[HN Gopher] iOS Kindle app now has a 'get book' button after cha...
___________________________________________________________________
iOS Kindle app now has a 'get book' button after changes to App
Store rules
Author : diversion
Score : 98 points
Date : 2025-05-06 20:41 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| havaloc wrote:
| If Apple eventually wins their appeal think among how hard it
| will be to put the genie back in the bottle.
| goosedragons wrote:
| Gonna be a looot of apps refusing to update.
| snkzxbs wrote:
| I suppose they can just take them down.
| xp84 wrote:
| They can, and then they'll have to face their customers
| directly with it being exactly clear (even to "normies" who
| don't follow obscure tech news like this) _exactly_ whose
| greedy fingers are taking things away from them.
|
| Up till now, situations like Kindle were just weird quirks
| to most people and most people wouldn't have been able to
| tell you why you can't do this very normal-seeming thing on
| iOS. If/when Apple takes it away, it'll be obvious to
| everyone what's going on.
| threeseed wrote:
| There are plenty of no longer supported apps on people's
| phones.
|
| No one is blaming Apple for it.
| granzymes wrote:
| If this significantly cannibalizes Apple's App Store revenue I
| would actually expect that they come up with a different way to
| monetize (maybe based on installs or number of users).
|
| They could also implement that independent of the injunction,
| which applies to steering rules.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| If Apple penalized apps for having many users that would be
| cataclysmic to their platform, though I image they'd work out
| sweetheart deals with Facebook etc.
| sixothree wrote:
| One way or the other this is a seismic event for Apple.
| They did this to themselves though.
| tantalor wrote:
| It could be like a platform subscription fee, but the app
| developer pays instead of the user.
|
| The justification would be something like, "a more
| equitable and transparent system that aligns costs with
| platform usage and developer access to the user base, while
| also potentially fostering a more diverse and competitive
| app ecosystem" (generated)
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I left Apple years ago, right on the battery-gate
| scandal. Since I'm in Android since, I imagine that if
| Google Play Store would introduce a fee to "a more
| equitable..." I would do all my 'shopping' to Aurora,
| APKPure, and others.
| geoffpado wrote:
| > They could also implement that independent of the
| injunction, which applies to steering rules.
|
| They actually can't, not with the latest ruling that unlocked
| this Kindle change. Apple annoyed the judge enough with their
| shenanigans that she shut this down, too. The ruling reads
| (emphasis mine): "Effective immediately Apple will no longer
| impede developers' ability to communicate with users *nor
| will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app
| purchases*."
| what wrote:
| They can just charge you per install or update over some
| threshold. Which wouldn't be a commission on off-app
| purchases.
| no_wizard wrote:
| I'm surprised they haven't simply forced tiered pricing for
| their developer program.
|
| You still need that to get on the platform. They could charge
| based on the relative size of the business. Why not charge
| Netflix 50K? They won't give up the platform and the consumer
| - even for Netflix - likely wouldn't enjoy going to the web
| browser exclusively.
|
| Perhaps that pushes more PWA's but really, I doubt the big
| corps would balk at this.
|
| Their scale would need to be exceedingly reasonable to keep
| the smaller shops from rioting though.
| dhosek wrote:
| I thought that the terms of the entitlement to be able to link to
| an external purchase point was that you still needed to offer IAP
| under Apple's terms. Did I misunderstand that?
| zacwest wrote:
| Except for 'reader apps' (those that sell digital content,
| basically) which Amazon is. Plus, Apple's rules are applied
| unevenly; Amazon is a giant WebView on Apple TV but it's
| disallowed for everybody else.
| lxgr wrote:
| As far as I understand, what "reader apps" were allowed to do
| was to display content purchased elsewhere in the first
| place, which is orthogonal to being/not being allowed to link
| to external purchases, no?
| zacwest wrote:
| These are the changes that Apple was forced to make,
| specifically referencing 3.1.3 (Other Purchase Methods) and
| 3.1.3(a) ("Reader" Apps):
|
| > 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a
| purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply
| on the United States storefront.
|
| > 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not
| required for apps on the United States storefront to
| include buttons, external links, or other calls to action.
|
| The bit about the (formerly required in the US) entitlement
| is:
|
| > Reader app developers may apply for the External Link
| Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in
| their app to a web site the developer owns or maintains
| responsibility for in order to create or manage an account.
