MS wasn't punished for being a monopoly. They were punished for abusing their position and stifling competition in the market.
I do understand what antitrust is. And of course, you can't punish people for being a monopoly, because, for example, they're the best. Think google for search, and you'll see there are monopolies.
However, if Apple takes a cut of anything that goes through an iPhone on the grounds its their platform, they ARE abusing their position, which is anti-trust material.
Then again, maybe you are right, and I am wrong. But you'll CERTAINLY understand that I think either Apple will clarify it's position or the EU/Feds will act.
And like I said, if Apple decides it doesn't want to confuse the idiot consumer by allowing a price differential between in-app and external purchases, then ALL prices will go up. They have to, as Apple is charging 30% for what is essentially a payment service.
I'm kind of keen on that idea. Are you?
The more likely outcome is that Apple and Amazon (and others) agree to a lower fee that enables pricing to continue as is. Apple wants a cut, not to make enemies.
But they *ARE* paying those costs... they pay for the bandwidth to serve the books to you. Pay attention already, sheesh. Its embarrassing.
If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.
Quote:
Look, if Apple offered a fair alternative or rate for processing transactions, this wouldn't be that big of an issue. Apple should take no more than the cost of doing the transaction, which I would guess would be no more than 5%. Certainly not 30%.
How do you know what it costs Apple?
Quote:
I know its convenient for you, and that's one of the points that Apple will use to strongarm content creators into doing, but this is bad for developers (once again) and content creators. Many use Amazon or someone else to sell their products because, frankly, they can't afford the 30% markup that Apple enforces.
Apple's been charging the 30% for two and half years now and its been working fine. How will this suddenly become a huge problem?
You are just speculating. You don't know if you will pay more for purchases through Amazon.com and there is no reason for you to pay more if you buy your ebooks using Amazon.com. If you don't want to go through the in app purchase process then you can fire up your Safari browser from iOS and buy the book through Amazon website. When you open the kindle app you will see you new purchase.
Yes, I agree with you, I am speculating. I did explain in an earlier post that, provided as a user, I do not pay more through the webstore than I should, because of the in-app purchases, then I have NO issue with that whole affair.
However, as other posters and I have stated, it would lead to a curious situation where people have the opportunity to pay 30% more to not leave the app and go to the webstore...
Of course, some people are right when they say 30% is a share that might change. Hence, let's say X%.
However, if someone goes through in app because they use the service of "I'm not leaving the app", they WILL pay something close to (X%+(price of feature development)/(number of sales until feature development has been paid for). That money is not magically created through the process.
Either the client for that service pays for it, either other clients pay for it. In both case, someone does pay for it, and it's neither Apple nor the content provider.
Apple makes it not optional to provide that option.
This has two consequences.
First, it creates a cost (minimal, htough) for the companies who need to have that feature added. You WILL pay for that overhead, you know? So, that option, which you'll pay, you should wish to decline.... but it's your money.
Second, it will also make prices on content itself higher if prices are not different on the web store and on the apple store (where, due to the cut, it SHOULD be higher).
Suppose prices are so. Then as a consumer, you'll end up spending more money if you buy on the Apple Store (in-app). If you're ready to pay a bit more to NOT leave your app, fine, that's your money, once again. The service sold is "not leaving your app". I'm okay with that...
Suppose prices are not so (eg, Apple requires prices to be the same on both stores). Then, as a client of the webstore, you get swindled, as you will pay for part of the sales made on the appstore.
That's an issue.
The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.
I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.
Apple's financials are fully disclosed to the public. Everyone can see where the money is going. You can see how much money they are making from iTunes.
Basically nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
However, if Apple takes a cut of anything that goes through an iPhone on the grounds its their platform, they ARE abusing their position, which is anti-trust material.
If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.
All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.
Quote:
Apple's been charging the 30% for two and half years now and its been working fine. How will this suddenly become a huge problem?
Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever. They've never needed to, and their current reader relies on a business model and agreements with all of the publishers they have signed on. By forcing in-app purchases to be an option, Amazon would have to reach new agreements with all of their publishers just to keep their application on for a single source, and would incur *HEAVY* costs to their revenue if many of the books sold go through Apple and their ridiculous 30%.
Bottom line, when you do the math, the one who incurs the cost of this move is not Apple, since it costs pennies to process a credit card, and isn't Amazon, who isn't going to tear into their already-diminishing profit margin. The one who is going to incur the cost is YOU, the consumer, because you now have to pay more for the same content. That, or have the reader pulled, and along with it, your ability to access the library of books you already purchased and own. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses due to Apple's greed.
All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.
If that's all Apple does.
Then who built and maintains the App Store.
Who reviews and approves 400,000 apps?
Where are all of these 400,000 apps stored?
Who pays for the bandwidth of streaming over 1 billion apps?
Quote:
Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever.
Exactly what proof do you have that this will be some huge problem fro Amazon?
All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.
Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever. They've never needed to, and their current reader relies on a business model and agreements with all of the publishers they have signed on. By forcing in-app purchases to be an option, Amazon would have to reach new agreements with all of their publishers just to keep their application on for a single source, and would incur *HEAVY* costs to their revenue if many of the books sold go through Apple and their ridiculous 30%.
Bottom line, when you do the math, the one who incurs the cost of this move is not Apple, since it costs pennies to process a credit card, and isn't Amazon, who isn't going to tear into their already-diminishing profit margin. The one who is going to incur the cost is YOU, the consumer, because you now have to pay more for the same content. That, or have the reader pulled, and along with it, your ability to access the library of books you already purchased and own. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses due to Apple's greed.
Apple's financials are fully disclosed to the public. Everyone can see where the money is going. You can see how much money they are making from iTunes.
Basically nothing.
Which is why I think Apple will clarify the situation.
When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.
Please reread what I wrote. I wasn't talking about buying the computer. I was talking about buying other things using the computer. Your reply is a non-sequitur.
BTW, I'm fine with the costs you described. Those costs are also applied the iDevices. The problem is Apple thinking it can tap us for additional money beyond those costs simply because they're the ones who built the thing.
The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.
I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.
There is a guide on ADC called "adding in app purchasing". Go read it.
Please reread what I wrote. I wasn't talking about buying the computer. I was talking about buying other things using the computer. Your reply is a non-sequitur.
BTW, I'm fine with the costs you described. Those costs are also applied the iDevices. The problem is Apple thinking it can tap us for additional money beyond those costs simply because they're the ones who built the thing.
The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.
I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.
You are missing the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
Yes, prices might rise a bit
That, is the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
Yes, prices might rise a bit
I don't want to pay more so that Amazon may make more money. Besides, guess what? Amazon could use its webstore. Hah.
I'm not stupid... I know that. However, what I'm pointing out to you, since you seem to have not noticed (or are ignoring it because it doesn't suit you, as you seem intelligent...) is that I, as a customer, do not want to pay for that service you just described. i'm not interested. I just want the option of a webstore and NO in-app store. And those I already pay for, through the webstore. It's ALREADY paid for. Any other cost is lost $$$ for me, and for the developer. Your argument doesn't hold.
Yu still have that option. It shouldn't be to hard to ignore the in-app option. I get tons of junk mail and I easily ignore it. Since this will be a standard feature, it's not even as difficult as sorting through junk mail.
Yu still have that option. It shouldn't be to hard to ignore the in-app option. I get tons of junk mail and I easily ignore it. Since this will be a standard feature, it's not even as difficult as sorting through junk mail.
Hey, you missed my point here too.
I can ignore the in-app. I can't however ignore the price increase due to the in-app, unless you have a magic trick to explain to me.
Comments
You do not understand what anti-trust is.
MS wasn't punished for being a monopoly. They were punished for abusing their position and stifling competition in the market.
I do understand what antitrust is. And of course, you can't punish people for being a monopoly, because, for example, they're the best. Think google for search, and you'll see there are monopolies.
However, if Apple takes a cut of anything that goes through an iPhone on the grounds its their platform, they ARE abusing their position, which is anti-trust material.
