Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book | Hacker News Reader

Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book

tecca.com

81 pointsbretpiatt104 comments

First off, if you trace the article to its source, you'll end up on a WSJ article that says something slightly different:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477560457612...

As far as we know, Apple has not directly set a deadline for Amazon. In fact, there's no knew information other than the date: meaning there's still a lot of questions about the subscription rates and the actual requirements Apple will have in place.

Personally, I can't see how a 30% fee for what amounts to little more than payment processing can stand. It's one thing to charge the fee for app distribution and marketing in the store. It's another to handle on billing at which even 10% would seem rather high.

I don't see this lasting. Either publishers will charge an extra fee on iPad users and/or Apple will be taken to court for anti-trust, probably in Europe first.

Gruber recently said that contracts with publishers are generally set up in a way so that they get about 70% from all revenue. This would obviously make it impossible for Amazon to sell books on the iPad. (The publisher taking 70% and Apple taking 30% leaves them with nothing at all. Increasing prices, even if it were possible, wouldn’t help.) That's obviously not a workable situation, if Apple doesn’t change anything Amazon will just stop selling books on the iPad. (Gruber speculates that Apple will drop its cut for at least some in-app purchases down to about 5%.)

I think Amazon could resolve this really easily by doing a cross marketing deal with Apple.

But at least Apple is only taking %30. Amazon has completely excluded Apple from selling books via the iBookstore app on the kindle. In fact, you can't even read iBookstore books on the kindle because Amazon doesn't allow Apple to produce an app for the kindle.

There's nothing preventing Apple from signing up to be a Kindle developer and using the KDK to develop an iBooks app for the Kindle.

http://kdk.amazon.com/

I'd like you to point out any evidence that Amazon has excluded or rejected Apple's application, because I've never heard anything of the sort.

They don't even need to do this. If you could purchase iBooks in the Kindle Mobipocket format, there's nothing preventing you from transferring them to your Kindle and reading them.

There are plenty of bookstores that sell books that work perfectly well on the Kindle without having anything to do with Amazon. Sci-Fi AZ is just one such independent bookstore: http://www.scifi-az.com/

"active content must meet all Amazon technical requirements, not be a generic reader, and not contain malicious code"

Depends on how they define a "generic reader" doesn't it?

Does not still prevent anyone from selling books.

I think since iBoos appeared, and publishers demanded an agency model from Amazon, too, Amazon is only get 30% from that $10 price. This means if Apple takes 30% from it, Amazon will have zero left.

Amazon will either quit the AppStore in protest, and hope consumer protest will make Apple change their minds, or they'll start charging $14-15 for books instead to cover the 30% cut.

If they charge $14-$15, Apple will get 30% of $14-$15 and Amazon will still get 0% because they have to pay 30% to the publisher. That's even assuming their publishing deal allows them to change the selling price, which it probably doesn't.

There is no way for Amazon's Kindle app (and other similar book selling apps) to continue on iOS under the terms as laid out in the article. Amazon will have to create a web app that functions as a Kindle Reader in order to let their content remain readable on iOS (and that's exactly what I'd start doing now if I were Amazon, if such an app weren't already in development).

Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub.

I'm a big fan of O'Reilly's multi-format approach. This is the correct end-run around proprietary stores.

Regarding this issue in particular, I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases, and thus as the purchase wouldn't happen "in app" it wouldn't be covered by this.

Not as smooth of a purchase experience, but not impossible to deal with.

The other alternative would be to tack on a 30% surcharge on any books bought directly through the app.

" I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases"

At least as far as I can tell from this article and others, this is one of the things that Apple wants to disallow. At least there must also be an option to buy using the Apple system, giving Apple a 30% cut. And I highly doubt that Apple's going to allow an app that says "click here to buy through Apple, click here to buy through Amazon for 30% less".

That would be the core issue - I'm not sure Apple would even allow a "Buy Books" button that jumps to their website from within the Kindle app.

At most, maybe a "Visit Amazon Website" button that goes to the home page, then after Apple approves the app have their site detect iPad users linked from the app, jump them directly to the Kindle bookstore. That's the best end-run I could come up with.

