the selection was (very) limited. Since Sony opened up to ePub, however, I have bought SIX PRS-300's: me, husband, son, dad, father-in-law, second one for husband when he lost the first one . I suspect Sony is happy, relative to me at least, that they opened up.

If Apple opened up, who knows - I might buy six iPads - although I doubt it since my dislike for arrogant Apple is now quite well-established. In any case, this seems to be (yet another) step in the wrong direction, from my point of view, at least...

[fjtorres]

There are two issues here:
1- in-app purchases which have never been allowed. If this is the issue: Bad Sony! It is hardly a change of policy. It may be an obnoxious policy but it is already in place. Don't like it, don't deal with Apple.

2- access to pre-owned/externally-acquired content. If this is the issue: way to go Apple! Android supporters (among others) thank you. Just bear in mind that to thoroughly block off all-externally acquired content they also have to block browser-based downloads. This would mean that not only is in-app buying blocked but also personal library synch-ing, OPDS catalog access, dropbox side-loading, and *theoretically* browser downloads of ebook files. Otherwise, consumers could go to a custom web-page to download pre-acquired content.

I don't think Apple wants to go as far as to ban browser-based file downloads but that's what they'll have to do if they really want all content to go through the appstore or iunes.

Funny, when I saw the recent report that Apple iBooks had 30% market share among iPad book buyers I thought Apple's ebookstore was doing better than anybody could have expected, considering its limitations. If this report is as bad as suggested it would seem Apple isn't content with anything less than 100%.

I expect a clarification, one way or the other, to come soon.

[petermillard]

Originally Posted by queentess

...I was shocked to find that the Skype app didn't allow video...

Yes it does! A recent upgrade a few weeks ago added video to Skype for iOS - earlier versions of the App didn't support video calls, but nobody was 'blocking' the feature, Skype just hadn't developed it yet for iOS; I do find it funny how some folks see conspiracy and censorship wherever possible, though, especially where Apple are concerned.

Apple doesn't sell devices, it sells a lifestyle image. You have to be this cool to own an Apple device.

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that, 'cos if you're right then I must be the coolest carpenter in town, me and my white van, white headphones, shiny aluminium toolboxes, lol!

[Maggie Leung]

If cool were a criteria, I wouldn't be allowed to own any Apple devices, lol.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

If cool were a criteria, I wouldn't be allowed to own any Apple devices, lol.

[susan_cassidy]

The first article about this I read was:
http://appadvice.com/appnn/2011/01/a...ct-ipad-users/
It says that Apple policy says:
"1.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected".

and "For existing apps already on the App Store, we are providing a grace period to bring your app into compliance with this guideline. To ensure your app remains on the App Store, please submit an update that uses the In App Purchase API for purchasing content, by June 30, 2011."

It sounds to me like they want every app that sells content to do so via their in-app purchasing API, which gives them 30%. Now, it is arguable that an app that "breaks out" to the browser to do purchasing is selling content from within the app.

But, what's the difference between buying content in the browser? They can't disallow any use of the browser that allows retail purchases.

It would be nice if they issued some clarification of this. I really dislike Apple need to control everything. I like my iPad and iPod Touch, but their control issues are really irritating.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

It would be nice if they issued some clarification of this. I really dislike Apple need to control everything. I like my iPad and iPod Touch, but their control issues are really irritating.

Yup, no need to jump to conclusions. I'd like clarification, too. If they are considering what the NYT reported, I figure they should know that it would cost them my business. That's why I e-mailed 'em. Apple can do what it likes, and I'll base my spending decisions on whether those decisions serve me.

[DMB]

Surely the iPad is a computer. Does that mean you can't go all over the web buying stuff? Without apps?

[Caltsar]

My understanding of this issue is that Sony decided to implement their own in-app store. The reason Apple blocks this is because the user will be unable to verify that the store is using a secure connection and using multiple in-app purchase stores adds unneeded complexity.

