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.
Sometimes I'm not as patient as I should be, my apologies. Sherlock doesn't have anything to do with antitrust or a monopoly.
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.
Be careful with the word 'monopoly'. It is thrown around far too often. If you sold all the toasters, or held exclusive control of the toaster trade, you would have a monopoly. If you sold most toasters you certainly would not have a monopoly. In the legal world the term becomes a little fuzzier, but even in this context the above is not really excepted. Companies get in trouble for 'monopolistic behavior' in most cases, e.g. using their control and influence of a market to shut out competitors. Some things Apple has done flirt with this sort of trouble, but they do not have monopolies on any open market. They sell the majority of products in the mobile music market, for example, but there is nothing stopping competitors from releasing competing devices, and Apple does nothing with its advantage to shut them out (short of making a better product—that doesn't count).
Be careful with the word 'monopoly'. It is thrown around far too often. If you sold all the toasters, or held exclusive control of the toaster trade, you would have a monopoly. If you sold most toasters you certainly would not have a monopoly. In the legal world the term becomes a little fuzzier, but even in this context the above is not really excepted. Companies get in trouble for 'monopolistic behavior' in most cases, e.g. using their control and influence of a market to shut out competitors. Some things Apple has done flirt with this sort of trouble, but they do not have monopolies on any open market. They sell the majority of products in the mobile music market, for example, but there is nothing stopping competitors from releasing competing devices, and Apple does nothing with its advantage to shut them out (short of making a better product?that doesn't count).
1) I am talking about the legal definition. Anti-trust legislation has targeted companies with a large market share before. It clearly doesn't have to be 100%, as that would exclude Windows.
2) I am not claiming any impropriety in the music mobile market. I claim they are a monopoly provider of Tablets ( as it now stands) and are excluding a competitor ( Sony) from competing.
Its up to the courts. We are not lawyers. There can be arguments either way. However I wouldnt rule out recourse to the courts if Apple tries it on with Kindle.
That said. I think they will compromise. They have a new subscription model for the Daily, already.
The problem here is how they handled this transition.
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.
Given that there are as many Android devices as iOS devices stating that Apple has a monopoly on mobile devices is stupid.
Even for tablets it isn't clear given the market is still developing and not all the competitors have been released yet and there will be a ton of them this year.
Your statements are trollish and stupid. One wonders if you are an app dev at all.
Anti-trust legislation has targeted companies with a large market share before. It clearly doesn't have to be 100%, as that would exclude Windows.
Not in the 1st year of a product release.
Quote:
2) I am not claiming any impropriety in the music mobile market. I claim they are a monopoly provider of Tablets ( as it now stands) and are excluding a competitor ( Sony) from competing.
And Ford was a monopoly with the Model T. For not very long. And no, they are not excluding a competitor from making tablets, ebooks or even apps.
Quote:
Its up to the courts. We are not lawyers. There can be arguments either way. However I wouldnt rule out recourse to the courts if Apple tries it on with Kindle.
Amazon sells more ebooks than Apple. That's going to be a very hard sell to claim that Apple has some kind of bizzaro ebook monopoly.
Quote:
The problem here is how they handled this transition.
The only problem is you completely overreacted and spammed the forums.
And Ford was a monopoly with the Model T. For not very long. And no, they are not excluding a competitor from making tablets, ebooks or even apps.
Amazon sells more ebooks than Apple. That's going to be a very hard sell to claim that Apple has some kind of bizzaro ebook monopoly.
The only problem is you completely overreacted and spammed the forums.
The year of release is irrelvent. As it now stands Apple is a monopoly.
It is not just ebooks. It is all digital content. Al digital content is subjected to this tax. Everything.
Whats interesting is how this argument developed over time
1) Sony are lying. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
2) Sony are doing this in-app purchasing incorrectly. They are not doing what Kindle does. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
3) asdasd is lying about his rejection letter. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
4) Apple wouldnt do this evil thing. Sony is spreading FUD.
