Apple rejects Sony Reader (more to the story)

SnakBooks in 2025: The Future of the Book World

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

Apple rejects Sony Reader (more to the story)

Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.

1brightcopy
Redigeret: feb 2, 2011, 3:06 pm

Noticed that Tim tweeted:

Apple rejects Sony Reader app. http://bit.ly/hmPX0W — VERY important ebook news. Either ditch the all-platform strategy or pay Apple 30%.

I've followed this story, and it seems like it's a lot deeper than the shallow coverage we've gotten. Apple hasn't helped itself with its fumbling (and sometimes contradictory) explanation of the whole thing, either.

The Kindle and the Nook apps do not do in-app purchase. They launch safari and send you to their website. Then when you're done, they give you a link back using a kindle://home link (you can register a handler for things like "kindle://" as part of your app, which then causes iOS to open your app with that passed in).

So, again, they do no in-app purchase. This is and has been completely allowed in Apple apps. No change of policy.

However, the submitted Sony app did not do this. It had a built-in part of their app that let you buy stuff inside the app. This built-in part did not use any of the Apple in-app purchasing stuff.

Why did Sony do this? Because they have no useful web store presence! Go to their eReader book site and click on a book. Example:
http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/charles-portis/true-grit/_/R-400000000000000328...

Notice the "Want this book" button. Click on it. You can see you'll be taken to the link to download their desktop software which is the ACTUAL way to buy things from them. It's a lot like iTunes, in fact.

So instead of using Safari, Sony built their own purchasing inside the app. This means it bypasses all the stuff like certificate checking and such. Who knows if it's open to a man-in-the-middle attack? Should apple have to audit their code for that? What about every time they make a revision?

It also bypasses the ability to disable in-app purchases. There's a PIN-protected setting on you iOS device that lets you make it impossible to rack up charges by buying stuff in-app. There's all sorts of good reasons for this. However, the Sony in-app purchasing would circumvent that. Sure, in any case you can still buy from a website no matter what in-app purchasing is set to. But it's a lot easier for Apple to wash their hands of anything that goes on at an external website. That's something that could happen from a desktop, an internet cafe, etc. and doesn't reflect badly on Apple. However, when some news story comes out about someone's kid racking up a bunch of charges by unwittingly buying a bunch of in-app stuff, it's bad PR.

Why did Sony go this route instead of just copying the safe "launch safari" route? Well, having worked with some big companies, I've definitely seen that their technology decisions often have nothing to do with doing something the "best" way. They're frequently political and conservative. I would place a cash bet that at more than one conversation, there was the bullet point that they would "leverage their existing store infrastructure". In other words, lets not build something new like a functioning store website but rather lets just put in a shim and make it work with the junk we already have.

And what's the downside for them now that the app was rejected and their press release got reported and tweeted all over the place? All they need to do is quietly change and resubmit the app in a few months. That won't make big headlines. In the meantime, I wonder how many people will buy a Sony device instead of an iPad who were influenced by this bad press? Yep, worked out just fine for them. Couldn't have planned it better myself.

I hate to be the person who takes the side of apple, as there are a lot of things I absolutely loathe about them. I hate iTunes and wish it was a website. It would be a completely legit gripe to say "but how come Apple gets to force people to use desktop iTunes but Sony is forced to make a store website?" Or "why does Apple get to charge so much!" Of course, lets remember that the people they're charging are the same people who are squeezing every penny in profit from the actual publishers (and eventually writers). Do you really weep for Amazon and how unfair it is for them to be bullied by that mean old Apple?

So, to bring it back to what Tim and lots of other people are claiming ("Either ditch the all-platform strategy or pay Apple 30%"), that's just not the case.

2_Zoe_
Redigeret: feb 2, 2011, 3:09 pm

How does your interpretation fit with Apple's response? "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."

3brightcopy
feb 2, 2011, 3:21 pm

2> That was the part I mentioned about their fumbling and contradictory response. They also said "We have not changed our guidelines." I think it was a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. Their history is FULL of statements like this, and it's definitely a legitimate gripe that they can't clearly and consistently talk about their app approval process.

