Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
I agree.
Put another way:
Suppose you're a shareholder of that business. Apple just stated they want 30% of your shares' return. Funny joke.
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.
They are simply taking their markup as all retailers do. If you don;t like their markup, try to find the product at a different store. Don't like Macy's markup, check out their competition.
Yes, you are right. It doesn't make that injuction valid, and actually there are huge chances that Geohot might win. It's called scare tactics, and Microsoft among others use it. How does it make it legal?
Wait for the court decision before you use a legal example. All we know right know is Sony asserted that it has legal rights. Geohot asserts the contrary. If he loses, you are right. If he wins, you are wrong. Let's talk about it again, in a few months...
My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.
They are simply taking their markup as all retailers do. If you don;t like their markup, try to find the product at a different store. Don't like Macy's markup, check out their competition.
You seem to not understand antitrust. The point is, if you go at Macy's, the highway doesn't charge you for the product.
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.
Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.
My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.
Actually, it's why there aren't 400 000 apps for the Playstation.
Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.
You are making the assumption that Apple hasn't a plan it will announce. I hope you are wrong, and Apple will again amaze us with its keen vision...
Do you know what estoppel is? (EDIT: Its applicability varies, but it would be food for thought where i live)
I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.
Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.
Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.
Wrong. Apple will continue to sell phones and iPads just fine without Kindle. Its the consumer that will lose in the short term... potentially long term as well.
I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.
Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.
I don't know about you, but here, there is a legal period after which you can. Rather long though, 30 years. But still, it exists.
I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.
That's one view. An alternative is that they have chosen not to assert certain rights in the contractual relationship. The other side has acted in reliance of the right not being asserted. At some point a court is going to say either:
1. you obviously didn't think the clause was important enough to enforce. You can't now seek to enforce the term
2. the clause is clearly not essential to the continued existence of the contract, we will strike the clause from the contract.
This is of course a theoretical view, and I originally posited it as such.
Quote:
Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.
Exactly! And you can visit that web store. Amazon does not have to participate in the App Store at all.
Wrong. You seem to have forgotten the news. Amaon DOES have to "participate". See the other posts for WHY it MIGHT make the webstore more expensive than it would be WITHOUT that necessity. And you can answer again, but I'll be working now... some of us have money to make, you see.
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.
I have no magic tricks. I also have no concrete information about what Apple intends to charge for in-app content purchases. And I further have no data showing that Amazon would feel any compelling need to participate in the App Store with anything other than a reader which does not do any purchasing. There are a lot of unknowns and I think people are getting unnecessarily worked up because the only number we have ever heard is 30%. Personally, I think that number will change.
We'll have to wait and see how much this all will affect the prices but I doubt a $10 book is suddenly going to be $13. Apple wants to make money and adding that much is counter-productive for them.
Forcing the user to choose between two distinct payment 'workflows' violates all principles of the avoiding user confusion mumbo jumbo mantra which is often spouted.
You mean like when the cashier asks you "cash or credit"? Based on what others are saying, this only impacts the payment process since Amazon, for instance, does the fulfillment.
Comments
Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
I agree.
Put another way:
Suppose you're a shareholder of that business. Apple just stated they want 30% of your shares' return. Funny joke.
I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.
They would almost have to. That's the only way I can see this move by Apple working in any way, shape, or form.
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.
They are simply taking their markup as all retailers do. If you don;t like their markup, try to find the product at a different store. Don't like Macy's markup, check out their competition.
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?
I do think Apple may need to reconsider their cut for in-app content purchases.
Yes, you are right. It doesn't make that injuction valid, and actually there are huge chances that Geohot might win. It's called scare tactics, and Microsoft among others use it. How does it make it legal?
Wait for the court decision before you use a legal example. All we know right know is Sony asserted that it has legal rights. Geohot asserts the contrary. If he loses, you are right. If he wins, you are wrong. Let's talk about it again, in a few months...
My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.
They are simply taking their markup as all retailers do. If you don;t like their markup, try to find the product at a different store. Don't like Macy's markup, check out their competition.
You seem to not understand antitrust. The point is, if you go at Macy's, the highway doesn't charge you for the product.
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.
Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.
My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.
Actually, it's why there aren't 400 000 apps for the Playstation.
Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.
You are making the assumption that Apple hasn't a plan it will announce. I hope you are wrong, and Apple will again amaze us with its keen vision...
Do you know what estoppel is? (EDIT: Its applicability varies, but it would be food for thought where i live)
I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.
Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.
Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.
Wrong. Apple will continue to sell phones and iPads just fine without Kindle. Its the consumer that will lose in the short term... potentially long term as well.
I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.
Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.
I don't know about you, but here, there is a legal period after which you can. Rather long though, 30 years. But still, it exists.
I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.
That's one view. An alternative is that they have chosen not to assert certain rights in the contractual relationship. The other side has acted in reliance of the right not being asserted. At some point a court is going to say either:
1. you obviously didn't think the clause was important enough to enforce. You can't now seek to enforce the term
2. the clause is clearly not essential to the continued existence of the contract, we will strike the clause from the contract.
This is of course a theoretical view, and I originally posited it as such.
Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.
HOA = Home Owner's association?
There is a guide on ADC called "adding in app purchasing". Go read it.
Seems pretty straight-forward to me. The actual work involved is:
8. Enter the Bundle Identifier portion of your App ID in the Properties Pane of your Target in Xcode.
9. Use the new iOS Development Provisioning Profile associated with your App ID.
The rest seems to be about doing the paperwork and testing.
I don't want to pay more so that Amazon may make more money. Besides, guess what? Amazon could use its webstore. Hah.
Exactly! And you can visit that web store. Amazon does not have to participate in the App Store at all.
Exactly! And you can visit that web store. Amazon does not have to participate in the App Store at all.
Wrong. You seem to have forgotten the news. Amaon DOES have to "participate". See the other posts for WHY it MIGHT make the webstore more expensive than it would be WITHOUT that necessity. And you can answer again, but I'll be working now... some of us have money to make, you see.
Seems pretty straight-forward to me. The actual work involved is:
The rest seems to be about doing the paperwork and testing.
Yes. That's the part that's expensive when we're talking about content, extra work for every content bit.
Was fun arguing with you, see you on another thread.
Actually, it's why there aren't 400 000 apps for the Playstation.
You've missed my point twice in a row now. This time it seems intentional.
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.
I have no magic tricks. I also have no concrete information about what Apple intends to charge for in-app content purchases. And I further have no data showing that Amazon would feel any compelling need to participate in the App Store with anything other than a reader which does not do any purchasing. There are a lot of unknowns and I think people are getting unnecessarily worked up because the only number we have ever heard is 30%. Personally, I think that number will change.
We'll have to wait and see how much this all will affect the prices but I doubt a $10 book is suddenly going to be $13. Apple wants to make money and adding that much is counter-productive for them.
Forcing the user to choose between two distinct payment 'workflows' violates all principles of the avoiding user confusion mumbo jumbo mantra which is often spouted.
You mean like when the cashier asks you "cash or credit"? Based on what others are saying, this only impacts the payment process since Amazon, for instance, does the fulfillment.