Kindle books are purchased through a WebKit view of Amazon.com in the iPad app now. That's what Apple is saying can't continue and that there needs to be In App Purchasing support. While it has been implied, I haven't heard specifically that they require the pricing to be the same (so you can't charge more for In App purchases to cover the 30% Apple VAT).

I'm not seeing this in the Kindle app on my iPad. Clicking on "Shop in Kindle Store" kicks you out of the app and into MobileSafari.

MobileSafari = WebKit view

OK, sorry to be pedantic, but, no. MobileSafari != WebKit view.

Actually it is, he assigned it in the parent post, == is the equality test. :)

ok, but why would (MobileSafari == WebKit view) be false?

In support of unencumbered formats, think about how Apple became dominant. iPod/iTunes initial success + music labels insistence on DRM, lead to lack of content portability, lead to device lock-in, lead to iPod dominance, lead to music labels loosing power.

This is different from Kindle, where they write a player for every platform. But is what you get if you sell through Apple's store for Apple's reader.

O'Reilly wins with their deals. I buy books I wouldn't otherwise.

I bet broadcasters are glad Apple wasn't around when the first TVs were manufactured.

the iPod didn't become dominant due to device lock-in.

That's correct. People could rip their CDs and also use MP3s they already had. The Kindle wouldn't even allow Amazon's own MobiPocket books that had Mobi DRM on them to be read! And, of course, neither the Kindle hardware nor software for platforms can read ePub.

You can get any content onto an iPod, but you can't take the DRM-protected content bought thru iTunes anywhere else, including streaming with Slimserver, etc. And people now presumably have a large collection of content that is managed the iTunes-way, with a significant subset that is DRM protected. Meaning you're locked to Apple's devices.

Amazon writes a player for every platform because the kindle format is a proprietary one created by amazon.

Apple doesn't have to write a player for every platform because epubs are an open standard.

Yes ePub is open. But Apple's DRM is not an open standard. I assume they are adding DRM to content sold thru their book store?

"Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub"

But is there any big player in the ebook market which comes even close to Amazon (collection-wise) and sells non-DRMed books/PDFs? From what I've seen there are no viable alternatives for non technical reading... (and no, shopping at several small publishers' websites is not a viable alternative)

I'm betting we'll get there in a few years, the same way it happened with music - DRM for a while, then once people get used to paying for stuff, the DRM goes away in most cases.

Unfortunately, if history is any indication, the last place this will happen is in school textbooks which is honestly where the ebook revolution should start.

"the DRM goes away in most cases." It seems to me tough that music is the exception to the rule. Computer games mostly have some form of copy protection. Most computer programs have copy protection, minimally with a serial number, many with activation schemes. One of the "features" of web applications is that it's practically impossible to pirate them. How can we know that ebooks will be any different?

With music and books, there is always the analog hole and then once one good copy is made, it can be duplicated forever. Also they are both naturally suited for self contained offline access which is less costly and cumbersome than requiring a network connection. So I think the parent poster is right and copy protection will not be successful in ebooks just as it was not with digital music files.

That would be a ~43% surcharge, actually. Quite a lot.

Although Amazon then don't have to pay their own credit card fees. But yes.

The discussion here at least seems to ignore one thing: 30% will not happen because that would mean Amazon would make -no- profit and still incur expenses. The agency model under which the vast majority of Amazon's ebook sales are done has a requirement from the publisher's that they get 70% of the sale price, regardless of what said sale price is. If Amazon jacks up the price for iOS sales, then they get 70% of that, and Apple gets the other 30%. Not going to happen. Personally, I'd bet on Apple announcing sometime in the near future a drastically reduced cut for in-app content purchases, more like a payment processor's cut, I.E. 5% or less.

I don't know... Hearing you say that you expect a drastically reduced cut for in-app purchases sounds like a move Facebook might make to become a ubiquitous PayPal type entity.

I really don't think Apple would let people get away with such a little surcharge within their walled garden.

They can't do that, because then every paid app (30% cut) would become a free demo that is unlocked with in-app purchase (5% cut). (Yes, their app guidelines prohibit this but it's a very fuzzy line that many apps have already crossed.)

What if Apple started demanding 30% of all sales transacted on every device they produce? What makes an iPhone so different from a MacBook?

That is the problem here. The Kindle is not a device specific thing, it is hardware and mostly the software that is available on all devices. I do not own a Kindle, I own many Kindle books.

