Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store - Page 10

Yes, a unified payment system across App Store products would be more enjoyable to customers. It actually isn't a bad idea, but if it is going to work out, Apple has to do so in such a way that won't create more negatives in consequence. History suggests that you're probably right with your final sentenceApple usually makes good decisions by the time the dust settles and I don't see why they wouldn't in this case.

Being strong headed here, however, will either drive these platforms off the App Store or increase prices, and either of those consequences trumps any potential gain in user simplicity (the first denying the opportunity entirely, the second I think all but the wealthy who do not care about expense will find to be unsatisfactory). Corporate entities have other motivations that trump these concerns (chiefly among them, profit) but Apple tends to factor the user experience in heavily.

It's hardly incoherent, non-sensical or irrelevant when my argument was directly in response to the call for the authorities to reprimand Apple as they reprimanded MS.

Obviously, you would have a case about Apple unfairly competing with other ebook app developers on Apple's own platform... If Apple supplied the OS for almost every other mobile device manufacturer out there. But last time I checked, they supply the platform for their own devices only. Are any other device makers using iOS? Didn't think so. (I hope my use of italics is OK with you. My use of caps constituted about 1% of my previous post; but as I feared, my emphasis on the one point that made a comparison the original comparison to Apple spurious, was still completely lost on some people).

Sony eReader app and Kindle app have a free rein on how many other platforms and devices? Dozens of platforms and hundreds of devices numbering in the billions of units, apparently, according to all the triumphant reports trumpeted recently about Android, and since Apple has so effectively shot themselves in the foot and used the integrated approach and not the modular approach.

I don't doubt that the loss of the Sony app or the Kindle app would be a bad thing for iOS. But that is irrelevant to the charge of illegal use of a "monopoly" for which Apple should be prosecuted; and that is what I was directly addressing. You may call it a "monopoly" all you like; it's a little incoherent, but I'll go along with you. And it makes little difference if you concede that virtually the entire tablet market consists at the moment of the iPad, as you appeared to concede. Surely there are bus loads of developers who can't wait to get their apps on competing tablets. I am so pumped that all the other device makers and platform developers get to show us how it should be done.

However, what Apple has its monopoly over -- their own product or a whole Market made up of all the players in the whole industry -- really makes all the difference. Perhaps you will grasp that sometime. It's not a difficult concept. (Pretend for me that the last three sentences are in caps; just in case you still don't get it, this is the relevant and coherent bit to your contention about Apple's "monopoly".)

Speaking of irrelevant and incoherent arguments: a number here seem to be up in arms about how their Kindle content is going to cease to work if Apple enforces the in-app purchase rule under discussion. Why would a change in the way an app operates going forward have anything whatsoever to do with DRM on purchased content? Talk about hysterical.

I would like to see you try and address the arguments he made with a bit of logic and counter argument. I know that expecting rational thought and discourse from an Apolyte is a bit much, but it would at least be amusing to see you flounder in the attempt.

KeyChain.

You dont understand anti-trust. APple got away with some stuff ( but nothing like this ) for years as it had 5% of the market. It has at least 2 monopolies now, maybe three.

1) Tablets
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability

and (possibly)

3) the iOS platform.

The reason why iOS can be seen as a platform, is unlike OS X ( which ran on one type of device) it runs on many. Apple control that platform which is a major platform in the new mobile world.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what argument he was trying to make, or if he even had one.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.



Priceless; floundering without even the attempt part, I knew there would be amusement potential.

Here is what he said. ( slightly edited)

1). Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.

2) Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.

3) Why should the mobile platform be so so different?

4) Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day. They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.

5) Apple should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.

The internet is now expecting a point by point rebuttal of these simple to understand points.

You are forgetting computers with Apple shaped logos on the lid. Surely that's another monopoly?

C.

No. It is a minority platform, or OS within the larger OS world. MS is the monopoly there.

