or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Hulu Plus for iOS complies with Apple's subscription rules, removes Web link
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hulu Plus for iOS complies with Apple's subscription rules, removes Web link - Page 2

post #41 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

So what cut do you think that Windows and MS should get from iTunes? Or is it that the iPad is a store, and Windows is not - even though it provides a customer base for Apple - and a developer environment etc.

We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.

You're equating Windows with the App Store, not iOS as it should be. The two are closely tied, but not the same thing. The App Store is the easiest way to get content on an iOS device but is not the only way. There's HTML5 webapps as well as jailbreaking.

When using the App Store, companies pay for convenience and a large customer base. Apple provides value with a storefront and easy-to-use APIs thy facilitate easy purchasing.

Further, Apple relaxed restrictions, which means developers can charge different rates, allowing the customer to choose. They just don't want a freeloading app that has a big message saying "GO HERE FOR CHEAPER PRICES". There's nothing stopping developers from doing their own marketing.

It sounds more like you're against Apple not allowing side loading of native apps by default, which is a more defensible position. Personally, I preferred the gated-community approach.
post #42 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoogH View Post

It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.

You contradicted yourself twice in that statement. Monopoly in its business definition, and we are talking business here - right? In its business definition you CANNOT have a monopoly on or within something you in fact own, period. The term monopoly does not apply to owed infrastructure or processes or business. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, when you said "THEY ARE CONTROLLING THEIR ECOSYSTEM" you immediately disallowed the use of the term monopoly - because it doesn't apply. They OWN the App Store. It is theirs to do with as they please - be as hard-core or laid-back as they choose, because it is THEIRS. If they were supplying apps to all the mobile platforms, and were the majority supplier and preventing other app stores from competing successfully in the marketplace for all mobile platforms, then your statement would have some level of validity.

For the love of the English language, just stop blathering nonsense and misappropriating words just because you have not made the simple effort to understand what they mean.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #43 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Pay no attention to Gwydion. This has all been explained to him over and over again. At this point, it's clear that he's just a troll.

Yes, because anyone who dares disagree with the policies and/or decisions of the Big A must be a troll. Praise be to Jobs. Hallelujah!
post #44 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Yes, because anyone who dares disagree with the policies and/or decisions of the Big A must be a troll. Praise be to Jobs. Hallelujah!

[EDIT: comment removed - not conducive to discussion]
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #45 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.

How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.

If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.

Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.

Don't know if you have background in publishing or sales, but your arguments, while cogent, do reflect reality, for as much as you frankly don't seem to know precisely how the relationships between Apple, the publishers, Amazon, Best Buy or any of these retail-based relationships work. Or do you? You make very good arguments - but they are roundly speculative and do not in fact reflect the reality of retail operations. Otherwise things would be different and your remarks in fact reflecting accurately on what IS not what (IYO) SHOULD BE.

Correct me here though - if in fact you have the background to make the statements reflecting directly on those relationships mentioned above. I've been behind the scenes on a couple of different retail operations and would like to actually compare notes should you choose to provide them.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #46 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The levels which are activated in the case of games are downloaded prior to being activated ( in general) - this makes Apple the provider of delivery. Once the Kindle is downloaded it can access it's own servers to get it's own content -content which Amazon has already paid for.

Right, but the point is that Apple's App Store policies apply to both cases - by which I mean it's very hard for Apple to distinguish in its policies between levels that are in the game and merely being unlocked and genuine DLC that is being supplied by an outside server. Kindle definitely falls into the latter category but in the majority of cases it won't be that simple so apple wrote wide ranging policies that at worst will mean that an iphone kindle user has to go to safari himself to buy content, rather than there being a shortcut button inside the app.

Frankly I tend to buy my kindle books from a full-sized computer because Apple's website is horrible enough to deal with on a full sized screen - so I really don't think this will impact them badly.
post #47 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.

That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.

If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.

It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.

lets see how long apple lasts without hulu, netflix, kindle and other popular apps. steve already blinked when game developers told him they were going to use other dev kits whether he likes it or not
post #48 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Regarding a Kindle sale at Best Buy -- Best Buy does not give the Kindle product away. Amazon does give the Kindle App away free, and earns their profit solely from the purchase of books. Apple gets no revenue from offering the Kindle app in their App Store, nor many other free apps. Apple gets no revenue at all from free apps, and yet Apple's costs for the App Store infrastructure are significant, as you should imagine. Apple needs to get revenue to support the environment and they should.

They can bill developers for data hosting and downloading
post #49 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.

How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.

If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.

Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.

Well, the subscription/content IS still being sold by Apple, as it uses Apple's APIs and purchasing environment. Apple doesn't get a cut of anything outside of this.

