PLus arguing incoherently IN CAPITALS, and deflecting the issue at hand with nonsensical and irrelevant attacks on MS as a monopoly is not addressing the case here.
Making us all look bad. You are.
It's hardly incoherent, non-sensical or irrelevant when my argument was directly in response to the call for the authorities to reprimand Apple as they reprimanded MS.
Obviously, you would have a case about Apple unfairly competing with other ebook app developers on Apple's own platform... If Apple supplied the OS for almost every other mobile device manufacturer out there. But last time I checked, they supply the platform for their own devices only. Are any other device makers using iOS? Didn't think so. (I hope my use of italics is OK with you. My use of caps constituted about 1% of my previous post; but as I feared, my emphasis on the one point that made a comparison the original comparison to Apple spurious, was still completely lost on some people).
Sony eReader app and Kindle app have a free rein on how many other platforms and devices? Dozens of platforms and hundreds of devices numbering in the billions of units, apparently, according to all the triumphant reports trumpeted recently about Android, and since Apple has so effectively shot themselves in the foot and used the integrated approach and not the modular approach.
I don't doubt that the loss of the Sony app or the Kindle app would be a bad thing for iOS. But that is irrelevant to the charge of illegal use of a "monopoly" for which Apple should be prosecuted; and that is what I was directly addressing. You may call it a "monopoly" all you like; it's a little incoherent, but I'll go along with you. And it makes little difference if you concede that virtually the entire tablet market consists at the moment of the iPad, as you appeared to concede. Surely there are bus loads of developers who can't wait to get their apps on competing tablets. I am so pumped that all the other device makers and platform developers get to show us how it should be done.
However, what Apple has its monopoly over -- their own product or a whole Market made up of all the players in the whole industry -- really makes all the difference. Perhaps you will grasp that sometime. It's not a difficult concept. (Pretend for me that the last three sentences are in caps; just in case you still don't get it, this is the relevant and coherent bit to your contention about Apple's "monopoly".)
Speaking of irrelevant and incoherent arguments: a number here seem to be up in arms about how their Kindle content is going to cease to work if Apple enforces the in-app purchase rule under discussion. Why would a change in the way an app operates going forward have anything whatsoever to do with DRM on purchased content? Talk about hysterical.
Is your thought process really as disjointed as this post, or do you just copy and paste random criticisms from a list you keep?
I would like to see you try and address the arguments he made with a bit of logic and counter argument. I know that expecting rational thought and discourse from an Apolyte is a bit much, but it would at least be amusing to see you flounder in the attempt.
Obviously, you would have a case about Apple unfairly competing with other ebook app developers on Apple's own platform... [I
If[/I] Apple supplied the OS for almost every other mobile device manufacturer out there. But last time I checked, they supply the platform for their own devices only. Are any other device makers using iOS? Didn't think so. (I hope my use of italics is OK with you. My use of caps constituted about 1% of my previous post; but as I feared, my emphasis on the one point that made a comparison the original comparison to Apple spurious, was still completely lost on some people).
l.
You dont understand anti-trust. APple got away with some stuff ( but nothing like this ) for years as it had 5% of the market. It has at least 2 monopolies now, maybe three.
1) Tablets
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability
and (possibly)
3) the iOS platform.
The reason why iOS can be seen as a platform, is unlike OS X ( which ran on one type of device) it runs on many. Apple control that platform which is a major platform in the new mobile world.
I would like to see you try and address the arguments he made with a bit of logic and counter argument. I know that expecting rational thought and discourse from an Apolyte is a bit much, but it would at least be amusing to see you flounder in the attempt.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what argument he was trying to make, or if he even had one.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what argument he was trying to make, or if he even had one.
Here is what he said. ( slightly edited)
1). Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.
2) Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.
3) Why should the mobile platform be so so different?
4) Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day. They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.
5) Apple should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.
The internet is now expecting a point by point rebuttal of these simple to understand points.
You dont understand anti-trust. APple got away with some stuff ( but nothing like this ) for years as it had 5% of the market. It has at least 2 monopolies now, maybe three.
1) Tablets
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability
and (possibly)
3) the iOS platform.
The reason why iOS can be seen as a platform, is unlike OS X ( which ran on one type of device) it runs on many. Apple control that platform which is a major platform in the new mobile world.
