or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board - Page 3

post #81 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Why can't a third party have a licence to read different formats and offer it as an ereader with no specific content provider?

Because DRM exists.

Almost everyone, including Apple, uses it as a means of device or platform lock in. Yes, the content owners insist on it, but Apple, Amazon and others insist on using their own proprietary forms of DRM. Although Adobe has a solution that aims to be cross platform if more companies decide to use it. If DRM were the same for all eBooks and third parties could license it, we could have independent reader apps that could read any eBook on iOS. That said, DRM doesn't prevent piracy, I don't know why we need it at all.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #82 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Why can't a third party have a licence to read different formats and offer it as an ereader with no specific content provider?

The content providers can sell from thier websites and offer no dedicated amazon or xMagazine reader?

That sounds pretty silly to me. After all, the reasons a content producer signs a contract with a reseller is because of the value the reseller adds to the process. In some cases (especially in those dealing with very large volumes of text) the app is that additional value. In the case of Kindle, that additional value is things like access to the same content across multiple platforms, sharing the same books, notes, highlights, and other settings among multiple (authorized) devices, and so forth. Another value which content produces tend to want resellers to provide is rights management to make sure that their content can't be stolen. Since the reseller is obligated to provided that protection by contract, that's not something which I can see publishers being happy about getting handed over to some third party, or even many third parties.
post #83 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

As I interpret this, the "agreement" mentioned in all of those bullets is an agreement between competitors, where in the case of apples subscription policy this is not happening.

Apple's App Store, is not a Kindle competitor. iBooks and Sony's ereader are kindles competitor.

And there is simply no agreement for pricing between these competitors that I can see.

Feel free to explain how I may be interpreting this incorrectly, this is just how i've read it.

Apple's new policy requires resellers to price content sold in app at, or lower than, the same price as everywhere else the reseller sells. If the reseller wants their app to appear in the App Store, they must AGREE to this, even if it is under duress. That's a pricing agreement.
post #84 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

That sounds pretty silly to me. After all, the reasons a content producer signs a contract with a reseller is because of the value the reseller adds to the process. In some cases (especially in those dealing with very large volumes of text) the app is that additional value. In the case of Kindle, that additional value is things like access to the same content across multiple platforms, sharing the same books, notes, highlights, and other settings among multiple (authorized) devices, and so forth. Another value which content produces tend to want resellers to provide is rights management to make sure that their content can't be stolen. Since the reseller is obligated to provided that protection by contract, that's not something which I can see publishers being happy about getting handed over to some third party, or even many third parties.

I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.

If a content provider wants to have access to kindle readers, they contract with Amazon.

What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?

Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?

The iPad can do more than a single purpose kindle, but the function for the content provider remains the same.

The debate for apple's policies on things having to go through the app store is another one entirely.

In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.

So why are they?
post #85 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Apple's new policy requires resellers to price content sold in app at, or lower than, the same price as everywhere else the reseller sells. If the reseller wants their app to appear in the App Store, they must AGREE to this, even if it is under duress. That's a pricing agreement.

No it isn't. Not between competitors.

the kindle has no agreement to provide book for the same price as iBooks and Sony ereader.

That is price fixing.

Saying you cannot offer your product in apples store for a higher price than outside the store is not price fixing.

It may be many other things, but it in no way fits under price fixing.
post #86 of 153
deleted
post #87 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Why do content providers NEED native iphone apps?

I mean the whole base of your points is predicated on the fictitious need to have a native app to view content on an ipad.

This is not the case AFAIK.

Restricting the 3rd party native apps from competing with Apple's native apps is anti-competitive. Illegal or not, it is anti-competitive. Why is this so hard for Apple fanboys to grasp. Apple makes great products but they are not your best friend and they are NOT looking out for your best interests.
post #88 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?

As I argued in an earlier comment, they are perfectly free to attempt to negotiate a contract directly with Apple, unless they've agreed to an exclusive contract with someone else. (Not necessarily Amazon, though they're currently the biggest.)

Quote:
Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?

It doesn't. But this is what Apple is insisting on for content which Apple doesn't have a contract for, which is part of why I have a problem with it.

Quote:
The debate for apple's policies on things having to go through the app store is another one entirely.

Sort of. When it's done for the purposes of protecting against malware, making upgrades easy and the like, I have no problem with it. In fact, I think most people would still tend to go through Apple for this very reason even if getting applications from other sources without jailbreaking.

