FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post






    From the very top of the iBooks licence agreement:







    Right after the header stuff, you see this:







    Next time, please don't be so silly.



    Right, just like walmart, sams club, and others have thier own brands of competing services.



    I understand that, what you continue to fail to demonstrate is how this is price FIXING.



    Apple does not sell tvs, turkey fryers, monthly deliveries of toilet paper.



    They do sell eBooks, which is where they are competing with Amazon and thier kindle services via iBooks.



    Next time, don't be so intellectually dishonest, or condescending.



    Again and again, all your points are really speaking against iOS's one store only policy, and yet you keep banging your head against the actual app store policies and ridiculous points toward price fixing, which make NO SENSE.



    Apples store, apples rules, apples cut.



    Walmart is not obligated to allow say, name brand detergent at the same cost as thier own brand, and in fact, in most cases they make the policies that guantee they undercut said competition in their own storefront.



    Amazon would do the same to Apple if apple was allowed to offer iBooks on the kindle hardware.



    Do you really think they would allow apple to sell books without getting a substantial cut?
  • Reply 102 of 152
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 103 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post






    From the very top of the iBooks licence agreement:







    Right after the header stuff, you see this:







    Next time, please don't be so silly.



    Edited to add: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html



    Quote:

    In its most common form, price fixing is an agreement to raise the price of a product or service to or by a specific amount, e.g., all widget manufacturers agree to a 5 percent increase in price effective June 1. Other manifestations of price fixing include the following:



    1. Agreements to establish or adhere to uniform price discounts;



    2. Agreements to eliminate discounts to all customers or certain types of customers;



    3. Agreements to adopt a specific formula for the computation of selling prices;



    4. Agreements on terms and conditions of sale, including uniform freight charges, quantity discounts, or other differentials that affect the actual price of the product; and



    5. Agreements not to advertise prices or to refuse to sell the product through any bidding process.



    Let me do this point by point.



    Most common form: There is not a uniform amount agreed to between ebook content in apples store.



    1. There are no uniform price discounts between ebook services in apples store

    2. There are no agreements between ebook services to eliminate discounts in apples store

    3. There is no agreement to adopt a specific formula for pricing among ebook services in apples store

    4. There are no agreements to these types of terms in apples store

    5. Nothing there either



    There is a big difference between agreements on price fixing between ebook competitors and Apple making it unlikely or impossible for competitors to match prices with their own product within its store, and still make a profit.



    Which apple is under no obligation to provide to said competitors.



    Unless You can attack and succeed in changing the one store only iOS policy.
  • Reply 104 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    No one was bound to have an agreement with Microsoft either....



    How are those situations similar?



    Look the reality is that Apple will soon own less than 50% of the tablet market, and they already are behind in the general mobile OS race....



    I am not defending apples iOS policy that I can only buy programs for what I consider a PC - from them.



    In fact it may make me chose another OS, and I doubt my phone and tablet will have different OS, so apples decisions in the next several months may also have me abandoning my iphone as well.



    All I'm saying is that this is not price fixing, and under the terms of its OS its not currently considered anti-competitive to have only one source for software.



    Until that changes you can only vote by



    1) as a dev, leave iOS

    2) as a consumer, buy into another OS
  • Reply 105 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    Next time, don't be so ? condescending.



    So tell me, what is the correct response to such a silly argument?



    You keep trying to create distinctions where none exists (such as your silly iBook Store isn't Apple faux distinction) in an attempt to make your argument go through. If you really want to bring out the intellectual dishonesty club, you better make sure you're not the one about to get whacked with it.



    Quote:

    They do sell eBooks, which is where they are competing with Amazon and thier kindle services via iBooks.



    Exactly. That makes them COMPETITORS in that market. (They're also competitors in digital music and video too.) That there are other markets which they do not compete in does not change this basic fact. In the market space where they COMPETE, Apple is engaging in behavior which will force Amazon to raise prices unless they pull out of part of that market.



    Quote:

    I understand that, what you continue to fail to demonstrate is how this is price FIXING.



    Changing prices due to an agreement between competitors is the definition you keep using. Apple and Amazon are competitors in the ebook market. If Amazon keeps their app in the Apple's App Store after the deadline passes, that means that Amazon will have agreed to Apple's terms to set prices due an agreement which would then exist between the two companies.
  • Reply 106 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    2. There are no agreements between ebook services to eliminate discounts in apples store



    That's only half the story. What Apple is demanding is the elimination of discounts in their COMPETITOR'S store(s).
  • Reply 107 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    Which apple is under no obligation to provide to said competitors.



    What makes you think Apple has a "right" to exercise such control over devices purchased by end users?
  • Reply 108 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    So tell me, what is the correct response to such a silly argument?



