Why can't a third party have a licence to read different formats and offer it as an ereader with no specific content provider?
The content providers can sell from thier websites and offer no dedicated amazon or xMagazine reader?
That sounds pretty silly to me. After all, the reasons a content producer signs a contract with a reseller is because of the value the reseller adds to the process. In some cases (especially in those dealing with very large volumes of text) the app is that additional value. In the case of Kindle, that additional value is things like access to the same content across multiple platforms, sharing the same books, notes, highlights, and other settings among multiple (authorized) devices, and so forth. Another value which content produces tend to want resellers to provide is rights management to make sure that their content can't be stolen. Since the reseller is obligated to provided that protection by contract, that's not something which I can see publishers being happy about getting handed over to some third party, or even many third parties.
As I interpret this, the "agreement" mentioned in all of those bullets is an agreement between competitors, where in the case of apples subscription policy this is not happening.
Apple's App Store, is not a Kindle competitor. iBooks and Sony's ereader are kindles competitor.
And there is simply no agreement for pricing between these competitors that I can see.
Feel free to explain how I may be interpreting this incorrectly, this is just how i've read it.
Apple's new policy requires resellers to price content sold in app at, or lower than, the same price as everywhere else the reseller sells. If the reseller wants their app to appear in the App Store, they must AGREE to this, even if it is under duress. That's a pricing agreement.
That sounds pretty silly to me. After all, the reasons a content producer signs a contract with a reseller is because of the value the reseller adds to the process. In some cases (especially in those dealing with very large volumes of text) the app is that additional value. In the case of Kindle, that additional value is things like access to the same content across multiple platforms, sharing the same books, notes, highlights, and other settings among multiple (authorized) devices, and so forth. Another value which content produces tend to want resellers to provide is rights management to make sure that their content can't be stolen. Since the reseller is obligated to provided that protection by contract, that's not something which I can see publishers being happy about getting handed over to some third party, or even many third parties.
I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.
If a content provider wants to have access to kindle readers, they contract with Amazon.
What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?
Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?
The iPad can do more than a single purpose kindle, but the function for the content provider remains the same.
The debate for apple's policies on things having to go through the app store is another one entirely.
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.
Apple's new policy requires resellers to price content sold in app at, or lower than, the same price as everywhere else the reseller sells. If the reseller wants their app to appear in the App Store, they must AGREE to this, even if it is under duress. That's a pricing agreement.
No it isn't. Not between competitors.
the kindle has no agreement to provide book for the same price as iBooks and Sony ereader.
That is price fixing.
Saying you cannot offer your product in apples store for a higher price than outside the store is not price fixing.
It may be many other things, but it in no way fits under price fixing.
I mean the whole base of your points is predicated on the fictitious need to have a native app to view content on an ipad.
This is not the case AFAIK.
Restricting the 3rd party native apps from competing with Apple's native apps is anti-competitive. Illegal or not, it is anti-competitive. Why is this so hard for Apple fanboys to grasp. Apple makes great products but they are not your best friend and they are NOT looking out for your best interests.
What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?
As I argued in an earlier comment, they are perfectly free to attempt to negotiate a contract directly with Apple, unless they've agreed to an exclusive contract with someone else. (Not necessarily Amazon, though they're currently the biggest.)
Quote:
Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?
It doesn't. But this is what Apple is insisting on for content which Apple doesn't have a contract for, which is part of why I have a problem with it.
Quote:
The debate for apple's policies on things having to go through the app store is another one entirely.
Sort of. When it's done for the purposes of protecting against malware, making upgrades easy and the like, I have no problem with it. In fact, I think most people would still tend to go through Apple for this very reason even if getting applications from other sources without jailbreaking.
But when it's used as a method of engaging in anti-competitive behavior, then it has to be part of the discussion.
Quote:
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.
So why are they?
Apple is succeeding with iTMS, but not iBooks. I can't say why because I don't know. One possibility is that most publishers just don't like Apple's terms. Another could be that they're already in exclusive contracts. A third could be that they simply don't like Apple. There are almost certainly others. No matter what the reason, the content creators/publishers have the right to choose what contracts they will agree to, and who they will or will not enter into contracts with.
How does that work is Amazon is compelled by their agreement with Apple to sell their ebooks at their web site for no lower price than what they offer through Apple's App Store?
Amazon is not bound to have an agreement with apple at all.
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.
So why are they?
Because history has shown that when you make a deal with Apple you can count on the terms changing from what you initially agreed to. Apple has screwed developers and content providers in the recent past, so they SHOULD be warry about offering their content through iBooks, iTunes and iTV, especially if doing so will give Apple a near monop[oly power over them the way iTunes was able to grab control of electronic music distribution. It is in the content providers interest to have multiple and competitng distribution channels and this is also in the consumers interest.
As I interpret this, the "agreement" mentioned in all of those bullets is an agreement between competitors, where in the case of apples subscription policy this is not happening.
Apple's App Store, is not a Kindle competitor. iBooks and Sony's ereader are kindles competitor.
And there is simply no agreement for pricing between these competitors that I can see.
Feel free to explain how I may be interpreting this incorrectly, this is just how i've read it.
It's not a agreement between the competitors. It's an agreement between Apple and the publishers. The fact that publishers can do it cheaper elsewhere and not offer their content to iOS users for cheaper if the content was sourced and paid from somewhere else than the iTunes Store doesn't seem fair to consumers at all. Even the people not using iTunes and the App Store get hurt by this, because Apple forbids any discounts from happening on content that is hosted on the App Store but hosted and available elsewhere.
Restricting the 3rd party native apps from competing with Apple's native apps is anti-competitive. Illegal or not, it is anti-competitive. Why is this so hard for Apple fanboys to grasp. Apple makes great products but they are not your best friend and they are NOT looking out for your best interests.