But when it's used as a method of engaging in anti-competitive behavior, then it has to be part of the discussion.

Quote:
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.

So why are they?

Apple is succeeding with iTMS, but not iBooks. I can't say why because I don't know. One possibility is that most publishers just don't like Apple's terms. Another could be that they're already in exclusive contracts. A third could be that they simply don't like Apple. There are almost certainly others. No matter what the reason, the content creators/publishers have the right to choose what contracts they will agree to, and who they will or will not enter into contracts with.
post #89 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

How does that work is Amazon is compelled by their agreement with Apple to sell their ebooks at their web site for no lower price than what they offer through Apple's App Store?

Amazon is not bound to have an agreement with apple at all.
post #90 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.

So why are they?

Because history has shown that when you make a deal with Apple you can count on the terms changing from what you initially agreed to. Apple has screwed developers and content providers in the recent past, so they SHOULD be warry about offering their content through iBooks, iTunes and iTV, especially if doing so will give Apple a near monop[oly power over them the way iTunes was able to grab control of electronic music distribution. It is in the content providers interest to have multiple and competitng distribution channels and this is also in the consumers interest.
post #91 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

As I interpret this, the "agreement" mentioned in all of those bullets is an agreement between competitors, where in the case of apples subscription policy this is not happening.

Apple's App Store, is not a Kindle competitor. iBooks and Sony's ereader are kindles competitor.

And there is simply no agreement for pricing between these competitors that I can see.

Feel free to explain how I may be interpreting this incorrectly, this is just how i've read it.

It's not a agreement between the competitors. It's an agreement between Apple and the publishers. The fact that publishers can do it cheaper elsewhere and not offer their content to iOS users for cheaper if the content was sourced and paid from somewhere else than the iTunes Store doesn't seem fair to consumers at all. Even the people not using iTunes and the App Store get hurt by this, because Apple forbids any discounts from happening on content that is hosted on the App Store but hosted and available elsewhere.
post #92 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Restricting the 3rd party native apps from competing with Apple's native apps is anti-competitive. Illegal or not, it is anti-competitive. Why is this so hard for Apple fanboys to grasp. Apple makes great products but they are not your best friend and they are NOT looking out for your best interests.

First, dont lump me in with a group you have issue with who've made statements I haven't.

Do I necessarily agree with apple's idea of thier one-store closed system?

I dont know, I guess I do with regards to my phone, because I have an iphone.

I'm not sure this approach is palatable on a tablet. Hence I have not voted with my wallet YET.

HOWEVER, whatever your feelings are on there iOS policies in general, their APPLE APP STORE polices are in no way anti competitive within the structure they set up.

In that way they have set this up very much like a walmart. Again, CONSUMERS are who do or do not decide to accept these terms.

And in that context everything apple is doing is no different that any walmart or Target or whatever.

IF consumers and content providers and content resellers really want to cry foul, it has to happen at the iOS level, because the app store is not violating any laws with regards to how they sell iOS users content though thier store "walls".

This is how I see it, I am no sheep. I wont buy into iOS any further if I don't see value or fairness in it to me.

I will buy a tablet, not sure it will be this one.
post #93 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartfat View Post

It's not a agreement between the competitors. It's an agreement between Apple and the publishers. The fact that publishers can do it cheaper elsewhere and not offer their content to iOS users for cheaper if the content was sourced and paid from somewhere else than the iTunes Store doesn't seem fair to consumers at all. Even the people not using iTunes and the App Store get hurt by this, because Apple forbids any discounts from happening on content that is hosted on the App Store but hosted and available elsewhere.

Price fixing is an agreement between COMPETITORS. Thats the whole point I'm making.

This is not price fixing.

Find another violation to accuse apple of and it may have merit.

Price fixing simply does not apply.
post #94 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.

1) Apple is not distinguishing between the two, so no, there is no need.

2) Amazon Kindle is not just an e-book reseller. The Kindle app provides considerable value add by providing an e-reeder to go with the content, syncing content between devices, syncing my reading progress between devices etc.

In fact, if this BS causes Amazon to pull out of the iOS space my wife and I will be looking at other platforms instead of the iPhone 5 and iPad2. Apps like Kindle and Pandora and other content apps are very important to us and losing them would significantly reduce the value of an Apple device.
post #95 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Amazon is not bound to have an agreement with apple at all.

