iOS Kindle app now has a ‘get book’ button after changes to App Store rules
131 comments
·May 6, 2025paxys
placardloop
You’re right there won’t be any going back. You’re wrong about who is being smart about it.
If Apple wins appeal, they’ll happily and quickly reinstate the fees. It’ll be the app developers who then get stuck paying the fees because, as you mentioned, their users will be used to it and there’s no going back.
wmf
Apple will change the rules back in seconds if the court decision is stayed. Literally billions are at stake here.
makeitdouble
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
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.
paxys
Sure, but customers aren't going to be defending their decision after that like they always do.
chaosbolt
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.
thaumasiotes
There was a period where the Android Kindle app stopped allowing you to make purchases. (You'd have to visit Amazon instead.) But they've resumed.
I'm curious about what happened.
wmf
Google and Amazon had some kind of cold war about them both wanting to control the living room or something. A few years ago they both decided to play nice.
Workaccount2
The consumers are...not sharp.
They will blame the app developers for raising prices.
digianarchist
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
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.
techjamie
I think the implication that is being made here is that the other companies have examined their odds, and determined that the odds are good enough that they would dedicate the resources.
Which, presumably, means their legal teams examine the case and think that the appeal won't succeed.
Though there is always the possibility that it was relatively inexpensive to implement, and the increased sales in the meanwhile during the legal battle will outweigh the cost of changing it.
znpy
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
gjsman-1000
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.
threeseed
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.
paxys
B is also one click, considering Stripe and others already offer Apple Pay as a payment option.
For C, customers can choose to continue using Apple's subscription management if they think it's worth the 30% premium that Apple charges. Or Apple could reduce the price to something more reasonable (Stripe Billing offers a similar feature set and costs 0.7%).
RandallBrown
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.
asadotzler
b) Apple Pay on Stripe seems a pretty low friction experience for web purchases. My app has a "buy" button that pops up a Safari window with an Apple Pay button the user clicks. Sure, it's an extra click but I doubt it's a slam dunk that the extra click is going to consistently cut conversions by 15% (or 30% for big outfits.)
gjsman-1000
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.
digianarchist
The likely outcome is that Apple will reduce the 30% to something at least marginally competitive with alternative payment systems.
madeofpalk
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.
isodev
The entire “store” model needs to go away. Phones are computers now, just let people download and install whatever they want or need.
madeofpalk
> Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a paid product on the App Store?
Higher conversion rate.
cyberax
That's been highly questionable for a while.
mvdtnz
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.
lilyball
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
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.
aianus
I’d do it for 30% off
sundaeofshock
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.
paxys
> 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.
keenmaster
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
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.
wmf
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.
blmarket
Yeah, tariffs won't increase the price...
beastman82
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.
justanotheratom
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.
OsrsNeedsf2P
> Apple is generally on the side of customers,
I'm not convinced;
Planned obsolescence, repair issues, phone-home privacy issues, vendor lock-in, etc
Apple is certainly innovative which helps consumers, but that's about it. The rest is bare minimum for the price point.
Vicinity9635
Apple maps, "Intelligence", siri, etc all run on device because Apple is in the market of selling devices. As many as they can. Whereas google is in the market of selling you to advertisers.
It's literally a major difference in their fundamental business models.
bigyabai
Apple does both. Under Tim Cook, services have become nearly as profitable as hardware, and the price of making services compared to hardware is comically low. That's why we have AppleTV and Apple News and Apple Arcade, for all they're worth as a motley crew of subscriptions.
adamwk
I guess this is a side-effect where, as things stood, developers were incentivized to just forgo IAP and force users to jump through hoops to find how to give them money; and that in turn wasn’t customer friendly. But in general I much prefer IAP to whatever payment system the developer uses. It makes it so easy to do things like change or cancel any payments I have.
In general I think centralized stores are customer friendly but anti developer. As a less controversial example, see how many gamers will wait months or years for a game to leave the Epic game store and go on Steam.
al_borland
There was also a conflict of interest, considering Apple has their own bookstore.
lxgr
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.
FireBeyond
Anywhere?
I've never seen that bug. Now, if you tap it near the bottom on the left-hand side, it toggles through that, by design (just as it does on the Kindle tablets)...
havaloc
If Apple eventually wins their appeal think among how hard it will be to put the genie back in the bottle.
goosedragons
Gonna be a looot of apps refusing to update.
snkzxbs
I suppose they can just take them down.
xp84
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.
granzymes
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.
geoffpado
> 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*."
null
what
They can just charge you per install or update over some threshold. Which wouldn’t be a commission on off-app purchases.
no_wizard
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.
tmpz22
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.
tantalor
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)
sixothree
One way or the other this is a seismic event for Apple. They did this to themselves though.
cyberax
Here's a thought: Apple should NOT be able to "monetize" third-party apps. At all. They have no right to the work of other people.
Apple wants to mandate a review? That's fine. Charge developers for the reviewers' time with a reasonable profit margin, and Apple _already_ charges $100 a year for access to the AppStore.
dhosek
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
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
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
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
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
Did you miss the recent court ruling that said Apple is not allowed to restrict developers from linking to external payments systems at all?
Coeur
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)?
lb1lf
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
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
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".
derefr
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.
victorantos
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
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
Do you mean Apple isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their heart?
dmitrygr
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
viraptor
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.
blibble
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
lurk2
> 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
How is it worse? It’s better now for me than years ago.
lurk2
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.
xp84
“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
Apple platforms are already kind of notorious for having the highest price sticker to develop/publish apps for.
mmastrac
The billions of dollars in cash beg to disagree with you. I don't think they are hurting for money.
dmitrygr
Nor am I. But if my boss cuts my salary I’ll still fight back.
bigyabai
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.
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.