or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DOJ claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DOJ claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon - Page 2

post #41 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post


Publishing is about more than just printing books. If the publishers can't make enough money to pay the authors and editors, quality will suffer.

 

The publishers can make up for that , by demanding there requirements to companies digitally distributing books.. Like Apple and Amazon right ?

 

Ah I see the picture now.. Why would Publishers have to be middle men, between the author and the digital book store.

The Author can go directly to Apple , like App developers publish apps to the app store.

 

If that happened, the Publishers go out business. Great so why not adopt that model, authors publish there books themselves on digital stores without the need for a publisher :)

post #42 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post

Apple raised the prices

 

 

Ignorant mob mentality in full effect there...

 

Apple never raised prices.

 

They sold books using a model that required book publishers to PLAY FAIR. that's it.

 

It protected Apple from having to sell books at high prices if Amazon colluded with a publisher to sell lower on Amazon.  And it also allowed others to be protected if those books were sold lower on Apple's platform. If that happened, then it would require the publisher to allow that lower price to be available on apple's platforms too. It did not even ask to have sales that others weren't privy to.  but that's what Amazon was doing! And the stupid DOJ wants to go back to that UNFAIR model.  Not only that, but they want to artificially cripple Apple's ability to sell books at competitive pricing as well as get into apple's music business making them unfairly uncompetitive their as well.

 

Nothing anticompetitive about it.  Steve said "if you let Amazon sell your book cheaper, then we get to sell it cheaper too."

 

Makes sense now, doesn't it?

 

That's all it was. 

 

In all, it was the best thing anyone could ask for.  All it did was provide industry fairness.

 

Took the buddy-buddy system out like yesterday's trash.

 

Again... the DOJ is looking like a protector of Amazon's interests, which are anticompetitive and a throwback to unfair practices.

 

Apple did something great here.  Might as well go with it.  Heck, it should be the only business model allowed. The publishers win, the retailers and distributors win, and the consumer wins.

post #43 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post

Since when it is not legal to try to slow down a competitor?  

I agree. Apple can change the way they operate their App Store because it's there's. It's not Amazon's or the DOJ. Companies do this all the time. Apple doesn't have to be fair with any other vendor. Apple is providing the App Store for use by Apple customers, not for Amazon or any Android customer to sell their products. Since when does a company have to sell a competitors product on its own system? The DOJ needs to go back to business school and understand how businesses work.

post #44 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

 

The publishers can make up for that , by demanding there requirements to companies digitally distributing books.. Like Apple and Amazon right ?

 

Ah I see the picture now.. Why would Publishers have to be middle men, between the author and the digital book store.

The Author can go directly to Apple , like App developers publish apps to the app store.

 

If that happened, the Publishers go out business. Great so why not adopt that model, authors publish there books themselves on digital stores without the need for a publisher :)

 

 

Great post.  It is not the job of the government to keep making publishers money.  As it is, the author doesn't get paid nearly enough for THEIR own work.

 

This is called Free Enterprise. Capitalism.

 

The market determines what it will support.

 

If there is a way for authors to cut out the middle man, then they should be able to do so.  No questions asked.

post #45 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post

Apple raised the prices

Apple was just using the retail list prices given by the Book publishers.  I think what people don't understand is that Amazon marks up from the cost to them by x%.

 

Apple sells at the list price that companies give to people and they retain 30% because they have a lot of costs associated with that like Akamai content delivery, which Apple gives Akamai a percentage of that 30% of margin.

 

Yes, ultimately the prices went up, but these book publishers didn't have a set retail list price established, which is where they screwed up in the beginning.   Look at what happened with MP3s, Apple originally started selling them for $.99, now MP3s are now more like $1.29m right?

 

So what Amazon did was they just marked it up a certain percentage from cost, since the Book Publishers didn't have a list price model established..

 

Now, whatever one wants to sell it at is up to the reseller, but Apple thought it should be a FAIR system setup initially.

 

What happens when you walk into a store and by something?

 

I think most people don't comprehend what they were trying to do.  

post #46 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I agree. Apple can change the way they operate their App Store because it's there's. It's not Amazon's or the DOJ. Companies do this all the time. Apple doesn't have to be fair with any other vendor. Apple is providing the App Store for use by Apple customers, not for Amazon or any Android customer to sell their products. Since when does a company have to sell a competitors product on its own system? The DOJ needs to go back to business school and understand how businesses work.