No, they're not.

Engadget posted a chart showing Apple's app store market share for the past two years. At 87.2% last year, Apple is clearly in the dominant position for apps on hand-held devices. That is not a market which can be safely ignored.
post #96 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.

If a content provider wants to have access to kindle readers, they contract with Amazon.

What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?

Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?

The iPad can do more than a single purpose kindle, but the function for the content provider remains the same.

The Kindle as an eBook platform is a far more attractive option than iBooks for most consumers and thus the content providers want their books available through Amazon on devices such as the iPad.

Why would a customer buy an eBook from iTunes when they can only read it on iOS devices when Amazon books can be read on the computer, the Kindle, all iOS devices and soon on anything with a web browser? Customers won't stand for buying the same book twice, so it's in the best interest of content providers to have their books available through Amazon on iOS devices.

Quote:
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader

Not many customers have a Kindle and a Sony ereader, because they do the same thing. A lot of customers have both an eReader (Kindle, Sony or otherwise) and at least one iOS device, so of course they will treat them differently.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #97 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Price fixing is an agreement between COMPETITORS. Thats the whole point I'm making.

Ummm You do realize that Apple and Amazon are competitors, don't you? As are Apple, Hulu, Netflix, Sony, and many others.
post #98 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Ummm… You do realize that Apple and Amazon are competitors, don't you? As are Apple, Hulu, Netflix, Sony, and many others.

It wouldn't be using those price fixing rules.

iBooks is the competitor, not APPLE itself.

Apple is not requiring fixed prices between iBooks and Kindle. They are trying to make sure that they can offer the best prices within thier own store, yes.

The issue alot of you keep bringing up stem from iOS policy, not the APP Store.

Changes have to be made there IMO, not the app store.
post #99 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The Kindle as an eBook platform is a far more attractive option than iBooks for most consumers and thus the content providers want their books available through Amazon on devices such as the iPad.

Why would a customer buy an eBook from iTunes when they can only read it on iOS devices when Amazon books can be read on the computer, the Kindle, all iOS devices and soon on anything with a web browser? Customers won't stand for buying the same book twice, so it's in the best interest of content providers to have their books available through Amazon on iOS devices.



Not many customers have a Kindle and a Sony ereader, because they do the same thing. A lot of customers have both an eReader (Kindle, Sony or otherwise) and at least one iOS device, so of course they will treat them differently.

I don't disagree with any of that, I just dont know what that has to do with this.

Consumers have to start choosing against iOS for these issues you are pointing out.

If enough content providers don't like it they should leave, if they matter as much as they think they do, users will follow, and change will occur.
post #100 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

iBooks is the competitor, not APPLE itself.



From the very top of the iBooks licence agreement:

Quote:
ENGLISH

APPLE INC.
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
APPLE IBOOKS SOFTWARE

Right after the header stuff, you see this:

Quote:
1. General. The Apple iBooks software, documentation and any fonts included in the Software (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple's licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.

Next time, please don't be so silly.

Edited to add: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
post #101 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

No, they're not.

Engadget posted a chart showing Apple's app store market share for the past two years. At 87.2% last year, Apple is clearly in the dominant position for apps on hand-held devices. That is not a market which can be safely ignored.

Since its widely reported that Android is passing or has already passed iOS in terms of users, then it seems apple just happens to have users who are more inclined to purchase content.

Which are the kind content providers want to sell to.

Or maybe Amazon ought to be focusing on why Android users aren't interested in paying for content and seek to rectify it, since apples policies are being termed "draconian".

Even in the chart you posted, Droid seems to be growing by a rate roughly 5 times that of iOS app store revenues, so maybe they focus on better marketability there and in time it will be a more lucrative market to be in while at the same time giving fuel to anti-apple sentiment in the public.
post #102 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post



From the very top of the iBooks licence agreement:



Right after the header stuff, you see this:



Next time, please don't be so silly.

Right, just like walmart, sams club, and others have thier own brands of competing services.

I understand that, what you continue to fail to demonstrate is how this is price FIXING.

Apple does not sell tvs, turkey fryers, monthly deliveries of toilet paper.

They do sell eBooks, which is where they are competing with Amazon and thier kindle services via iBooks.