    You keep trying to create distinctions where none exists (such as your silly iBook Store isn't Apple faux distinction) in an attempt to make your argument go through. If you really want to bring out the intellectual dishonesty club, you better make sure you're not the one about to get whacked with it.







    Exactly. That makes them COMPETITORS in that market. (They're also competitors in digital music and video too.) That there are other markets which they do not compete in does not change this basic fact. In the market space where they COMPETE, Apple is engaging in behavior which will force Amazon to raise prices unless they pull out of part of that market.







    Changing prices due to an agreement between competitors is the definition you keep using. Apple and Amazon are competitors in the ebook market. If Amazon keeps their app in the Apple's App Store after the deadline passes, that means that Amazon will have agreed to Apple's terms to set prices due an agreement which would then exist between the two companies.



    Price fixing is fixing the prices between competing services.



    For example, Apple and Amazon agree to price books at the same prices to iOS users. This is not happening.



    What is happening is that apple is deliberately enforcing a policy that either



    1) makes competitors selling books to iOS customers a losing proposition

    2) makes apple a set amount of profit for amazon's sales to iOS customers



    Effectively, they probably have made it such that apple makes roughly the same profit whether a customer buys from kindle/amazon or ibooks/Apple.



    This is not price fixing.



    The problem stems from only one store being allowed to sell programs on iOS.



    Not the fact that apple wants to make a profit from things being sold within their store.
  • Reply 109 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    What makes you think Apple has a "right" to exercise such control over devices purchased by end users?



    Ugh.



    In all honesty, I don't. But I'm pretty sure that's what you agree to by using iOS.



    I really do not want to use the offerings by HTC and Moto, etc....



    But its really looking like I MAY be forced into it.
  • Reply 110 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    That's only half the story. What Apple is demanding is the elimination of discounts in their COMPETITOR'S store(s).



    Only if they want to have a native iOS app, and sell content in apples store.



    You know, the store apple is making its users buy.



    The real kicker is that content and the app store in general just makes no money for apple relatively speaking, so IMO at a certain point you may find yourself losing a $1000 because you argued over a few pennies, if you get me.



    But until sales slow, apple has no real motivation to change I guess.
  • Reply 111 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    Let me do this point by point.



    Most common form: There is not a uniform amount agreed to between ebook content in apples store.



    1. There are no uniform price discounts between ebook services in apples store

    2. There are no agreements between ebook services to eliminate discounts in apples store

    3. There is no agreement to adopt a specific formula for pricing among ebook services in apples store

    4. There are no agreements to these types of terms in apples store

    5. Nothing there either



    There is a big difference between agreements on price fixing between ebook competitors and Apple making it unlikely or impossible for competitors to match prices with their own product within its store, and still make a profit.



    Which apple is under no obligation to provide to said competitors.



    Unless You can attack and succeed in changing the one store only iOS policy.



    Your entire argument is based on the falacy of "in Apple's store". For example, 2) There is in Apple's theory an agreement between ebook retailer (Apple via iBooks) and another ebook retailer (Amazon via Kindle) that Amazon will eliminate discounts to Kindle customers who choose to purchase from a lower cost retail channel than the one Apple and Amazon will jointly provide via the in-app purchase.



    Apple is saying Kindle MUST allow in app purchases and they are saying that that retail method will be relatively costly (transaction costs will be 30% to Apple plus whatever Amazons real costs are). They are then saying that there MUST be an agreement to eliminate discounts to anyone who chooses to purchase through a lower cost channel such as direct on Amazon's web page. If Amazon want to stay in iOS they will agree and this agreement will drive up the pricing for content through Amazon and eliminate discounts. In turn, where Apple has the same content available in iBooks, they will be able to price it higher, 43% higher, without fear that Amazon will undercut them. This is price fixing.
  • Reply 112 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    Your entire argument is based on the falacy of "in Apple's store". For example, 2) There is in Apple's theory an agreement between ebook retailer (Apple via iBooks) and another ebook retailer (Amazon via Kindle) that Amazon will eliminate discounts to Kindle customers who choose to purchase from a lower cost retail channel than the one Apple and Amazon will jointly provide via the in-app purchase.



    Apple is saying Kindle MUST allow in app purchases and they are saying that that retail method will be relatively costly (transaction costs will be 30% to Apple plus whatever Amazons real costs are). They are then saying that there MUST be an agreement to eliminate discounts to anyone who chooses to purchase through a lower cost channel such as direct on Amazon's web page. If Amazon want to stay in iOS they will agree and this agreement will drive up the pricing for content through Amazon and eliminate discounts. In turn, where Apple has the same content available in iBooks, they will be able to price it higher, 43% higher, without fear that Amazon will undercut them. This is price fixing.