However. Tablets, and MP3 players are not the same thing as your counter claim. They are defined platforms with a dominant OS player. Apple.

the iOS monopoly is a bit different. I may be wrong there. On tablets it is clear.

I think you are confusing form factors with markets.

C.

What is this "some stuff" Apple "got away" with when Mac only had 5% of the market?

Um, no. Because if the iPad is a PC I would expect it to be open like a Mac. It isnt a PC.

It is it's own category. All analysts treat it so. APple is a monopoly there, and the Same with Mp3 players.

Apple is a monopoly is some markets.It is liable to anti-trust.

Answering that would drag this thread, off topic. ( THink Sherlock, or other shady practices).

However, now they are a monopoly. Lets stick to the topic at hand.

If you want the option to buy books with in-app purchases, then feel free to use the iBookstore. The point of all this is customers and developers should be allowed the choice. Amazon has a competing, and superior, book store that has existed on iOS devices long before iBooks. They've played nice with Apple, not building a convenient book store within the app in order to avoid conflicts. Apple has been fine with this for nearly 2 years, but now its not enough. They don't like Amazon posting record quarters and selling more ebooks than paperback, tributing much of their success to the availability of their application on iOS devices, and not giving any of that money to Apple.

Tone down the fanboyism, it could be contagious .

Android's a good OS. It makes money for carriers and manufacturers, which in turn make some of the best devices tailored to a user's needs and further stimulates competition. Users get more choice, carriers can compete with or without Apple's warez, and products continue to evolve and innovate.

Google has admitted they're not pleased with the amount of sales on their platform and is going to focus on that as they begin to roll out their latest tablet-oriented OS. The ecosystem will improve, and developers will profit. Besides, how can you say they're not making money off Android? Angry Birds is generating tons of cash from ad revenue through their free games.

Your'e the one that implied apple did something nefarious with Mac. And it certainly points to your understanding of monopolies. You claimed another poster didn't understand anti trust, I want to understand so please explain.

Edit: Fine, run off. That's ok I didn't anticipate you would be able to defend most of your statements anyway.

I agree.

I've been a mac user and iphone owner for some time, and was planning on owning an ipad.

The advertisements for why I should buy the ipad center around the applications, as the ipad is a relatively useless machine with only apples stock apps and a web browser.

I only care about this if the app availability (the usefulness of the device) is harmed by these decisions.

But just the fact that the possibility is there is going to stay my hand past the ipad 2 release.

I'm not buying a device that isn't going to be capable of the things I want it to be capable of.

And right now there is no way I can trust apple to not change the functionality of the device through app store policy.

I'm not going to go buy another tablet type of device because the devices aren't there just yet.....luckily for me this isn't anywhere near the must have device that a phone of home computer/laptop is. But I will get one eventually, and if I find Android the more functional device for my tablet, my cell wont be far behind.

Let's hope apple knows what they are doing in these negotiations, i'm not excited about moving to a different platform.

But I most definitley will, if the dev waters turn toxic and it affects MY experience.

Yep, thought so. You are confusing product category with markets.

Does the iPad have a monopoly on the mobile gaming market?
Or the sale of movies?
Or the distribution of e-books?

These are markets. And the iPad provides the customer to multiple vendors in these spaces.
And customers have alternative ways of getting the same content.

C.

Is there a time limit to reply to *you* in this thread? You took 32 minutes to decide I had run off ( accurate enough actually. I had run off to the pub).

I mentioned Sherlock. There are other examples of Apple copying - to all intents - smaller devs code.

No it has the monopoly of tablets and MP3 players. YOu are not so much confusing product categories with markets, as confusing the clear fact that the total sum of all products in a certain category constitutes a market.

Like a toaster. If I sold all the toasters ( or had a very large portion) in the world I would be the world's toaster monopolist. If I owned all the diamond mines I would be the world's diamond monopolist.

Apple is the monopoly provider of MP3 players, and Tablets.

It is what it is.

Sometimes I'm not as patient as I should be, my apologies. Sherlock doesn't have anything to do with antitrust or a monopoly.

