Amazon is not innocent here. They are incredibly predatory as a middleman

I buy a $10 book on Google Books, $3 goes to Google, $7 goes to the publisher. I buy the same on the Kindle Android app, $3 goes to Google, ?? goes to Amazon, < $7 goes to the publisher.

Since Amazon had been selling books on the Kindle app for a while, I assume they made more than 30% to be worth it, or pushed the cost to the publishers? Or probably worked out some deal with Google, which seems a bit unlikely.

Amazon's cut is 60%, 75% if you're not in an Amazon exclusivity deal (you also won't get boosted).

So basically Google 3$, Amazon 4$, publisher 3$.

If you go to Amazon marketplace directly, Amazon gets 6$, publisher gets 4$.

Amazon complaining about predatory marketplace is rich.

For a long while everybody ignored the Google's cut from the purchases. Google only started enforcing it a couple of years ago.

Ah that makes sense. I think the workaround was that you could pay without entering payment information, but Google didn't go into every app to enforce this at the time.

> I agree that this is ridiculous, but blame Apple and Google for wanting their 30% cut of digital goods;

That only explains steps 1-2.

> That only explains steps 1-2.

Okay, so Steps 1-2 can be explained by the closed ecosystem of the device. You don't get these hurdles if your device is not closed-off.

Step 3 can be explained by the retailer of that good complying with international IP laws.

Step 4 is just step 1 for everyone else.

Step 5 is a legitimate WTF moment.

Step 6 is once again the result of avoiding the open ecosystem (the web).

Of those 6 steps that the GP complained about:

1. 3 of them are self-inflicted because of his choice of device and usage,

2. 1 is due to legal issues,

3. 1 is not a valid complaint,

4. 1 is an actual and valid complaint about the lack of a feature in the app.

> but blame Apple and Google for wanting their 30% cut of digital goods

I imagine that Amazon did the math here and decided that the 30% is more than the lost sales due to the obnoxious process involved, but I struggle to see how that's true.

Apple prohibits Amazon from selling books on the iOS Kindle app, trying to force people to buy it via Apple Books instead.

Apple is not prohibiting anything. This is purely Amazon's decision. They make customer's life hell to save money.

Amazon don't want to pay Apple's ransom, Apple has no part in the transaction, has no costs, yet is acting as the Mafia, demanding their cut if you operate on their territory. Giving in to Apple's crimes would be immoral.

Crimes? It's market economy, man. Apple created great phones. Think Apple and its phones are bad? Don't offer your app on them. Oh but everyone uses these phones. So if you're amazon you now offer the app in a half-assed way to capture customers but avoid giving Apple money for further improvement of their phones... Cool beans! Way to take care of your customers.

That's the point, if a lot of people use the platform you can't ignore it, so you're forced to either offer a bad experience or pay the extortion fee, EU will have to fix it I guess

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/AT.40437

This is completely wrong and sportsteamy. Apple set the scene by getting away with a light wrist slap for colluding with major publishers. That set the scene for the book ecosystem as you see it now. Twisting the situation to fit a brand loyalty is in poor taste.