Apple policy forces iFlow ebook app to shut down
Comments
-
Perhaps Logos' effort to develop biblia.com is the right direction to go. With html5's offline storage capabilities, the "app" can just bring out an instance of the browser and run everything there. This way it is not controlled by Apple or Google, and is one app for all platforms.
0 -
Sure, 25 piecesI suppose?
0 -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/09/apple-gives-in-to-publishers-changes-policy-on-in-app-subscript/
It appears Apple decided it wasn't worth the fight. If I'm reading it right, Kindle/Nook/Logos/whatever apps can work as they have previously, except they might have to remove any "buy now" links from their app (unless those point to iTunes somehow). Previously purchased content should be downloadable without issue though.
0 -
Well, it appears that the Logos app is safe, then...
Director of Zoeproject
www.zoeproject.com
0 -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/09/apple-gives-in-to-publishers-changes-policy-on-in-app-subscript/
It appears Apple decided it wasn't worth the fight. If I'm reading it right, Kindle/Nook/Logos/whatever apps can work as they have previously, except they might have to remove any "buy now" links from their app (unless those point to iTunes somehow). Previously purchased content should be downloadable without issue though.
A similar thing seems to be reported here as well:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/
especially '11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app ....
[:D]
2017 15" MBP, iPad Pro
0 -
-
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/09/apple-gives-in-to-publishers-changes-policy-on-in-app-subscript/
It appears Apple decided it wasn't worth the fight. If I'm reading it right, Kindle/Nook/Logos/whatever apps can work as they have previously, except they might have to remove any "buy now" links from their app (unless those point to iTunes somehow). Previously purchased content should be downloadable without issue though.
That is good news, but isn't this what Mark Barnes was saying in this thread?
0 -
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/09/apple-gives-in-to-publishers-changes-policy-on-in-app-subscript/
It appears Apple decided it wasn't worth the fight. If I'm reading it right, Kindle/Nook/Logos/whatever apps can work as they have previously, except they might have to remove any "buy now" links from their app (unless those point to iTunes somehow). Previously purchased content should be downloadable without issue though.
That is good news, but isn't this what Mark Barnes was saying in this thread?
Let me quote the relevant passage from Apple's press release:
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. 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.
Apple's revised iOS guidelines effectively removed "that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app." from Feb press release 4 months ago. Engadget article also notes in-app purchase price can be higher to include Apple's 30 % cut.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Boy, there's been a bunch of vitriol and misdirection in this thread! And I was wondering about the tone of a posting I made in the General forum about iPads and Android.
Bring out the pitchforks! Here's some representative comments:
"settlement is made that requires Apple to sync Androids with iTunes and carry Android apps in the App Store."
and then there's this one. Apple — the devil incarnate...
"
Apple
"Phew!
There were two separate components content owners and/ or application writers were complaining about.
- Content / subscriptions offered outside the application/app store had to be offered at the same price, or less, (never higher) to the customer using an application & the App Store (that is 'inside' the Apple delivered environment). Plus Apple was to get the same cut from content providers as applied to application providers — that is 30%.
- That the subscription process, which happened through the App Store platform, gave customers the option as to whether they agreed for their personal details to be passed to the content owners (magazines, newspapers etc.).
These essentially were the two issues — the point about not allowing buttons in apps to go to external stores for purchasing is pretty obvious.
Now actually, in terms of the end consumer, these terms were for the benefit of the customer. What content owners complained about, actually, was a threat to their ability to rip off customers, and the prospect of not getting their mitts on people's person details for resale to every direct marketer they can (Financial Times).
Yes it can be argued that a 30% cut was 'a percentage too far', but on the other hand the content owners don't have to do anything, they didn't create the platform, the iPad, they don't maintain the costly infrastructure, the App Store, but I'm sure they'll squeal like stuck pigs if there is even a hint of the App Store being offline.
Plus I didn't (and still don't) see them rushing to offer digital subscriptions at 10-30% off paper subscriptions as they should because for digital they don't have anywhere near the creation & distribution costs.
So, they complained, they got their way, and in the end end consumers will pay. The funny thing is that eventually paper magazines will disappear but... the price will stay the same, and the content owners will pocket the extra percentages as profit. Customers won't be any better off.
p.s. BTW the Logos iOS application was never at risk, even before the change.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
BTW the Logos iOS application was never at risk, even before the change.
Patrick -
I like reading your Apple posts (and agree with most of them) but how can you say that "the Logos iOS application was never at risk"? How is Logos different than any other provider of resources (i.e. Amazon's Kindle; Barnes & Noble's Nook)? Logos is in the business of selling resources, which is what Apple was trying to tap into!
0 -
BTW the Logos iOS application was never at risk, even before the change.
Patrick -
I like reading your Apple posts (and agree with most of them) but how can you say that "the Logos iOS application was never at risk"? How is Logos different than any other provider of resources (i.e. Amazon's Kindle; Barnes & Noble's Nook)? Logos is in the business of selling resources, which is what Apple was trying to tap into!
Hi there
Well the key point for Logos (which I will grant you was made even better/safer with the recent changes), revenue wise, was that their whole infrastructure was outside the application and they had no buttons/links in the application to shop. The application has function of book reader + obviously many other specific functions. Unlike Kindle which has buttons to go off to the Kindle web store to browse for books + if you download a sample book there are buttons in it to complete the purchase.