The simple fact is this is not how the Kindle and Nook works right now. But, even if they did make such a boneheaded move, it's not what's being described in the case of the Sony app. It's just muddying the waters.

4elenchus
feb 2, 2011, 3:49 pm

Thanks for the post, brightcopy. I'd heard of a similar complaint (Apple rejecting donation-apps from non-profits), and suspect much the same rationale is going on for Apple in this scenario. And of course, the same legitimate gripes apply, too. But I wasn't aware of the technical side re: policing code and security breaches, though I could have guessed.

The political "leverage our existing infrastructure" BS is standard and no surprise to me at all. In some ways it's reassuring to find the world continues to work in the same (boneheaded) way it always did.

5_Zoe_
feb 2, 2011, 3:52 pm

>3 brightcopy: Maybe you're right that they just misspoke. But it's that misspeak that's the story, not the Sony app. I'll be curious to hear what their actual policy is, once they figure it out themselves.

6brightcopy
Redigeret: feb 2, 2011, 4:07 pm

5> But it's that misspeak that's the story, not the Sony app.

Well, it WOULD be, if people would stop talking about the Sony app every time they talk about it. They keep mixing the issues up and together.

Now, it's true that Apple could possibly be doing this or just throwing out some bait and seeing if it will be taken. It's also possible that once they get enough flak for it they'll say it was all a mistake even if it really wasn't. But it seems to me the most likely possibility is just that someone was communicating via their posterior. Otherwise, it would likely kill the iPad as an e-reader if Amazon et al stood up to them. This is incredibly likely given the upsurge in Android sales. It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems like something I, as a frequent hater of the iOS devices, WANT to hear. I always get suspicious when that happens.

So yeah, definitely a completely different story there, but it seems it has nothing to do with Sony's fuckups.

7_Zoe_
feb 2, 2011, 4:17 pm

It seems like something I, as a frequent hater of the iOS devices, WANT to hear. I always get suspicious when that happens.

Good point; it's probably too good to be true. But I remain cautiously optimistic anyway. We'll see what happens.

8TineOliver
feb 2, 2011, 5:15 pm

1,2,6 > I get the impression this is one of those things where the PR department simply didn't understand what the apple programmers were saying, so their press release gives the wrong story.

I'd imagine the PR department probably got a similar (but perhaps not as well worded) explanation as brightcopy gave above, understood the words "didn't meet guidelines" and "in-app purchase" and just ran with that.

9majkia
feb 2, 2011, 5:21 pm

one more reason to hate closed ecosystems... This is why I got an Android in the first place.

10brightcopy
feb 2, 2011, 5:24 pm

8> If I send my boss any email longer than a short paragraph, I inevitably get a phone call in which I have to explain the entire thing again. I'm not sure he even TRIES to read past the first one. I send them anyway as they are invaluable as documentation later.

11TineOliver
feb 2, 2011, 5:42 pm

10> Now that's just lazy - I know very little about programming, but I've seen many of your posts on the subject around the site and rarely have any trouble understanding what you're saying. But I guess once you get to be the boss, you can stop reading too if you wish...

On the other hand, working in a very specialist field I understand that some people have an inability to communicate to lay people.

12_Zoe_
feb 2, 2011, 6:00 pm

One further point: I doubt Apple is unaware of all the fuss. They could easily have issued a clarification by now, so I suspect that at the very least they're interested in testing out the idea.

13brightcopy
feb 2, 2011, 6:02 pm

11> To give credit where credit is due, my boss is actually very smart and just extremely busy. He's the founder and CEO our our small company, having previously been on the forefront of getting new technology into another large company that tends to be our major (Fortune 500) client. He worked his way up there, learning how to program and administer databases back in the 70s-80s even though he only had a business degree. He still does a lot of programming stuff himself, though it tends to be limited to SQL and vbscript. He knows how to make Excel do damn near anything you want it to.

So really, it's not what I might have made it seem with my short message. He's a hacker, just one that's been mostly on the business side for a few decades and therefore hasn't been able to keep up with the vocabulary. Being the driving force behind our company, his time really is worth several orders of magnitude more than mine, so it's fair that if there's a complicated topic he gets the information in a format where he can ask questions as it's being explained.

