[quote name="trumptman" url="/t/158853/doj-settlement-would-require-apple-to-allow-links-to-amazon-barnes-noble-e-book-stores/40#post_2373132"]They are being requested to simply compete…[/QUOTE]
This isn't competition. So why isn't Amazon forced to have links to the App Store anywhere?
I still like the idea of eating a billion or two and making all the books in the iBooks Store $1.99.
I can't believe the replies in this thread. People would be furious if Microsoft disallowed iTunes on Windiows and only allowed content purchased through their own media store. Amazon, BN and other ebook resellers ought to be allowed to put their own stores back into their apps. It is more convenient for those of us using those apps and costs Apple nothing while generating bad will, bad press and legal judgements.
Apple is not required to put Amazon or any other links into their iBook store. They are being requested to simply compete and allow everyone else to do what they do which is hit a button and go to a store to buy a book within their respective apps.
Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones. It doesn't even have a majority. So if you don't want iBookstore or iTunes, you're free to try your luck with Android.
Red herring, one does not need to have a monopoly to engage in the anti-competitive behavior Apple was found guilt of engaging in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy
The only people thinks this is a good idea are DOJ and Android/Amazon fanbois. DOJ is overreaching into Apple's business models. What then after 2-yrs? Are they studying the effects and then go after Amazon? This is one of the silliest lawsuit in tech in recent years.
Apple was sued by 33 states (if I recall correctly), The Federal DOJ, and the EU as well. That is a pretty broad group all finding the same problem. It is certainly larger than Android fan boys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
They are being requested to simply compete…
This isn't competition. So why isn't Amazon forced to have links to the App Store anywhere?
I still like the idea of eating a billion or two and making all the books in the iBooks Store $1.99.
I think you and others must not be reading this right.
Amazon and Barnes & Noble are not currently allowed to link from their native iOS apps to outside e-book stores. But the U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a settlement that would require Apple to allow such links for a two-year period.
It is being proposed that BN and Amazon apps be allowed to link to their OWN e-book stores. No one is forcing the iBookstore to link to Amazon or anything like that.
Thus your analogy doesn't work.
However here are examples that do work. Amazon sells software for the Mac. The software is available as a digital download. They have an Apple that manage the download for you and that installs it to your computer. They do the same thing with music. Apple does not require any Amazon software or music purchases to be done through the Mac App store or iTunes. I can buy my music anywhere and use with iTunes.
If someone declared that every song you buy has to be downloaded exclusively through iTunes and Apple had to get 30%, people would never defend Apple for that. Likewise the same with any other content. It is not excusable for books either.
I've really become depressed watching Apple fans defend these terrible actions. I see the same folks who swore Microsoft was evil for bundling Internet Explorer and destroying competition defend the same mentality and actions with Apple. It's not right. It's inexcusable and it shows that Apple is no longer Apple in the way they should be. It even shows Steve Jobs no longer was carrying the same flame the same way before he passed away. It's just wrong.
Red herring, one does not need to have a monopoly to engage in the anti-competitive behavior Apple was found guilt of engaging in.
Apple was sued by 33 states (if I recall correctly), The Federal DOJ, and the EU as well. That is a pretty broad group all finding the same problem. It is certainly larger than Android fan boys.
I think you and others must not be reading this right.
Amazon and Barnes & Noble are not currently allowed to link from their native iOS apps to outside e-book stores. But the U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a settlement that would require Apple to allow such links for a two-year period.
It is being proposed that BN and Amazon apps be allowed to link to their OWN e-book stores. No one is forcing the iBookstore to link to Amazon or anything like that.
Thus your analogy doesn't work.
However here are examples that do work. Amazon sells software for the Mac. The software is available as a digital download. They have an Apple that manage the download for you and that installs it to your computer. They do the same thing with music. Apple does not require any Amazon software or music purchases to be done through the Mac App store or iTunes. I can buy my music anywhere and use with iTunes.
If someone declared that every song you buy has to be downloaded exclusively through iTunes and Apple had to get 30%, people would never defend Apple for that. Likewise the same with any other content. It is not excusable for books either.
I've really become depressed watching Apple fans defend these terrible actions. I see the same folks who swore Microsoft was evil for bundling Internet Explorer and destroying competition defend the same mentality and actions with Apple. It's not right. It's inexcusable and it shows that Apple is no longer Apple in the way they should be. It even shows Steve Jobs no longer was carrying the same flame the same way before he passed away. It's just wrong.
Blah blah blah. IE was free and free is good for consumers, right?
I've always thought that Apple should also make iWork and iLife available on all platforms. They would make a killing. (I am also confident that, once people have experienced Apple's software -- except for Mail and iCloud both of which should be either revamped or shut down -- they'll slowly start to migrate to Apple hardware: i.e., they'd be excellent gateway products).