 

 

Not to mention they should be grateful Apple has the Kindle App on the iOS devices.

 

I don't see music and movies sold through itunes on the Kindle...

 

Maybe the DOJ needs to look into THAT instead...

post #47 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

 

The publishers can make up for that , by demanding there requirements to companies digitally distributing books.. Like Apple and Amazon right ?

 

Ah I see the picture now.. Why would Publishers have to be middle men, between the author and the digital book store.

The Author can go directly to Apple , like App developers publish apps to the app store.

 

If that happened, the Publishers go out business. Great so why not adopt that model, authors publish there books themselves on digital stores without the need for a publisher :)

Yes, an Author can go directly, but what a book publisher does is they can front the author money while they are working on the book and when it comes out, they can promote the heck out of it with marketing money.  An author by themselves may not get much attention because they might not have a lot of marketing money behind them so unless you are RIPPING famous and already have your own marketing, etc.  no one will know you exist.

 

That's why authors, artists go through record labels or book publishers.   For an author to become a best seller, you STILL have to get physical books in BN, and Borders, etc.  Just like bands still have to go on tours to promote their album, just like they still have to get physical copies out in various retail stores.

post #48 of 161

the sad part about the JOJ looking into that email is that they miss the point entirely.

 

Steve wasn't even talking about crippling amazon.

 

 

 

Phil sent an email expressing alarm about Amazon's commerical which showed the ease of which an amazon customer could ditch iOS for Android.

 

Steve then brilliantly and fairly said, then let's make sure the customers see the difference of why they should stick with iOS - our superior payment system.

 

It was all about showcasing the Apple device superiority to Android, etc.  Not a jab at Amazon. 

 

Apple customers would enjoy the convenience and security of apple's system more - therefore more likely to use iOS as their Kindle platform.

 

In other words, Kindle App customers would prefer to use Kindle on iPhone as opposed to Android because the payment system is better.

 

He was promoting the "Apple difference," something that all companies strive to do.

 

That's all that's there. 

post #49 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

"five years might not be enough time to restore competition to the e-books market..."

 

Because hamstringing Apple "restores" competition. What dream world is the DOJ living in?

 

As if allowing competition on price is the only way to restore competition... but I honestly can't figure out what retailers can possibly compete on price while Amazon is in the market.  In fact, allowing pricing competition specifically breaks competition because Amazon has significantly more volume than anyone else.

 

Regardless, the DOJ's entire argument is bunk because they assume that 100% of the competition in the eBook market is derived from price points.  This used to be true when a printed book was a printed book and everyone was selling the same exact copy, but now we have platforms that differentiate a given product between retailers.  People should be able to use their software of choice without being financially penalized.  To compete on price in the eBook market is abusive to the consumer.

 

In my opinion, fixing the price on eBooks for all retailers is a good thing because it will drive hardware and software innovation... which is where the competition should be happening.

post #50 of 161

Ebook price drops based on "volume" are a joke.

 

In printing, it makes sense.  there is paper, ink, manpower, etc. involved.

 

In Ebooks, it is the eBook creation one time.  then uploaded to servers. that's it.

 

Then downloading which costs next to nothing per ebook after amortizing server cost with everything else those servers are doing.

 

Amazon is the one with the unfair practices.

 

All Apple's pricing model did was to make sure that if a publisher sells cheap on Amazon, then they have to sell cheap on Apple too.

 

And that's as fair as it gets.

post #51 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Yes, an Author can go directly, but what a book publisher does is they can front the author money while they are working on the book and when it comes out, they can promote the heck out of it with marketing money.  An author by themselves may not get much attention because they might not have a lot of marketing money behind them so unless you are RIPPING famous and already have your own marketing, etc.  no one will know you exist.

 

That's why authors, artists go through record labels or book publishers.   For an author to become a best seller, you STILL have to get physical books in BN, and Borders, etc.  Just like bands still have to go on tours to promote their album, just like they still have to get physical copies out in various retail stores.

 

Have you noticed the model with Apps sold on App Store ? Apple Publicizes those awesome apps, likewise Apple could publicize the top selling books.