Then again, maybe you are right, and I am wrong. But you'll CERTAINLY understand that I think either Apple will clarify it's position or the EU/Feds will act.
And like I said, if Apple decides it doesn't want to confuse the idiot consumer by allowing a price differential between in-app and external purchases, then ALL prices will go up. They have to, as Apple is charging 30% for what is essentially a payment service.
I'm kind of keen on that idea. Are you?
The more likely outcome is that Apple and Amazon (and others) agree to a lower fee that enables pricing to continue as is. Apple wants a cut, not to make enemies.
But they *ARE* paying those costs... they pay for the bandwidth to serve the books to you. Pay attention already, sheesh. Its embarrassing.
If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.
Look, if Apple offered a fair alternative or rate for processing transactions, this wouldn't be that big of an issue. Apple should take no more than the cost of doing the transaction, which I would guess would be no more than 5%. Certainly not 30%.
How do you know what it costs Apple?
I know its convenient for you, and that's one of the points that Apple will use to strongarm content creators into doing, but this is bad for developers (once again) and content creators. Many use Amazon or someone else to sell their products because, frankly, they can't afford the 30% markup that Apple enforces.
Apple's been charging the 30% for two and half years now and its been working fine. How will this suddenly become a huge problem?
You are just speculating. You don't know if you will pay more for purchases through Amazon.com and there is no reason for you to pay more if you buy your ebooks using Amazon.com. If you don't want to go through the in app purchase process then you can fire up your Safari browser from iOS and buy the book through Amazon website. When you open the kindle app you will see you new purchase.
Yes, I agree with you, I am speculating. I did explain in an earlier post that, provided as a user, I do not pay more through the webstore than I should, because of the in-app purchases, then I have NO issue with that whole affair.
However, as other posters and I have stated, it would lead to a curious situation where people have the opportunity to pay 30% more to not leave the app and go to the webstore...
Of course, some people are right when they say 30% is a share that might change. Hence, let's say X%.
However, if someone goes through in app because they use the service of "I'm not leaving the app", they WILL pay something close to (X%+(price of feature development)/(number of sales until feature development has been paid for). That money is not magically created through the process.
Either the client for that service pays for it, either other clients pay for it. In both case, someone does pay for it, and it's neither Apple nor the content provider.
The whole problem is here.
Apple makes it not optional to provide that option.
This has two consequences.
First, it creates a cost (minimal, htough) for the companies who need to have that feature added. You WILL pay for that overhead, you know? So, that option, which you'll pay, you should wish to decline.... but it's your money.
Second, it will also make prices on content itself higher if prices are not different on the web store and on the apple store (where, due to the cut, it SHOULD be higher).
Suppose prices are so. Then as a consumer, you'll end up spending more money if you buy on the Apple Store (in-app). If you're ready to pay a bit more to NOT leave your app, fine, that's your money, once again. The service sold is "not leaving your app". I'm okay with that...
Suppose prices are not so (eg, Apple requires prices to be the same on both stores). Then, as a client of the webstore, you get swindled, as you will pay for part of the sales made on the appstore.
That's an issue.
The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.
I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.
Basically nothing.
However, if Apple takes a cut of anything that goes through an iPhone on the grounds its their platform, they ARE abusing their position, which is anti-trust material.
If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.
All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.
Apple's been charging the 30% for two and half years now and its been working fine. How will this suddenly become a huge problem?
Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever. They've never needed to, and their current reader relies on a business model and agreements with all of the publishers they have signed on. By forcing in-app purchases to be an option, Amazon would have to reach new agreements with all of their publishers just to keep their application on for a single source, and would incur *HEAVY* costs to their revenue if many of the books sold go through Apple and their ridiculous 30%.
Bottom line, when you do the math, the one who incurs the cost of this move is not Apple, since it costs pennies to process a credit card, and isn't Amazon, who isn't going to tear into their already-diminishing profit margin. The one who is going to incur the cost is YOU, the consumer, because you now have to pay more for the same content. That, or have the reader pulled, and along with it, your ability to access the library of books you already purchased and own. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses due to Apple's greed.
