Hacker News Reader

Comment by raganwald | Hacker News Reader

This doesn't seem ridiculous to me as a user. I read this as saying is that if an app plays content I can purchase elsewhere, then Apple wants to be able to also sell the content in the app.

If I have it correct, I as a developer can make a maze application and sell mazes on my own web site, but I must also give users the option of buying them in the app and fork over 30% to Apple. If I do this, it's up to me to convince users that the experience of buying mazes on my web site is superior to the experience of buying them right in the app.

As long as Apple doesn't prohibit applications from "playing" content purchased elsewhere, as a user I have no problem with this, because it gives me another choice for purchasing new content that offers a smooth and easy purchasing experience.

Amazon, et. al. probably hate the idea, but that comes down to two lords arguing over which one gets to exploit the serfs.

View on HN

"Apple also allegedly told Sony that the app couldn't access content purchased on other Sony Reader devices, which is where most of the outrage was focused" - I think this is a big problem. If I have bought the book from amazon I should be able to read it everywhere isn't it?

See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2166728

Apple's official response:

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

It's talking about purchasing from inside the app, not access content that you purchased somewhere else.

Not quite. Another way of describing this; if the content is available for sale outside of the app .. it can't be accessed within the app, unless it's also available for sale via Apple's store.

What? Read their statement again.

"...if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app.."

It says if the app lets you purchase books from somewhere that is not the app, the app should also let users purchase through the app. Apple said nothing about "content...can't be accessed within the app, unless it's also available for sale via Apples store." There was nothing said about what content can and can't be accessed.

But if you extrapolate:

1) All possible electronic commerce is likely to utilise web-based technologies.

2) In Amazon's case, they used a mobile website to allow sale of their e-books.

3) If Apple is going to state that directing the user to a mobile website to purchase a book, constitutes an 'in-app purchase' - where is the line drawn?

4) Will app developers be able to advertise any alternative methods of purchase, within their apps, without also allowing purchase via the Appstore?

My guess is, no; they'll simply deny the app in question access to the marketplace - which will prevent users from viewing any externally bought content, that can't also be bought via the Appstore.

In-effect Apple are holding these developers over a barrel.

AFAIK Amazon uses kind of a loophole by directing the user to their site in Safari to buy Kindle books (that's how it was explained to me, i don't own an iPad or used the app). I don't see what's not ridiculous about Apple's desire to receive 30% of that money. And I as a (potential) user don't appreciate it as I'll end up paying for Apple's cut.

Not sure I have it correct either, but wouldn't charging 30% less on your website make it somewhat compelling?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com