Granted its a lot harder than judging an app, compared to reading the entire book to rate it :P

 

I think digital book stores could take up the role of what Publishers did in the past.

And about fronting the author with money while writing books, come on i think authors can fund themselves.. not like the upfront costs of creating a book is high unlike App / Game development.

post #52 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post

Am I the only person here who realizes that Amazon's old pricing model single handedly destroyed the market for big box bookstores in the US? If anything Apple's pricing would have saved that entire industry by setting ebook pricing more in line with their physical counterparts. Amazon's old strategy has worked to destroy something that I believe was essential to our culture. People don't go to bookstores anymore. Amazon put them all out of business. Only now the DOJ steps in. This is so very wrong. Where we're they then? Amazon's whole strategy has always been to destroy the competition by underpricing them to the point of being uncompetitive. This isn't how I want my tax money spent. I like physical books and physical book stores. What is the DOJ doing about that? I want to see the government forcing booksellers to sell ebook sat the same price as physical books and not a dime less. That is the only way we can get our book stores back. Who's with me?

Sell both at the same price! Some use ebooks only for convenience, not price. I sell real books in my niche. There re some ebooks but they are terrible AND they cost almost as much as the regular product. What is DOJ doing about that? Holder and Co. have their fingers in so many pieces now they can't possibly know what they are doing. I hope that Apple can take this to the supreme court where the people there seem to be of a "little' higher calibre. This whole thing "smells" bad. Holder is TRYING to prove that Obama got what he wanted, someone to go after the bad guys! In this case he seems to have no rein on his own people, trying to make up for his genius fiasco in guns across the border.

post #53 of 161
The best thing about this is the DOJ's noteworthy attempts to protect amazon's ebook monopoly.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #54 of 161

I don't think Apple did anything truly illegal. But I do think that Apple, particularly Jobs, did not appreciate how speculative, reflexive, emotive emails could come back to haunt. 

post #55 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dontuwish View Post

Payback for not entering into agreement and complying with NSA/FBI data requests.....

This is the point. The DOJ is being used by supragovernmental forces that have nothing to do with the visible elected or appointed leaders. Amazon is getting payback for sharing search histories, Apple is feeling the prybar at its door. Blaming the president or the secretary is naive. Enough said.

Edit: Just kidding! Ha, ha . . .
post #56 of 161
So let me get this straight. The DOJ wants to perpetuate the Amazon model where businesses are forced to sell books below cost and lose tons of money and the only player able to do that sustainably is Amazon?!! The last man standing wins I guess. Looks like government is once again meddling in capitalism when it shouldn't. Regulating based on misguided ideas. Not only do these DOJ guys obviously know nothing about business, but they will perpetuate a legal monopoly called Amazon. Where do these guys think Apple will get the revenue to pay for maintaining the App Store, payment system, and vast server farms needed to support it all if they don't charge the companies who post their apps on the App Store? Amazon would basically be getting free advertising on the App Store and reaping all the purchases on their web site if the DOJ has their way. It's as if the DOJ were in Amazon's pocket, which I wouldn't be surprise to hear. I think it was Amazon who brought a complaint to the DOJ in the first place.
post #57 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


This is the point. The DOJ is being used by supragovernmental forces that have nothing to do with the visible elected or appointed leaders. Amazon is getting payback for sharing search histories, Apple is feeling the prybar at its door. Blaming the president or the secretary is naive. Enough said.

Edit: Just kidding! Ha, ha . . .

 

Really?

post #58 of 161
The DOJ seems to have missed the point that Apple didn't end up doing that kind of forcing at all.

Apple could have said our way or you are banned from our devices, period. Kill filed the Amazon app etc

They didn't.
post #59 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

 

 

Not to mention they should be grateful Apple has the Kindle App on the iOS devices.

 

I don't see music and movies sold through itunes on the Kindle...

 

Maybe the DOJ needs to look into THAT instead...

Apple can release an app for whatever platform they want to support.  They have the iTunes for Windows, OS X, and iOS, as that is what they want to support.  It works through an app.  What, you have to force people to write apps for every platform on the market?

post #60 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

The publishers can make up for that , by demanding there requirements to companies digitally distributing books.. Like Apple and Amazon right ?