Next time, don't be so intellectually dishonest, or condescending.

Again and again, all your points are really speaking against iOS's one store only policy, and yet you keep banging your head against the actual app store policies and ridiculous points toward price fixing, which make NO SENSE.

Apples store, apples rules, apples cut.

Walmart is not obligated to allow say, name brand detergent at the same cost as thier own brand, and in fact, in most cases they make the policies that guantee they undercut said competition in their own storefront.

Amazon would do the same to Apple if apple was allowed to offer iBooks on the kindle hardware.

Do you really think they would allow apple to sell books without getting a substantial cut?
post #103 of 153
deleted
post #104 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post



From the very top of the iBooks licence agreement:



Right after the header stuff, you see this:



Next time, please don't be so silly.

Edited to add: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

Quote:
In its most common form, price fixing is an agreement to raise the price of a product or service to or by a specific amount, e.g., all widget manufacturers agree to a 5 percent increase in price effective June 1. Other manifestations of price fixing include the following:

1. Agreements to establish or adhere to uniform price discounts;

2. Agreements to eliminate discounts to all customers or certain types of customers;

3. Agreements to adopt a specific formula for the computation of selling prices;

4. Agreements on terms and conditions of sale, including uniform freight charges, quantity discounts, or other differentials that affect the actual price of the product; and

5. Agreements not to advertise prices or to refuse to sell the product through any bidding process.

Let me do this point by point.

Most common form: There is not a uniform amount agreed to between ebook content in apples store.

1. There are no uniform price discounts between ebook services in apples store
2. There are no agreements between ebook services to eliminate discounts in apples store
3. There is no agreement to adopt a specific formula for pricing among ebook services in apples store
4. There are no agreements to these types of terms in apples store
5. Nothing there either

There is a big difference between agreements on price fixing between ebook competitors and Apple making it unlikely or impossible for competitors to match prices with their own product within its store, and still make a profit.

Which apple is under no obligation to provide to said competitors.

Unless You can attack and succeed in changing the one store only iOS policy.
post #105 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

No one was bound to have an agreement with Microsoft either....

How are those situations similar?

Look the reality is that Apple will soon own less than 50% of the tablet market, and they already are behind in the general mobile OS race....

I am not defending apples iOS policy that I can only buy programs for what I consider a PC - from them.

In fact it may make me chose another OS, and I doubt my phone and tablet will have different OS, so apples decisions in the next several months may also have me abandoning my iphone as well.

All I'm saying is that this is not price fixing, and under the terms of its OS its not currently considered anti-competitive to have only one source for software.

Until that changes you can only vote by

1) as a dev, leave iOS
2) as a consumer, buy into another OS
post #106 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Next time, don't be so condescending.

So tell me, what is the correct response to such a silly argument?

You keep trying to create distinctions where none exists (such as your silly iBook Store isn't Apple faux distinction) in an attempt to make your argument go through. If you really want to bring out the intellectual dishonesty club, you better make sure you're not the one about to get whacked with it.

Quote:
They do sell eBooks, which is where they are competing with Amazon and thier kindle services via iBooks.

Exactly. That makes them COMPETITORS in that market. (They're also competitors in digital music and video too.) That there are other markets which they do not compete in does not change this basic fact. In the market space where they COMPETE, Apple is engaging in behavior which will force Amazon to raise prices unless they pull out of part of that market.

Quote:
I understand that, what you continue to fail to demonstrate is how this is price FIXING.

Changing prices due to an agreement between competitors is the definition you keep using. Apple and Amazon are competitors in the ebook market. If Amazon keeps their app in the Apple's App Store after the deadline passes, that means that Amazon will have agreed to Apple's terms to set prices due an agreement which would then exist between the two companies.
post #107 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

2. There are no agreements between ebook services to eliminate discounts in apples store

That's only half the story. What Apple is demanding is the elimination of discounts in their COMPETITOR'S store(s).
post #108 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Which apple is under no obligation to provide to said competitors.

What makes you think Apple has a "right" to exercise such control over devices purchased by end users?
post #109 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

So tell me, what is the correct response to such a silly argument?

You keep trying to create distinctions where none exists (such as your silly iBook Store isn't Apple faux distinction) in an attempt to make your argument go through. If you really want to bring out the intellectual dishonesty club, you better make sure you're not the one about to get whacked with it.