As far as Amazon providing a benefit, Amazon could have offered terms to Apple, and had Apple agreed, then Amazon could demand a fee. But they didn't. Apple did. If a developer doesn't like it, they can not use the In-App model or even leave the App Store.
post #50 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

...It doesn't mean what you think it means. There is nothing monopolistic about it, period. Try using language that accurately expresses your thoughts instead of going for large words for which you have clue as to their actual meaning. Apple OWNS iOS, the App Store that serves it and makes the rules concerning how to use it. You can call them anal, draconian, overbearing but they cannot by definition (because in business, MONOPOLY has a very specific definiftion) monopolize what they in fact own. It is tantamount to you be charged with monopolistic practices for your car. You own your car, and can pretty much do with what you please. You can drive by yourself, you can pick up passengers for hire (subject to applicable local laws), you can give friends rides or even keep a fish pond in the back seat. It's your car to do with as you please. The exact same situation is in place for the App Store - Apple set it up, made the rules and invited developers to participate under those rules. Whether or not those subscription policies "cross a line" is determined by acceptance by developers, not you or anyone else.

Same this for the Android Marketplace - Google owns it but keeps the rules to a very minimum. But they can if they wish impose more rules if they desire because Google owns the Android Marketplace.

You make some very good points here, although they go directly against the point you're trying to argue. I own an iphone, I have owned multiple ipods, and I have owned a couple macs, and will likely continue to buy apple hardware in the future. That said, I DO NOT agree with their policies regarding my device.

The problem you seem to have is that you think that your iphone is still somehow apple's property, and they have the right to say what you can and cannot do with it. The car analogy you gave is perfect. Imagine if you bought a car from Ford, and were told that you can only buy Ford gasoline for it... oh, and Ford makes a 30% profit on every dollar you spend on gasoline. The gasoline is the exact same as other gasoline, but gas stations need to be outfitted with a special pump that only Ford leases to them. This pump automatically makes sure Ford is given their rightful cut of all profits.

A handful of people (jailbreakers) mod their car so that it can use regular gasoline, and Ford claims such modifications break the car's warranty.

This analogy is much closer to the relationship we are seeing between OUR devices, and apple's competitors. If I buy a phone, it should become MY phone, not Apple's phone. Trying to claim that iOS and Apple's App Store are two different things is really pushing the limits of logic. Granted in a strictly CS sense, the OS is just the kernel, but in the present meaning of iOS, the OS includes the OS kernel, the GUI, the application frameworks, and yes, the place where you buy applications.

I understand Apple has costs involved in running the iOS App Store, but those costs are not remotely 30%, especially for content that really has nothing to do with the store. In the case of Hulu, the content really is very different from the application. It really doesn't cost apple much of anything to host the Hulu application. They're not paying for credit card transactions, they're just hosting the downloads. Hosting space is cheap, and Apple knows that hosting free applications can convince people to buy iOS devices. In the case of Hulu plus, the content is in no way Apple's content, and the users are not paying for Hulu Plus because of the iOS App Store... in fact, the opposite is more likely the truth. The users are more likely to buy an iOS device because they know they can watch their Hulu Plus content on them, or their amazon content etc.

In many respects this has almost been a bait and switch on Apple's part. Both toward developers and to their userbase. Initially they allowed these applications with no strings attached. Apps like Hulu, kindle, netflix, etc brought a HUGE amount of content to people's devices, and that made these devices much more useful to the people buying them. Then a few years later, once the platform has gained a huge amount of momentum (partially because of these applications), Apple wants in on the action. They want to take money from these other companies that helped sell their devices in the first place. To the user this isn't as obvious, but they'll end up with higher prices, or less choice, with Apple changing what they can and cannot do with their property.

I don't like the direction the Apple's App Stores are going in, I don't like one company owning devices that I purchase. The power that they can exert is immense. Up until recently Apple was pretty benign with their ownership of the store, being fair to their developers and users such that they didn't mind the chains they placed on the device. If they keep pushing in this direction, and exerting control over user's devices... well the competition is looking strong, even if their hardware isn't as good.

Phil
post #51 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.

And I agree with that, what I disagree was forcing IAP saying that other were doing a free ride
post #52 of 83
deleted
post #53 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Well, the subscription/content IS still being sold by Apple, as it uses Apple's APIs and purchasing environment. Apple doesn't get a cut of anything outside of this.

As far as Amazon providing a benefit, Amazon could have offered terms to Apple, and had Apple agreed, then Amazon could demand a fee. But they didn't. Apple did. If a developer doesn't like it, they can not use the In-App model or even leave the App Store.

Well, Apple FORCED using the IAP system and only the IAP system even if before there was no way of starting a purchase within the app.
post #54 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

lets see how long apple lasts without hulu, netflix, kindle and other popular apps. steve already blinked when game developers told him they were going to use other dev kits whether he likes it or not

They relaxed their terms. What's to complain about? Why would those companies leave? They were bound to get special treatment anyway.
post #55 of 83
deleted
post #56 of 83
deleted
post #57 of 83
deleted
post #58 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Well, Apple FORCED using the IAP system and only the IAP system even if before there was no way of starting a purchase within the app.

