Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store | Hacker News Reader

Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

nytimes.com

89 pointsjonburs55 comments

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.

The whole point of an ebook is to read them on multiple devices.

I also read my Kindle books on the iPad, Nexus One and my MeeGo netbook, depending which device I happen to take with me on a trip. This move would make the iPad practically useless for me as a travel computer. Then again, the announced Honeycomb tablets look already quite interesting...

Another slight concern with Kindle is that I'm seeing more and more "this Kindle book is not available in Europe" messages from Amazon. Region coding sucked on DVDs, and sucks even more when you're not even buying physical media.

Check out the Kobo. I got one for Christmas and love the way they do things. I can even pop an SD card, full of PDFS into my ereader with no problems.

Or any other reader, really, like the Sony's or the Nook. The Kobo is sold at about the same price as a Nook but is limited in a number of very annoying ways (no book wide search, no way to jump to a particular page etc.)

That's fair. Those are some major features. I don't find them to be of any particular hindrance though. Frankly, I find I read more quickly on the Kobo, as opposed to traditional book formats.

I can connect my Kindle to any Mac, Windows or Linux computer using a USB cable, the OS sees the Kindle as an external drive ... You can transfer as many documents as you want to your Kindle this way (actually as many as your Kindle can store, about 3GB for a Kindle 3).

You can read PDFs on the Kindle fine.

You can read them, but unless you have the dx it will be difficult. I much prefer the experience of goodreader on iPad.

Don't recall saying you can't.

>The whole point of an ebook is to read them on multiple devices.

From a publisher's perspective, the point of an ebook is to cut down on manufacturing, storage, shipping, and other costs associated with a physical book. Since publishers own this game, I think we'll start seeing things get played increasingly by their rules as executives catch glimpse of potential savings in an ebook-dominant distribution chain.

And for Apple, it's a mechanism to lock-in, just like iTunes et al. Amazon doesn't have an interest in locking you in, so keeps books free, and has thus far been able to convince publishers that this is appropriate. Publishers may one day decide they can make double the money if people buy an iPad verison and a PC version, so I don't know how likely it is that Amazon will be able to keep that up.

>>>Since publishers own this game

No, they don't. There is not and never will be an OPEC of books. Publishers did not create the ePub standard. It was all the work of techies and book lovers who pushed for a standard file format. The Big 6 publishers are too busy fighting the future with their price-fixing Agency Model.

Publishers own the game because they own the content that most users are going to want. Of course, one can establish a good indie community, but you're not going to get mainstream acceptance until you have availability of mainstream publications, and as we know all too well from movies, music, and other media, big content owners are usually not very intelligent about digital formats.

Mainstream? The Big 6 have been dredging the self-pub field as a minor league for their majors. This is how desperate they've gotten -- well, that and lazy too. Their business model is unsustainable and will inevitably collapse.

This seems to be incorrect.

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).

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."

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."

Upon review of the iTunes Connect EULA in fall 2010, 3rd party in-app purchasing is possible as long as a pre-existing service which requires payments exists prior to the release of an app. For example, Evernote does/did qualify, because its service exists outside of the iOS app. Zoosk app may have this implemented — http://d.pr/oc2F

I forgot to mention, this term includes purchase redirects to mobile Safari. The Kindle app accomplishes this but it is fairly disjointed. Recurly mobile payments (http://recurly.com) has a solution that is seamless and redirects back to the app upon checkout completion.

NYTimes does have journalism standards. It's not a blog.

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.

> Kindle is practically the reason I was going to buy it.

Then why not just buy a Kindle?

Because iPad's also perfect for reading the web. I've tried it and it feels so much better than a computer. You can't effectively browse the web with Kindle. Now I'm going to consider buying some Android tablet.

Which 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.

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.

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."

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".

Amazon has worked around Apple's rules by always kicking users out to the browser to complete the transaction. This apparently kills that.

Jason, I think this is still an open issue, as was pointed out in the comments under your Techcrunch article.