Exactly. That makes them COMPETITORS in that market. (They're also competitors in digital music and video too.) That there are other markets which they do not compete in does not change this basic fact. In the market space where they COMPETE, Apple is engaging in behavior which will force Amazon to raise prices unless they pull out of part of that market.



Changing prices due to an agreement between competitors is the definition you keep using. Apple and Amazon are competitors in the ebook market. If Amazon keeps their app in the Apple's App Store after the deadline passes, that means that Amazon will have agreed to Apple's terms to set prices due an agreement which would then exist between the two companies.

Price fixing is fixing the prices between competing services.

For example, Apple and Amazon agree to price books at the same prices to iOS users. This is not happening.

What is happening is that apple is deliberately enforcing a policy that either

1) makes competitors selling books to iOS customers a losing proposition
2) makes apple a set amount of profit for amazon's sales to iOS customers

Effectively, they probably have made it such that apple makes roughly the same profit whether a customer buys from kindle/amazon or ibooks/Apple.

This is not price fixing.

The problem stems from only one store being allowed to sell programs on iOS.

Not the fact that apple wants to make a profit from things being sold within their store.
post #110 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

What makes you think Apple has a "right" to exercise such control over devices purchased by end users?

Ugh.

In all honesty, I don't. But I'm pretty sure that's what you agree to by using iOS.

I really do not want to use the offerings by HTC and Moto, etc....

But its really looking like I MAY be forced into it.
post #111 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

That's only half the story. What Apple is demanding is the elimination of discounts in their COMPETITOR'S store(s).

Only if they want to have a native iOS app, and sell content in apples store.

You know, the store apple is making its users buy.

The real kicker is that content and the app store in general just makes no money for apple relatively speaking, so IMO at a certain point you may find yourself losing a $1000 because you argued over a few pennies, if you get me.

But until sales slow, apple has no real motivation to change I guess.
post #112 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Let me do this point by point.

Most common form: There is not a uniform amount agreed to between ebook content in apples store.

1. There are no uniform price discounts between ebook services in apples store
2. There are no agreements between ebook services to eliminate discounts in apples store
3. There is no agreement to adopt a specific formula for pricing among ebook services in apples store
4. There are no agreements to these types of terms in apples store
5. Nothing there either

There is a big difference between agreements on price fixing between ebook competitors and Apple making it unlikely or impossible for competitors to match prices with their own product within its store, and still make a profit.

Which apple is under no obligation to provide to said competitors.

Unless You can attack and succeed in changing the one store only iOS policy.

Your entire argument is based on the falacy of "in Apple's store". For example, 2) There is in Apple's theory an agreement between ebook retailer (Apple via iBooks) and another ebook retailer (Amazon via Kindle) that Amazon will eliminate discounts to Kindle customers who choose to purchase from a lower cost retail channel than the one Apple and Amazon will jointly provide via the in-app purchase.

Apple is saying Kindle MUST allow in app purchases and they are saying that that retail method will be relatively costly (transaction costs will be 30% to Apple plus whatever Amazons real costs are). They are then saying that there MUST be an agreement to eliminate discounts to anyone who chooses to purchase through a lower cost channel such as direct on Amazon's web page. If Amazon want to stay in iOS they will agree and this agreement will drive up the pricing for content through Amazon and eliminate discounts. In turn, where Apple has the same content available in iBooks, they will be able to price it higher, 43% higher, without fear that Amazon will undercut them. This is price fixing.
post #113 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Your entire argument is based on the falacy of "in Apple's store". For example, 2) There is in Apple's theory an agreement between ebook retailer (Apple via iBooks) and another ebook retailer (Amazon via Kindle) that Amazon will eliminate discounts to Kindle customers who choose to purchase from a lower cost retail channel than the one Apple and Amazon will jointly provide via the in-app purchase.

Apple is saying Kindle MUST allow in app purchases and they are saying that that retail method will be relatively costly (transaction costs will be 30% to Apple plus whatever Amazons real costs are). They are then saying that there MUST be an agreement to eliminate discounts to anyone who chooses to purchase through a lower cost channel such as direct on Amazon's web page. If Amazon want to stay in iOS they will agree and this agreement will drive up the pricing for content through Amazon and eliminate discounts. In turn, where Apple has the same content available in iBooks, they will be able to price it higher, 43% higher, without fear that Amazon will undercut them. This is price fixing.