No, not forced. You can go to the web. The web isn't locked down.

If you want the convenience of purchasing directly in the app, using Apple's store account, then you have to pay Apple a fee, as they provide that easy-to-use environment.

If you had created a system that allowed easy purchasing of Apps, easy purchasing of additional content in apps, built a huge customer base filled with millions of users with credit cards on file... would you not want to be rewarded if someone uses your framework and service? Nothing prevents people from using another method. If they use yours though, and unless you're a charity, I'd expect you'd want compensation.

Once again, if you're arguing that iOS should allow sideloading of apps or third-party native stores, then argue that.
post #59 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

No, not forced. You can go to the web. The web isn't locked down.

Before changing the rules this week, Apple forced any app which you can buy any content outside the app to implement iap system and disallowed any link outside the app to buy this content.


So yes, they tried to force the iap system on any app, now they have backpedaled but it's also not allowed to link outside the app.
post #60 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by philgar View Post

The problem you seem to have is that you think that your iphone is still somehow apple's property, and they have the right to say what you can and cannot do with it.

The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.

So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.

Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
post #61 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Before changing the rules this week, Apple forced any app which you can buy any content outside the app to implement iap system and disallowed any link outside the app to buy this content.


So yes, they tried to force the iap system on any app, now they have backpedaled but it's also not allowed to link outside the app.

If they changed the policy, why are you condemning them? The policy changed.

The "not allowed, within the app, a link to their website to purchase content" policy is the same as Best Buy not allowing Amazon or someone else to put a sign in Best Buy's store (or on the packaging for Best Buy stores) telling the customer to buy the product cheaper if you go to them directly.

We'll see how this policy goes, but looks like Amazon and Netflix are still being allowed their link, since it just directs to their website.
post #62 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.

So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.

Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.

I don't claim that users own the OS of their phone, but there are many rights they should have granted to them when they buy it. Your example of the book even works here. What apple is doing is more akin to telling someone that they can't draw in a book that they bought, or highlight passages. The notion of a publisher doing that is ridiculous.

What you are talking about is stealing content from a book and using it, that's a completely separate issue. Running an application on a phone in no way, shape, or form involves stealing the content of the OS. Doing this does not violate apple's intellectual property in some weird way, it simply involves using the OS for its intended purpose. It's a regularly accepted fact that an OS allows applications to run. That is the purpose of an OS. Saying that the OS vendor has the right to disallow applications that don't pay them a huge chunk of money is crazy on a computer device, although it isn't without precedent.

This same action has been done on game consoles for years, where developers who do not have permission from the console maker (ie give them a huge chunk of money) cannot sell applications for it. However, in this scenario, the rules were spelled out clearly before the developers started writing games for the console. With iOS, the rules are being changed after the fact. If Apple's draconian rules applied to applications on iOS from the start (using the terms they setup in January, and not the new relaxed ones), do you think the big content providers would have stepped up and built applications for iOS?

More important, do you think Apple would sell near as many iOS devices if it weren't for vendors like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and the other content providers? These providers all released free applications, and cannot pay 30% of the price they charge for the content to Apple, as I seriously doubt they have margins in that range, and if they can't charge extra on the platform, forget it.

Phil
post #63 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

If they changed the policy, why are you condemning them? The policy changed.

I haven't condemned the new rules
post #64 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

Under copyright law, you can do exactly that.

I assure you, you cannot. By all means try and watch your ass get sued. Fair use does not extend nearly that far.

Quote:
I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.

Ahh so if I don't buy into the facts then the facts cease to be true? Do you watch Fox News perchance - that's certainly their mindset.
post #65 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

Under copyright law, you can do exactly that.

I think your mistake is buying into the whole trip about a license. That leaves the door wide open to DRM on copyrighted works of all sorts, and kills lots of rights that consumers have accrued such over the years, such cutting up their physical books, or reading your Apple brand book on a kindle.

You're mistaking what you can potentially do with your own property with the ability to make changes to a copyrighted work and then SELL that. You can't do that.

Similarly, it is perfectly legal to jailbreak iOS on devices you own, and do with it what you will.
post #66 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

I haven't condemned the new rules

I've been using analogies that relate Apple's CURRENT policies with the policies of brick-and-mortar stores or a commission-based salesperson. I didn't agree with Apple's previous policies, although other brick-and-mortar stores like Wal-Mart conduct similar business practices.