There is also another possibility - that Apple just didn't like that in the new Sony app, you could buy ebooks directly, while other apps (like Kindle app, but also some others) fire up browser. And this technique Apple did NOT banned (yet).

The article does say that, but it's not clear who the source for this is. Amazon and Apple declined to comment, and the only confirmed report from Sony is with regard to in-app purchases, and I'm pretty sure that was an existing condition.

So where is this new rule coming from?

So in other words the entire article could just be FUD? (from an disinterested party)

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?

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.

What's next, blocking paid websites?

I fear this.

I don't

Because you don't think it can happen?

correct. no way on earth Apple would do this. they may make some decisions we don't agree with, but they're not stupid

"So Apple wants to block companies from allowing people to see content that wasn't paid for through their system. "

No. Sony is butthurt because they broke a long-standing app store rule about in-app purchases, and is working the refs by going to the press.

Every few months a story like this comes up, and there's a huge orgy of pearl-clutching, and then it turns out to have been nothing after all.

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.

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.

It sounds like that's banned too though.

"The company has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store."

This is possible, but it's so difficult to enforce that I assume it must be a reporting error. Will the dropbox app prevent me from accessing more than 2GB of my folder? Will they force the Pandora app to keep playing music after 40 hours even if haven't paid for a subscription? Will I now have to buy a separate Netflix plan for my iPad that I buy in iTunes instead of getting that with my regular plan?

The minute you allow any sort of third party authentication systems in an app, it becomes basically impossible to know whether or not someone is using those credentials to buy something on a website somewhere that enables access to more data in your app.

Well, remember Apple has a screening process so they don't have to detect credentials — they can just have the reviewer try buying something.

And they probably only really care about the big content sellers (Amazon, Google, etc.) so they wouldn't have that many apps to enforce it on.

As for the variety of different apps, Apple isn't exactly known for being consistent. I'm sure they could come up with different rules for subscription vs. a la carte downloads.

I would say it becomes difficult to know not impossible. And as soon as they realize it they can remove the app from the appstore.

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...http://blog.lexfriedman.com/post/2856721037/apple-hasnt-chan...

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

There are still many people who believe there is a defect in the iPhone 4's antenna, for instance.

You should have quit while you were ahead. The antenna fails, but the problem is fixed with a case. Furthermore , here's something else that I never saw anyone mention: The receiver has a terrible echo in some locations. Possibly because there is a rock cliff behind my house (I live on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, so the rocks are, shall we say, moist). I imagine that has something to do with the origin of the echo, but it's awfully close (the round-trip time for the radio signal would be imperceptible, so something else must be going on; if it was a tower problem I would think others would have mentioned it). I can fix the echo, sometimes by moving and other times by simply turning the phone.

I have an iphone 4. The others in my family have had or currently have iphones 1, 2, and 3. The iphones area all lousy as phones (my circa 2006 motorola Razr was a much better phone). The iphone rocks in many ways, but as a phone, no.

The reason there is no problem with the iphone 4 antenna is not that it is impossible to obscure the signal or cause signal loss, but because the new design pulls in signals better-- over all-- than the previous design. The issues you can cause it to have exist on other phones as well.

It is a better design than previous versions, yet people seem to think there is a defect that makes it worse.

I don't doubt there may be better phones out there, and as you note the results will vary by location, and I'd add, carrier.

The antenna apparently has more gain, but the design flaw was that its conducting parts were on the outside of the case. That's just asking for trouble in a hand-held device.

But they are apparently on top of it. As soon as the flurry of complaints came in, they posted a job opening for an antenna engineer!

      Should fans of Apple start a campaign of hatred and 
      dishonesty against android like they have against us?

No need; Gruber is already on the job.

I've edited my post to remove that line because I think it was an expression of emotion and over the top. As for Gruber, I really don't like him at all. He kinda represents a lot of the qualities I'm objecting to, as you point out.

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.

NYTimes isn't a pay wall, it's a registration wall.

Like it has been for the last 10 years or so. Welcome to the internet.

Apple can do whatever the heck they want. The market will be the sole judge whether their choices are correct or not.

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.

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.

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...

so..... neeeerh!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com