Then came the Apple statement. Apple was doing this evil thing. But that was alright. Argument changed, in about two posts to
1) Apple have every right to do this thing.
2) This thing is good.
It is particularly Orwellian. The old posts disappeared down the memory hole. What was bad was now good. What was good ( more books and competition!) was now bad.
look it is not a religion. I am an iOs dev, an ex-Mac dev, and I should write a cheque to Steve Jobs every year, or buy him a car, given how much money I spend on them.
But we can criticise this company. When they do wrong. As they are here.
It is not just ebooks. It is all digital content. Al digital content is subjected to this tax. Everything.
I don't like being nitpicky, but I saw somewhere that Apple's policy does apply to only books. (That could be wrong. After all, it's the internets! )
Logically, you're correct. Bits is bits.
On the other hand, Apple does have a bookstore they're trying to get off the ground. That's the kind of things anti-trust laws are meant to discourage: using control of one market (iOS devices at the very least) to force growth in another market (ebooks).
Simple, because the profits generated through agency model sales, such as those at Amazon, are insufficient (vastly insufficient) to cover the cost of another agency model layer on top (e.g. Amazon paying a 30% cut to Apple). Something will have to give if this is going to work, and the most appropriate course would be Apple, who announced that this cost was to cover expenses, recognizing that their role and expense in in-app purchases is not as appreciable, charging a smaller fee (perhaps more along the lines of a credit card transaction fee). This is a tough pill to swallow, though, as a look at the top grossing charts demonstrates that a fair amount of their income for the App Store will be coming from in-app sales (although in these cases it is through the sale of virtual 'Smurfberries', or whatever it is companies have found a way to peddle to their customers).
John Gruber came out this morning with some pretty good coverage of this.
Geez, I've been saying this since the outset of this issue. Apple has no desire to lose content and the content providers have no desire to lose a valuable sales outlet. There will be some kind of deal. Sony just had the misfortune of being the first to run into the new rule headlong and I doubt Apple would announce the deal with Sony ahead of Amazon.
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".)
It's funny to see that some who proclaim Apple is abusing its "monopoly" position are foretelling Android overtaking iOS within the year. That's some monopoly Apple's got there.
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
No, they are the dominant player in a new market. Someone had to start. Funny that some Android fans have been crowing that Apple's tablet marketshare dropped from 95% to 77% in a mere three months. And they further predict that Apple will have a minority position in tablets just as they have in phones.
Quote:
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability
Apple holds a dominant position in PMPs. However, they do nothing to prevent others from entering the market and they both play and offer music using standard file formats. It is not illegal to hold a monopoly; it is illegal to use your monopoly position in an anti-competitve manner. Please explain how Apple has been anti-competitve in this area.
Quote:
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.
Yep, this one you got right. Apple has a monopoly in iOS platform just as MS has a monopoly in the Windows, Xbox and WP7 platforms. BTW, Nintendo and Sony also have monopolies in their respective gaming platforms. I think you need to do a bit more research into what constitutes a monopoly and what anti-competitive behavior is.
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.
Where is Apple insisting that the existing out-of-app purchase option goes away. They are only insisting that there be an option to make in-app purchases.
1) I am talking about the legal definition. Anti-trust legislation has targeted companies with a large market share before. It clearly doesn't have to be 100%, as that would exclude Windows.
2) I am not claiming any impropriety in the music mobile market. I claim they are a monopoly provider of Tablets ( as it now stands) and are excluding a competitor ( Sony) from competing.
Even in this context this is incorrect. Your point below aside, the only reason why a company will get in real trouble for controlling the majority of a market is if that control is somehow used to abuse customers, or in occasional cases, the government deems that control to be anti-competitive (more common in line with, say, utilities). There is no viable monopoly lawsuit which could be brought against Apple for being the majority seller of digital music players or tablet devices. And it isn't right to completely dismiss a point because it is a legal matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Its up to the courts. We are not lawyers. There can be arguments either way. However I wouldnt rule out recourse to the courts if Apple tries it on with Kindle.