My whole argument is that Apple provides value to developers with the App Store and In-App API, and that value is more than the simple credit card processing fee or any potential hosting of data. It is a service, and Apple values it at 30% of any revenue generated through their store or API. Obviously, many other developers also value it at 30% or higher, as they are more than willing to pay to have access to Apple's customers. So far, not all developers have seen the value of the In-App model as 30%, and they are free to forgo using that API and instead market to their customers directly and use the web instead. Other developers feel 30% is worth it, as the convenience factor will likely increase sales.

Apple merely doesn't want a developer blatantly directing the customer Apple delivered (since they bought it through the App Store, Apple delivered the customer) to circumvent the App Store and buy additional content directly from the publisher. They are free to sell directly to customers, but they need to attract those customers outside of the App and App Store.

Again, in all of this, you may not agree with Apple's policy of "walling the garden" and only sanctioning a singular store (by default; obviously you can jailbreak or use non-native HTML5 webapps). If so, argue this point, as it is more valid. If Apple allowed more than one store, then this entire issue would be a non-issue, but of course if they did, they would lose the benefits of having a closed and controlled ecosystem.
post #67 of 83
I want to know what the heck is up with Hulu being banished from Apple TV? It's not like it's technically impossible. Hulu works on iOS devices, laptops, Netflix works on Apple TV. What's up with that?!?
post #68 of 83
Apologies in advance but you make lots of good points so this is a monster post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philgar View Post

I don't claim that users own the OS of their phone, but there are many rights they should have granted to them when they buy it. Your example of the book even works here. What apple is doing is more akin to telling someone that they can't draw in a book that they bought, or highlight passages. The notion of a publisher doing that is ridiculous.

What you are talking about is stealing content from a book and using it, that's a completely separate issue.

I agree that the example I gave was more extreme, but that was precisely to demonstrate that the principle that you do not own the OS is not a new one, so we're down to debating whether constraints on an iPhone are reasonable. Some people genuinely think that it's outrageous that there are any restrictions at all and that they own the phone so Apple have no right etc etc. so it's good to get that out of the way.

Quote:
This same action has been done on game consoles for years, where developers who do not have permission from the console maker (ie give them a huge chunk of money) cannot sell applications for it. However, in this scenario, the rules were spelled out clearly before the developers started writing games for the console. With iOS, the rules are being changed after the fact.

Curse you - you spotted my counter-example in advance! I could point out that the the rule that they could change the rules was set out at the start, so the developers all knew what they were getting into. The real difference is of course that consoles were an old and established paradigm, whereas the App Store is charting completely new territory. Previous e-stores either sold only media such as iTunes, or sold only software such as Steam. Of course the rules were going to get amended.

Quote:
If Apple's draconian rules applied to applications on iOS from the start (using the terms they setup in January, and not the new relaxed ones), do you think the big content providers would have stepped up and built applications for iOS?

It would depend how they were enforced, if it was 30% of the gross sale price then obviously not. If it was 30% of the net transaction profit then quite possibly yes. At any rate it's a silly question, Apple never enforced those rules on anybody so it's a strawman. The 30% rule makes sense for Apps, and for in-app purchases of additional software, which is I suspect what it was intended for. It obviously doesn't make sense for content, as many of us argued even back then, and it never seemed likely that it woudl survive unamended. I don't think we're at the final iteration even now.

Quote:
More important, do you think Apple would sell near as many iOS devices if it weren't for vendors like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and the other content providers? These providers all released free applications, and cannot pay 30% of the price they charge for the content to Apple, as I seriously doubt they have margins in that range, and if they can't charge extra on the platform, forget it.

I don't know, but I do know that only about 6 million kindles have been sold, and we're already at 15mil iPads, so clearly Amazon wasn't the secret in the sauce. I know that netflix and hulu aren't available in the UK where iPads-2s are nevertheles selling out in the Apple stores, so clearly they aren't the magic ingredient either. Obviously these are good apps, but don't over do it - Apple had a hit product even without them.

Can you imagine how they would have screamed if Apple had refused to allow them to develop native apps? Can you imagine Amazon giving Apple the right to sell direct to Kindle devices - even if it ws only Wifi? Don't kindle owners own their handheld computers too? Where is the outrage? Of course Apple don't really care because there are already far far more iPhones and iPads capable of reading eBooks than Kindles and Nooks.

This is a difficult area because on the one hand Apple wants to get as much of the value chain as possible out of the iPad, and on the other it wants to encourage a vibrant ecosystem. Apple could have charged a huge fee for the iOS dev-kit and gotten away with it, but instead it sells for $5 - the PS3 devkit was $20k only a few years back. Apple is handling the distribution for the developers and is willing to handle distribution for in-app content too - which again is more than Sony do for their fat cut on console game profits.

I'm just saying that we all need to take a deep breath here and remember that the iPad and iPhones aren't computers, they're devices - and devices have often had different rules regarding what development is acceptable.
post #69 of 83
Your analogy isn't correct. I can legally take the Harry Potter story and do with it whatever I want provided 1) the use is non-commercial, 2) doesn't take from the copyright holder's right to make money from the work, and 3) doesn't violate any trademark by implying the content holder supports my actions.