Because Apple wasnt a monopoly. I am saying it is now. In certain categories.

Be careful with the word 'monopoly'. It is thrown around far too often. If you sold all the toasters, or held exclusive control of the toaster trade, you would have a monopoly. If you sold most toasters you certainly would not have a monopoly. In the legal world the term becomes a little fuzzier, but even in this context the above is not really excepted. Companies get in trouble for 'monopolistic behavior' in most cases, e.g. using their control and influence of a market to shut out competitors. Some things Apple has done flirt with this sort of trouble, but they do not have monopolies on any open market. They sell the majority of products in the mobile music market, for example, but there is nothing stopping competitors from releasing competing devices, and Apple does nothing with its advantage to shut them out (short of making a better product—that doesn't count).

1) I am talking about the legal definition. Anti-trust legislation has targeted companies with a large market share before. It clearly doesn't have to be 100%, as that would exclude Windows.
2) I am not claiming any impropriety in the music mobile market. I claim they are a monopoly provider of Tablets ( as it now stands) and are excluding a competitor ( Sony) from competing.


Its up to the courts. We are not lawyers. There can be arguments either way. However I wouldnt rule out recourse to the courts if Apple tries it on with Kindle.

That said. I think they will compromise. They have a new subscription model for the Daily, already.

The problem here is how they handled this transition.

Given that there are as many Android devices as iOS devices stating that Apple has a monopoly on mobile devices is stupid.

Even for tablets it isn't clear given the market is still developing and not all the competitors have been released yet and there will be a ton of them this year.

Your statements are trollish and stupid. One wonders if you are an app dev at all.

Poorly.


Not in the 1st year of a product release.


And Ford was a monopoly with the Model T. For not very long. And no, they are not excluding a competitor from making tablets, ebooks or even apps.


Amazon sells more ebooks than Apple. That's going to be a very hard sell to claim that Apple has some kind of bizzaro ebook monopoly.


The only problem is you completely overreacted and spammed the forums.

The year of release is irrelvent. As it now stands Apple is a monopoly.
It is not just ebooks. It is all digital content. Al digital content is subjected to this tax. Everything.


Whats interesting is how this argument developed over time

1) Sony are lying. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
2) Sony are doing this in-app purchasing incorrectly. They are not doing what Kindle does. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
3) asdasd is lying about his rejection letter. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
4) Apple wouldnt do this evil thing. Sony is spreading FUD.

Then came the Apple statement. Apple was doing this evil thing. But that was alright. Argument changed, in about two posts to

1) Apple have every right to do this thing.
2) This thing is good.

It is particularly Orwellian. The old posts disappeared down the memory hole. What was bad was now good. What was good ( more books and competition!) was now bad.


look it is not a religion. I am an iOs dev, an ex-Mac dev, and I should write a cheque to Steve Jobs every year, or buy him a car, given how much money I spend on them.

But we can criticise this company. When they do wrong. As they are here.

I don't like being nitpicky, but I saw somewhere that Apple's policy does apply to only books. (That could be wrong. After all, it's the internets! )

Logically, you're correct. Bits is bits.

On the other hand, Apple does have a bookstore they're trying to get off the ground. That's the kind of things anti-trust laws are meant to discourage: using control of one market (iOS devices at the very least) to force growth in another market (ebooks).

Geez, I've been saying this since the outset of this issue. Apple has no desire to lose content and the content providers have no desire to lose a valuable sales outlet. There will be some kind of deal. Sony just had the misfortune of being the first to run into the new rule headlong and I doubt Apple would announce the deal with Sony ahead of Amazon.

It's funny to see that some who proclaim Apple is abusing its "monopoly" position are foretelling Android overtaking iOS within the year. That's some monopoly Apple's got there.

No, they are the dominant player in a new market. Someone had to start. Funny that some Android fans have been crowing that Apple's tablet marketshare dropped from 95% to 77% in a mere three months. And they further predict that Apple will have a minority position in tablets just as they have in phones.