The impractical (not malicious) thing in the original Apple wording, using Logos as the example, was the whole point about (all?) the same content having to be offered in the app. So? That means that the Logos iOS application would have had to have a complete infrastructure to allow people to browse and purchase all Logos titles. That I believe would not have flown — would have been not logical.
Even if the original plan had gone ahead (and I agree as it stood it shouldn't have, but for different reasons then those stated by some other persons) it would have had to have been fine tuned to be able to realistically cater for all the different models. Logos is not the same as the Economist magazine (or Financial Times) which has a simple subscription renewal requirement, it is closer to, but still not the same as, Amazon.
So basically something would have had to happen. But to paint Apple ideologically as having horns and a pitchfork — that I don't believe. They're not Mother Theresa, but neither are they as they were being painted. And to say things like that they should be forced to carry Android apps in the App Store is to say that Ford should be forced to sell Chrysler cars in Ford showrooms — and service them under warranty for free to boot.
We still have, unfortunately, the situation that the content owners have got off scott free and, mark my words, we will see the situation that pretty well all magazine content will go digital, and 'conveniently' all the content sellers will 'forget' to lower prices to reflect their lower delivery cost.
[soapbox] Logos gives us anyway, quite frequently, fantastic pricing deals on books, God bless 'em — they have a different motivation to all other content providers. Even though I get frustrated with the performance of Logos 4 Mac from time to time I still think they are working on the system, it will improve, and we are blessed to have access to the resources we do. [/soapbox]
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Well the key point for Logos (which I will grant you was made even better/safer with the recent changes)
Those "recent changes" did not come out of the goodness of Apple's heart. Those good changes would not have been necessary if Apple had not tried to implement bad changes. I do not praise Apple for cleaning up a mess that Apple created. It just tipped their hand and alerted me they are not to be trusted.
I grew up drinking Coca-Cola. One day, out of the clear blue sky, some marketing genius at Coke decided to take the #1 selling soft drink in the world and change the formula. When the "new Coke" was not so well received the arrogance of the genius prevented him from admitting his mistake. We were offered his "new Coke" and the old "classic" formula. The half-hearted admission of error came too late. I had sampled the competition and developed a taste for Pepsi.
I was on the verge of buying a Kindle when Amazon stole back the Orwell books from Kindle owners.
It takes a bit of trust to get me to commit for the long haul. Today is my 30th wedding anniversary so you know I trust my wife [:D]. And I am all-out committed to Logos (~about 3 years now.) I just hope Apple, Asus or somebody pulls ahead in the race and convinces me to make a leap.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Those "recent changes" did not come out of the goodness of Apple's heart. Those good changes would not have been necessary if Apple had not tried to implement bad changes. I do not praise Apple for cleaning up a mess that Apple created. It just tipped their hand and alerted me they are not to be trusted.
Well Matthew as I said to someone else "we'll have to agree to disagree" because I believe the crux of your statement is incorrect. Anyway I don't believe "goodness" or not of Apple's heart is not the main point in question. Also as I have already said in various postings, none is "good" except God alone.
Some historical facts bear considering:
- In the past when Apple started with the iTunes store all the music tracks in there had DRM on them. "Oh how wicked of Apple" some people said. What they didn't stop to consider was the fact that the content owners (the same sort of people we're talking about now) forced that requirement, and that was the licencing agreement Apple had to sell under. People conveniently forgot that no longer did they have to buy a whole album of junk just to get one good song. The studios tried for years to push Apple to only sell by the album but Apple resisted.
- Later the same content owners, to try and get Apple under their thumb, deliberately licensed Amazon to sell DRM free music. "Oh how wicked of Apple" came the cries again — but again it was the content owners playing games, and again people didn't bother to look past their noses as to who actually was at fault. Finally after some contract renegotiation the content owners had to level the playing field and immediately Apple started selling DRM free music.
Now in these situations who do you think proved to be the "neighbour" of end customers/consumers?
Then we come to the present situation. Same Apple, different content owners:
Apple, in principle, wants to provide the best and most seamless experience for customers, and yes, make a buck. And they know the big content owners — if they can get away with it — will work to shaft Apple and customers. Make Apple do all the work, provide all the infrastructure, and customers pay through the nose while they keep total control. And let's not forget what they consider (cough) is their 'god given right' right to sell your private address details to whomever they wish (and they do) to squeeze more money out of the customer.
And short sighted people have just given that to content owners on a plate.
You see also there is something you guys — who I am guessing are majority American — don't experience with 'content owners', living as you do in that country called America. If Americans had to put up with the behaviour of content owners that non-Americans (e.g. myself) have to well golly gosh you'd be onto your lawyers faster than anyone could say "class action lawsuit". For example there is virtually no movie, no book that you can't snap your fingers and get. The rest of us have to put up with sort of morally reprehensible rubbish like DVD & Blu-Ray region coding working against us. Now with digital books we are being blocked from buying digital titles from Amazon Kindle USA, and have to buy them (if they are available) from Amazon Kindle UK at, hey check it out, 40% more cost. Buying software like Photoshop which has a markup of around 90% over the US price — and it's got nothing to do with distribution (all electronic) and support (most likely all goes to the same outsourced shop in India).
So if you ask me about content owners, unlike my wife who I've been married to almost as long as you to yours, I wouldn't trust them an inch — for good historical reason.
With respect to Apple — well the worst I could say of them is that from time to time they drag users into new technologies where initially users scream about the change and who then, after a very short time, try to say the new thing was their idea in the first place!
Bless you and happy anniversary!
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0
