The point is that whether a certain behaviour is legal or not can depend on something like market share.
But not in this case. Amazon can choose to be in the App store. Or they can choose to go it alone invest in their Kindle reader. They can even do both.
They can't choose to be in the app store, and whine about the terms. They are there voluntarily.
But not in this case. Amazon can choose to be in the App store. Or they can choose to go it alone invest in their Kindle reader. They can even do both.
They can't choose to be in the app store, and whine about the terms. They are there voluntarily.
C.
And why can't be Apple sued for anti competitive practices?
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee, when they are fully capable of handling the transaction themselves? It's an abuse of market position. At the very least, we the customers will pay more than we are now and Apple will have a bigger profit on their books.
No it's not unfair. Apple is doing a service for those companies by allowing them into the App Store in the first place. We don't know how these companies will respond. Before everyone goes off half cocked, we have to see what will happen. So far, only Sony has said anything, and that's because they never had their app in the store before. Until we hear from Amazon and the others, we don't know what will happen.
Does iBooks have any advantage on the Kindle or Nook book readers? Does it have any disadvantage? What about Sony? How much more must Apple charge there?
Subscribing to something from within iOS means that you will only use that subscription in iOS? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure I signed up for Netflix on my iPhone, but I primarily use it on my computer.
No. One thing has nothing to do with the other. They are separate. If you had to pay once before, you will now. If you had to pay more than once before, you will now as well.
How can you get it through your head that Microsoft DID get paid for every person who used itunes on a windows machine? Seriously do you think Windows is free?
Seriously, do you think iPhones are free?
The problem is that Apple keeps shifting their business model. Yesterday, free apps were fine, including them using content purchased elsewhere, today that is no longer the case.
I believe some of you are looking at this backwards.
Look at it this way: I am trying to make a subscription for content that I WANT on the iPad or iPhone. I am asking Apple to make that possible. Apple then develops the process for me to do that and tells me what my costs are going to be. I then factor that into my price. Afterwards Apple tells me that I can sell the same subscription outside (allowing me to do my own marketing to raise awareness!) but I have to sell it at the same price I on the iPad / iPhone which I already wanted to do. Therefore I make MORE money outside the App Store.
Apple isn't doing anything but making sure Publishers / Developers do not abuse their eco system they created, their customers (cause lets face it, something happens to the App process we always point to Apple) and the App Store they maintain and continue to make it better (this 4.3 update is a great example). Why shouldn't they get their profits as well. D&R isn't cheap, (iOS and iTunes updates, now looking like MobileMe is going to join these ranks). D&R funds have to come from someplace.
I do not feel that developers / publishers should be upset. If some of their customers are, well you are unjustified in my opinion.
But not in this case. Amazon can choose to be in the App store. Or they can choose to go it alone invest in their Kindle reader. They can even do both.
They can't choose to be in the app store, and whine about the terms. They are there voluntarily.
As voluntarily as Netscape offered a version of their browser for Windows at a time when worldwide 98% of all computers used Windows, they certainly had a choice.
I didn't know you can install apps on kindle or that you can buy ibooks outside iTunes
Uh, that was the point. Who is being worse here, Amazon and B&N for not allowing any competition in their stores from other companies, or Apple for insisting that they be allowed to give the same deal to their customers as the others they do allow to sell within their store?
I think that it should be pretty obvious that the answer that Apple is being fairer.
We'll see how Amazon behaves then. I didn't know they were working on that. What I said about Apple would also apply to Amazon then. Once you open up your platform to other developers, and you have sufficient market share, you can't manipulate your platform to favor your services.
As for the PS3 and Xbox. I don't think they are taking a 30% cut of Netflix subscriptions in an effort to raise prices so that their video services are favored. My opinion isn't based on the fact that the company in question is Apple. It's based on their position in the market and what they are attempting to do with that market position.
Uh, that was the point. Who is being worse here, Amazon and B&N for not allowing any competition in their stores from other companies, or Apple for insisting that they be allowed to give the same deal to their customers as the others they do allow to sell within their store?
I think that it should be pretty obvious that the answer that Apple is being fairer.
Ein? They doesn't have app stores. And as far as I know, you CAN buy books in other stores and use them on Kindles and Nooks and they don't force you to take a cut.
Interesting discussions... I can only hope that consumers don't lose out.
