It looks like Sony Computer Entertainment’s Michael Ephraim got smacked by the WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? stick after his recent comments on iTunes. If clicking the previous link’s a bit much effort, he said:

If we do [get mass take up] then does Sony Music need to provide content to iTunes?

Currently we do. We have to provide it to iTunes as that’s the format right now.

Publishers are being held to ransom by Apple and they are looking for other delivery systems, and we are waiting to see what the next three to five years will hold.

Because tech writers are stupid, we all assumed this meant Sony was considering punching iTunes in the face, if Sony somehow managed to not make a total mess of its own digital music offering. (Recent history suggests not betting the farm on that eventuality.)

Business Insider now reports that Sony Network Entertainment COO Brandon Layden has a rather different take:

Sony Music as I understand it has no intention of withdrawing from iTunes, they’re one of our biggest partners in the digital domain. I think those words were either taken out of context or the person who spoke them was unclear on the circumstances.

*sniff sniff* Hmm. Smells of backtrack.

As reported on THE INTERNET, Apple is locking down in-app purchases for content-based apps. In a nutshell, developers will have to enable purchases available elsewhere in the app as well, and for the same price. This means Apple gets a cut, and the content provider loses 30 per cent. Apple argues this rule has existed since the start of iOS IAPs, but it’s just not been implemented for apps like Kindle and Spotify, and claims it’s not out to ‘kill’ such products.

Peter Steinberger on why Apple’s not being entirely truthful about its plans:

Setting up IAP is a pain. Keeping it in sync with your library is even worse. And there are also limits – IAP allows up to 3500 items – Amazon Kindle currently has about 2.5 MILLION items.

So not only is this likely impossible for Amazon from a commercial standpoint—its razor-thin margins don’t allow for Apple to take 30 per cent of any purchase—but it’s literally impossible using Apple’s current infrastructure. (Note: Amazon itself is no angel, since its margins have a tendency to put small publishers out of business, and it used to demand up to a 70 per cent cut—something a lot of people and pundits appear to have forgotten. This post isn’t about defending Amazon from the ‘evil’ of Apple.)

In other words, Apple’s reportedly giving Amazon until June 30 to totally change the way it deals with Kindle, but it’s impossible for Amazon to comply. This is about getting Kindle off of iOS, because it competes with iBooks. Thing is, Kindle being booted off iOS won’t make people switch to iBooks—it’ll make people buy Kindles. And time people are using their Kindles is time they’re not using their iPads and iPhones, potentially reducing the likelihood of them making purchases.

More importantly, I believe Apple is making a bad move in turning Amazon into an enemy. Amazon has already revealed plans for an Android store, and unlike the various kinds of shambles available elsewhere, Amazon will do it properly. In other words, it’ll be like Apple’s App Store, but for Android. Additionally, Amazon now owns Lovefilm, which European Apple TV owners were hoping would become the bundled Netflix equivalent outside of the US. If Apple and Amazon start butting heads, Lovefilm will instead become part of Amazon’s arsenal in creating an Apple-like ecosystem on Android that has the potential to hit iOS hard.

Under the link-bait title War looms as Sony hints that it will abandon iTunes, The Age interviews chief executive officer of Sony Computer Entertainment, Michael Ephraim, who actually hints (a bit) that Sony might (rather than will) abandon iTunes.

On Sony’s Music Unlimited, he says:

If we do [get mass take up] then does Sony Music need to provide content to iTunes?

Bwuh? Because, obviously, the most sensible thing to do is make it so you can only get Sony music from a Sony shop on Sony devices. I foresee no problems here, and it won’t at all have Sony artists spitting fury about the company having removed their music from the biggest online music merchant.

Currently we do. We have to provide it to iTunes as that’s the format right now.

The format? What? What format? Are you talking about AAC? Or do you mean “it’s a system Sony has to support”, in the same way that Sony supports, say, Amazon and Walmart?

Publishers are being held to ransom by Apple and they are looking for other delivery systems, and we are waiting to see what the next three to five years will hold.

Yes, those poor publishers. Why won’t anyone THINK OF THE PUBLISHERS? Man, Apple really are bastards, revolutionising the online music space, actually encouraging people to buy digital music (rather than nick it), and making a success of this. Poor Sony. I WILL CRY TEARS FOR YOU TONIGHT.

Everyone crows about Google being open and the good guy of the internet, battling the perceived evils of Apple, Microsoft and Facebook. What people don’t seem to get is that Google’s just a different kind of bad guy: one that’s somehow convinced (both itself and everyone else) that it’s all sunshine and roses, but that sneakily punches you in the back of the head whenever it feels like it.

Case in point: yesterday, without warning, one of the sites I’m involved with had its AdSense account blocked. There is no proper recourse and there is no transparency. You can appeal, but if you lose, you cannot sign up for AdSense again. There’s no explanation. There’s no way of accessing your data to answer Google’s own questions regarding your account that you need to answer accurately in order to appeal.

This seems to be an increasingly common occurrence, especially with smaller sites without the means to fight the ‘don’t be evil’ giant, but also with entrepreneurs who suddenly find accounts earning them thousands of dollars per month are suddenly locked, wrecking their business.

I’m sure the many blinkered fans of Google will provide some explanation for the company’s actions. “Maybe you got click-bombed,” for example, “and you should always protect against that, you idiot! I WUV GOOGLE!” And so on. But it’s not the account being blocked that’s the problem—it’s the process, which is about as far from open as it’s possible to be.

Still, that iOS App Store review process, eh?

The rumours were true: Windows Phone is to be Nokia’s “primary smartphone strategy” (TechRadar).

A full alliance would make perfect sense. Since cleverly dismissing the iPhone as a “niche product”, Nokia’s never come close to competing with it, because while it gets hardware, it doesn’t have a clue about the importance of software (despite actually making or buying decent software). Microsoft, on the other hand, spent years arsing about with its mobile strategy, before surprising everyone with the stupidly named but otherwise rather good Windows Phone 7 (for Windows Phone 7 phones—see what I mean about the name?).

An alliance gives Microsoft a boost, which it desperately needs at present, since it’s way behind in the race. It also gives Nokia a chance to avoid haemorrhaging further market share.

BUT! In a not-at-all shocking twist, neither company has the balls to do this properly. Micronok could become a direct challenger to Apple, with pinpoint focus: few unit types, utterly robust integration of software and hardware, fantastic user experience. Instead, it seems to be, again, hedging its bets, with a semi-open model that sits between Apple’s iOS and Google’s ‘fire it at every company possible’ Android. This is a strategic partnership, but you’ll still see Nokia mucking about with other platforms and Microsoft cosying up to other hardware partners.

Software Duncan Wilcox also notes on Twitter that the deal is somewhat one-sided:

No exclusivity on Windows Phone 7 means Microsoft is using Nokia as a trampoline for WP7 marketshare, sucking life out

I’ve no doubt this partnership will be successful, and Windows Phone 7 deserves to do well (despite its stupid name), but it’s a pity another platform isn’t taking Apple head-on.