|
| They required you use a trackingless, generic URL that was
| unvarying per user, so you probably didn't run into it
| super often. Offhand, the Kobo app did use it.
| ezfe wrote:
| No, there are no conditions on linking out except that Apple
| can choose to show an alert along the lines of "You are leaving
| the app to open a webpage in Safari"
| modeless wrote:
| Did you miss the recent court ruling that said Apple is not
| allowed to restrict developers from linking to external
| payments systems at all?
| paxys wrote:
| Smart that developers are quickly updating their apps while Apple
| is still appealing the decision. Once users get used to the added
| purchase options and cheaper pricing there's no going back,
| regardless of what the final ruling is.
| beastman82 wrote:
| those users will stick with their Apple products and lose the
| ability to "get the book" (so to speak). So yes, there is going
| back.
| tantalor wrote:
| > lose the ability
|
| What, why? They can complete the purchase flow in a browser
| instead of the app. What is lost?
| ewidar wrote:
| They mean that if apple wins the appeal, the in-app new
| purchase flow will be removed but users will likely not
| leave the apple ecosystem
| nguyenkien wrote:
| But now, they know the web offer cheaper. And likely
| search before give Apple 30% on other apps
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This also, long term, could kill the 30% commission. Why, as a
| developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a
| paid product on the App Store?
|
| Your discoverability is massively impaired, we already knew
| that. You also give Apple 30% of your cash.
|
| Free app + external web purchase = maximum discoverability at
| 0% tax.
|
| When things get more advanced, that web purchase link will be
| an authenticated URL - meaning one click to open the web
| browser already logged in. Register a protocol handler,
| remember their card information (or, ironically, use Apple
| Pay), and one tap in the app, a flash of the web browser, and
| they're back in the app with purchase complete.
|
| Apple needs to address this at WWDC. In the US and EU, there
| are _zero_ , heck, _negative_ advantages of selling on the App
| Store. All pain, all fees, no benefit of any kind. That's a big
| deal.
| digianarchist wrote:
| The likely outcome is that Apple will reduce the 30% to
| something at least marginally competitive with alternative
| payment systems.
| isodev wrote:
| The entire "store" model needs to go away. Phones are
| computers now, just let people download and install
| whatever they want or need.
| burnte wrote:
| Apple will never do this voluntarily.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Phones are computers now
|
| No one but irrelevant nerds think this. And the market
| has demonstrated this time and time again.
|
| Most people think of phones as being console-like
| entertainment devices. And aren't interested in scams,
| malware, virus checkers etc that are needed in a free for
| all model.
| shakna wrote:
| Malware and virus protection apps are already among the
| most installed across both Android and iOS.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Many companies would _never_ use Apple 's IAP regardless of
| the cost because companies want a direct relationship with
| their user for things like refunds and trials and other
| stuff.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| If Apple and their payments system offers as much value as
| they think then the market will make the determination, now
| that that's possible.
| threeseed wrote:
| a) It's 15% for most developers.
|
| b) Buying a product through IAP is one click. Versus having
| to go to a signup page, provide details, enter credit card
| details, wait for credit card verification flows etc. The
| drop off in conversions during this can be often greater than
| 15%.
|
| c) Apple's centralised subscription management has been
| extremely useful and consumer friendly. Versus having to now
| deal with NY Times style scam tactics for every subscription
| again.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Now calculate the drop off every time someone saw the
| prompt: "Please confirm your Apple ID password."
|
| I'm sure it's substantial over the years. As for point C, I
| really don't care, every monopoly has had at least some
| advantages. We could make this even better by giving Visa a
| monopoly and having them build a web portal.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| C is my biggest reason I'm not looking forward to these
| changes.
|
| I love having a single dashboard for all my subscriptions
| and having an easy way to cancel them.
| lilyball wrote:
| That sounds like an awful user experience. There's no way I'm
| ever buying a mobile app that requires me to go enter my
| credit card into a website to pay for it. Cross-platform
| services can justify this sort of thing (because you're
| buying a subscription to the service across all platforms),
| but doing it for what otherwise would be a paid app purchase
| is incredibly user-hostile.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I think you're in the minority there - users enter their
| information constantly for physical items. Nobody raises an
| eyebrow, let alone calls it hostile.
