/article-new/2011/05/in_app_purchase_icon.jpg?lossy){kind=icon}
Yesterday, we noted that Apple's new rules for in-app purchases and subscriptions for iOS were going into effect, and certain high-profile apps such as Amazon's Kindle app had yet to be updated to comply with the new terms. But with the calendar now having rolled over to July 1st and Kindle and other similar apps still apparently out of compliance, some have been wondering what Apple's plans are.
Macworld now reports that Apple is indeed planning to enforce the requirements, but has provided some additional time as it works with some high-profile developers to ensure that their apps are updated.
Macworld's sources can confirm that Apple has been working with various prominent developers to help them ensure their apps comply with the in-app content policies; expect to see updates to these apps in the near future.
Some less prominent apps will likely be pulled from the App Store as Apple starts to enforce the rule changes, but developers ought to be able to return to the store simply by updating their apps to comply.
Last week, Hulu updated its Hulu Plus application to comply with Apple's new rules by removing an external link to sign up for the subscription service. And Macworld notes that Netflix appears to have complied by leaving in a notice about visiting Netflix.com to sign up for the service but formatting it as plain text rather than a link. And earlier today, The New York Times activated in-app subscriptions for its content.
Top Rated Comments
I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.
And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.
Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.
You really should refrain from using the letters "l-a-w" near each other in any of your posts. It is pretty clear you have little to no understanding how the law works.
And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.
Exactly.
If Target doesn't want to sell JIF peanut butter then they don't have to sell JIF peanut butter. You can't sue Target to make them carry certain products.
The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
Again that stupid anti-trust B.S.If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.
:rolleyes:
Apple fans, of course, assume immediately that Apple should use the law against its competitors.
Typically neither side has a clue about the actual laws in question.
Apple is not bound to to host any app on their own App Store. Besides, this isn't about kicking anyone out, it's about letting everyone know that they need to bring themselves into compliance with a particular rule. It appears Apple is trying to help folks do that.
you can make that your argument all you want but tell me how the hell do you expect Amazon to turn a profit with the kindle App on iOS with Apple demanding 30% gross considering Amazon that would mean everything sold threw the kindle app would be sold at a loss since Amazon only gets 30% of the gross to cover all its cost plus make profit.Apple changed the rules all of a sudden.
I would agree with your argument in some sense if Apple would allow 3rd party App stores or side loading Apps. Both of which Apple does not do. Only way to get on iOS is to go threw Apple. This is a lot like MS anti trust case back in the day as something that is like it.Amazons business model has nothing to do with the app stores right to 100% determine what products they sell in their store. There is no law out there that relates to this topic at all. Feel free to cite US,EU,Zimbabwe or any other law that requires a retailer to not only carry and sell a product they may not want to sell but also do it with terms and conditions they don't accept. Instead of just dancing around and
pretending like there is legal relevance actually cite a single relevant example. Here is a hint anything to do with
Microsoft is not a relevant example. Unless you have some legal ruling
that allows apple to sell macs and Mac os in microsoft stores.
It is like Charlie browns reacher saying "wan wan legal wan wan law wan wan wan anti trust"
Actually say something pertinent and relevant about these perceived legal issues for once.