Ah I see the picture now.. Why would Publishers have to be middle men, between the author and the digital book store.
The Author can go directly to Apple , like App developers publish apps to the app store.

If that happened, the Publishers go out business. Great so why not adopt that model, authors publish there books themselves on digital stores without the need for a publisher 1smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


Great post.  It is not the job of the government to keep making publishers money.  As it is, the author doesn't get paid nearly enough for THEIR own work.

This is called Free Enterprise. Capitalism.

The market determines what it will support.

If there is a way for authors to cut out the middle man, then they should be able to do so.  No questions asked.

So who does the editing? How about the typesetting? Who goes around to all the vendors and makes sure they all are going to carry the authors book? Who provides monetary support for the author before he is finished writing his book and foots the bill on the upfront cost to get the book into the store?

If the author is overworked and underpaid in the current system, how do you expect him to function with his support stripped away?
post #61 of 161
Why is the DOJ concerned only about Amazon?!! It's just one company doing business in books, among other things. They're starting to sound like they're in bed with Amazon. The DOJ is Amazon's gimp. Lol. Looks like they want only Amazon to survive in the end, because they'll just drive everyone else out of business. Then where's your "antitrust" ideals go from there? They want to stamp out competition, not promote it.
post #62 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post

Apple raised the prices

I thought the publishers set the prices?  Apple was only allowed to drop the publisher's prices to match the competition.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #63 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post



So who does the editing? How about the typesetting? Who goes around to all the vendors and makes sure they all are going to carry the authors book? Who provides monetary support for the author before he is finished writing his book and foots the bill on the upfront cost to get the book into the store?

If the author is overworked and underpaid in the current system, how do you expect him to function with his support stripped away?

 

Apple has spell checking software that can auto edit :)

Typesetting, now no one better than Apple at setting beautiful fonts for books.

 

About upfront paying the author, something can be worked out by Apple..

 

I think in a day were physical books become obsolete, makes no sense in having a book publisher as middle man.


Edited by nikilok - 8/23/13 at 1:47pm
post #64 of 161

In other news, the DOJ is saying the NSA is doing a fine job.

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #65 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

Apple has spell checking software that can auto edit 1smile.gif
Typesetting, now no one better than Apple at setting beautiful fonts for books.

About upfront paying the author, something can be worked out by Apple..

Spell checking software isn't good enough to edit a high school book report, nevermind a book set to be distributed commercially. Apple isn't in the publishing business, nor do they have a desire to be.

We have forgotten why we are having this discussion anyway. Self publishing is being proposed as a way to cut the middleman and allow books to be distributed more cheaply and/or make the author more money. What you are proposing isn't cutting the middleman at all; it is simply creating a new middleman (Apple).

The fact is that this publisher free system is a pipe dream. We need publishers, and if they go away the quality of books will suffer.
post #66 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The DOJ has also rebuked Apple for colluding with publishers and organizing "a blatant price-fixing conspiracy to raise e-book prices and end retail e-book price competition." The department has also accused the company's leadership of "willful and blatant violations of the law." Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services, is specifically taken to task as the "ringmaster" behind the conspiracy.

 

So where are the criminal charges?

 

Let's see these clowns bring on the higher burden of proof a criminal trial requires.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #67 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post


Spell checking software isn't good enough to edit a high school book report, nevermind a book set to be distributed commercially. Apple isn't in the publishing business, nor do they have a desire to be.

We have forgotten why we are having this discussion anyway. Self publishing is being proposed as a way to cut the middleman and allow books to be distributed more cheaply and/or make the author more money. What you are proposing isn't cutting the middleman at all; it is simply creating a new middleman (Apple).

The fact is that this publisher free system is a pipe dream. We need publishers, and if they go away the quality of books will suffer.

 

Imagine a day when books are no longer printed. Like the App Store has systems in place for curating apps, Apple could put systems in place to curate books.

Your not saying paper books are going to live on in the future are you ?

 

With automated systems in place, the book author would infact make more money than they do today via publishers.

post #68 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dontuwish View Post

Really?

What really? You brought it up first. Am I just kidding? Of course i am, of course I am . . .
post #69 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post

In other news, the DOJ is saying the NSA is doing a fine job.

Or the NSA is making sure that the DOJ is doing a fine job.