And that, I'm sure, is far more than you ever wished to know. :D

On the other hand, our HR person has no excuse for not reading my email about how to use our new company wiki because "It was too long."

14brightcopy
Redigeret: feb 2, 2011, 6:04 pm

12> One further point: I doubt Apple is unaware of all the fuss. They could easily have issued a clarification by now, so I suspect that at the very least they're interested in testing out the idea.

That's not an invalid theory in the least. However, I've become convinced that Apple is rife with incompetency when it comes to anything to do with iTunes or the App Store. There's really no other way to explain so much of what sends me into cursing streaks when using their products.

15TineOliver
feb 2, 2011, 6:07 pm

13> I completely rescind my accusation of laziness against your boss - he is truly vindicated by your post.

Your HR person on the other hand...

12> A very valid point.

17brightcopy
feb 4, 2011, 12:28 pm

Stop getting my hopes up, Zoe! :D

Wow, that was a story based on a story based on a story. I finally tracked it to the original:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120531458250932.html?m...

Looks like Apple still hasn't said anything official about it. The article is completely based on this:
Yudu, a U.K. developer of digital editions for publishers, said it recently was informed by Apple that newspaper and magazine apps that don't take payments through the iTunes store will be rejected, beginning March 31. The company was alerted to the impending change when it applied for a new app and received an email outlining Apple's plans, Yudu Chief Executive Richard Stephenson said.

So while I think this is more evidence towards it being true, I'm still being cautious about jumping on the bandwagon until there's some actual Apple confirmation.

Again, I sort of HOPE they do this, because I think it will strengthen their rivals and possibly cause Amazon/B & N/etc. to a showdown where they walk away from the iOS devices (at least temporarily) or possibly start charging for their reader software to make up for the Apple cut. But unfortunately the most likely thing I think would happen is that these big players will negotiate a much smaller cut for Apple than 30% and we'll never hear what that cut is.

And back to the original subject, I still stand by the Sony rejection not being about this. They weren't doing what the Amazon and Nook apps were doing and had implemented their own in-app purchasing. But I'm sure they won't avoid continuing to use this as a smokescreen.

18timspalding
feb 4, 2011, 12:41 pm

What percent does Amazon get if you want to read a Nook, Google or Apple book on the Kindle again?

Seems to me this is the logical result of ebooks. You don't own them, and to buy or use them requires constant connectivity with someone. As technology evolves you may be able to do that the way you want to, or you may be caught in a pissing match between two big companies. Either way you're the one to blame for thinking you owned anything in the first place.

19_Zoe_
feb 4, 2011, 1:43 pm

>17 brightcopy: Thanks for tracking that down!

>18 timspalding: As I said before, the difference is that you know what you're getting when you buy a Kindle. It's intended for reading Kindle books, and it's significantly less expensive than an iPad. On the other hand, Apple likes to pretend that the iPad is a substitute for a real computer.

I don't own a Kindle or an iPad; I have a Kobo ereader and would go with an Android device if I ever wanted a tablet. I'm not going to buy a serious piece of hardware that's crippled by unnecessary restrictions. But Kindles are getting cheap enough that it might eventually be worthwhile to have one in addition to a more open ereader.

20brightcopy
feb 15, 2011, 11:02 am

21reading_fox
feb 16, 2011, 7:05 am

#18 "and to buy or use them requires constant connectivity with someone"

Absolute rubbish. Just flat wrong.

22timspalding
Redigeret: feb 16, 2011, 8:56 pm

>21 reading_fox:

It depends on the platform. Google Ebooks operate that way by default--loading only such pages as it needs at the time, more like a streaming service than a downloading one. (See this help page http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/books/thread?tid=664dc19edffff487&hl=e... ; there is a way to download your book entirely, if you know ahead of time that you're going to be out of internet touch.) Such cloud-based solutions are clearly the future. Kindle meanwhile books don't require the connectivity, although the system knows what you have, stores it and all your data (pages read, notes, etc) on a central server, and can and has removed books for its own reasons.