Additionally, Sony is using their home grown in-app store to write to Apple's in-app purchase area while bypassing the mechanism used to implement content restrictions (such as the locks used to restrict R rated movie content).

Apple is not blocking eBook purchases, but simply blocking the way Sony is choosing to go about implementing them. Sony could make an iOS specific storefront and link to it from the app (then use a sony:// link like amazon does to go back to the app). This would allow content to be downloaded to the App's documents directory and can be made so the user barely (if at all) notices that the App switched. This would also allow the user to verify that their payment information is being sent over a secure connection.

The issue here is mainly that Sony's application is writing to the in-app downloads directory which allows executable files, and not the documents directory which does not allow executable files. Anything writing to a directory that allows executable files must be reviewed by Apple (and hence take the 30% cut). If you don't want to pay that cut, you need to use your own storefront.

That's my understanding of the issue at least. This isn't a new policy... It's just the first time a big company has made a fuss about it.

[drofgnal]

If some of the implications here are true, and I don't think they are, then I'd be off the ipad and go back to my Kindle. I exclusively use the Kindle reader on my Ipad.

I'm more than happy to do my Kindle purchases externally and read on my ipad.

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by Caltsar

My understanding of this issue is that Sony decided to implement their own in-app store. The reason Apple blocks this is because the user will be unable to verify that the store is using a secure connection and using multiple in-app purchase stores adds unneeded complexity.

Additionally, Sony is using their home grown in-app store to write to Apple's in-app purchase area while bypassing the mechanism used to implement content restrictions (such as the locks used to restrict R rated movie content).

Apple is not blocking eBook purchases, but simply blocking the way Sony is choosing to go about implementing them. Sony could make an iOS specific storefront and link to it from the app (then use a sony:// link like amazon does to go back to the app). This would allow content to be downloaded to the App's documents directory and can be made so the user barely (if at all) notices that the App switched. This would also allow the user to verify that their payment information is being sent over a secure connection.

The issue here is mainly that Sony's application is writing to the in-app downloads directory which allows executable files, and not the documents directory which does not allow executable files. Anything writing to a directory that allows executable files must be reviewed by Apple (and hence take the 30% cut). If you don't want to pay that cut, you need to use your own storefront.

That's my understanding of the issue at least. This isn't a new policy... It's just the first time a big company has made a fuss about it.

Thanks, a sane explanation!

[elcreative]

As I said earlier, clarification rather than knee-jerk Apple bile would be far more useful... try this link for instance http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/d...75?tag=nl.e539 and this on a site that usually exhibits at least some anti-Apple bias...

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Caltsar

My understanding of this issue is that Sony decided to implement their own in-app store. The reason Apple blocks this is because the user will be unable to verify that the store is using a secure connection and using multiple in-app purchase stores adds unneeded complexity.

Additionally, Sony is using their home grown in-app store to write to Apple's in-app purchase area while bypassing the mechanism used to implement content restrictions (such as the locks used to restrict R rated movie content).

Apple is not blocking eBook purchases, but simply blocking the way Sony is choosing to go about implementing them. Sony could make an iOS specific storefront and link to it from the app (then use a sony:// link like amazon does to go back to the app). This would allow content to be downloaded to the App's documents directory and can be made so the user barely (if at all) notices that the App switched. This would also allow the user to verify that their payment information is being sent over a secure connection.

The issue here is mainly that Sony's application is writing to the in-app downloads directory which allows executable files, and not the documents directory which does not allow executable files. Anything writing to a directory that allows executable files must be reviewed by Apple (and hence take the 30% cut). If you don't want to pay that cut, you need to use your own storefront.

That's my understanding of the issue at least. This isn't a new policy... It's just the first time a big company has made a fuss about it.

I figure that if things were to remain status quo, Apple would've just come out and said so to the NYT. So I want clarification.

Given developments with news apps and such, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is considering tightening controls. They're free to do that, of course, just as consumers are free to make their decisions.