A store, virtual or otherwise, has a right to profit from things sold in that store. That's how retail works.

> So: is this actually a new stance on Apple’s part, as this article would have us believe, or did Sony violate guidelines they should have been aware of and play the Evil Draconian Apple card when they got bounced? Okay, so the latest controversy is that Apple blocked a Sony eBook reader app because Sony included a way within that app to purchase new eBooks. Unlike the Kindle app, which sends you out to a web browser to make new purchases, this app actually lets you buy right within the app itself. This is clearly a violation of Apple’s published rules, which is why Amazon coded its app the way it did. There’s no change in policy here.

So I think we have an obvious answer to the question above. Certain members of the press can’t resist the “Apple is Evil” meme, and certain companies, like Sony, have a vested interest in spreading this FUD.

The day you can purchase a Sony eBook on an Amazon Kindle, THEN this story might have some small shred of credence. Until then, Apple is doing nothing different from anyone else in the industry.

And besides, why should Apple be forced to allow any schmo take advantage of the incredible delivery system that is the App Store without having to pay Apple? You wouldn’t expect Target stores to stock items on its shelves if the sale of those items didn’t send a small percentage back to Target, would you? How else would Target pay its employees?

So Sony should be able to sell its eBooks via Apple’s store, and keep all the profit?

This is a silly argument.

Let’s take it a step further. Let’s say Apple allows this sort of app to be distributed on the Store. Now any developer is able to give away its app for free and then sell whatever it wants within the app, and Apple never sees a dime. Does that sound fair to anyone with a brain? Would you set up a store front and pay for bandwidth, and keep the healthy ecosystem going with millions of dollars of R&D and advertising and such, and then sit idly by as people sold stuff in your market without paying you?

Now, blocking content that was already paid for, such as not allowing apps like Kindle to download previously purchased books, would be a problem. But APPLE HASN’T DONE THAT. It has shown no intention of doing that, either. Speculation to the contrary is just speculation, coming from the very people (SONY) who would profit best from that speculation.

I would argue that Apple COULDN’T block previously purchased content, because then tens of thousands of apps would have to be pulled from the store. Dropbox comes to mind as a simple example.