More generally, you must rely on systems over which you have no control and which may go away. There are a lot of people out there who bought Kindle books to use on their iPad who may now discover the iPad application pulled and all their books taken away, except if they're willing to switch platforms. Or they may not. It depends on whether Amazon will be willing to pay 30% to Apple from now on or not--Amazon has apparently not decided. If Amazon deep-sixes the app, the only way to keep it will be to remove the sim card on your device and never connect to wifi. In either case, the situation points out the simple fact. You don't own these things in any real way, and your access to them is entirely contingent on the good will of companies whose interests may or may not accord with your continued access to them.

Of course buying the books does require connectivity.

23brightcopy
Redigeret: feb 16, 2011, 9:02 pm

22> Such cloud-based solutions are clearly the future.

I agree with everything else but this. I don't see any solution that doesn't let you read an already purchased/downloaded (in the case of free ones) ebook without internet connectivity as anything like the future. What I see as much more likely are cloud-based solutions that also cache all the data on your reader and sync it up when the opportunity presents. And by the future, I mean the present. Isn't that effectively how things like the Kindle and such already work? :D

I just do not see the sales pitch that can sell a product where you can't read the ebook you bought last week because you're in an airplane/at the cabin in the woods/in the basement.

24_Zoe_
feb 16, 2011, 9:03 pm

>22 timspalding: I agree with most of what you're saying, but switching platforms really isn't as big a deal as you always seem to think. A Kindle is far cheaper than an iPad, so I suspect that most of the people with iPads could easily afford to make the switch. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Amazon giving some sort of Kindle discount to people who had previously read Kindle books on the iPad, if they do decide to pull the app.

25_Zoe_
feb 16, 2011, 9:04 pm

>23 brightcopy: Irrelevant point, but one of the main problems with ebooks is that half the time you're not allowed to read them in the airplane anyway.

26theapparatus
feb 16, 2011, 9:34 pm

Ok, so how is Stanza getting away with this? I know I use Stanza on my iPod Touch.

27brightcopy
feb 17, 2011, 12:16 am

25> Irrelevant point, but one of the main problems with ebooks is that half the time you're not allowed to read them in the airplane anyway.

Ain't that the truth. I have an iPad but I never even bother to try to read on a plane with it. Mostly, I just leave it at home.

26> Ok, so how is Stanza getting away with this? I know I use Stanza on my iPod Touch.

They're getting away with it the same way Kindle, Nook, and all other already approved apps are - the deadline to start your triple-tithe is June 30th.

28reading_fox
feb 17, 2011, 4:32 am

#22 "although the system knows what you have, stores it and all your data (pages read, notes, etc) on a central server"

wrong again.
It stores a copy of your data. You still have your data. If you lose it, you can recover it. Without wireless access 'they' can't touch yoru data, nor prevent you from reading it.

I will allow that there are a couple (not the majority) of platforms that are dependant on someone else's server. But whether this will be the future seems a very open question. A possible future, maybe.

29felius
feb 17, 2011, 7:28 am

#22 "More generally, you must rely on systems over which you have no control and which may go away."

This is only true if you accept that DRM on eBooks is inevitable.

I have "bought" (i.e. licensed) DRM-free eBooks from several vendors; notably O'Reilly, Sitepoint & Webscription. Now that the transaction has taken place, there is nothing they can do to take those books away from me. The vendors could all go bankrupt and disappear tomorrow, and I'll still be able to read the books. I can read them on any device I like, now or in the future. I already have them available in the cloud (in a Dropbox account), even though my day-to-day use involves iTunes, an iPad & iPhone.

This gets me all the advantages of eBooks with none of the disadvantages of the competing walled-gardens & DRM schemes that Apple/Amazon/Sony/et al. are trying to foist on us all.

The disadvantage of my approach is that there are very few DRM free titles I can purchase at present. This is because most publishers think (like the music industry before them) that DRM will stop piracy. I am convinced however that DRM does nothing at all to stop piracy, and a lot to promote it.