What is this "some stuff" Apple "got away" with when Mac only had 5% of the market?
That would be horrible if that's what Apple was saying but they aren't. What they are saying is that they want customers to be able to get your content and use your app without creating additional accounts or having to supply their credit card information. (It also means that people without credit cards that use gift cards can buy content) To support that they have to have an in app purchase system.
Apple isn't requiring that it be the only way to purchase content or that the prices are the same. It may not be fair for Apple to take 30% in all cases, but as a consumer I want the option to pay for any services or content from an app through the store, regardless of it is costs more or not. I don't EVER want to be required to hand over my credit card information for content/service destined to an iOS app.
If you want the option to buy books with in-app purchases, then feel free to use the iBookstore. The point of all this is customers and developers should be allowed the choice. Amazon has a competing, and superior, book store that has existed on iOS devices long before iBooks. They've played nice with Apple, not building a convenient book store within the app in order to avoid conflicts. Apple has been fine with this for nearly 2 years, but now its not enough. They don't like Amazon posting record quarters and selling more ebooks than paperback, tributing much of their success to the availability of their application on iOS devices, and not giving any of that money to Apple.
However... NOBODY will be making any money on it except the carriers (PERIOD).
ALL books, movies, music, content, apps will be FREE for the user. They are now, and it won't change. What will change, but will be cracked as soon as it does, is that DRM will raise it's ugly head again.
Oh... and tell me again how Apple made a mistake with their "new" strategy after ~2001...?!
Apple will rightly so still be as you call it, "a Boutique". A very fine, desirable, and PROFITABLE one I might add. More than likely, the only PROFITABLE one of it's kind on the planet, as it is today.
Tone down the fanboyism, it could be contagious .
Android's a good OS. It makes money for carriers and manufacturers, which in turn make some of the best devices tailored to a user's needs and further stimulates competition. Users get more choice, carriers can compete with or without Apple's warez, and products continue to evolve and innovate.
Google has admitted they're not pleased with the amount of sales on their platform and is going to focus on that as they begin to roll out their latest tablet-oriented OS. The ecosystem will improve, and developers will profit. Besides, how can you say they're not making money off Android? Angry Birds is generating tons of cash from ad revenue through their free games.
Answering that would drag this thread, off topic. ( THink Sherlock, or other shady practices).
However, now they are a monopoly. Lets stick to the topic at hand.
Your'e the one that implied apple did something nefarious with Mac. And it certainly points to your understanding of monopolies. You claimed another poster didn't understand anti trust, I want to understand so please explain.
Edit: Fine, run off. That's ok I didn't anticipate you would be able to defend most of your statements anyway.
Oh most definitely I would as would many many others.
An even bigger consideration are those who do not yet own any IOS devices.
This has been a big deciding factor in my next tablet purchase.
The more Apple closes itself off and makes it difficult for the end user to actually use their devices the fewer end users they will have.
This is why I have a Roku box instead of an Apple TV.
This is why I prefer Kindle to iPad.
This is why my next cell phone purchase will most likely be Android based.
Granted I`ll be missing out on Apples excellent, elegant craftsmanship but my devices will actually do what I need them to do without costing me an arm and a leg.
I agree.
I've been a mac user and iphone owner for some time, and was planning on owning an ipad.
The advertisements for why I should buy the ipad center around the applications, as the ipad is a relatively useless machine with only apples stock apps and a web browser.
I only care about this if the app availability (the usefulness of the device) is harmed by these decisions.
But just the fact that the possibility is there is going to stay my hand past the ipad 2 release.
I'm not buying a device that isn't going to be capable of the things I want it to be capable of.
And right now there is no way I can trust apple to not change the functionality of the device through app store policy.
I'm not going to go buy another tablet type of device because the devices aren't there just yet.....luckily for me this isn't anywhere near the must have device that a phone of home computer/laptop is. But I will get one eventually, and if I find Android the more functional device for my tablet, my cell wont be far behind.
Let's hope apple knows what they are doing in these negotiations, i'm not excited about moving to a different platform.
But I most definitley will, if the dev waters turn toxic and it affects MY experience.
Your'e the one that implied apple did something nefarious with Mac. And it certainly points to your understanding of monopolies. You claimed another poster didn't understand anti trust, I want to understand so please explain.