By killing I assume you mean suicide. Apple could never generate profits from software to subsidise the loss of profits from their integrated systems & 'potential' customers who are already fooled by function-only marketing will never get why running the same software on a more expensive machine with lower specs is actually better.
Apple should take that deal... but amazon must be forced to allow ibooks on there ecosystem...
Which destroys Apple's integrated solution approach. So Amazon/B&N get to benefit from Apple's totally captive App Store, what do Apple get, apart from screwed?
Apple sells hardware. Some benefits of iOS is the integration of iTunes and the App Store.
It's smart business not cowardness.
No, it's not smart business to eliminate your point of difference, be forced to adopt you competitor's business model and race them to non-profitability.
This is like a conspiracy to curtail Apple's rise to the top:
Quote:
The DOJ settlement would also go beyond e-books, prohibiting Apple from entering agreements with suppliers of "music, movies, television shows or other content that are likely to increase the prices at which Apple's competitor retailers may sell that content."
What have music, movies & TV shows have to do with eBooks?
Comments
This isn't competition. So why isn't Amazon forced to have links to the App Store anywhere?
I still like the idea of eating a billion or two and making all the books in the iBooks Store $1.99.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I can't believe the replies in this thread. People would be furious if Microsoft disallowed iTunes on Windiows and only allowed content purchased through their own media store. Amazon, BN and other ebook resellers ought to be allowed to put their own stores back into their apps. It is more convenient for those of us using those apps and costs Apple nothing while generating bad will, bad press and legal judgements.
Apple is not required to put Amazon or any other links into their iBook store. They are being requested to simply compete and allow everyone else to do what they do which is hit a button and go to a store to buy a book within their respective apps.
Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones. It doesn't even have a majority. So if you don't want iBookstore or iTunes, you're free to try your luck with Android.
Red herring, one does not need to have a monopoly to engage in the anti-competitive behavior Apple was found guilt of engaging in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy
The only people thinks this is a good idea are DOJ and Android/Amazon fanbois. DOJ is overreaching into Apple's business models. What then after 2-yrs? Are they studying the effects and then go after Amazon? This is one of the silliest lawsuit in tech in recent years.
Apple was sued by 33 states (if I recall correctly), The Federal DOJ, and the EU as well. That is a pretty broad group all finding the same problem. It is certainly larger than Android fan boys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
They are being requested to simply compete…
This isn't competition. So why isn't Amazon forced to have links to the App Store anywhere?
I still like the idea of eating a billion or two and making all the books in the iBooks Store $1.99.
I think you and others must not be reading this right.
Amazon and Barnes & Noble are not currently allowed to link from their native iOS apps to outside e-book stores. But the U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a settlement that would require Apple to allow such links for a two-year period.
It is being proposed that BN and Amazon apps be allowed to link to their OWN e-book stores. No one is forcing the iBookstore to link to Amazon or anything like that.
Thus your analogy doesn't work.
However here are examples that do work. Amazon sells software for the Mac. The software is available as a digital download. They have an Apple that manage the download for you and that installs it to your computer. They do the same thing with music. Apple does not require any Amazon software or music purchases to be done through the Mac App store or iTunes. I can buy my music anywhere and use with iTunes.
If someone declared that every song you buy has to be downloaded exclusively through iTunes and Apple had to get 30%, people would never defend Apple for that. Likewise the same with any other content. It is not excusable for books either.
I've really become depressed watching Apple fans defend these terrible actions. I see the same folks who swore Microsoft was evil for bundling Internet Explorer and destroying competition defend the same mentality and actions with Apple. It's not right. It's inexcusable and it shows that Apple is no longer Apple in the way they should be. It even shows Steve Jobs no longer was carrying the same flame the same way before he passed away. It's just wrong.
Blah blah blah. IE was free and free is good for consumers, right?
There's a huge difference between politely informing and being rude and sarcastic when pointing out an error.
When you point a finger outwards, guess how many fingers point backatcha?
Which destroys Apple's integrated solution approach. So Amazon/B&N get to benefit from Apple's totally captive App Store, what do Apple get, apart from screwed?
No, it's not smart business to eliminate your point of difference, be forced to adopt you competitor's business model and race them to non-profitability.
McDave
Dont do it APPLE , for the sake of free market and freedom in general, dont do it.
If big companies dont start standing up to them , who will?
go to war with them , WE WILL ALL SUPPORT YOU!
This is like a conspiracy to curtail Apple's rise to the top:
Quote:
The DOJ settlement would also go beyond e-books, prohibiting Apple from entering agreements with suppliers of "music, movies, television shows or other content that are likely to increase the prices at which Apple's competitor retailers may sell that content."
What have music, movies & TV shows have to do with eBooks?