Technically singing along with an album you bought violates the copyright. That is unless you have a good fair use defense like your action is non-commerical, isn't taking from the copyright holder's ability to make money, and doesn't violate some other right like a Trademark.

So the OS is like the actual story in Harry Potter. Apple can claim its licensing limits certain behaviors, but that doesn't necessarily make the limitations legal. Jail-breaking and unlocking are prime examples. Apple doesn't want you to do either, but copyright law allows both activities even though Apple doesn't support such activity.

So, the problem with your example isn't that you altered the images, but that you would be depriving the copyright holder of significant sales. I could do what you suggest and give copies away to all my friends.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The phone? No. The operating system? Hell yes. This has always been true, if I buy a book I own the book but I don't own the content of the book, I only have a limited license to that and the publisher has a right to limit what I can and cannot do with it.

So for example, I can't legally buy Harry Potter books, undo the binding and rebind the pages adding new pages containing pornographic sketchs of Harry/Ron/Hermione 3-ways, then sell them - funny though that might be.

Your mistake was thinking that when you bought the iPhone you also bought the OS, you didn't - you only bought a license.
post #70 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Apple merely doesn't want a developer blatantly directing the customer Apple delivered (since they bought it through the App Store, Apple delivered the customer)

And I disagree in this point, in Netflix, Hulu or Kindle cases I highly doubt that Apple delivered the consumer
post #71 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I don't know, but I do know that only about 6 million kindles have been sold, and we're already at 15mil iPads, so clearly Amazon wasn't the secret in the sauce. I know that netflix and hulu aren't available in the UK where iPads-2s are nevertheles selling out in the Apple stores, so clearly they aren't the magic ingredient either. Obviously these are good apps, but don't over do it - Apple had a hit product even without them.

Are you denying that there would be less sales if all the major apps weren't on the App Store but on other platforms?
post #72 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

And I disagree in this point, in Netflix, Hulu or Kindle cases I highly doubt that Apple delivered the consumer

Really? You highly doubt that more people read kindles on iPad/iPhone than on Kindles? Despite the fact that there are literally 10 times the number of devices? I have a small but growing kindle library which I read exclusively on iProducts. I prefer kindle to the iBookstore thus far primarily because iBooks on iPhone doesn't have an orientation lock.

So for me at least Apple did indeed deliver the consumer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Are you denying that there would be less sales if all the major apps weren't on the App Store but on other platforms?

That's impossible to answer, all I can say is that we know that they're not substantially lower in markets where those Apps aren't available at all. We also know that the iPad is the pre-eminent tablet and it can't play Flash, which means it can't access a lot of video sites.

I don't think consumers have that much brand loyalty to Netflix or Hulu - what they like is the service that they offer, and there's no reason why Apple couldn't offer that service itself - it already offers video for sale and rental, so why not subscription? The cloud would seem to be the first step towards it.
post #73 of 83
Ok - this is all getting pretty far off-topic, but I'm game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Your analogy isn't correct. I can legally take the Harry Potter story and do with it whatever I want provided 1) the use is non-commercial, 2) doesn't take from the copyright holder's right to make money from the work, and 3) doesn't violate any trademark by implying the content holder supports my actions.

This just isn't so. Fair use doesn't go nearly that far, consider for example Fan-fiction. From wiki

While such genres as parody and criticism are recognized by statute and case law as fair uses of a copyrighted work, fan fiction has not historically been recognized by U.S. courts as falling into these or other recognized fair use genres.

Only parody is legally protected, aside from that I cannot find a single case where an author's rights haven't been upheld against writers of fan-fiction. It rarely goes to court, but authors such as Anne Rice have been zealous in stamping it out and apparently quite successful. Rowling incidentally permits non-profit fan-fiction, but not or a pornagraphic or sexual nature.

Quote:
Technically singing along with an album you bought violates the copyright. That is unless you have a good fair use defense like your action is non-commerical, isn't taking from the copyright holder's ability to make money, and doesn't violate some other right like a Trademark.

PRS is a horribly complicated area which is why I didn't use it as an example. PRS in the UK have sued small businesses for playing the Radio. PRS sued youtube for music videos that had been uploaded by the record company themselves. Again it's not enough that it be non-commercial, the requirement is that it's non-public. Technically if I record myself singing Poker Face and post it on Youtube that would be a violation, even if my singing is so poor that nobody will be put off from buying a Gaga CD - however parody is protected so Cartman's rendition is ok, even though it's arguably better than the original

There is also an exclusion in the UK for sacred music in a church service and for music at funerals, so the playing of Bjork's 'Oh So Quiet' at a friend's funeral was covered - but if we had played it at his wake it would not be.