Edit: Fine, run off. That's ok I didn't anticipate you would be able to defend most of your statements anyway.
Is there a time limit to reply to *you* in this thread? You took 32 minutes to decide I had run off ( accurate enough actually. I had run off to the pub).
I mentioned Sherlock. There are other examples of Apple copying - to all intents - smaller devs code.
Yep, thought so. You are confusing product category with markets.
Does the iPad have a monopoly on the mobile gaming market?
Or the sale of movies?
Or the distribution of e-books?
These are markets. And the iPad provides the customer to multiple vendors in these spaces.
And customers have alternative ways of getting the same content.
C.
No it has the monopoly of tablets and MP3 players. YOu are not so much confusing product categories with markets, as confusing the clear fact that the total sum of all products in a certain category constitutes a market.
Like a toaster. If I sold all the toasters ( or had a very large portion) in the world I would be the world's toaster monopolist. If I owned all the diamond mines I would be the world's diamond monopolist.
Apple is the monopoly provider of MP3 players, and Tablets.
Comments
PLus arguing incoherently IN CAPITALS, and deflecting the issue at hand with nonsensical and irrelevant attacks on MS as a monopoly is not addressing the case here.
Making us all look bad. You are.
It's hardly incoherent, non-sensical or irrelevant when my argument was directly in response to the call for the authorities to reprimand Apple as they reprimanded MS.
Obviously, you would have a case about Apple unfairly competing with other ebook app developers on Apple's own platform... If Apple supplied the OS for almost every other mobile device manufacturer out there. But last time I checked, they supply the platform for their own devices only. Are any other device makers using iOS? Didn't think so. (I hope my use of italics is OK with you. My use of caps constituted about 1% of my previous post; but as I feared, my emphasis on the one point that made a comparison the original comparison to Apple spurious, was still completely lost on some people).
Sony eReader app and Kindle app have a free rein on how many other platforms and devices? Dozens of platforms and hundreds of devices numbering in the billions of units, apparently, according to all the triumphant reports trumpeted recently about Android, and since Apple has so effectively shot themselves in the foot and used the integrated approach and not the modular approach.
I don't doubt that the loss of the Sony app or the Kindle app would be a bad thing for iOS. But that is irrelevant to the charge of illegal use of a "monopoly" for which Apple should be prosecuted; and that is what I was directly addressing. You may call it a "monopoly" all you like; it's a little incoherent, but I'll go along with you. And it makes little difference if you concede that virtually the entire tablet market consists at the moment of the iPad, as you appeared to concede. Surely there are bus loads of developers who can't wait to get their apps on competing tablets. I am so pumped that all the other device makers and platform developers get to show us how it should be done.
However, what Apple has its monopoly over -- their own product or a whole Market made up of all the players in the whole industry -- really makes all the difference. Perhaps you will grasp that sometime. It's not a difficult concept. (Pretend for me that the last three sentences are in caps; just in case you still don't get it, this is the relevant and coherent bit to your contention about Apple's "monopoly".)
Speaking of irrelevant and incoherent arguments: a number here seem to be up in arms about how their Kindle content is going to cease to work if Apple enforces the in-app purchase rule under discussion. Why would a change in the way an app operates going forward have anything whatsoever to do with DRM on purchased content? Talk about hysterical.
Is your thought process really as disjointed as this post, or do you just copy and paste random criticisms from a list you keep?
I would like to see you try and address the arguments he made with a bit of logic and counter argument. I know that expecting rational thought and discourse from an Apolyte is a bit much, but it would at least be amusing to see you flounder in the attempt.
I think this is actually Apple's motivation.
If this works, iOS users will get a single billing model for all content. With a single account and a consistent robust interface.
It takes away the crappy and unpredictable aspects of paying for stuff online and would improve the user experience for typical consumers.
C.
KeyChain.
Obviously, you would have a case about Apple unfairly competing with other ebook app developers on Apple's own platform... [I
If[/I] Apple supplied the OS for almost every other mobile device manufacturer out there. But last time I checked, they supply the platform for their own devices only. Are any other device makers using iOS? Didn't think so. (I hope my use of italics is OK with you. My use of caps constituted about 1% of my previous post; but as I feared, my emphasis on the one point that made a comparison the original comparison to Apple spurious, was still completely lost on some people).
l.