So if I buy one on my PC a while back, then go to my Kindle app on the iOS device and then Amazon has to hide it because it wasn't bought there?

This is actually Apple, which I own many products, being anti-competitive on allowing other bookstores at all besides iBooks.

This will force possibly the market to go more PDF and away from DRM, maybe a good direction in the end. Amazon should switch to PDFs. Then you can load those up in iBooks.

Isn't that why there is now a app store for macs? Apple wanted 30% there too.

I'm tempted to call the 30% the AppleVAT at this point...

What makes iOS purchases different are two things:

1. Apple has oversight of content being sold (helps avoid malicious software in many cases, and age appropriate content).

2. Ease of use - one password to buy stuff, not multiple accounts everywhere.

That's what you get as a customer. As a developer, you don't have to deal with the payment processing and other consumer financial issues, to a great degree, and they provide marketing.

There's nothing to stop an end-run around any of this - you can still make totally open web apps, content in PDF and ePub formats, etc.

You just can't provide the identical guarantees Apple provides with the oversight of their store (which necessitate a locked down device and limitations on what 3rd parties can do outside of their system).

(edit: formatting fix)

"There's nothing to stop an end-run around any of this"

I thought the whole point of this outrage was that Apple was trying to stop the end-run. This step isn't a complete blockage, but they're certainly trying to make it harder for customers to get content from outside and easier to get it through Apple's paywall.

Your 2 examples are no different than what PayPal does. Granted PayPal has few restrictions to what they allow you to buy/sell through them. However, there are restrictions and PayPal (as will most payment systems) does cut off malicious vendors. Our movie industry has managed to make movies "child friendly" through a rating system. And they did this without selling tickets through one payment processer.

Apple has little value add here and as their store grows, the long tail and new business models suffer due to there being only one store. AppleVAT is a good term for what they do. Their strategy is almost guaranteed to make the company less innovative.

>What makes iOS purchases different are two things: 1. Apple has oversight of content being sold (helps avoid malicious software in many cases, and age appropriate content).

So you mean now Apple is going to have to approve eBooks before they appear on the iOS Kindle app? Oh boy.

If you invite a girl out on a date with an iPhone - you then have to go round and give an Apple shareholder 30% of the complements, backrubs and sweet-sweet loving she was going to get

I've used Apple's in-app purchase system and it has sone serious limitations. First, it's limited to about 3000 SKUs. Second, there is no way to automatically import (or update) the product information. So, from a technical perspective, Amazon simply cannot use IAP - it's far too limited.

It's not clear what this means: a) Amazon has to provide a way of purchasing content via the apple store (and presumably can do so at 30% markup). Meanwhile, books that you purchased to read on your computer, kindle, android phone, etc. is still available to you on your iDevice at no additional charge. b) Amazon is not allowed to transfer content that the user has already purchased. Users have to repurchase all content through the apple store and the only advantage of the kindle app is if you like the reading experience and syncing with your existing devices.

If it's (a), then ok. I wouldn't purchase through them, but some people might do so for the convenience (instead of starting safari and purchasing it that way). If it is (b), then as soon as there is a credible android tablet, then it's likely to be goodbye to the iPad for a number of book users. The advantage of Amazon is that while the content has DRMd for the end user, they can read it on a variety of devices. Also, the selection is excellent (not perfect, but for light reading, pretty good). I don't see Apple winning the content war on this one. I suppose Amazon could make a web-based kindle service (again, DRMd) that would could be logged in through one's amazon account and used through Safari. The experience wouldn't be as good, but it would still let people read content on an iDevice and screw Apple.

Amazon just closed an entire distribution center in Texas because Texas wanted to take 6.25% in tax. Apple wants 30%? I doubt this will go un-protested by Amazon.

The first thing that comes to my mind... This will be a huge sell argument for Android: "Buy Amazon books 25% cheaper than on Apple phones".

Oh, yes, because of course, cell providers whose phones run Android would never think of charging any kind of data tariff or making money in other ways.

No more or no less than on Apple's platform. In truth, with unlocked devices like the Nexus series cell providers have little to no say in the matter any ways.

That is, so long as net neutrality remains. If they start doing packet introspection and charging based on destination or traffic type, well, that is going to be bad for all mobile users.