There can always be arguments either way. Someone can file a lawsuit against Apple for making devices in a color that agitates them. It doesn't mean there is legal precedent for that lawsuit to matter. Monopoly does not apply here in the legal or literal definition. And while some lawyer somewhere might try to make that argument, we really shouldn't be throwing it around carelessly here without legal precedent to back the statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
Geez, I've been saying this since the outset of this issue. Apple has no desire to lose content and the content providers have no desire to lose a valuable sales outlet. There will be some kind of deal. Sony just had the misfortune of being the first to run into the new rule headlong and I doubt Apple would announce the deal with Sony ahead of Amazon.
I agree completely. My expectation based on Apple's history is that they decided to change the way they are handling this and, to keep things simple, rejected Sony so they could re-evaluate them after they announced new rules. They're probably thinking it through right now, or have already thought it through, and will announce the changes soon enough.
The situation as currently interpreted (Apple wanting 30% from Amazon) is completely untenable except from the perspective of driving Kindle books from iOS, but in most cases when this happens we find that Apple remains quiet as they work out a proper solution and announce it down the road. We did hear a hint along these lines in the recent publication announcement.
If you could download the app directly from Amazon, Apple would have no relationship in the transaction at all. The user's iPad and Amazon would have an exclusive relationship without Apple. Since Apple's App Store is the only way for Amazon to deliver the original FREE app, Apple has forced itself into the relationship that normally would be exclusively between Amazon and the end user, which I'm sure most users would prefer. Although some people might like a three-way , I personally think that there should be exceptions to the App Store for mega corporations like Amazon offering free apps.
Why? If you don't want to purchase thru their app, then continue to purchase it the way you do now.
Apple is not telling everyone the ONLY way to purchase is thru the application. Only that users must also be able to purchase directly in the application as well as direct from the company.
And to use your example, these corporations should pay Apple for people using an iPad to view their content.
I agree. If Amazon sells 1 million $10 books through Apple's channels, Apple just made $3 million. Multiply that by millions more and Apple gets to rake in some serious cash.
And? What's your point?
If Amazon sells 1 million $10 books through their own website on the iPad (as they do now), then Amazon has made $10 million.
Amazon will simply have to market more to get consumers to use the Amazon store and not make the purchase directly in the Kindle app.
Because Apple wasnt a monopoly. I am saying it is now. In certain categories.
You can say Apple is a monopoly all you want, but you'd still be wrong. You clearly don't understand what a monopoly means from a legal standpoint. Besides, monopolies in and of themselves aren't necessarily illegal. It's when a monopolist uses its power to drive competition out of business that it runs afoul of antitrust laws. There's nothing of the sort going on here. Apple is merely saying if you want access to our customer base to sell your products, you need to play by the rules. There's nothing illegal or nefarious about it.
By your reasoning, Amazon is an illegal monopolist because it doesn't allow iBooks on Kindles. Apple doesn't have to allow any competitors access to its customer base. It does so because it makes sense for Apple to do so, because it brings added value to various iProducts. But those competitors, if they want access to Apple's customers, need to follow the rules. No one is being cut out.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
\\
Respectfully, isnt the bigger issue the stores rights? The store you bought that record player from did not have to stock that particular make or model. Imagine if all the manufactures felt that the government should step in and force all retail outlets to carry their record players...Hope not...
If the Kindle app leaves my iPod touch and iBook selection stays poor, the next reading device I buy will be a Kindle. (I'll be as unhappy about buying a Kindle as I am about buying MS Office. But I'll have to do it anyway.)
Just as Sony realizes the current music platform is iTunes and they have no choice but to sell their music through iTunes, Apple needs to realize that the current ebook seller is Amazon and iOS needs to support Kindle books.
Comments
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.
Sometimes I'm not as patient as I should be, my apologies. Sherlock doesn't have anything to do with antitrust or a monopoly.