Apple holds a dominant position in PMPs. However, they do nothing to prevent others from entering the market and they both play and offer music using standard file formats. It is not illegal to hold a monopoly; it is illegal to use your monopoly position in an anti-competitve manner. Please explain how Apple has been anti-competitve in this area.


Yep, this one you got right. Apple has a monopoly in iOS platform just as MS has a monopoly in the Windows, Xbox and WP7 platforms. BTW, Nintendo and Sony also have monopolies in their respective gaming platforms. I think you need to do a bit more research into what constitutes a monopoly and what anti-competitive behavior is.

Where is Apple insisting that the existing out-of-app purchase option goes away. They are only insisting that there be an option to make in-app purchases.

Even in this context this is incorrect. Your point below aside, the only reason why a company will get in real trouble for controlling the majority of a market is if that control is somehow used to abuse customers, or in occasional cases, the government deems that control to be anti-competitive (more common in line with, say, utilities). There is no viable monopoly lawsuit which could be brought against Apple for being the majority seller of digital music players or tablet devices. And it isn't right to completely dismiss a point because it is a legal matter.


There can always be arguments either way. Someone can file a lawsuit against Apple for making devices in a color that agitates them. It doesn't mean there is legal precedent for that lawsuit to matter. Monopoly does not apply here in the legal or literal definition. And while some lawyer somewhere might try to make that argument, we really shouldn't be throwing it around carelessly here without legal precedent to back the statement.


I agree completely. My expectation based on Apple's history is that they decided to change the way they are handling this and, to keep things simple, rejected Sony so they could re-evaluate them after they announced new rules. They're probably thinking it through right now, or have already thought it through, and will announce the changes soon enough.

The situation as currently interpreted (Apple wanting 30% from Amazon) is completely untenable except from the perspective of driving Kindle books from iOS, but in most cases when this happens we find that Apple remains quiet as they work out a proper solution and announce it down the road. We did hear a hint along these lines in the recent publication announcement.

Why? If you don't want to purchase thru their app, then continue to purchase it the way you do now.
Apple is not telling everyone the ONLY way to purchase is thru the application. Only that users must also be able to purchase directly in the application as well as direct from the company.

And to use your example, these corporations should pay Apple for people using an iPad to view their content.

And? What's your point?
If Amazon sells 1 million $10 books through their own website on the iPad (as they do now), then Amazon has made $10 million.
Amazon will simply have to market more to get consumers to use the Amazon store and not make the purchase directly in the Kindle app.

You can say Apple is a monopoly all you want, but you'd still be wrong. You clearly don't understand what a monopoly means from a legal standpoint. Besides, monopolies in and of themselves aren't necessarily illegal. It's when a monopolist uses its power to drive competition out of business that it runs afoul of antitrust laws. There's nothing of the sort going on here. Apple is merely saying if you want access to our customer base to sell your products, you need to play by the rules. There's nothing illegal or nefarious about it.

By your reasoning, Amazon is an illegal monopolist because it doesn't allow iBooks on Kindles. Apple doesn't have to allow any competitors access to its customer base. It does so because it makes sense for Apple to do so, because it brings added value to various iProducts. But those competitors, if they want access to Apple's customers, need to follow the rules. No one is being cut out.

\\

Respectfully, isnt the bigger issue the stores rights? The store you bought that record player from did not have to stock that particular make or model. Imagine if all the manufactures felt that the government should step in and force all retail outlets to carry their record players...Hope not...

from the customer's point of view.

It doesn't matter what's fair to Apple or Amazon.

If the Kindle app leaves my iPod touch and iBook selection stays poor, the next reading device I buy will be a Kindle. (I'll be as unhappy about buying a Kindle as I am about buying MS Office. But I'll have to do it anyway.)

Just as Sony realizes the current music platform is iTunes and they have no choice but to sell their music through iTunes, Apple needs to realize that the current ebook seller is Amazon and iOS needs to support Kindle books.