|
| Also, problem solved, just use Apple Pay on the checkout
| page. Ironic, but royalty free, and one-click to enable in
| Stripe.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch
| your app as a paid product on the App Store?
|
| Higher conversion rate.
| sundaeofshock wrote:
| Why would a developer lower their prices? Most people are not
| aware that Apple takes a cut of all sales. Further, the app
| developers have already set their prices to maximize revenue.
| Also, in instances like Amazon, they have already set a cross-
| platform price that I suspect they won't want to touch.
|
| Bottom line: I wouldn't expect many discounts here.
| wmf wrote:
| It was mostly never about lower prices. Apps like Kindle and
| Fortnite just didn't allow in-app purchasing at all and now
| they will.
| keenmaster wrote:
| The market ultimately determines the discount, not the
| company. In a competitive market, some of the gains from
| Apple's change will accrue to the consumer, and some will
| accrue to the developer. What % goes to whom depends on
| demand elasticity.
|
| Even if a particular list price doesn't change, I'd expect
| more frequent and deeper sales.
|
| In a less competitive market for a good or service (due to
| lack of antitrust enforcement) there should still be
| discounts, in proportion to the residual competitiveness.
| E.g. the mobile game market is very competitive, so I'd
| expect more discounts vs. the video entertainment market
| where there has been a lot of aggregation.
| no_wizard wrote:
| What you're seeing is companies that can - and many actually
| do this - offer you different pricing between in app
| purchasing and their website are now offering you a link to
| their website where you can sign up for the cheaper price.
| One notable example of this in practice is Spotify, where its
| cheaper to sign up on the web than via the app.
|
| I've also heard Netflix has suspended all in app
| subscriptions and is only going to link to their website for
| sign ups. I'm unsure if that will translate into savings, but
| I suspect you're going to see more of this behavior as well.
|
| The 30% / 15% tax is very real and companies that don't have
| to pay that will be better positioned in the long run, so I
| imagine even if the price is the same, they'll be able to
| pocket more revenue doing this as well
|
| I suspect this won't affect games much, except for the
| exceedingly big ones like Fortnite, but I treat that as a
| whole separate sector at this point.
| paxys wrote:
| > Why would a developer lower their prices
|
| Plenty of them already do. Google's services (YouTube Premium
| and others), for example, are $5/mo more expensive if you
| purchase them via Apple IAP. Spotify memberships are 30% more
| expensive on Apple. There are countless other examples. They
| just weren't allowed to advertise the cheaper option on iOS
| until now.
| blmarket wrote:
| Yeah, tariffs won't increase the price...
| digianarchist wrote:
| Is anyone confident that Apple will win on appeal?
|
| By the effort developers putting into payment-flows I would say
| they aren't, but depending on the volume it could be purely for
| short-term gain.
| threeseed wrote:
| Courts don't care about the amount of effort developers are
| spending to take advantage of the window before an appeal has
| been ruled on.
| znpy wrote:
| It would be way smarter if the prices were discounted of
| something like 20% when brought through the app... if apple
| wins the appeal they (aws and others) can now blame apple and
| shift the public perception of apple
| wmf wrote:
| Apple will change the rules back in seconds if the court
| decision is stayed. Literally billions are at stake here.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| They might, but they'll have lost the "it's for consumer's
| good" battle through and through.
|
| 4 years ago some people were still swallowing the security or
| privacy argument, and users didn't understand what they were
| missing. This time any of these facades will be broken to
| death.
| redczar wrote:
| I buy the security and privacy argument. I don't want to
| deal with anyone other than Apple for refunds,
| cancellations, etc. I don't trust anyone else to make these
| things easy.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Then you can happily tell Apple to fix it. Apple already
| has a system for this called Apple Pay, and it's royalty
| free on top of regular credit card networks.
|
| If it's about security and privacy only, demand the
| ability to check out in an app using Apple's own payment
| platform. Watch Apple squirm.
|
| As for the subscription convenience, I know how to make
| this even better. Let's give Visa and Stripe a monopoly
| on all transactions, and then have them build a unified
| subscription portal. Awesomeness!
| redczar wrote:
| I don't understand your points. If I buy things through
| the App store on iOS I know if there is a problem I can
| get relief very easily. I can easily cancel subscriptions
| without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. I prefer
| to keep things this way. You apparently don't. As such we
| disagree.
| tchalla wrote:
| I feel you to a large disagree. That said Apple's IAP has
| multiple issues
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/gergely.pragmaticengineer.com/po
| st/...