Quote:
Apple can claim its licensing limits certain behaviors, but that doesn't necessarily make the limitations legal.

Except as a previous poster has pointed out for the Console market. iPhone's OS is EXACTLY like a console OS and they have demonstrated in court that they do have the right to lock out certain software from their device, or to demand payment.

Quote:
Jail-breaking and unlocking are prime examples. Apple doesn't want you to do either, but copyright law allows both activities even though Apple doesn't support such activity.

Again this is more complicated than you make out. Jail breaking IS legal under an exception to the DMCA, but this is not a derivative of a broad fair-use right. It is subject to renewal every 3 years, and it's entirely possible that once unlocking becomes supported in the USA that jailbreaking will be removed from the exclusion list. In fact if you examine the decision - it's very specific to mobile phones - so most likely at this point iOS jailbreaking is illegal on the iPad. In 2013 they could extend the exception to tablets, or they could remove the exception as they did in the past to IP blocklists.
post #74 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Really? You highly doubt that more people read kindles on iPad/iPhone than on Kindles?

No, I haven't said so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Despite the fact that there are literally 10 times the number of devices? I have a small but growing kindle library which I read exclusively on iProducts. I prefer kindle to the iBookstore thus far primarily because iBooks on iPhone doesn't have an orientation lock.

So for me at least Apple did indeed deliver the consumer.

No, Apple didn't delivered the consumer, Amazon did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

That's impossible to answer, all I can say is that we know that they're not substantially lower in markets where those Apps aren't available at all. We also know that the iPad is the pre-eminent tablet and it can't play Flash, which means it can't access a lot of video sites.

I don't think consumers have that much brand loyalty to Netflix or Hulu - what they like is the service that they offer, and there's no reason why Apple couldn't offer that service itself - it already offers video for sale and rental, so why not subscription? The cloud would seem to be the first step towards it.


Can you answer the questio? A simple yes or no is all that I need. Do you say that Apple not having ANY of those apps and being on others platforms it won't hurt sales?

Really?
post #75 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

No, I haven't said so.
No, Apple didn't delivered the consumer, Amazon did.

Do we disagree on what this phrase means? I bought an Apple device and then decided to buy books for it. I chose kindle books because I liked their software marginally more, but had they not existed I would have settled for Apple. In my case Apple delivered the consumer to Amazon. Now a friend has a vast kindle library which he now reads exclusively on his iPad in spite of spending months swearing to me that he preferred the kindle's eInk to LCD. In his case perhaps Amazon delivered the consumer to Apple - though he already owned an iPhone so it's doubtful.

Quote:
Can you answer the questio? A simple yes or no is all that I need. Do you say that Apple not having ANY of those apps and being on others platforms it won't hurt sales?

The sales of the iPad-2 have been constrained by supply since it's launch, so while I'll stipulate that the loss of some apps would reduce demand I'll say that yes - the lack of those apps wouldn't have hurt its sales. But of course it's just an opinion, and there is no way to know, unless you have some links to market research that shows that those apps were foremost in peoples' minds when they purchased.

As for the iPhone I don't think that any of those apps are remotely important to its sales, and as 3G gets capped across america they'll be even less so. If anything was going to hurt iDevices it was the lack of Flash. Remember how Adobe insisted they were doomed because they lacked it? How the IT press got on board and insisted that Flash was a key requirement? Users apparently shrugged and went on buying. Nowadays practically nobody believes that Flash is a key selling point on mobile.

Suppose those apps really were critical to iDevice's success. Then Hulu/Amazon/Netflix could offer Android or MS an exclusive and make considerable income from the deal. You can be sure that MS would pay - they have a history of offering content suppliers exclusives and it worked well for them with the Halo franchise.

If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out. iBooks is already directly competing with Kindle, and if they just add an orientation lock on iPhone it will probably be good enough on the A5 that I'll cease to have a preference either way. On the A4 processor I find it a bit sticky.

Now see if you can answer my simple question. Why is it not an issue that Amazon don't allow 3rd party eReader software on the kindle?
post #76 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Ok - this is all getting pretty far off-topic, but I'm game.



This just isn't so. Fair use doesn't go nearly that far, consider for example Fan-fiction. From wiki

While such genres as parody and criticism are recognized by statute and case law as fair uses of a copyrighted work, fan fiction has not historically been recognized by U.S. courts as falling into these or other recognized fair use genres.

Only parody is legally protected, aside from that I cannot find a single case where an author's rights haven't been upheld against writers of fan-fiction. It rarely goes to court, but authors such as Anne Rice have been zealous in stamping it out and apparently quite successful. Rowling incidentally permits non-profit fan-fiction, but not or a pornagraphic or sexual nature.