I didn't imply, and also didn't mean, that it was more likely than on iOS. I simply meant, this is going to happen everywhere in the industry.

As for net neutrality, I'm viewing that as a mostly-lost battle at this point, until proven otherwise.

Well that's one way to attempt and make your eBook store competitive.

Maybe it's time for an HTML5 based Kindle app. From a customer point of view I wouldn't care as long as the functionality is the same.

However, a main issue with this would be the limit space available via HTML5 databases on the ipad - afaik something like 25 megabytes.

That's not a terribly big limitation - ebooks are pretty small files, generally in the .5-1mb range. Conservatively, let's call it 20 active books on the app - if you do some decent database management or incorporate some streaming ability, 25mb should be plenty.

You won't know about what you lose in sales in terms of discoverability on the App Store - it's easy to see it from your own perspective (mine is the same), but the iPad attracts such a wide demographic that you may very well shut out some newbies from using and buying your service.

HTML5 don't always play nice with app-switching either, but maybe I've just not used enough HTML5 "apps".

This article is incorrect, as far as I am aware.

Apple has implemented a policy where by everyone who sells something through their app needs to provide the same set of products and services through In-app purchases. That means that the kindle app can maintain their current store but must also implement an in-app purchase alternative, powered by apple, and thus with Apple's 30% tax applied to it.

>sells something

Something electronically distributed. If you buy a physical book via amazon, then they do not.

Actually amazon should make a "Screw the apple tax" bumper sticker, sell that and include various free kindle books with purchase of the bumper sticker.

Pretty greedy isn't it?

For everyone's complaints about Microsoft back in the day, at least they didn't also control the hardware.

In addition, Microsoft made great development platforms available for their programmers, for free.

Apple never really cared about their developers, which is evident in the way they are treating them.

Which development platforms did Microsoft make available for free?

The Express Editions of VS are a relatively recent phenomenon, and are crippled. Apple's tools are free and fully featured - paying gets you the ability to publish on their store.

I'm wondering if the OS X Lion edition is going to have these encumbrances as well.

Unlikely. Although iOS is worrying, I have to assume that Apple understands that locking down OS X on the desktop in the way iOS is locked down will severely cut into their user base.

I can tell you that myself and everyone I know would immediately drop the platform if that were to happen.

is it me or is 30 a robbery? I feel like Im watching goodfellas and any italian mafia movie where the mob asks for unfair piece of the business so they can protect you from unwanted guests...

Dear Apple, quit being douchebags, I love my iPad, please don't make me go out and buy a kindle as well which is what I will end up doing if Amazon pulls out of the App Store.

The Kindle is soooo much better for reading. Less eye strain, much lighter, amazing battery life, it's frickin $140, free news subscriptions with Calibre open source software. The 3rd generation has lots of nice improvements, most importantly in page turn time and contrast. At least try one if you haven't already.

I actually fall into the group of people that had a Kindle, sold it once I got my iPad and could use the Kindle App and keep my entire library. I am pretty sure that nothing is going to get me to start buying books from the iBooks App.

How will this work for O'Reilly books I purchase in pdf format? How can Apple stop me from reading it without blocking all non-DRMed pdfs?

I'm pretty sure they are only interested in books purchased on the device. If you don't purchase it on the device they don't get a cut.

AFAICT, the article is saying that if there's a way to purchase content externally and move it onto the device, there must also be a way to purchase it internally with the AppleVAT.

So they're definitely targeting books purchased off device.

Let's hope so, but the article put it differently - if an app presents content bought elsewhere, there must be an option to buy that content also in-app. So if you are right, the article is wrong.

That's isn't to say that they won't try to find a way. :)

They likely won't.

There are also plenty of PDF readers in the store already (Goodreader, for example) that are independent of Apple's iBooks.

Unlike Sony, Apple isn't generally known for removing functionality from products after purchase...

But they are well known for pulling apps arbitrarily, so make sure you download and install as many book readers and other apps with similar type functionality now. For instance, I'm glad I installed the Safari Online reader when it came out. (Although in this case it was O'Reilly that pulled it due to whiny complaints that it wasn't a native app).

So, what do HN recommend that Amazon do now? Or at least expect them to do.