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It would be great if _the market_ could figure out this.
| bigyabai wrote:
| They have, on the Mac.
| paxys wrote:
| No one is forcing you to move away from IAP and
| subscriptions. Just ignore the link that takes you to the
| web. And be ready to pay a 30% premium for your
| convenience, because that is what Apple has priced it as.
| paxys wrote:
| Sure, but customers aren't going to be defending their
| decision after that like they always do.
| chaosbolt wrote:
| Apple is a status brand, customers will still defend their
| decisions even if they found out that Tim Cook is a real
| life Sith lord or something of that magnitude.
| paxys wrote:
| No brand lasts forever. Even on HN, a couple years ago
| every comment even vaguely anti-Apple tax would be
| immediately downvoted. When the Epic lawsuit was first
| filed Tim Sweeney was public enemy #1 over here. Now
| people are warming up to the idea that Apple might be
| harming consumers and developers with their app store
| rules.
| mrkpdl wrote:
| This is a misconception. For most Apple users it isn't
| about status, it's just the brand they use because they
| like the products and the way they work together. That
| doesn't mean they don't wish they were better in many
| ways (including this one).
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The consumers are...not sharp.
|
| They will blame the app developers for raising prices.
| Coeur wrote:
| update: thanks for the clarifications!
|
| Unfortunately the article does not answer what the button does,
| which is quite relevant.
|
| Does it send the user to the amazon website (which would be
| allowed under the new rule)? Or does it complete the purchase
| inside the app using the credit card Amazon has on file for the
| user without paying Apple anything (which would be quite the
| affront towards Apple)?
| derefr wrote:
| You missed it; the article _does_ answer this.
|
| > By selecting 'Get Book' within the Kindle for iOS app,
| customers can now complete their purchase through their mobile
| web browser.
| lb1lf wrote:
| It does indeed open your web browser and send you to the book's
| page on the Kindle store. Just checked. (Kindle for iPhone
| v7.31.3)
| lxgr wrote:
| Wow, really? That's frustrating.
|
| I'd have expected it to actually make the purchase using my
| card on file with my Amazon account, just like the physical
| Kindle does.
| nik_0_0 wrote:
| That one Apple is still allowed to collect fees on (which
| I'd love to see the provided justification for!).
|
| Per the article: "Apple can no longer collect a 27 percent
| commission on purchases made outside of apps or restrict
| how developers can direct users to alternate payment
| options"
|
| This now allows folks to direct users to alternate methods.
| Before this the Kindle app would just say something along
| the lines of "you can't get a book here, please use the
| website".
| dmitrygr wrote:
| App Store revenue was a significant source of income for Apple.
| Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS. I don't know
| what sort of idiotic thinking it takes to imagine that they won't
| need to find another way to recapture that money. It will
| probably come in the form of higher costs for development
| licenses, or hardware. For example, absolutely nothing stops them
| from charging you for using the SDK. No one said it had to be
| free.
|
| Everyone screaming about how happy they are about this seem to be
| ignoring the fact that Apple is not a charity
| lurk2 wrote:
| > Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS.
|
| iOS has gotten progressively worse every year since 2012. It
| may not be the worst idea to turn off the tap.
| wordofx wrote:
| How is it worse? It's better now for me than years ago.
| lurk2 wrote:
| Off the top of my head:
|
| - Substantially poorer performance
|
| - Keyboard is less accurate
|
| - YouTube videos can't be played on the lock screen without
| some tricks
|
| - Apple Maps (it is basically at parity now, however).
|
| - Translate feature doesn't have a copy button
|
| - The storage bug
|
| - No option for manual cache clearing
|
| - SMB protocol doesn't work with Windows and doesn't
| display error messages
|
| - File transfers are substantially more complicated than
| they used to be because they want you to pay for iCloud
| (the workaround here is installing VLC which gives you a
| drag-and-drop folder you can use through iTunes)
|
| - Multitasking (apps should shut down after some time spent
| idle, instead they have to be manually closed)
|
| I haven't used the most recent versions of iOS so I don't
| know if some of these have been addressed.