PRS is a horribly complicated area which is why I didn't use it as an example. PRS in the UK have sued small businesses for playing the Radio. PRS sued youtube for music videos that had been uploaded by the record company themselves. Again it's not enough that it be non-commercial, the requirement is that it's non-public. Technically if I record myself singing Poker Face and post it on Youtube that would be a violation, even if my singing is so poor that nobody will be put off from buying a Gaga CD - however parody is protected so Cartman's rendition is ok, even though it's arguably better than the original

I don't think the person you are replying to is talking about distribution of commercialization like you are though. I can take a Harry Potter book and do whatever I want to it so long as I don't try to make a business out of that and distribution is based on first sale rights. I can do these things personally in my house and only there.
post #77 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

I don't think the person you are replying to is talking about distribution of commercialization like you are though. I can take a Harry Potter book and do whatever I want to it so long as I don't try to make a business out of that and distribution is based on first sale rights. I can do these things personally in my house and only there.

Commercialization is distinct from distribution. You can certainly tell your girlyfriend a Pornagraphic Potter story in the privacy of your own bedroom or sing a Beatles song to your mom over the phone and you'll be fine. But even non commercial distribution would run into copyright law.
post #78 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Do we disagree on what this phrase means? I bought an Apple device and then decided to buy books for it. I chose kindle books because I liked their software marginally more, but had they not existed I would have settled for Apple. In my case Apple delivered the consumer to Amazon. Now a friend has a vast kindle library which he now reads exclusively on his iPad in spite of spending months swearing to me that he preferred the kindle's eInk to LCD. In his case perhaps Amazon delivered the consumer to Apple - though he already owned an iPhone so it's doubtful.



The sales of the iPad-2 have been constrained by supply since it's launch, so while I'll stipulate that the loss of some apps would reduce demand I'll say that yes - the lack of those apps wouldn't have hurt its sales. But of course it's just an opinion, and there is no way to know, unless you have some links to market research that shows that those apps were foremost in peoples' minds when they purchased.

As for the iPhone I don't think that any of those apps are remotely important to its sales, and as 3G gets capped across america they'll be even less so. If anything was going to hurt iDevices it was the lack of Flash. Remember how Adobe insisted they were doomed because they lacked it? How the IT press got on board and insisted that Flash was a key requirement? Users apparently shrugged and went on buying. Nowadays practically nobody believes that Flash is a key selling point on mobile.

Suppose those apps really were critical to iDevice's success. Then Hulu/Amazon/Netflix could offer Android or MS an exclusive and make considerable income from the deal. You can be sure that MS would pay - they have a history of offering content suppliers exclusives and it worked well for them with the Halo franchise.

If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out. iBooks is already directly competing with Kindle, and if they just add an orientation lock on iPhone it will probably be good enough on the A5 that I'll cease to have a preference either way. On the A4 processor I find it a bit sticky.

Now see if you can answer my simple question. Why is it not an issue that Amazon don't allow 3rd party eReader software on the kindle?

There are many issues here at stake... sure hulu/amazon/netflix are just content providers, but they provide a lot of content, and at reasonable prices that people like. I would never claim that everyone who has an iOS device wants these apps, I personally don't use them, but knowing they're available makes the device more attractive. Right now I can't afford those services, int he future, things will change, and I can. I WANT those services available on my phone or future tablet etc.

With the example of buying the iPad, you partially bought it because you wanted to read books on there. Even if you were stuck with just iBooks, you might think twice. iBooks catalog isn't as impressive as amazons, knowing you have a choice is good.

The reason I don't get up in arms about other devices that have the same strategy is because for most of them, I don't care. I'm not invested in the platform, I don't have a device that uses it, and I have no plans on getting one. I've been using apple devices for a while now, and I don't want to be forced to not use Apple's products (which are often superior) because I don't like Apple's business practices, or find their restrictions unacceptable.

And at the end of this post, you brought up the point that I really really really concern myself with:

"If you disagree and think that Hulu & Netflix are such strong brands that they can make or break a mobile platform then I strongly recommend you buy their stock - I however think that they are commodity purveyors of other peoples content and that ultimately Apple at least will cut them out."

This fact really scares me. Apple is getting into more markets, there's no questioning that, and they'll likely be successful. I am not an Apple stock holder, I am just an Apple consumer, and this power going to a single corporation scares me, and makes me feel that Apple will have too much power over me personally, and I don't want that. I tend to trust Apple, and have in the past, but at the end of the day, they're a corporation that's willing to screw their consumers over for profit, if the profit justifies it, and with some of these moves, it appears that they're getting greedier, and more willing to do this.

I am not afraid of Apple going head to head competing with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. What I am afraid of is that Apple will offer competing services, and then block out my ability to use a competitors service. Or if not outright blocking it, making it extremely annoying to use a competitors service, such that I default to using Apples. This is exactly what Microsoft did in the past, only to nowhere near the degree that Apple appears to be doing it. When Microsoft crippled opponents office software on Windows, there was an outrage. If Apple does the same thing on iOS, will there be? Sure, iOS isn't a monopoly, but it IS a monopoly on the iOS devices that we already own. I can't install Android on my iphone at the moment and avoid apple, and even if i could, there's no way it would run well.

