top | item 2210238

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

81 points| bretpiatt | 15 years ago |tecca.com | reply

104 comments

order
[+] jaaron|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] ugh|15 years ago|reply
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%.)
[+] nika|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] zdw|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] bryanlarsen|15 years ago|reply
" 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".

[+] jpravetz|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] maayank|15 years ago|reply
"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)

[+] pietro|15 years ago|reply
That would be a ~43% surcharge, actually. Quite a lot.
[+] ptomato|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] bryanh|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] modeless|15 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] drp|15 years ago|reply
What if Apple started demanding 30% of all sales transacted on every device they produce? What makes an iPhone so different from a MacBook?
[+] drawkbox|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] stonemetal|15 years ago|reply
Isn't that why there is now a app store for macs? Apple wanted 30% there too.
[+] zdw|15 years ago|reply
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)

[+] kjhgtfbn|15 years ago|reply
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
[+] xinsight|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] ylem|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] thematt|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] maigret|15 years ago|reply
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".
[+] Bud|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] jonknee|15 years ago|reply
Well that's one way to attempt and make your eBook store competitive.
[+] gst|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] danielsoneg|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] kmfrk|15 years ago|reply
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".

[+] fredoliveira|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] gte910h|15 years ago|reply
>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.

[+] badwetter|15 years ago|reply
Pretty greedy isn't it?
[+] beoba|15 years ago|reply
For everyone's complaints about Microsoft back in the day, at least they didn't also control the hardware.
[+] pnathan|15 years ago|reply
I'm wondering if the OS X Lion edition is going to have these encumbrances as well.
[+] tensor|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] crjvice|15 years ago|reply
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...
[+] smallegan|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] bcaulf|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] martincmartin|15 years ago|reply
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?
[+] sammcd|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] zdw|15 years ago|reply
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...

[+] kmfrk|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] tensor|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] elehack|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] Pickhardt|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] tybris|15 years ago|reply
Stop selling books through iPhone and give Kindle app users a free kindle.
[+] halo|15 years ago|reply
Replace the in-app purchasing functionality with a link to Amazon's site that does functionally the same thing with one extra step.
[+] lionhearted|15 years ago|reply
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.

[+] saturdaysaint|15 years ago|reply
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.