They can't. The clause was agreed to so it is enforceable.
Do you know what estoppel is? (EDIT: Its applicability varies, but it would be food for thought where i live)
All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.
If that's all Apple does.
Then who built and maintains the App Store.
Who reviews and approves 400,000 apps?
Where are all of these 400,000 apps stored?
Who pays for the bandwidth of streaming over 1 billion apps?
Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever.
Exactly what proof do you have that this will be some huge problem fro Amazon?
All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.
Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever. They've never needed to, and their current reader relies on a business model and agreements with all of the publishers they have signed on. By forcing in-app purchases to be an option, Amazon would have to reach new agreements with all of their publishers just to keep their application on for a single source, and would incur *HEAVY* costs to their revenue if many of the books sold go through Apple and their ridiculous 30%.
Bottom line, when you do the math, the one who incurs the cost of this move is not Apple, since it costs pennies to process a credit card, and isn't Amazon, who isn't going to tear into their already-diminishing profit margin. The one who is going to incur the cost is YOU, the consumer, because you now have to pay more for the same content. That, or have the reader pulled, and along with it, your ability to access the library of books you already purchased and own. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses due to Apple's greed.
Someone here gets it.
Apple's financials are fully disclosed to the public. Everyone can see where the money is going. You can see how much money they are making from iTunes.
Basically nothing.
Which is why I think Apple will clarify the situation.
They do add these charges.
When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.
Please reread what I wrote. I wasn't talking about buying the computer. I was talking about buying other things using the computer. Your reply is a non-sequitur.
BTW, I'm fine with the costs you described. Those costs are also applied the iDevices. The problem is Apple thinking it can tap us for additional money beyond those costs simply because they're the ones who built the thing.
The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.
I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.
There is a guide on ADC called "adding in app purchasing". Go read it.
Please reread what I wrote. I wasn't talking about buying the computer. I was talking about buying other things using the computer. Your reply is a non-sequitur.
BTW, I'm fine with the costs you described. Those costs are also applied the iDevices. The problem is Apple thinking it can tap us for additional money beyond those costs simply because they're the ones who built the thing.
Ah, it seems several people get it
If that's all Apple does.
Then who built and maintains the App Store.
Who reviews and approves 400,000 apps?
Where are all of these 400,000 apps stored?
Who pays for the bandwidth of streaming over 1 billion apps?
How this feeds in to the debate about a 30% cut on in-app purchases is beyond me.
The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.
I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.
You are missing the point.
Yes, prices might rise a bit
That, is the point.
Yes, prices might rise a bit
I don't want to pay more so that Amazon may make more money. Besides, guess what? Amazon could use its webstore. Hah.
I'm not stupid... I know that. However, what I'm pointing out to you, since you seem to have not noticed (or are ignoring it because it doesn't suit you, as you seem intelligent...) is that I, as a customer, do not want to pay for that service you just described. i'm not interested. I just want the option of a webstore and NO in-app store. And those I already pay for, through the webstore. It's ALREADY paid for. Any other cost is lost $$$ for me, and for the developer. Your argument doesn't hold.
Yu still have that option. It shouldn't be to hard to ignore the in-app option. I get tons of junk mail and I easily ignore it. Since this will be a standard feature, it's not even as difficult as sorting through junk mail.
How this feeds in to the debate about a 30% cut on in-app purchases is beyond me.
TenoBell has decided to be a troll. And for a troll, any argument feeds in any debate. Is that explanation clear enough?
Just tryin' to help, mate.
These are the details that the 30% is paying for.
How this feeds in to the debate about a 30% cut on in-app purchases is beyond me.
Yu still have that option. It shouldn't be to hard to ignore the in-app option. I get tons of junk mail and I easily ignore it. Since this will be a standard feature, it's not even as difficult as sorting through junk mail.
Hey, you missed my point here too.
I can ignore the in-app. I can't however ignore the price increase due to the in-app, unless you have a magic trick to explain to me.