Sometimes I'm not as patient as I should be, my apologies. Sherlock doesn't have anything to do with antitrust or a monopoly.
Because Apple wasnt a monopoly. I am saying it is now. In certain categories.
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.
Be careful with the word 'monopoly'. It is thrown around far too often. If you sold all the toasters, or held exclusive control of the toaster trade, you would have a monopoly. If you sold most toasters you certainly would not have a monopoly. In the legal world the term becomes a little fuzzier, but even in this context the above is not really excepted. Companies get in trouble for 'monopolistic behavior' in most cases, e.g. using their control and influence of a market to shut out competitors. Some things Apple has done flirt with this sort of trouble, but they do not have monopolies on any open market. They sell the majority of products in the mobile music market, for example, but there is nothing stopping competitors from releasing competing devices, and Apple does nothing with its advantage to shut them out (short of making a better product—that doesn't count).
Be careful with the word 'monopoly'. It is thrown around far too often. If you sold all the toasters, or held exclusive control of the toaster trade, you would have a monopoly. If you sold most toasters you certainly would not have a monopoly. In the legal world the term becomes a little fuzzier, but even in this context the above is not really excepted. Companies get in trouble for 'monopolistic behavior' in most cases, e.g. using their control and influence of a market to shut out competitors. Some things Apple has done flirt with this sort of trouble, but they do not have monopolies on any open market. They sell the majority of products in the mobile music market, for example, but there is nothing stopping competitors from releasing competing devices, and Apple does nothing with its advantage to shut them out (short of making a better product?that doesn't count).
1) I am talking about the legal definition. Anti-trust legislation has targeted companies with a large market share before. It clearly doesn't have to be 100%, as that would exclude Windows.
2) I am not claiming any impropriety in the music mobile market. I claim they are a monopoly provider of Tablets ( as it now stands) and are excluding a competitor ( Sony) from competing.
Its up to the courts. We are not lawyers. There can be arguments either way. However I wouldnt rule out recourse to the courts if Apple tries it on with Kindle.
That said. I think they will compromise. They have a new subscription model for the Daily, already.
The problem here is how they handled this transition.
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.
Given that there are as many Android devices as iOS devices stating that Apple has a monopoly on mobile devices is stupid.
Even for tablets it isn't clear given the market is still developing and not all the competitors have been released yet and there will be a ton of them this year.
Your statements are trollish and stupid. One wonders if you are an app dev at all.
1) I am talking about the legal definition.
Poorly.
Anti-trust legislation has targeted companies with a large market share before. It clearly doesn't have to be 100%, as that would exclude Windows.
Not in the 1st year of a product release.
2) I am not claiming any impropriety in the music mobile market. I claim they are a monopoly provider of Tablets ( as it now stands) and are excluding a competitor ( Sony) from competing.
And Ford was a monopoly with the Model T. For not very long. And no, they are not excluding a competitor from making tablets, ebooks or even apps.
Its up to the courts. We are not lawyers. There can be arguments either way. However I wouldnt rule out recourse to the courts if Apple tries it on with Kindle.
Amazon sells more ebooks than Apple. That's going to be a very hard sell to claim that Apple has some kind of bizzaro ebook monopoly.
The problem here is how they handled this transition.
The only problem is you completely overreacted and spammed the forums.
Poorly.
Not in the 1st year of a product release.
And Ford was a monopoly with the Model T. For not very long. And no, they are not excluding a competitor from making tablets, ebooks or even apps.
Amazon sells more ebooks than Apple. That's going to be a very hard sell to claim that Apple has some kind of bizzaro ebook monopoly.
The only problem is you completely overreacted and spammed the forums.
The year of release is irrelvent. As it now stands Apple is a monopoly.
It is not just ebooks. It is all digital content. Al digital content is subjected to this tax. Everything.
