The true cost of publishing on the Amazon Kindle
pcpro.co.uk
pcpro.co.uk
(admittedly, since Amazon are delivering some of their content "for free"( to the customer) over 3G, having the publishers pay some of the cost seems fair to ensure bandwidth-heavy publications don't free-ride on easier-to-deliver items)
That page also indicates the bandwidth threshold under which Amazon pays is 100kb/user/month.
That's where the whole "Apple deserves something for bringing millions of eyeballs to the app store in the first place" argument really breaks down. The iOS Linode utility app is of value to me as a user, but it's a tiny part of what I get out of Linode, so it in no way seems reasonable for Apple to demand that Linode now allow sign-ups through the iOS app and hand over 30% of the monthly fee for those sign-ups. I'm not on Linode because of the iOS app, I'm on iOS because of useful utilities like the Linode app.
So when most of these useful add-on utilities are driven off the store by this crazy land-grab, users like me are going to be driven right off the platform as well.
Similarly amazon could have a free iOS reader, no problem, from which you cannot buy any books. it's when they want people using the iOS app to buy books but not pay apple a cut that apple is unhappy.
Now I'm not saying I agree with Apple. I'm pretty skeptical of interfering with the kindle app much because that sounds to me like it won't be good for users. But I'm trying to keep an open mind and see what apple is actually saying and trying to understand what's going on. I haven't seen anything about apple trying to get 30% of linode monthly fees and i think that's a bit of a straw man.
From the press release[1]:
However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.
So no, any SaaS that can take on new customers on their site has to give their iOS app the same ability at the same price, with the requisite 30% cut to Apple for those subscriptions. They don't get to choose to not offer it at all.
> Similarly amazon could have a free iOS reader, no problem, from which you cannot buy any books. it's when they want people using the iOS app to buy books but not pay apple a cut that apple is unhappy.
Amazon already has this. You can't buy books from the iOS Kindle app, you can only do it through their website, with a link in the app kicking you out to Safari. That's also forbidden under the new rules (again, from [1]):
In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
[1]: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html
>> Didn't Apple say basically "if you can sign up in the app, you need to be able to sign up in the app in a way we get a cut". So as long as linode doesn't take on new customers in the app, no problem?
> However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.
> So no, any SaaS that can take on new customers on their site has to give their iOS app the same ability at the same price, with the requisite 30% cut to Apple for those subscriptions. They don't get to choose to not offer it at all.
This is more about content than about access. I could certainly be wrong, but Apple's not after SaaS, and probably isn't even after content-rental services (e.g., Netflix or Hulu).
The updated guidelines talk about content that is sold outside of the app. (11.6, 11.9, 11.12, 11.13, 11.14). The developer agreement has attachment/schedule 2 for In App Purchases. IAP can't be used for goods or services that are used outside of your iOS app; the wording is very precise (schedule 2:1.1). I would read that as Linode and similar services being 100% in the clear because they aren't even allowed to use IAP.
Subscriptions are a little more fuzzy; both content and services are allowed for subscription (schedule 2:2.3), but rentals through IAP aren't allowed (same). This suggests to me that services like Netflix and Hulu are pretty safe, but it's not as clear. Services in general are pretty clearly only intended for services that are intended primarily to be accessed through your iOS devices (the example provided is turn-by-turn map services). Schedule 2:2.3 also makes a limited exception to 3.3.9 of the main agreement for content-app data collection.
The official agreement seems to say nothing about equivalent offer practice (what you offer outside the app for purchase or subscription must also be offered inside the app), but that could be that I just don't know the right legalese.
For what, providing networking functionality?
Your broker cannot offer an app with IAP that does purchases of goods or services that cannot be used in the app itself. (iOS Developer Agreement, schedule 2:1.1)
This is all about IAP. If you aren't allowed to offer IAP for your particular item, these rules don't apply. If, however, you could theoretically use IAP for your content, you cannot offer such a service solely through external purchases.
From the article: The Economist costs £9.99 per month on The Kindle store, almost £20 more expensive over the course of 12 months than a print subscription that also gives access to the digital editions (excluding Kindle)
To paraphrase Tannenbaum, do not underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of magazines, speeding on the highway.
Still seems like Apple's "implementation" is overly broad in comparison since the iPhone is much more than an eBook reader. However, I am starting to question whether it is quite as "evil" as I have been thinking for the past few days.
If the customer and the business have a third-party involved, (call him the provider, the platform-owner, whatever), then there is an inherent conflict of interest. The provider only cares about his walled garden, whereas the business has to care first about the customer but secondly about having the resources to make something the customer wants. The walled-garden guy could care less about that. Now he can say that he only has the best interests of the customer in mind -- that's why his walls are so high. But in practice all he really cares about is constructing the rules such that the trade-off in general works most of the time for most people. That's a far cry from a free, open and informed market.
What's it mean? It means no pictures for Kindle periodicals, that's what it means. And it's unlikely to change any time soon. What a lame situation.
But part of this story has me perplexed. I helped my wife publish her first ebook last weekend and we didn't get any grief at all from Amazon about pictures. So e-books can be as big as you like?
I understand the issue is bandwidth, but publishing 12 ebooks for $3 bucks a year to the same guy is just the same as the guy having a yearly subscription for $36. Wonder why the difference between periodicals and regular ebooks, and I wonder at what point Amazon would start complaining about file sizes?