Edit: Just kidding . . .
post #70 of 161

I am sorry, I do not understand this statement the government made, I am assuming the government made this since I do not trust most of what I read anymore

 

Quote:
the government believes that "five years might not be enough time to restore competition to the e-books market and to ensure that Apple changes its troublesome business practices to prevent a recurrence of the illegal conduct."

How in the hell did Apple disrupt or change the e-book market prior to get into this. Does the DOJ remember they put a stop to what they believe was anti-competive practices before it even got started. The more I read about this the more it does not make any sense, the DOJ is using some really flawed logic in this case. 

 

Many already said it, Amazon destroy the market as it exist prior to them getting into the market. The whole Music industry complained about apple wanted to sell songs for $.99 but as we have seen the music industry is now selling more song online than they ever had and people are pirating less now. If anything Apple has made various markets more competitive.

 

The DOJ is basically saying that pricing can only go down not up and not creator of content is allow to set their price only companies like Amazon can and they can sell below cost if they want. I bet if the Obama administration did the math they realize this mean the government will just collect less taxes since companies will make less selling thing for less or at a loss thus never paying taxes.

post #71 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Ebook price drops based on "volume" are a joke.

 

In printing, it makes sense.  there is paper, ink, manpower, etc. involved.

 

In Ebooks, it is the eBook creation one time.  then uploaded to servers. that's it.

 

Then downloading which costs next to nothing per ebook after amortizing server cost with everything else those servers are doing.

 

Amazon is the one with the unfair practices.

 

All Apple's pricing model did was to make sure that if a publisher sells cheap on Amazon, then they have to sell cheap on Apple too.

 

And that's as fair as it gets.

 

So why don't you write an eBook, upload it to a server...

 

...then sit back and wait for the money to roll in.

 

Not going to happen unless a lot of people know:-

 

i) it's there to be downloaded,

 

ii) it's worthwhile downloading and paying for and

 

iii) there is an easy way to pay.

 

Which all add to the true cost.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #72 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I am sorry, I do not understand this statement the government made, I am assuming the government made this since I do not trust most of what I read anymore

 

How in the hell did Apple disrupt or change the e-book market prior to get into this. Does the DOJ remember they put a stop to what they believe was anti-competive practices before it even got started. The more I read about this the more it does not make any sense, the DOJ is using some really flawed logic in this case. 

 

Many already said it, Amazon destroy the market as it exist prior to them getting into the market. The whole Music industry complained about apple wanted to sell songs for $.99 but as we have seen the music industry is now selling more song online than they ever had and people are pirating less now. If anything Apple has made various markets more competitive.

 

The DOJ is basically saying that pricing can only go down not up and not creator of content is allow to set their price only companies like Amazon can and they can sell below cost if they want. I bet if the Obama administration did the math they realize this mean the government will just collect less taxes since companies will make less selling thing for less or at a loss thus never paying taxes.

 

Well the DOJ can't see beyond 2 days ahead and realize they are shooting there own leg :D haha ! Fools !

post #73 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


What really? You brought it up first. Am I just kidding? Of course i am, of course I am . . .


I'm not kidding. Apple has refused, on many fronts, to cooperate. Unlike Google, Amazon, and MS (Windows 8 and TPM 2.0) that are willingly giving them everything they want. Interesting that Apple has been the main bluster target on tax haven issues, even though the others are doing the same. And, they keep fixing exploits that allow access into their iOS devices. Try and image one without jailbreaking it.....

post #74 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post



Apple does not set the prices. They use the agency model.

Maybe next time do a little research before you make yourself look like an idiot.

True ... about the Agency model. It was what I had in mind, but no need to be rude. The fact is the agency model favored by Apple helped in rising the prices of the books even though they did not decided the prices themselves. (and before you are rude about my English, it's not my first language)


Edited by ealvarez - 8/23/13 at 2:50pm
post #75 of 161
What is everyone talking about regarding Apple's "superior" payment process? Amazon's one click purchase is too many steps?
post #76 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

 

Have you noticed the model with Apps sold on App Store ? Apple Publicizes those awesome apps, likewise Apple could publicize the top selling books.

Granted its a lot harder than judging an app, compared to reading the entire book to rate it :P

 

I think digital book stores could take up the role of what Publishers did in the past.