Whats interesting is how this argument developed over time
1) Sony are lying. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
2) Sony are doing this in-app purchasing incorrectly. They are not doing what Kindle does. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
3) asdasd is lying about his rejection letter. Apple wouldnt do this evil thing
4) Apple wouldnt do this evil thing. Sony is spreading FUD.
Then came the Apple statement. Apple was doing this evil thing. But that was alright. Argument changed, in about two posts to
1) Apple have every right to do this thing.
2) This thing is good.
It is particularly Orwellian. The old posts disappeared down the memory hole. What was bad was now good. What was good ( more books and competition!) was now bad.
look it is not a religion. I am an iOs dev, an ex-Mac dev, and I should write a cheque to Steve Jobs every year, or buy him a car, given how much money I spend on them.
But we can criticise this company. When they do wrong. As they are here.
It is not just ebooks. It is all digital content. Al digital content is subjected to this tax. Everything.
I don't like being nitpicky, but I saw somewhere that Apple's policy does apply to only books. (That could be wrong. After all, it's the internets!
Logically, you're correct. Bits is bits.
On the other hand, Apple does have a bookstore they're trying to get off the ground. That's the kind of things anti-trust laws are meant to discourage: using control of one market (iOS devices at the very least) to force growth in another market (ebooks).
Simple, because the profits generated through agency model sales, such as those at Amazon, are insufficient (vastly insufficient) to cover the cost of another agency model layer on top (e.g. Amazon paying a 30% cut to Apple). Something will have to give if this is going to work, and the most appropriate course would be Apple, who announced that this cost was to cover expenses, recognizing that their role and expense in in-app purchases is not as appreciable, charging a smaller fee (perhaps more along the lines of a credit card transaction fee). This is a tough pill to swallow, though, as a look at the top grossing charts demonstrates that a fair amount of their income for the App Store will be coming from in-app sales (although in these cases it is through the sale of virtual 'Smurfberries', or whatever it is companies have found a way to peddle to their customers).
John Gruber came out this morning with some pretty good coverage of this.
Geez, I've been saying this since the outset of this issue. Apple has no desire to lose content and the content providers have no desire to lose a valuable sales outlet. There will be some kind of deal. Sony just had the misfortune of being the first to run into the new rule headlong and I doubt Apple would announce the deal with Sony ahead of Amazon.
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".)
It's funny to see that some who proclaim Apple is abusing its "monopoly" position are foretelling Android overtaking iOS within the year. That's some monopoly Apple's got there.
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
No, they are the dominant player in a new market. Someone had to start. Funny that some Android fans have been crowing that Apple's tablet marketshare dropped from 95% to 77% in a mere three months. And they further predict that Apple will have a minority position in tablets just as they have in phones.
2) Mp3 players with internet and app ability
Apple holds a dominant position in PMPs. However, they do nothing to prevent others from entering the market and they both play and offer music using standard file formats. It is not illegal to hold a monopoly; it is illegal to use your monopoly position in an anti-competitve manner. Please explain how Apple has been anti-competitve in this area.
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.
Yep, this one you got right. Apple has a monopoly in iOS platform just as MS has a monopoly in the Windows, Xbox and WP7 platforms. BTW, Nintendo and Sony also have monopolies in their respective gaming platforms. I think you need to do a bit more research into what constitutes a monopoly and what anti-competitive behavior is.
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.
Where is Apple insisting that the existing out-of-app purchase option goes away. They are only insisting that there be an option to make in-app purchases.
1) I am talking about the legal definition. Anti-trust legislation has targeted companies with a large market share before. It clearly doesn't have to be 100%, as that would exclude Windows.
2) I am not claiming any impropriety in the music mobile market. I claim they are a monopoly provider of Tablets ( as it now stands) and are excluding a competitor ( Sony) from competing.
Even in this context this is incorrect. Your point below aside, the only reason why a company will get in real trouble for controlling the majority of a market is if that control is somehow used to abuse customers, or in occasional cases, the government deems that control to be anti-competitive (more common in line with, say, utilities). There is no viable monopoly lawsuit which could be brought against Apple for being the majority seller of digital music players or tablet devices. And it isn't right to completely dismiss a point because it is a legal matter.