You dont understand anti-trust. APple got away with some stuff ( but nothing like this ) for years as it had 5% of the market. It has at least 2 monopolies now, maybe three.
1) Tablets
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability
and (possibly)
3) the iOS platform.
The reason why iOS can be seen as a platform, is unlike OS X ( which ran on one type of device) it runs on many. Apple control that platform which is a major platform in the new mobile world.
I would like to see you try and address the arguments he made with a bit of logic and counter argument. I know that expecting rational thought and discourse from an Apolyte is a bit much, but it would at least be amusing to see you flounder in the attempt.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what argument he was trying to make, or if he even had one.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what argument he was trying to make, or if he even had one.
That doesn't surprise me in the least.
Priceless; floundering without even the attempt part, I knew there would be amusement potential.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what argument he was trying to make, or if he even had one.
Here is what he said. ( slightly edited)
1). Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.
2) Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.
3) Why should the mobile platform be so so different?
4) Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day. They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.
5) Apple should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.
The internet is now expecting a point by point rebuttal of these simple to understand points.
You dont understand anti-trust. APple has at least 2 monopolies now, maybe three.
1) Tablets
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability
and (possibly)
3) the iOS platform.
You are forgetting computers with Apple shaped logos on the lid. Surely that's another monopoly?
C.
You are forgetting computers with Apple shaped logos on the lid. Surely that's another monopoly?
C.
No. It is a minority platform, or OS within the larger OS world. MS is the monopoly there.
However. Tablets, and MP3 players are not the same thing as your counter claim. They are defined platforms with a dominant OS player. Apple.
the iOS monopoly is a bit different. I may be wrong there. On tablets it is clear.
No. It is a minority platform, or OS within the larger OS world. MS is the monopoly there.
However. Tablets, and MP3 players are not the same as your counter claim.
the iOS monopoly is a bit different. I may be wrong there. On tablets it is clear.
I think you are confusing form factors with markets.
C.
You dont understand anti-trust. APple got away with some stuff ( but nothing like this ) for years as it had 5% of the market. It has at least 2 monopolies now, maybe three.
1) Tablets
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability
and (possibly)
3) the iOS platform.
The reason why iOS can be seen as a platform, is unlike OS X ( which ran on one type of device) it runs on many. Apple control that platform which is a major platform in the new mobile world.
What is this "some stuff" Apple "got away" with when Mac only had 5% of the market?
I think you are confusing form factors with markets.
C.
Um, no. Because if the iPad is a PC I would expect it to be open like a Mac. It isnt a PC.
It is it's own category. All analysts treat it so. APple is a monopoly there, and the Same with Mp3 players.
Apple is a monopoly is some markets.It is liable to anti-trust.
What is this "some stuff" Apple "got away" with when Mac only had 5% of the market?
Answering that would drag this thread, off topic. ( THink Sherlock, or other shady practices).
However, now they are a monopoly. Lets stick to the topic at hand.
That would be horrible if that's what Apple was saying but they aren't. What they are saying is that they want customers to be able to get your content and use your app without creating additional accounts or having to supply their credit card information. (It also means that people without credit cards that use gift cards can buy content) To support that they have to have an in app purchase system.
Apple isn't requiring that it be the only way to purchase content or that the prices are the same. It may not be fair for Apple to take 30% in all cases, but as a consumer I want the option to pay for any services or content from an app through the store, regardless of it is costs more or not. I don't EVER want to be required to hand over my credit card information for content/service destined to an iOS app.
If you want the option to buy books with in-app purchases, then feel free to use the iBookstore. The point of all this is customers and developers should be allowed the choice. Amazon has a competing, and superior, book store that has existed on iOS devices long before iBooks. They've played nice with Apple, not building a convenient book store within the app in order to avoid conflicts. Apple has been fine with this for nearly 2 years, but now its not enough. They don't like Amazon posting record quarters and selling more ebooks than paperback, tributing much of their success to the availability of their application on iOS devices, and not giving any of that money to Apple.
You are so right on...NOT completely though.
Android will dominate without a doubt.
However... NOBODY will be making any money on it except the carriers (PERIOD).
ALL books, movies, music, content, apps will be FREE for the user. They are now, and it won't change. What will change, but will be cracked as soon as it does, is that DRM will raise it's ugly head again.