And about fronting the author with money while writing books, come on i think authors can fund themselves.. not like the upfront costs of creating a book is high unlike App / Game development.

The most comically absurd observation in a long time: "...come on i think authors can fund themselves.. not like the upfront costs of creating a book is high unlike App / Game development."

 

Time from conception to market can run from one year to eight years, some more. This logic coming, obviously, from someone who has never (and likely will never) write a novel, a play, a screenplay, a script for advanced games nor support a wife or husband, children, rent and food, and publishers aren't throwing money out their windows to anyone who thinks they the next greatest novel/play/screenplay. It's a vetting process that cuts the numbers to a fraction of submissions.

 

And the topper: "... likewise Apple could publicize the top selling books. Granted its a lot harder than judging an app, compared to reading the entire book to rate it..."

 

So how many monkeys are going to be hired to read thousands of books, and who's going to translate from monkey talk to AppStore review talk? The poster may feel very content in a world full of nothing but apps..my life only needs apps.. and leave reading to 'others' but there may be something(s) one would miss in that world, for me, at least.

post #77 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post

Am I the only person here who realizes that Amazon's old pricing model single handedly destroyed the market for big box bookstores in the US? If anything Apple's pricing would have saved that entire industry by setting ebook pricing more in line with their physical counterparts. Amazon's old strategy has worked to destroy something that I believe was essential to our culture. People don't go to bookstores anymore. Amazon put them all out of business. Only now the DOJ steps in. This is so very wrong. Where we're they then? Amazon's whole strategy has always been to destroy the competition by underpricing them to the point of being uncompetitive. This isn't how I want my tax money spent. I like physical books and physical book stores. What is the DOJ doing about that? I want to see the government forcing booksellers to sell ebook sat the same price as physical books and not a dime less. That is the only way we can get our book stores back. Who's with me?

Funny because all the bookstores I go to have plenty of people in them. It's the music stores that Apple killed that I really miss.
post #78 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Heck, maybe the DOJ needs to... you know... actually be just and fair and make Amazon have iTunes available on Kindles

No excuses.  iTunes is available on Mac and PC. Easily done on Kindle.

That's really the only monopolistic, anticompetitive behavior going on.

Sorry to take the wind out of the sails of your idiotic rant but...

Amazon isn't stopping Apple from bringing iTunes to the Kindle. Google isn't stopping Apple from bringing iTunes to Android. I bet both of them would advertise the crap out of it if Apple did. I could see the ad. "Now it's even easier to leave the iToys behind. iTunes is now available on the Amazon AppStore for Android."

Kind of kills your whole rant. Sorry for the inconvenience of facts.
post #79 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post

And yet both Google and Amazon take 30% of app sales and in-app purchases as well. I'm not sure Amazon does but Google specifically forces you to use their in-app purchase system as well if you use Google Play to distribute your app.

I'd like to know if Google takes 30% from Amazon for ebooks purchased through the Kindle app. I also agree that there should be tiered percentages. Amazon handles the storage and delivery of their content alleviating Apple of that responsibility so why shouldn't they pay less?
post #80 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dontuwish View Post


I'm not kidding. Apple has refused, on many fronts, to cooperate. Unlike Google, Amazon, and MS (Windows 8 and TPM 2.0) that are willingly giving them everything they want. Interesting that Apple has been the main bluster target on tax haven issues, even though the others are doing the same. And, they keep fixing exploits that allow access into their iOS devices. Try and image one without jailbreaking it.....

I believe you, and consider what you're saying to be a possibility if not a probability. The implication is that all the foregoing discussion about the merits of the case are irrelevant, because the whole thing is a sham, and that there is an extralegal channel of influence between the investigative agencies and the DOJ, one that probably persists from one administration to another, and one that no president since the 60s would dare tamper with.

So all the talk here about the mechanics of ebook pricing and the "choice" of the DOJ to pursue this are pointless when set beside the implications of this scenario of privacy protection vs. "data sharing."

It is not possible for a patriotic person to accept this situation, since as we all know this is a country of laws, not backroom intrigue. Therefore, being a patriotic person, I officially reject your hypothesis.

I like that phrase "bluster target" though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DOJ claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon