Apple on Sony Reader: "We Have Not Changed Our Guidelines"

February 1, 2011 at 9:10 am PT

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected

–Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines

Apple rejected Sony’s Reader iPhone app from the App Store this week in a move that the New York Times portrays as Apple “further tightening its control of the App Store.” And if, as the Times claims, Apple’s rejection of the Reader app meant that Sony and others like it could no longer sell content from their apps or offer customers access to purchases made outside the App Store, it would have been just that. A sudden upending of App Store guidlines that would have broad implications for consumers and popular apps likes Kindle, Netflix, Pandora, Dropbox, Hulu Plus and others.

But that’s not quite what’s happened–not quite.

Apple’s made no change to its App Store guidelines–it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: Apps that allow their users to purchase content, functionality or services must use Apple’s In App Purchase API. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Muller told me. “We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.”

In other words: You don’t have to buy books, or music, or other media that you consume on iOS apps from Apple. But developers must offer you the option to buy that stuff through Apple and its iTunes-backed system.

Which means Apple is either trying to boost its revenues–it will take a 30 percent cut of all transactions conducted on iOS devices–or it’s trying to make the iOS ecosystem much less pleasant for certain outsiders; note that Muller’s statement is specific to books.

Neither strategy makes much sense, though: Apple’s iTunes revenues are big, but insignificant for a company its size–Apple uses iTunes to sell hardware, not to make money selling media.

And it was one thing to play hardball with Sony, Amazon and other big players when Apple owned the smartphone market. But Google’s Android OS has evolved into a formidable competitor. Why give people a reason to head there?

So this is a big change for folks like Amazon, Sony and others who must now support the option of buying content in-app, but not that big a change for consumers–assuming folks like Amazon, Sony and others play ball and update their apps according to this newly enforced guideline. On the consumer end, it’s largely a back-end change–again, assuming third-party content peddlers accept the change and the mandate that they must now give Apple a 30 percent cut of in-app sales. In fact, one could argue that it’s an enhancement. Assuming there’s no surcharge on them, in-app purchases are certainly more convenient than those that require loading a Web store in Mobile Safari.

How developers handle this going forward is going to be interesting. Some may well find the idea of paying Apple a percentage on sales made on iOS devices entirely untenable. Other’s may seek a way around it–a 30 percent surcharge on in-app purchases, for example–if such things are allowed.

UPDATE: An entirely hypothetical scenario based on my understanding of these issues. One caveat: my … murky understanding of these issues.

If you want to sell content from within an iOS app, you must now use the In App Purchase API and give Apple its cut of the sale.

Amazon’s Kindle app for iOS currently allows users to purchase books by launching a store in Mobile Safari. Now that Apple is enforcing the guideline described above, it can no longer do that.

Therefore it must either:
a. update the app to support in-app purchases through Apple.
b. update the app to disable out-of-app purchases via a mobile safari store.
c. rethink its iOS device strategy, perhaps telling Kindle App users that they must make Kindle purchases on the Web or Kindle hardware. Remember, “Buy Once, Read Anywhere” …

I’ve reached out to Amazon for comment and haven’t yet heard back.

Tagged with: 30 percent, Amazon, Android, App Store, App Store Guidlines, Apple, digital, Google, hardware, Internet, iTunes, John Paczkowski, software, Sony, Sony Reader

comments so far. Add yours.

http://www.techcrunch.com Jason Kincaid

Uh, where in the guidelines is that rule? I’m look at the document they released in September and there’s nothing under the payments section about having to offer the same content via in-app purchases as they’re selling through the browser:
http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/.....elines.pdf
http://www.facebook.com/bobsentell Bob Sentell

So Amazon and B&N are going to have their Apps pulled?
http://twitter.com/enorris Eoin Norris

Thats clearly a new rule.
Anonymous

Heh, yeah that rule does not appear in the developer guidelines….but, I guess if they just say it does, all the fanboys will get in line.

To be fair, though, Apple says in the developer guidelines document that they can enact new rules at any time. It would just be nice if they had the balls to say so.
Anonymous

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
http://chipotle.tumblr.com/ Watts

Yes, I’m sure only crazy fanboys would read the line “Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected” in the published developer guidelines and come to the insane conclusion that it meant “Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected.” Us fanboys are just so weird!
Anonymous

Hmm. “Apple’s enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well.”

That would indicate that the app DIDN’T offer in App purchase (i.e., that it was not violating the clause you quoted), and that what Apple is saying is that if you sell content outside the App, that you must also sell it in the app.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the quote you put there.
http://twitter.com/jonmilani Jon Milani

In the case of Amazon, they just provide a link to the browser to buy content – I was under the impression this is an acceptable alternative.

It’s really unfortunate that “journalists” and “news organizations” don’t actually get the facts straight. And the fact that we’re still speculation means they’ve also failed to properly retract their misprints.

It doesn’t matter that it’s published on the internet, news organizations need to take better care to report things properly and SHOULD be publishing proper retractions.
Anonymous

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected
Anonymous

that’s right. 11.2
Anonymous

Yea that is the rule I am familiar with though that is different than saying if your app uses any outside system to purchase any content then it must also support in-app payments. The rule here specifically states that if an app wants to let you purchase content inside the app then it must use in-app payments. If we are to believe what the spokeswomen is saying is a new rule that would not only place ebook providers in a bind though servics like Hulu Plus, Netflix and Skype which have subscriptions or credits that can purchased outside of apps. Will I be paying my Netflix subscription through Apple in the future, I don’t think that will fly so well.
http://chipotle.tumblr.com/ Watts

The Kindle app doesn’t appear to violate the guidelines as written; we don’t know whether or not the Sony Reader app that was rejected does. (There are apps in the App Store that clearly do.) But, yes, I retract a bit of my exasperation, which is perhaps caused because I’m really [expletive deleted] sick of the word “fanboy” that invariably gets dragged out in the comments on each and every Apple story on the Internet. If Apple does actually enforce the idea that applications can’t explicitly send someone off to a web site to purchase content as a replacement for Apple’s own in-app purchase system, yes, that is indeed new — although to be fair, if we *both* go back and reread the Apple PR spokesman that Paczkowski quoted, she does actually say, “We now require that…”, which indicates that–despite the first part of her statement about not changing the guidelines–she’s saying “we’re changing the guidelines.”
http://standardimagination.com/the-cw/ The CW

OR you can follow the kindle model and redirect your customers to their web site.

Even though Sony’s version is incorrect this will still become part of the background narrative that Apple is a control freak organization.
Anonymous

@Watts Well, unfortunately this is exactly why I used the word “fanboy” in the first place…people who make irrational excuses for some entity that they support just because they support them, leaping to their defense in a comment before they (seemingly) read the article.

For the record, I use Apple products, but when Apple’s lying (as they are here), I say: they’re lying.

You quoted her “We now require…” bit while clearly ignoring the first part of her sentence: “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines….” and then she goes right into explaining how the guidelines have changed.

That is what is called doublespeak. All I’m doing is calling them out on it instead of giving them a free pass. It doesn’t mean they don’t make great laptops and phones or whatever.
http://twitter.com/jonmilani Jon Milani

The issue is what IAP means. To my mind, it means things being purchased within the frame of the app itself. In the case of most apps currently approved they send the user to the browser at the point of purchase. That seems to comply with the rules. The fact that Sony tried to sidestep the sidestep is ironic, but I’m not surprised they were called on it. At least this will afford (force) Apple to clarify its position. I’m almost certain they will explicitly state that OAP (outside-app purchases) are perfectly acceptable.
http://twitter.com/goodman Goodman Holiday

Yup. I love Apple products, but Apple had the opportunity to clear things up, and instead they released a statement that adds to the confusion. Either Trudy Miller is incompetent or Apple is planning a huge power grab… one that could easily drive a lot of people into the waiting arms of Android.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Apple tries to enforce this and Amazon doesn’t add support for in-app purchases through Apple’s system.
RichardL

Content sold through In-App Purchase may not be used outside of the App. (i.e. Kindle books purchased through a theoretical In-App Purchase mechanism could not be used on a Kindle device or in Kindle apps on other platforms.)

All content sold through In-App Purchase must be approved by Apple just as all apps are. Content that Apple considers objectionable (e.g. racy bodice-rippers or books on Android Programming) can not be sold through In-App Purchase.
Anonymous

If you want to sell content from within an iOS app, you must now use the In App Purchase API and give Apple its cut of the sale.

Amazon’s Kindle app for iOS currently allows users to purchase books by launching a store in Mobile Safari. Now that Apple is enforcing the guideline described above, it can no longer do that.

Therefore it must either:
a. update the app to support in-app purchases through Apple.
b. update the app to disable out-of-app purchases via a mobile safari store and tell users to make their Kindle book purchases on the Web.
http://twitter.com/jonmilani Jon Milani

Nope, because Amazon and B&N followed the original and unchanged App Store guidelines and simply redirect users to the browser at the point of purchase.
Anonymous

Excellent point. And one I’ve asked about, sadly without much luck.
Anonymous

The biggest problem here is agency pricing (which, BTW, Apple was also largely responsible for), which means that e-books must be charged the same no matter where they’re sold.

Amazon already takes a 30% cut of the cover price and passes 70% on to publishers. If they now have to pay 30% to Apple, too, where is that cut going to come from?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KEVQDCIMSOI6AFXXFFS5ZFFWBA PeterK

“Google’s Android OS has evolved into a formidable competitor. Why give people a reason to head there?”

Apple sees Android as an opportunity: It’s becoming a hairball of a problem and may self immolate in 3 years:

- Infringing patents
- viri
- botnets
- fragmentation of Android mkt, user experience, device capabilities and support
- 100s of cheap plastic no name devices priced at $150-
- Android reputation risk
- bedlam w/ partners running crapware and renaming to Bada

Apple will push off the Android onslaught and be known as the most reliable, responsible mobile vendor (with RIM, HP, Msft bringing up the rear).

Android, as it tips towards chaos, will be remembered as the quintessential failure of ‘open’.
http://twitter.com/goodman Goodman Holiday

Okay, so let me see if I understand this right. If what Muller says is correct, then Apple is “now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.” So Amazon, which offers purchases outside the app, would need to support in-app purchases. And presumably every ebook sold that way would need to be approved by Apple’s censors. Unless Amazon decides that it does’t want to give Apple 30% for doing what Amazon is perfectly capable of doing by itself. In which case the Kindle app would be pulled. And when you’ve asked for clarification, you haven’t had much luck. So exactly why isn’t this the biggest story of the day? If Apple is now insisting that they must receive 30% from all paid content viewed on their media consumption tablet, they’re basically committing platform suicide. I’m the biggest iOS fan there is, and even *I* would jump ship if more content was available for Android due to Apple’s shakedown, and that seems probable. I sure don’t believe for a second Apple would permit a 30% surcharge on in-app content purchases.

And how about all those in-app comic book purchases I made on my iPad (and I’ve purchased hundreds of comics). Right now I can also read those comics on the web, or Android. Is Apple going to enforce 11.3 and take that ability away? And will they really be allowed to shrug off the media with “nothing to see here, there are no changes”, while announcing a policy that’s a HUGE change?
Anonymous

Maybe they are doing this because it is what users want? Some users with iTunes accounts do not have credit cards and others do not want to give their credit card out to dozens or hundreds of app developers.

Apple’s 30% only generates a tiny profit, most goes to expenses of running an international online store. They make much, much more money when users are happy and continue to buy Apple devices generation after generation.
http://twitter.com/goodman Goodman Holiday

Wow. Apparently you weren’t around when Microsoft released their own inferior copy of the Mac OS… and kicked Apple to the curb. And that was with Apple offering an operating system that didn’t require that Apple approve every paid game, program, book and record, for a 30% cut. And Windows was a much weaker copy of Apple’s OS than Android is. Already Android’s market share in the cell phone market is far higher than Apple’s. All those competing hardware companies aren’t going to go away just because Apple is awesome.

Now, Apple has done very well for themselves as the “expensive, quality alternative” and I buy their products. But this… this to me is Apple self-destructing.
http://twitter.com/goodman Goodman Holiday

Hey Paczkowski, has anybody asked Amazon on the record what they think of this?
Anonymous

we’re trying to get something out of them.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Guillen/100000687065036 Frank Guillen

Ironically, this is just business, Apple won’t let others create its ow store inside the iOS ecosystem without paying any money, but hey, Google won’t let others do that too, Google recently blocked Kongregate, famous gaming site believing that Kongregate has its own gaming store inside the application…. Something similar to Sony. If Google and Apple let others create their own marketstore inside the Appstore or the Android Market, there won’t be any profit on sales.
RichardL

Actually, Google does not prevent you or any other party from offering your own app store on Android. You many not, however, under the Android Market terms of service sell or distribute your store app through Google’s Android Market. This is very different from Apple’s outright prohibition on alternate methods of app distribution.
http://twitter.com/jonmilani Jon Milani

That’s what the PR statement implies, but the PR statement contradicts the guidelines. I think that Apple is going to have to provide actual clarification. Ambiguous PR statements are not acceptable. Apple is going to have to address its ambiguity sooner or later – it can’t always rely on Steve Jobs to put things in terms that everyone can understand.
Anonymous

Wow. It is rare, but there are actually real journalist around. Kudos to WSJ and Mr. Paczkowski for doing his homework.
Anonymous

I doubt that there are very many people who purchase ebooks from Amazon, B&N, Borders or Sony that don’t use credit cards to do so.