One thing that has yet to be mentioned is this. Doesn't the Kindle app also reside on the Mac store as well? If so, is Apple exerting the same requirements?
Interesting discussions... I can only hope that consumers don't lose out.
One thing that has yet to be mentioned is this. Doesn't the Kindle app also reside on the Mac store as well? If so, is Apple exerting the same requirements?
As soon as they implement in-app purchasing of Mac App Store apps, there sure will.
Ein? They doesn't have app stores. And as far as I know, you CAN buy books in other stores and use them on Kindles and Nooks and they don't force you to take a cut.
Yes there is a Kindle app store. And you can buy Kindle and Nooks ebooks without paying Apple a cut.. use the device store!
Ein? They doesn't have app stores. And as far as I know, you CAN buy books in other stores and use them on Kindles and Nooks and they don't force you to take a cut.
As far as I know, you can't, because each bookstore is using its own DRM.
Irrelevant, it's a different scenario. Apple's free to keep the app store to themselves, much like they have with iTunes and iPods, but the moment they open it up to other developers, they can't manipulate it to give themselves an advantage in other markets such as eBooks. If you read my other posts, probably 80% of my posts are in favor of an Apple practice. I'm not against this because I'm anti-Apple, I'm against it because it's an abuse of market position and it isn't right.
Just because some posters assume it's that doesn't mean that it is. Apple isn't telling them how much to charge. That will be up to them. I think they would have a very difficult time of proving abuse. All Apple would have to do is to remove all external sales from their stores, and these companies would howl even more. Even Sony, who is real mad about the denial of their app, has only threatened to remove music from iTunes IF and it's a big if, their new music service they're launching (a second or third try) is successful. If it's not, they won't attempt to do that. That's not much of a threat. If they're planning a legal battle, they haven't mentioned it so far.
Comments
The point is that whether a certain behaviour is legal or not can depend on something like market share.
But not in this case. Amazon can choose to be in the App store. Or they can choose to go it alone invest in their Kindle reader. They can even do both.
They can't choose to be in the app store, and whine about the terms. They are there voluntarily.
C.
But not in this case. Amazon can choose to be in the App store. Or they can choose to go it alone invest in their Kindle reader. They can even do both.
They can't choose to be in the app store, and whine about the terms. They are there voluntarily.
C.
And why can't be Apple sued for anti competitive practices?
But is Apple fair in charging 30%?
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee, when they are fully capable of handling the transaction themselves? It's an abuse of market position. At the very least, we the customers will pay more than we are now and Apple will have a bigger profit on their books.
No it's not unfair. Apple is doing a service for those companies by allowing them into the App Store in the first place. We don't know how these companies will respond. Before everyone goes off half cocked, we have to see what will happen. So far, only Sony has said anything, and that's because they never had their app in the store before. Until we hear from Amazon and the others, we don't know what will happen.
Does iBooks have any advantage on the Kindle or Nook book readers? Does it have any disadvantage? What about Sony? How much more must Apple charge there?
Get the point?
Apple is doing a service for those companies by allowing them into the App Store in the first place.
Wow, they have to be happy for being allowed to be on App Store.
Subscribing to something from within iOS means that you will only use that subscription in iOS? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure I signed up for Netflix on my iPhone, but I primarily use it on my computer.
No. One thing has nothing to do with the other. They are separate. If you had to pay once before, you will now. If you had to pay more than once before, you will now as well.
Then I paypal the creator direct if I like the stuff.
How can you get it through your head that Microsoft DID get paid for every person who used itunes on a windows machine? Seriously do you think Windows is free?
Seriously, do you think iPhones are free?
The problem is that Apple keeps shifting their business model. Yesterday, free apps were fine, including them using content purchased elsewhere, today that is no longer the case.
And Apple is FORCING to give in-app subscription and purchasing at the same or lower price than outside Apple.
So? What's the point? Their competitors don't allow any kind of out of app purchasing on their readers. Which system is better?
Major credit cards don't provide the visibility - which is marketing. Real big difference here.
you're right, Apple provides visibility for 6 of it's several hundred thousand apps...
[and currently provides visibility only for Lady GaGa and the Beatles for music].
every email i get from AmEx, Disco, and Chase have links to partner programs with everything from amazon to zappos.
Look at it this way: I am trying to make a subscription for content that I WANT on the iPad or iPhone. I am asking Apple to make that possible. Apple then develops the process for me to do that and tells me what my costs are going to be. I then factor that into my price. Afterwards Apple tells me that I can sell the same subscription outside (allowing me to do my own marketing to raise awareness!) but I have to sell it at the same price I on the iPad / iPhone which I already wanted to do. Therefore I make MORE money outside the App Store.
Apple isn't doing anything but making sure Publishers / Developers do not abuse their eco system they created, their customers (cause lets face it, something happens to the App process we always point to Apple) and the App Store they maintain and continue to make it better (this 4.3 update is a great example). Why shouldn't they get their profits as well. D&R isn't cheap, (iOS and iTunes updates, now looking like MobileMe is going to join these ranks). D&R funds have to come from someplace.
I do not feel that developers / publishers should be upset. If some of their customers are, well you are unjustified in my opinion.
But not in this case. Amazon can choose to be in the App store. Or they can choose to go it alone invest in their Kindle reader. They can even do both.
They can't choose to be in the app store, and whine about the terms. They are there voluntarily.
As voluntarily as Netscape offered a version of their browser for Windows at a time when worldwide 98% of all computers used Windows, they certainly had a choice.
Their competitors don't allow any kind of out of app purchasing on their readers. Which system is better?
What?
I didn't know you can install apps on kindle or that you can buy ibooks outside iTunes
Uh, that was the point. Who is being worse here, Amazon and B&N for not allowing any competition in their stores from other companies, or Apple for insisting that they be allowed to give the same deal to their customers as the others they do allow to sell within their store?
I think that it should be pretty obvious that the answer that Apple is being fairer.
Oh right.
Like the Xbox? Or the PS3?
Or this..
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application...nt-Kit-525340/
C.
We'll see how Amazon behaves then. I didn't know they were working on that. What I said about Apple would also apply to Amazon then. Once you open up your platform to other developers, and you have sufficient market share, you can't manipulate your platform to favor your services.
As for the PS3 and Xbox. I don't think they are taking a 30% cut of Netflix subscriptions in an effort to raise prices so that their video services are favored. My opinion isn't based on the fact that the company in question is Apple. It's based on their position in the market and what they are attempting to do with that market position.
Uh, that was the point. Who is being worse here, Amazon and B&N for not allowing any competition in their stores from other companies, or Apple for insisting that they be allowed to give the same deal to their customers as the others they do allow to sell within their store?
I think that it should be pretty obvious that the answer that Apple is being fairer.
Ein? They doesn't have app stores. And as far as I know, you CAN buy books in other stores and use them on Kindles and Nooks and they don't force you to take a cut.
One thing that has yet to be mentioned is this. Doesn't the Kindle app also reside on the Mac store as well? If so, is Apple exerting the same requirements?
Interesting discussions... I can only hope that consumers don't lose out.
One thing that has yet to be mentioned is this. Doesn't the Kindle app also reside on the Mac store as well? If so, is Apple exerting the same requirements?
As soon as they implement in-app purchasing of Mac App Store apps, there sure will.
Ein? They doesn't have app stores. And as far as I know, you CAN buy books in other stores and use them on Kindles and Nooks and they don't force you to take a cut.
Yes there is a Kindle app store. And you can buy Kindle and Nooks ebooks without paying Apple a cut.. use the device store!
Ein? They doesn't have app stores. And as far as I know, you CAN buy books in other stores and use them on Kindles and Nooks and they don't force you to take a cut.
As far as I know, you can't, because each bookstore is using its own DRM.
Irrelevant, it's a different scenario. Apple's free to keep the app store to themselves, much like they have with iTunes and iPods, but the moment they open it up to other developers, they can't manipulate it to give themselves an advantage in other markets such as eBooks. If you read my other posts, probably 80% of my posts are in favor of an Apple practice. I'm not against this because I'm anti-Apple, I'm against it because it's an abuse of market position and it isn't right.
Just because some posters assume it's that doesn't mean that it is. Apple isn't telling them how much to charge. That will be up to them. I think they would have a very difficult time of proving abuse. All Apple would have to do is to remove all external sales from their stores, and these companies would howl even more. Even Sony, who is real mad about the denial of their app, has only threatened to remove music from iTunes IF and it's a big if, their new music service they're launching (a second or third try) is successful. If it's not, they won't attempt to do that. That's not much of a threat. If they're planning a legal battle, they haven't mentioned it so far.