No it isn't.

Apple is ensuring that amazon cannot undercut them with regards to iOS users, but amazon can set the price at whatever they want to.

Again, this......is.......not......price fixing.

Is it anti competitive? I don't know, not until they prove apple having the only store on iOS devices is anti-competitive.

Like I said a billion post ago, I'm not saying its fair, I'm not saying its legal, I'm simply saying that it is not unfair or illegal under laws against price fixing.
post #114 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion.

Fuck whataboutary! This is about trying to put the digital download subscription business into some kind of context. Simply ignoring how other digital distributors do business weakens any rational argument that you could make.

Quote:
Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.

What "rights" does Amazon hold?

Quote:
Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.

Try painting "ASDASD GOLF SALE: THIS WAY>" on Bloomingdale's windows and see how far you get.
post #115 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Is it anti competitive? I don't know, not until they prove apple having the only store on iOS devices is anti-competitive.

HUGE difference. While I do not agree with the single app store, there are many solid reasons behind it other than reducing competition. There is no benefit to the ecosystem of regulating the prices Amazon charges outside the ecosystem. The only benefit is to Apple's revenue at the expense of their customers and competition.
post #116 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

HUGE difference. While I do not agree with the single app store, there are many solid reasons behind it other than reducing competition. There is no benefit to the ecosystem of regulating the prices Amazon charges outside the ecosystem. The only benefit is to Apple's revenue at the expense of their customers and competition.

I agree that this is more about apples bottom line than anything.

But you seem to be ignoring what the one store really means. It really means that its apples store. Forget "ecosystem", unless thats what you think walmart has. If you can just separate that and digest it as reality, you will see that what apple is doing makes perfect sense and is perfectly legal in that narrow minded light.

Ultimately though, one store may not be fair, may not be conducive to long term growth, etc....

Apple has said its only a break even prospect used to drive hardware sales, but this seems to be counter productive. Why are they choosing this route with a part of their business that makes nothing?

I don't know, maybe they see digit content sales as a big money maker 10 years from now that they dont want to relinquish control of prematurely.

Seems short sighted to me, but what do I know?

While I'm fairly certain nothing in their subscription policy is illegal, I didn't say I thought it was a good idea.
post #117 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post

Quote:
What makes you think Apple has a "right" to exercise such control over devices purchased by end users?

But I'm pretty sure that's what you agree to by using iOS.

Apple may claim they have that right, even in their licensing, but I'm pretty sure such a right does not actually exist.

First of all, I recall reading that Apple lost a suit over jailbreaking the iOS. That suggests that Apple does not actually have a right to control what applications are run on iOS devices once they've been sold. (Ah, here it is.)

Second, there is established law that illegal terms in contracts cannot be enforced. Though I doubt an "Our App Store Only" clause has been tested in court, or that there's an actual law making such license terms actively illegal, such a clause asserts a claim over someone else's property (a customer's iDevice) which the above lawsuit said Apple cannot assert. Therefore, it seems unlikely that such a clause could survive a court challenge.
post #118 of 153
deleted
post #119 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Apple may claim they have that right, even in their licensing, but I'm pretty sure such a right does not actually exist.

First of all, I recall reading that Apple lost a suit over jailbreaking the iOS. That suggests that Apple does not actually have a right to control what applications are run on iOS devices once they've been sold. (Ah, here it is.)

Second, there is established law that illegal terms in contracts cannot be enforced. Though I doubt an "Our App Store Only" clause has been tested in court, or that there's an actual law making such license terms actively illegal, such a clause asserts a claim over someone else's property (a customer's iDevice) which the above lawsuit said Apple cannot assert. Therefore, it seems unlikely that such a clause could survive a court challenge.

That's fantastic, now who is willing to go to court and challenge it?

I am serious, I would like to see it happen and the challenger win.

Before apple brings this policy to my mac and I get rid of my iphone and my macbook.
post #120 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post




Unlike most here, I don't claim to have the authority to make that decision, and will instead abide by the decision of those who do.

That's people choosing to spend money, lol, not market share.

That's like me making a pet rock knock-off and claiming anti-trust against the original makers because people dont buy my product. Android users are greater in number. It isn't really apples fault they dont like to spend money.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board