    * Leave the app as-is. (With what specific motive?)
    * Jack up the prices. (Perhaps they'll include a notification when the user is on the relevant purchase page.)
    * Leave the prices as-is and take the 30% hit.
    * Let Apple kill the app.

I would like them to let Apple kill the app and focus on other devices and operating systems. I do not wish this due to a dislike for Apple, but rather as incentive for Apple to open up the iOS platform.

I find it a shame that there is so much focus on Apple devices due, it seems, almost exclusively the market buzz around their products. Competing platforms have similar user numbers, good technology, and far better market options as far as I am aware. That is a model I would like to see winning out over Apple's more restrictive platform.

"Competing platforms have similar user numbers, good technology"

Citation needed.

Leave it as-is. I'm not quite sure how the power balance in the iPad ecosystem is, but if Apple needs Amazon more than Amazon needs Apple, they may be able to force a deal. Especially if Amazon communicates with its users about why the app is threatened if Apple is killing it.

Also, though, the cost isn't just the Apple surcharge. It's the cost of changing their sales and distribution system to support sales through third-parties. Basically, Apple is asking Amazon to change the way they do business. That's not a very good deal for Amazon.

I haven't fully analyzed it but my gut instinct would be to raise the prices by 30%, then explicitly state to the end user that the 30% surcharge is because of Apple. This way its transparent to the end user, and it could put some pressure on Apple to lower its fees.

Initially I thought this, but Amazon has to pass on 70% of the sale to the publisher, and with Apple taking 30%, regardless of how much the ebook was sold for, Amazon is left with nothing.

Do you think this is deliberate on Apple's part to force a change in publishing contracts?

Possibly, but I think it's more likely that Apple is trying to get publishers into its iBooks store by edging out Kindle and Sony.

Stop selling books through iPhone and give Kindle app users a free kindle.

Replace the in-app purchasing functionality with a link to Amazon's site that does functionally the same thing with one extra step.

That's exactly how it works right now. There is no "in app purchasing functionality". There's just a link to Amazon's site that kicks you out to MobileSafari.

It's interesting watching rivalries/standoffs develop between companies that didn't seem likely to happen - who would've thought in 2006 that Amazon and Apple would be at each other in 2011?

That was before the iPhone or Kindle came out, never mind the iPad. Interesting to see how these things develop.

If true, I think the market will make some obvious adjustments. In-app content will be vastly (%30?) more expensive than "out-of-app" purchases. Apple will counter with more reasonable rates. The end result will mean nothing has been lost and that app content will be more accessible. As with similar Apple initiatives (music, apps, etc.), users may find themselves more eager to pay for content at the end of the day.

Apple are canny about their relationships with content owners - I'm hesitant to believe that they'd attempt a flagrant "Apple tax". Many of their most important products - the iPhone comes to mind - have a relatively small slice of their market. In this atmosphere, it would be untenable to risk losing important content sources with exorbitant fees.

Here's the actual source article, which has much more information:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477560457612...

I still think this whole thing only applies to apps that let you shop/browse internally and then whisk you away to Safari to coplete the payment. And apple's reason for objecting to this is to protect users from fraudulent payment gateways. Just one customer who had their credit card ripped off after making a 'purchase on an iPhone app' would be extremely damaging to the reputation of the whole iOS ecosystem.

If that was the case, they could require Amazon to use their inapp purchasing platform without taking a 30% cut.

It seems pretty clear to me that 30% of all Amazon's iOS business would be a nice addition to anyone's bottom line, and Apple feel like they're in a position to take it.

I don't think they're actually requiring Amazon to do anything, at least not until either party actually confirms this situation. Amazon can sell eBooks from their website to be opened in the Kindle app, just as long as you don't select the product inside the Kindle app. They could allow Amazon to use Apple's payment gateway free of charge, but why bother?

It's a simple separation of concerns: if you're going to initiate inapp purchases that are completed in Safari, then to prove trustworthiness you need to offer purchases via Apple in parallel; if you're going to avoid Apple then you lose the privilege of making the purchase seem sanctioned by the iOS ecosystem.

How big is 30% of Amazon's ebook sales to iDevices really? I'm betting less than what Amazon's presence means as a boost to Apple unit sales. The parallel purchase option is really a sign of more flexibility from Apple.

This is clearly legal, as Apple don't have a monopoly.

