Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Amazon's 'Kindle' App Updated to Remove Direct Kindle Store Links [Updated: Nook]

Following reports that The Wall Street Journal and eBook company Kobo have pulled direct content sales from their iOS apps in order to comply with Apple's new rules regarding in-app subscriptions and purchases, Amazon has followed suit with an update to its Kindle app for iOS.
What's new

- This update removes the Kindle Store button from the app.
While the Kindle app has always redirected users to a Safari web app for purchasing, it has until now prominently featured a button to allow users to quickly navigate to the store from the app. Users will now have to manually load the store in Safari when they wish to purchase new content.

Kindle app before (left) and after (right) update

Amazon has attempted to soften the blow of the new inconvenience for getting to the Kindle Store by enhancing support for newspapers and magazines on the iOS app. Users can now read over 100 newspapers and magazines through the app after subscribing via the Kindle Store website. Kindle users who are already subscribed to newspapers and magazines can now quickly access the content on their iOS devices via the "Archived Items" section.

Given the number of apps that have been updated or removed to address Apple's in-app subscription and purchases policy, it certainly appears that Apple has finally closed the door and begun enforcing the new rules that were to have gone into effect on June 30th.

Update: Barnes & Noble's NOOK app has also seen its "Shop" button removed in an update today.
You can read any NOOK Book you have purchased on this updated NOOK for iPhone app, however the Shop link has been removed so to buy NOOK Books from your iPhone, open your Safari browser and go to nookbooks.com.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

41 months ago
Happy now Apple? So much for ease of use. This is pathetic. :rolleyes:
Rating: 52 Votes
41 months ago
Thanks Apple. You sure provide excellent "user friendly" features. You don't even get your ridiculous 30% cut.

Just another dickish move... nothing surprising really.
Rating: 26 Votes
41 months ago
stupid really stupid apple, dont be so nitpicking all the time
Rating: 16 Votes
41 months ago

Since there have been over 200 million iOS devices sold, Amazon (and others) have the potential to reach a far greater audience. This is all possible because of the platform that Apple built. Why then, should Amazon be allowed to profit on this platform without paying "rent"?


Not this trite again. IAP is an optional service, a payment processor. Amazon has their own payment processing infrastructure.

The "rent" is the 99$/year developer fees and the 30% of the app price itself.

Can we drop the "rent" thing ? Apple wouldn't have sold those 200 million iOS devices with Safari alone, it's things like Kindle, the iOS games, Google apps, Netflix and others that make them worthwhile. It works both ways, as such, developers owe nothing to Apple beyond the 99$/year and 30% of the app's price. Apple has no grounds to force IAP/IAS on 3rd parties that don't require such a payment processing service.
Rating: 14 Votes
41 months ago
Is everyone here that has the app, just going to update?

I plan on holding on to the version that I have, with the button...
Rating: 13 Votes
41 months ago

Since there have been over 200 million iOS devices sold, Amazon (and others) have the potential to reach a far greater audience. This is all possible because of the platform that Apple built. Why then, should Amazon be allowed to profit on this platform without paying "rent"?


Because Apple don't want their customers to have this experience: "Wow! This is so much easier on Android!" :)
Rating: 11 Votes
41 months ago

Microsoft has every right to do what it wants with its platform; it seems perfectly reasonable to me for them to want to get in on the action from apps that are taking advantage of the platform's userbase (meaning, apps like iTunes that direct the user to the iTunes Store, in which case Microsoft gets nothing, despite providing Apple with the customer in the first place via the Windows device).


Fixed your post. Still fair enough?

Of course it isn't. And we're not even getting into the point that MS could never dream of signing all the code on Windows to exclude any competitors who didn't agree to their demands.

Apple being the exclusive source of code signing on iOS was always a terrible idea, that could only be justified if they treated it with the highest principles of only using it to block malware. They have not (quite the opposite). It can no longer be justified. There is no "built ecosystem" - there is merely the long term practice of restricting the ecosystem that would otherwise exist to favour themselves as they don't want to compete on quality of offering.

Honestly, the way some of you talk, if you don't like what Apple's doing with iOS in regards to content and 30% cuts, why not just ditch them entirely the next time around and spare yourselves the frustration?


Looking very hard at doing exactly that. With sadness, but this is completely beyond the pale.

Looking even harder at formal complaints to regulatory authorities - given Apple's market share of the tablet market this is simply not something that should be allowed to exist. It's not "fair" in the slightest. Apple are using market dominance in some areas to force through their own inferior offerings and control pricing. That's the very textbook definition of anti-competition.

Phazer
Rating: 10 Votes
41 months ago
Today neither Apple nor Amazon won.

Today the consumers lost. Simple as that. I love Apple products, but I'm not defending them here.
Rating: 10 Votes
41 months ago

Apple didn't have to open it's app store to other developers, they CHOSE to do so.


And in doing so, they have gained a great deal of value for their devices. "There's an App for that" wouldn't be possible without the 3rd party developers. The relationship is symbiotic and to claim Apple has more claim to riches in this than the 3rd parties is ludicrous.
Rating: 9 Votes
41 months ago

All the people that are complaining about Apple taking out the link, would also be the first ones complaining if someone was circumventing their system and not being compensated.


Why should Apple be compensated for doing nothing at all ? The Link wasn't using any Apple infrastructure in an unpaid way by Amazon. The iOS frameworks allow for you to write buttons that open links in Safari, this is paid for by the 99$/year fee and the 30% cut taken on your application's price.
Rating: 9 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]