Its up to the courts. We are not lawyers. There can be arguments either way. However I wouldnt rule out recourse to the courts if Apple tries it on with Kindle.
There can always be arguments either way. Someone can file a lawsuit against Apple for making devices in a color that agitates them. It doesn't mean there is legal precedent for that lawsuit to matter. Monopoly does not apply here in the legal or literal definition. And while some lawyer somewhere might try to make that argument, we really shouldn't be throwing it around carelessly here without legal precedent to back the statement.
Geez, I've been saying this since the outset of this issue. Apple has no desire to lose content and the content providers have no desire to lose a valuable sales outlet. There will be some kind of deal. Sony just had the misfortune of being the first to run into the new rule headlong and I doubt Apple would announce the deal with Sony ahead of Amazon.
I agree completely. My expectation based on Apple's history is that they decided to change the way they are handling this and, to keep things simple, rejected Sony so they could re-evaluate them after they announced new rules. They're probably thinking it through right now, or have already thought it through, and will announce the changes soon enough.
The situation as currently interpreted (Apple wanting 30% from Amazon) is completely untenable except from the perspective of driving Kindle books from iOS, but in most cases when this happens we find that Apple remains quiet as they work out a proper solution and announce it down the road. We did hear a hint along these lines in the recent publication announcement.
If you could download the app directly from Amazon, Apple would have no relationship in the transaction at all. The user's iPad and Amazon would have an exclusive relationship without Apple. Since Apple's App Store is the only way for Amazon to deliver the original FREE app, Apple has forced itself into the relationship that normally would be exclusively between Amazon and the end user, which I'm sure most users would prefer. Although some people might like a three-way
Why? If you don't want to purchase thru their app, then continue to purchase it the way you do now.
Apple is not telling everyone the ONLY way to purchase is thru the application. Only that users must also be able to purchase directly in the application as well as direct from the company.
And to use your example, these corporations should pay Apple for people using an iPad to view their content.
I agree. If Amazon sells 1 million $10 books through Apple's channels, Apple just made $3 million. Multiply that by millions more and Apple gets to rake in some serious cash.
And? What's your point?
If Amazon sells 1 million $10 books through their own website on the iPad (as they do now), then Amazon has made $10 million.
Amazon will simply have to market more to get consumers to use the Amazon store and not make the purchase directly in the Kindle app.
Because Apple wasnt a monopoly. I am saying it is now. In certain categories.
You can say Apple is a monopoly all you want, but you'd still be wrong. You clearly don't understand what a monopoly means from a legal standpoint. Besides, monopolies in and of themselves aren't necessarily illegal. It's when a monopolist uses its power to drive competition out of business that it runs afoul of antitrust laws. There's nothing of the sort going on here. Apple is merely saying if you want access to our customer base to sell your products, you need to play by the rules. There's nothing illegal or nefarious about it.
By your reasoning, Amazon is an illegal monopolist because it doesn't allow iBooks on Kindles. Apple doesn't have to allow any competitors access to its customer base. It does so because it makes sense for Apple to do so, because it brings added value to various iProducts. But those competitors, if they want access to Apple's customers, need to follow the rules. No one is being cut out.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
\\
Respectfully, isnt the bigger issue the stores rights? The store you bought that record player from did not have to stock that particular make or model. Imagine if all the manufactures felt that the government should step in and force all retail outlets to carry their record players...Hope not...
It doesn't matter what's fair to Apple or Amazon.
If the Kindle app leaves my iPod touch and iBook selection stays poor, the next reading device I buy will be a Kindle. (I'll be as unhappy about buying a Kindle as I am about buying MS Office. But I'll have to do it anyway.)
Just as Sony realizes the current music platform is iTunes and they have no choice but to sell their music through iTunes, Apple needs to realize that the current ebook seller is Amazon and iOS needs to support Kindle books.