As Apple takes on these other services, they might not offer the exact same services, and they might not charge the same either. As a consumer, more choice is good for me. Being able to decide who I buy software from is good, and being able to decide who I buy content from is good. Giving all this power to one single company is a recipe for disaster. It's just asking to screw yourself over, and that is what I worry about. What happens when Apple decides that Netflix is stopping people from paying to rent Apple's movies? Or that Amazon is preventing people from buying more iBooks, etc. It's a dangerous idea, and because I've already bought into iOS, I feel that I have a stake in what they choose to do with it. I don't want the rules changed on me after I bought it (I know their EULA says they're allowed to change the EULA at any time, but is that in itself legal?).

There are just a lot of things going on here, and it seems on these forums everyone thinks Apple can do no wrong, as they have been fairly benevolent in the past, and not overly restrictive. However, the thought of giving them so much power sickens me. There's a reason on the rare instances that I buy music online (most of my music I get on CDs or LPs), I tend to buy from Amazon (normally I only do this when an album I'm thinking of getting is available for very cheap, otherwise I'll pay an extra dollar or two and get the CD).

Phil
post #79 of 83
A very well-reasoned reply. Well done, especially for just your 3rd post.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by philgar View Post

There are many issues here at stake... sure hulu/amazon/netflix are just content providers, but they provide a lot of content, and at reasonable prices that people like. I would never claim that everyone who has an iOS device wants these apps, I personally don't use them, but knowing they're available makes the device more attractive. Right now I can't afford those services, int he future, things will change, and I can. I WANT those services available on my phone or future tablet etc.

Well what you want is reasonable priced video delivery right? You don't actually want hulu or netflix or lovefilm or blockbuster, you want Avatar and Star Wars and Kill Bill. Apple will already rent you most movies, though some like Star Wars you can't get, and eventually the last few studios will sign up with iTunes.

Quote:
I am not afraid of Apple going head to head competing with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. What I am afraid of is that Apple will offer competing services, and then block out my ability to use a competitors service. Or if not outright blocking it, making it extremely annoying to use a competitors service, such that I default to using Apples. This is exactly what Microsoft did in the past, only to nowhere near the degree that Apple appears to be doing it. When Microsoft crippled opponents office software on Windows, there was an outrage. If Apple does the same thing on iOS, will there be? Sure, iOS isn't a monopoly, but it IS a monopoly on the iOS devices that we already own. I can't install Android on my iphone at the moment and avoid apple, and even if i could, there's no way it would run well.

I'm not suggesting that Apple would block or harass these firms, anymore than they harassed software firms that compete with them on the Mac platform. The only thing that I can think of that they've cut out in that way is Adobe Flash, and that was entirely justified by technical considerations.

I'm just suggesting that streaming audio & video services would fit into their existing iTunes business and so there's really no chance that an iPad owner will be left adrift and unable to watch Greys Anatomy in 2018.

Quote:
What happens when Apple decides that Netflix is stopping people from paying to rent Apple's movies? Or that Amazon is preventing people from buying more iBooks, etc.

But that's not why Apple would be setting up these services, because from a profit perspective they won't even touch the bottom line. To put it in perspective, Netflix made $150mil last year - Apple made $20B. Apple will eventually enter these businesses because they like to provide a completely integrated service and it fits their existing media proposition.

If Apple was going all out to maximize media revenue it could have limited iTunes to only digitally purchased music - lord knows the RIAA wanted it to. Apple's media presence is a defensive play. The point I was making was that Hulu & Netflix aren't rain-makers for a mobile platform in any meaningful way, they're just another fish in the ecosystem - and not even an important fish. Apple isn't designing policy with them in mind.

The big fish are game makers like Rovio (Angry Birds), if they left iOS that would be ten times bigger than Hulu leaving. Margins on games are far better than on video or music and games are differentiated far more because the experience of listening to Radiohead on an iPhone isn't really any different to listening on an Andoid, but games can feel totally different or even be exclusive to a platform. I'd bet cash money that Apple have registered an interest with Rovio's VCs, that if there's ever a move to sell they're interested.

Quote:
There are just a lot of things going on here, and it seems on these forums everyone thinks Apple can do no wrong, as they have been fairly benevolent in the past, and not overly restrictive. However, the thought of giving them so much power sickens me.

Somebody always has the power over a platform - who would you prefer? Google? Microsoft?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Hulu Plus for iOS complies with Apple's subscription rules, removes Web link
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Hulu Plus for iOS complies with Apple's subscription rules, removes Web link