APPLE IPAD-2 NEWS IN CONNECTION WITH E-READER/KINDLE INTEREST
The articles linked and summarized be;pw, note the Apple-device revenue-sharing issues that were described in a blog entry Feb. 24.
Many Kindle owners also own iPads for color-intensive books, web-surfing, and shorter, lower-light reading sessions, and many are (according to article comments) waiting to hear what Apple plans are for Kindle, Nook, Sony, and Kobo apps for iPhone and iPad in July.
“Why you should wait before buying an iPad 2”
That is the headline for a Communities Canada parenting blog by Chad Skelton, who makes the following points:
‘ Of the people I know who have an iPad, or who want one, one of the reasons they want one is to use it as an ebook reader… in addition to Apple’s own iBooks, you can also download other ereading apps for the Kindle and Kobo — even library ebook apps like Overdrive. It’s the one device that doesn’t force you to lock in with a particular book buyer — meaning you have the broadest possible selection to choose from and can comparison shop for the best deals.
But all that versatility is at risk. Apple’s new subscription and in-app purchase policies — which will require apps like the Kindle to cough up 30% of every book purchase to Apple — may well force other ereading apps off the device.
[The wording should be “might require” rather than “will require” as the wording is still for subscription apps until we know more.]Which would, in one stroke, turn the iPad from the most versatile ebook reader to the least. Instead of having your choice of several ebook stores, you’d have a choice of just one: iBooks. ‘
Now that Random House is adding 17,000+ e-books to Apple’s iStore, it could be that some Apple execs could decide to consider B&N, Amazon, Sony, et al, “middlemen” — said to be of no interest to Apple, and the way to get them off the iPad and iPhone/iPod Touch would be to just grab 100% of the revenue-share of these competing online bookstores wishing to have their apps included on the Apple devices. One can understand a 3-10% fee, but 30% from ‘middlemen’ who get only 30% in the first place would be indicative of unparalleled, open greed.
If that turns out to be the case, I don’t know why Apple wouldn’t just say they no longer want competing online bookstores on their devices. I think that’s better than just saying they want 100% of the revenue that the other stores would normally get (30%).
The article ends with:
‘ But if you’re interested in using your tablet as an ereader, you’d be wise to wait a few months to see what happens before plopping down $500 or more on what could be a very lame ereader come this summer. ‘
The many comments to the February 16 article linked in the quotes are an indication of how many Kindles (UK: K3‘s) might be bought due to such a decision by Apple.
“THE IPAD 2: LIPSTICK ON A PIG”
“Apple’s new subscriptions policy takes the lustre off launch”
This mentions other apps that may not be available on the Apple devices.
The New Stateman’s Jason Stamper
‘ Rhapsody said in a statement that, “An Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 per cent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable. The bottom line is: we would not be able to offer our service through the iTunes store if subjected to Apple’s 30 per cent monthly fee vs a typical 2.5 per cent credit card fee.” ‘
Rhapsody will be looking, with its market peers, at “an appropriate legal and business response to this latest development.”
Apple did buy Lala last year, though, and may have its own plans, Stamper said. Also:
‘ The chief executive of Pearson, the publisher of the Financial Times, said on Monday that it may pull the FT out of Apple’s ecosystem if it refuses to give up customer information. “It is unclear how their proposal is going to work, we are still talking to them,” said Marjorie Scardino. “The important thing to remember is there are many, many tablets coming out and multiple devices … [from] Kindle to mobiles. If indeed Apple are not happy to give us customer data then maybe we will get it somewhere else.” ‘
Stamper adds:
‘ It’s little wonder that if the Wall Street Journal is to be believed, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission are “looking at” Apple’s new rules for possible antitrust violations. At the heart of the issue isn’t the 30 per cent fee but that requirement that in-app subscriptions have the same price as offers outside the app. ‘
The coming (March 11) iPad 2 is considered “more an update than an upgrade” by some reviewers, and as a result some expect an iPad 3 in September with real changes instead of something to keep momentum up while the myriad of tablets are released in the next few months, while others feel that Steve Jobs’s statement Tuesday that 2011 will be the year of the iPad 2 means this is IT for this year unless they also release a 7″ of some type (whether a large iPod or a small iPad). In any case, those who prize the e-reader capabilities available today will be waiting for further developments before dropping money automatically for Apple’s latest edition of the iPad.
Already, although Android apps are not plentiful yet, the Xoom WILL support Adobe Flash, will have true multi-tasking (apps actually running in the background rather than suspended, and their activity showing in a window), have a USB port and an SD slot and, most important for book readers, will run the various e-reader apps.
Via Andrys Basten’s A Kindle World blog
So is it confirmed that Amazon will have to pay Apple 30% of each Kindle book sale price? Or is that still just a “possibility”?
Actually, that’s not true.
If Apple does start charging for in-app downloads, yes, the kindle and Nook apps will likely disappear, but that does NOT mean that iBooks will be the only way to read books on an iPad.
You can still use Stanza/Calibre and Bluefire to read DRM Free e-books.
Yes, it will be more of a pain, but for stores that use the ePub format (Nook, Sony Reader) you can still “hack” the DRM and read them. (or read Baen’s e-books…)
I am aware that for the general public this is the same thing as not being able to read them at all, but this is why I advocate DRM Free books in the first place
DensityDuck, right. I have — for weeks — cautioned that the 70/30% split was quoted, so far, only for Subscription apps and that the reasons Apple gave for the rejection of the Sony ebook-reader app on Feb. 1st had to do with a purchasing option within the app that would take customers outside the app to purchase a book.
They said legacy apps would be required, July 1, to add the Apple-purchase option too, but no mention of a 70/30% split was made by Apple for that. People are referencing Apple’s hidden guidelines for Developers in thinking there is always a 70/30-split for anything bought via an Apple app.
In this blog article you’re commenting on, I included a correction to a quoted section — that the wording should be “might” be required rather than “will” be required as so many columnists have been saying.
In an earlier blog article at http://bit.ly/kwweb I give the history of actual Apple statements made in connection with Apple’s rejection of Sony’s ereader app and then the press release in mid-February for Subscription apps.
It was Computerworld that took the 70/30% revenue-split policy from Subscription-app requirements and applied them to future one-off e-book purchases in ebookreader apps — but all we know, for sure, about the latter is that Apple wants to enforce now a policy that there be an option to buy within the app, from Apple, if the bookstore app offers (within the app) an option to buy outside the app.
No specific revenue split has been cited for a la carte eBook transations, but Apple could have cleared that up but chose instead to let the hundreds of news articles carry on, without commenting on the speculation.
The one thing that’s been clear is that Apple has not minded that people are worried about that 70/30 split being applied to e-book apps nor particularly bothered by the torrent of anti-Apple postings based on conjecture. To me, it makes no sense they’d apply that split to e-book apps, but mine has been a minority view.
Yesterday, I featured an article which reports that an analyst who had a meeting with Apple execs and pressed them for a comment did get an answer (more or less).
That’s at http://bit.ly/kwapplerulesquote
Thanks for your clarification.