But also clearly not in my interest as a putative Apple customer. (Alas, I fear I am not in Apple's target market.)

Clearly legal, because you're a lawyer? Don't be too surprised if this lands Apple in court eventually. Leveraging their OS to disrupt competitors in other business markets is the exact sort of behavior that got Microsoft in trouble with Netscape.

AFAIK, this behaviour is only illegal if you're deemed a monopoly. Certainly Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones, but it could be argued that they have a monopoly on app store purchases, since I'm sure that they have a greater than 70% share (by dollars) of app store purchases.

Naw, there is stuff that can land them in court for restrant of trade issues.

I hope this motivates amazon to support the jailbreaking community and release a new amazon store, but really how this will pan out is apple will get like 5% of amazon sales on top of the fees for CC processing.

Yet another demonstration of the folly of purchasing DRMed media. Why subject your ability to read your books to the possibility of bizarre, irrelevant problems like this? It's like O'Reilly had a falling-out with Barnes & Noble and suddenly I can't read a book that's been sitting on my shelf for a year. Is the convenience really worth it?

Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it.

But it strikes me as an unnatural state of affairs. This idea that I can make a computational device, then own the right for you to put material on that device, is technically correct -- if you think of the iPad as some huge proprietary version of a CD player.

But if you think of it an extension of your brain -- as a prosthesis which helps you share commonly understood experiences in common formats, which it is -- then Apple is basically saying it has control over what you think. That it deserves a cut for any experience you have.

Certainly it's still more of a player than a mind-extension device, but this line will get more and more blurry. It's already making many uncomfortable. My belief is that some sort of change in law is required to clear up this confusion. An iPad is not a record player.

> Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it.

Right, because corporations never do anything illegal in any country.

Microsoft has been fined hundreds of millions for including a browser with their OS (not even restricting other browsers). Something Apple and every other OS manufacturer does as well. The problem is, neither Microsoft, nor Apple cares about fines of that scale.

One does not need to go all the way to Redmond to find illegal activity, one can find it in Cupertino as well, e.g. Apple back dating stock options.

My point was that I have no wish to argue what the current status of the law is, not that corporations do no evil.

I am not a lawyer.

The way you're describing this extension of the brain reminds me a lot of Andy Clark's onion model for th extended mind.

Apple doesn't "own the right to put material on that device", as apple provides many mechanisms to put material on the device outside of apple's control. Here's some of them:

1. iTunes file sync lets you put arbitrary files in there. I put many pdfs that I bought from pragmatic programmers in iBooks. Apple doesn't get a cut. iTunes also lets you sync any file type with any app that can read it (And apple lets free reader apps of all types in the store, it just has a restriction on operating a store via the app.)

2. Apple has provided a mechanism and gone into great lenghts to educate developers on how to build web apps that live and run form the device. These applications can have local storage, have an icon just like all the other apps, and can be connected to the net or run independant of the net. You could write a porn app that lives on the device and, unless apple heard about your website, apple would never know.. and they can't stop you either.

Now consider this: The Amazon Kindle operates as if amazon owns the right to control what material you put on it, right? Apple is not allowed to sell kindle books. Kindle books are an arbitrary proprietary format...while Apples' bookstore uses the open standard epub mechanism.

Kindles allow arbitrary files and have a Webkit browser. I don't see how Amazon is worse than Apple here. Frankly, it is annoying for people to act like Apple is somehow doing people favors by allowing people to use the web and put their own files on their own device.

I agree that it was obnoxious for Amazon to choose the mobi format instead of epub, but in practice it's not a big deal. I use the open source Calibre program. Among other things it will translate among mobi, epub, pdf and a bunch of other formats. There is really no effort involved. You just hit OK when it asks whether to convert the book before transferring it.

You can also email an epub to Amazon and it will come back immediately in Kindle format and this method also works well. There is no charge for wifi but there is a charge for cellular delivery.

I think the Kindle is admirably compatible with third party publishers or self published material, much more than Apple's locked down and toll collected ecosystem.

The whole article is complete speculation.

http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/img_2196.jpg

- Vic Gundotra

Who cares about Amazon, they've got volume. While this one precedence might instantly bump Apple's revenue, it means that indie developers that deal with licensed/purchased content without in-app transactions will also have no choice but comply and take into account Apples 1/3rd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com