    No it isn't.



    Apple is ensuring that amazon cannot undercut them with regards to iOS users, but amazon can set the price at whatever they want to.



    Again, this......is.......not......price fixing.



    Is it anti competitive? I don't know, not until they prove apple having the only store on iOS devices is anti-competitive.



    Like I said a billion post ago, I'm not saying its fair, I'm not saying its legal, I'm simply saying that it is not unfair or illegal under laws against price fixing.
  • Reply 113 of 152
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion.



    Fuck whataboutary! This is about trying to put the digital download subscription business into some kind of context. Simply ignoring how other digital distributors do business weakens any rational argument that you could make.



    Quote:

    Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.



    What "rights" does Amazon hold?



    Quote:

    Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.



    Try painting "ASDASD GOLF SALE: THIS WAY>" on Bloomingdale's windows and see how far you get.
  • Reply 114 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    Is it anti competitive? I don't know, not until they prove apple having the only store on iOS devices is anti-competitive.



    HUGE difference. While I do not agree with the single app store, there are many solid reasons behind it other than reducing competition. There is no benefit to the ecosystem of regulating the prices Amazon charges outside the ecosystem. The only benefit is to Apple's revenue at the expense of their customers and competition.
  • Reply 115 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    HUGE difference. While I do not agree with the single app store, there are many solid reasons behind it other than reducing competition. There is no benefit to the ecosystem of regulating the prices Amazon charges outside the ecosystem. The only benefit is to Apple's revenue at the expense of their customers and competition.



    I agree that this is more about apples bottom line than anything.



    But you seem to be ignoring what the one store really means. It really means that its apples store. Forget "ecosystem", unless thats what you think walmart has. If you can just separate that and digest it as reality, you will see that what apple is doing makes perfect sense and is perfectly legal in that narrow minded light.



    Ultimately though, one store may not be fair, may not be conducive to long term growth, etc....



    Apple has said its only a break even prospect used to drive hardware sales, but this seems to be counter productive. Why are they choosing this route with a part of their business that makes nothing?



    I don't know, maybe they see digit content sales as a big money maker 10 years from now that they dont want to relinquish control of prematurely.



    Seems short sighted to me, but what do I know?



    While I'm fairly certain nothing in their subscription policy is illegal, I didn't say I thought it was a good idea.
  • Reply 116 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    Quote:

    What makes you think Apple has a "right" to exercise such control over devices purchased by end users?



    But I'm pretty sure that's what you agree to by using iOS.



    Apple may claim they have that right, even in their licensing, but I'm pretty sure such a right does not actually exist.



    First of all, I recall reading that Apple lost a suit over jailbreaking the iOS. That suggests that Apple does not actually have a right to control what applications are run on iOS devices once they've been sold. (Ah, here it is.)



    Second, there is established law that illegal terms in contracts cannot be enforced. Though I doubt an "Our App Store Only" clause has been tested in court, or that there's an actual law making such license terms actively illegal, such a clause asserts a claim over someone else's property (a customer's iDevice) which the above lawsuit said Apple cannot assert. Therefore, it seems unlikely that such a clause could survive a court challenge.
  • Reply 117 of 152
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 118 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    Apple may claim they have that right, even in their licensing, but I'm pretty sure such a right does not actually exist.



    First of all, I recall reading that Apple lost a suit over jailbreaking the iOS. That suggests that Apple does not actually have a right to control what applications are run on iOS devices once they've been sold. (Ah, here it is.)



    Second, there is established law that illegal terms in contracts cannot be enforced. Though I doubt an "Our App Store Only" clause has been tested in court, or that there's an actual law making such license terms actively illegal, such a clause asserts a claim over someone else's property (a customer's iDevice) which the above lawsuit said Apple cannot assert. Therefore, it seems unlikely that such a clause could survive a court challenge.



    That's fantastic, now who is willing to go to court and challenge it?



    I am serious, I would like to see it happen and the challenger win.



    Before apple brings this policy to my mac and I get rid of my iphone and my macbook.
  • Reply 119 of 152
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post








    Unlike most here, I don't claim to have the authority to make that decision, and will instead abide by the decision of those who do.



    That's people choosing to spend money, lol, not market share.



    That's like me making a pet rock knock-off and claiming anti-trust against the original makers because people dont buy my product. Android users are greater in number. It isn't really apples fault they dont like to spend money.
  • Reply 120 of 152
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    If that's worth spending an extra 43% to you (that's how much higher prices have to be for sellers to receive the same amount)



    And in a nutshell, you have succinctly pointed out why you don't understand how commerce works.



    Why do sellers HAVE TO receive the same amount!
Sign In or Register to comment.