| blibble wrote:
| it was an unlawful source of income that they should have never
| had
|
| they're lucky they're not being made to pay it all back, plus
| interest
| viraptor wrote:
| Apple is doing fine. They have crazy profit margins on
| everything, but especially on hardware upgrades. They're one of
| the most cash hoarding tech giants and that's still after the
| stock buybacks. It's fine, they're not going to suddenly run
| out.
|
| Also this is an article about Kindle adding an option which
| wasn't there before. Apple wasn't getting the money either way.
| bigyabai wrote:
| The development of the iPhone and iOS is payed-for in the exact
| same way it is on MacOS. With the outrageous hardware margins
| Apple commands, profiting hundreds of dollars off each unit
| sold.
| mmastrac wrote:
| The billions of dollars in cash beg to disagree with you. I
| don't think they are hurting for money.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Nor am I. But if my boss cuts my salary I'll still fight
| back.
| xp84 wrote:
| "Paid for the development"
|
| This comes off as incredibly bought-in to Apple PR, and if
| you're not on their payroll, I don't understand why you're
| carrying water for them so aggressively.
|
| First of all, the incredibly high margin hardware more than
| "pays for" the development of all the parts that make that
| hardware useful including iOS. We all know this.
|
| Apple makes a tremendous amount of profit, both gross and net.
| This will dent their top line and their bottom line a bit. It
| will not make the iPhone a money-losing platform. "Not making
| as much pure profit as your near-monopoly status might
| theoretically allow you to if there were no antitrust laws"
| does not imply "that money will have to be made up somewhere."
| They may end up being only "wildly, amazingly profitable"
| instead of "wildly, absurdly, amazingly profitable." They don't
| "have to" make up any particular amount of money.
|
| Whether that upsets their shareholders including their mega
| billionaire CEO, is just the breaks. It is quite fitting for a
| group of people who enjoyed all those amazing profits from
| Apple's monopolistic behavior so far -- money that I might
| point out, isn't even being required to be paid back.
| int_19h wrote:
| Apple platforms are already kind of notorious for having the
| highest price sticker to develop/publish apps for.
| victorantos wrote:
| Let's be clear: Amazon isn't doing this out of the goodness of
| their heart or to "provide customers the most convenient
| experience possible." They're grudgingly complying with a court
| order while Apple appeals. That spokesperson's PR spin is
| laughable.
|
| The fact that it took LEGAL ACTION to get basic functionality
| that existed on Kindle e-readers from day one speaks volumes
| about how these tech giants operate. They'll happily degrade user
| experience to avoid paying each other's extortionate fees while
| pretending it's about "ecosystem integrity" or some other
| corporate doublespeak.
|
| And let's not forget Apple's brilliant solution to the court
| ruling - a slightly smaller 27% tax instead of 30%! How generous!
| This whole situation perfectly illustrates the duopoly
| stranglehold that's been choking app developers for years.
|
| The most telling part? Amazon "probably isn't going to change its
| mind about avoiding Apple's 30 percent cut." So even with the
| court ruling, we're still stuck with a half-measure solution
| because two trillion-dollar companies can't figure out how to
| play nice without extracting maximum profit at users' expense.
|
| Wake me up when either of these companies actually puts user
| experience ahead of their bottom line.
| lozenge wrote:
| Why are you both sidesing this? It's Apple who has been given a
| court order and Apple who have refused to come to a reasonable
| compromise with Amazon.
| ec109685 wrote:
| Do you mean Apple isn't doing this out of the goodness of their
| heart?
| lxgr wrote:
| Amazing!
|
| Now if Amazon could also fix the incredibly frustrating, long-
| standing bug of their iOS app where tapping the screen anywhere
| does not turn pages, but instead toggles through "page numbers"
| -> "time left in chapter" -> "time left in book" etc., I'd be
| happy with it.
| justanotheratom wrote:
| Apple is generally on the side of customers, but this is a clear
| example of how anti-customer-friendly their policy was. As a
| customer, I had to jump through hoops to buy a book on their
| premium platform.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-06 23:00 UTC)