If they’re doing this “because it is what users want”, why haven’t they done it with the nook app, or kindle, or kobo?
$340AShareMakesMeGrin>8-D

Too many idiots running around yelling “The sky is falling and it’s evil Apple’s fault.” The next thing the nut jobs will be asking is why one department store isn’t allowed to set up booths to sell their goods in another department store and not have to pay for the privilege of doing so.

Hell, I might as well put my food cart right in front of a restaurant on their property and steal their customers and they shouldn’t have a right to complain. After all, I’m just a small, struggling businessman trying to feed my family. Jeez. What a bunch of whiny idiots that can’t even wait for an explanation. It’s just easier to condemn on rumor.
Anonymous

I’m not sure I understand options b and c in the Update:

What’s the difference between “out-of-app purchases via a mobile safari store.” and “telling Kindle App users that they must make Kindle purchases on the Web or Kindle hardware.”

Isn’t using mobile Safari to make purchases using the web?
Is there a difference between purchasing app content in a browser on your home PC and having the iPad app download it, and making the same purchase in Mobile Safari?
http://www.facebook.com/jcfmunoz Julio César Fernández Muñoz

More important question. There will be a change on App Store Review Guidelines, because of:
1. In App Purchases is limited to 3000 goods per application. Apple said on its rules. Amazon has almost 800.000 books. Impossible.
2. Amazon Kindle App doesn’t buy anything within the app. Rule 11.2 out.
3. Amazon Kindle App doesn’t uses in-app purchases for goods outside. If Amazon will use in-App, will break 11.3 rule, because uses IAP for goods for outside.

That’s so confusing. I can’t believe anything in that way.
Regards from Spain.
zato

“To my mind, it means things being purchased within the frame of the app itself.”
Yes.
The rule specifically states that if an app wants to let you purchase content inside the app then it must use in-app payments.
In other words, creating your own in-App payment system that does not use the iTunes Credit Card payment sys. is a no no. This is what Sony did, as I understand it.
Apple can’t allow this because it would result in very many app developers collecting millions of credit card numbers. Some of them may not be very good at security. Sooner or later, bad things would happen, card numbers would be stolen or hacked. There are thousands of devs, so it could become a very big problem, even legally, for Apple. Apple has on file 160 million CC accounts because people trust them. The whole business is built on trust.
Anonymous

Well, if they say so then surely it is so lol.

http://www.privacy-tools.au.tc
Anonymous

crap, amazon is not small time developer. And customers are perfectly willing to trust their credit card numbers with amazon. It is do with business reasons and the reason is that kindle books are outselling books from ibooks, thats all
Anonymous

keep dreaming.
http://www.novuslumen.net/ jeremy bouma

So what does 11.3 mean to the Amazon.com app?
http://bibwild.wordpress.com/ Jonathan Rochkind

This indeed sounds like a mess. I’m thinking about it from the persective of a library (you know, the kind with shelves of books, as well as digital content), because I am a software developer at an academic library.

Let’s say that a library were, miraculously, actually were able to license ebooks for it’s patrons in a useful way, same as they buy print books. (I say ‘miraculously’ because libraries haven’t quite managed it yet, publishers are generally not interested and DRM makes it a less, libraries sound like ‘piracy’.)

Anyhow, the library is paying for em. The patrons get to use em.

But neither the library nor the platform vendor could provide an iOS app that, after authentication of some kind, let’s them read such licensed books UNLESS that app also let the user buy books on their own? From the same vendor, who might not even be set up to sell to individuals? Or even if they are, the library might not want to advertise direct sales and seem to be trying to get it’s patrons to spend more money, in a service meant to be part of the libraries value to the patrons without additional individual charge?

What a mess.
http://www.buyers-store.com Consumer Electronic

Good article. Thanks to inform us about apple has no change in it’s aap store guidelines. Keep it up.