Oh... and tell me again how Apple made a mistake with their "new" strategy after ~2001...?!
Apple will rightly so still be as you call it, "a Boutique". A very fine, desirable, and PROFITABLE one I might add. More than likely, the only PROFITABLE one of it's kind on the planet, as it is today.
Tone down the fanboyism, it could be contagious
Android's a good OS. It makes money for carriers and manufacturers, which in turn make some of the best devices tailored to a user's needs and further stimulates competition. Users get more choice, carriers can compete with or without Apple's warez, and products continue to evolve and innovate.
Google has admitted they're not pleased with the amount of sales on their platform and is going to focus on that as they begin to roll out their latest tablet-oriented OS. The ecosystem will improve, and developers will profit. Besides, how can you say they're not making money off Android? Angry Birds is generating tons of cash from ad revenue through their free games.
Answering that would drag this thread, off topic. ( THink Sherlock, or other shady practices).
However, now they are a monopoly. Lets stick to the topic at hand.
Your'e the one that implied apple did something nefarious with Mac. And it certainly points to your understanding of monopolies. You claimed another poster didn't understand anti trust, I want to understand so please explain.
Edit: Fine, run off. That's ok I didn't anticipate you would be able to defend most of your statements anyway.
Oh most definitely I would as would many many others.
An even bigger consideration are those who do not yet own any IOS devices.
This has been a big deciding factor in my next tablet purchase.
The more Apple closes itself off and makes it difficult for the end user to actually use their devices the fewer end users they will have.
This is why I have a Roku box instead of an Apple TV.
This is why I prefer Kindle to iPad.
This is why my next cell phone purchase will most likely be Android based.
Granted I`ll be missing out on Apples excellent, elegant craftsmanship but my devices will actually do what I need them to do without costing me an arm and a leg.
I agree.
I've been a mac user and iphone owner for some time, and was planning on owning an ipad.
The advertisements for why I should buy the ipad center around the applications, as the ipad is a relatively useless machine with only apples stock apps and a web browser.
I only care about this if the app availability (the usefulness of the device) is harmed by these decisions.
But just the fact that the possibility is there is going to stay my hand past the ipad 2 release.
I'm not buying a device that isn't going to be capable of the things I want it to be capable of.
And right now there is no way I can trust apple to not change the functionality of the device through app store policy.
I'm not going to go buy another tablet type of device because the devices aren't there just yet.....luckily for me this isn't anywhere near the must have device that a phone of home computer/laptop is. But I will get one eventually, and if I find Android the more functional device for my tablet, my cell wont be far behind.
Let's hope apple knows what they are doing in these negotiations, i'm not excited about moving to a different platform.
But I most definitley will, if the dev waters turn toxic and it affects MY experience.
It is it's own category. All analysts treat it so.
Yep, thought so. You are confusing product category with markets.
Does the iPad have a monopoly on the mobile gaming market?
Or the sale of movies?
Or the distribution of e-books?
These are markets. And the iPad provides the customer to multiple vendors in these spaces.
And customers have alternative ways of getting the same content.
C.
Your'e the one that implied apple did something nefarious with Mac. And it certainly points to your understanding of monopolies. You claimed another poster didn't understand anti trust, I want to understand so please explain.
Edit: Fine, run off. That's ok I didn't anticipate you would be able to defend most of your statements anyway.
Is there a time limit to reply to *you* in this thread? You took 32 minutes to decide I had run off ( accurate enough actually. I had run off to the pub).
I mentioned Sherlock. There are other examples of Apple copying - to all intents - smaller devs code.
Yep, thought so. You are confusing product category with markets.
Does the iPad have a monopoly on the mobile gaming market?
Or the sale of movies?
Or the distribution of e-books?
These are markets. And the iPad provides the customer to multiple vendors in these spaces.
And customers have alternative ways of getting the same content.
C.
No it has the monopoly of tablets and MP3 players. YOu are not so much confusing product categories with markets, as confusing the clear fact that the total sum of all products in a certain category constitutes a market.
Like a toaster. If I sold all the toasters ( or had a very large portion) in the world I would be the world's toaster monopolist. If I owned all the diamond mines I would be the world's diamond monopolist.
Apple is the monopoly provider of MP3 players, and Tablets.
It is what it is.