First, dont lump me in with a group you have issue with who've made statements I haven't.
Do I necessarily agree with apple's idea of thier one-store closed system?
I dont know, I guess I do with regards to my phone, because I have an iphone.
I'm not sure this approach is palatable on a tablet. Hence I have not voted with my wallet YET.
HOWEVER, whatever your feelings are on there iOS policies in general, their APPLE APP STORE polices are in no way anti competitive within the structure they set up.
In that way they have set this up very much like a walmart. Again, CONSUMERS are who do or do not decide to accept these terms.
And in that context everything apple is doing is no different that any walmart or Target or whatever.
IF consumers and content providers and content resellers really want to cry foul, it has to happen at the iOS level, because the app store is not violating any laws with regards to how they sell iOS users content though thier store "walls".
This is how I see it, I am no sheep. I wont buy into iOS any further if I don't see value or fairness in it to me.
I will buy a tablet, not sure it will be this one.
It's not a agreement between the competitors. It's an agreement between Apple and the publishers. The fact that publishers can do it cheaper elsewhere and not offer their content to iOS users for cheaper if the content was sourced and paid from somewhere else than the iTunes Store doesn't seem fair to consumers at all. Even the people not using iTunes and the App Store get hurt by this, because Apple forbids any discounts from happening on content that is hosted on the App Store but hosted and available elsewhere.
Price fixing is an agreement between COMPETITORS. Thats the whole point I'm making.
This is not price fixing.
Find another violation to accuse apple of and it may have merit.
I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.
1) Apple is not distinguishing between the two, so no, there is no need.
2) Amazon Kindle is not just an e-book reseller. The Kindle app provides considerable value add by providing an e-reeder to go with the content, syncing content between devices, syncing my reading progress between devices etc.
In fact, if this BS causes Amazon to pull out of the iOS space my wife and I will be looking at other platforms instead of the iPhone 5 and iPad2. Apps like Kindle and Pandora and other content apps are very important to us and losing them would significantly reduce the value of an Apple device.
Amazon is not bound to have an agreement with apple at all.
No, they're not.
Engadget posted a chart showing Apple's app store market share for the past two years. At 87.2% last year, Apple is clearly in the dominant position for apps on hand-held devices. That is not a market which can be safely ignored.
I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.
If a content provider wants to have access to kindle readers, they contract with Amazon.
What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?
Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?
The iPad can do more than a single purpose kindle, but the function for the content provider remains the same.
The Kindle as an eBook platform is a far more attractive option than iBooks for most consumers and thus the content providers want their books available through Amazon on devices such as the iPad.
Why would a customer buy an eBook from iTunes when they can only read it on iOS devices when Amazon books can be read on the computer, the Kindle, all iOS devices and soon on anything with a web browser? Customers won't stand for buying the same book twice, so it's in the best interest of content providers to have their books available through Amazon on iOS devices.
Quote:
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader
Not many customers have a Kindle and a Sony ereader, because they do the same thing. A lot of customers have both an eReader (Kindle, Sony or otherwise) and at least one iOS device, so of course they will treat them differently.
Ummm… You do realize that Apple and Amazon are competitors, don't you? As are Apple, Hulu, Netflix, Sony, and many others.
It wouldn't be using those price fixing rules.
iBooks is the competitor, not APPLE itself.
Apple is not requiring fixed prices between iBooks and Kindle. They are trying to make sure that they can offer the best prices within thier own store, yes.
The issue alot of you keep bringing up stem from iOS policy, not the APP Store.
Changes have to be made there IMO, not the app store.
The Kindle as an eBook platform is a far more attractive option than iBooks for most consumers and thus the content providers want their books available through Amazon on devices such as the iPad.
Why would a customer buy an eBook from iTunes when they can only read it on iOS devices when Amazon books can be read on the computer, the Kindle, all iOS devices and soon on anything with a web browser? Customers won't stand for buying the same book twice, so it's in the best interest of content providers to have their books available through Amazon on iOS devices.
Not many customers have a Kindle and a Sony ereader, because they do the same thing. A lot of customers have both an eReader (Kindle, Sony or otherwise) and at least one iOS device, so of course they will treat them differently.
I don't disagree with any of that, I just dont know what that has to do with this.
Consumers have to start choosing against iOS for these issues you are pointing out.
If enough content providers don't like it they should leave, if they matter as much as they think they do, users will follow, and change will occur.
From the very top of the iBooks licence agreement:
Quote:
ENGLISH
APPLE INC.
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
APPLE IBOOKS SOFTWARE
Right after the header stuff, you see this:
Quote:
1. General. The Apple iBooks software, documentation and any fonts included in the Software (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple's licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.
Engadget posted a chart showing Apple's app store market share for the past two years. At 87.2% last year, Apple is clearly in the dominant position for apps on hand-held devices. That is not a market which can be safely ignored.
Since its widely reported that Android is passing or has already passed iOS in terms of users, then it seems apple just happens to have users who are more inclined to purchase content.
Which are the kind content providers want to sell to.
Or maybe Amazon ought to be focusing on why Android users aren't interested in paying for content and seek to rectify it, since apples policies are being termed "draconian".
Even in the chart you posted, Droid seems to be growing by a rate roughly 5 times that of iOS app store revenues, so maybe they focus on better marketability there and in time it will be a more lucrative market to be in while at the same time giving fuel to anti-apple sentiment in the public.
Comments
Why can't a third party have a licence to read different formats and offer it as an ereader with no specific content provider?
The content providers can sell from thier websites and offer no dedicated amazon or xMagazine reader?
That sounds pretty silly to me. After all, the reasons a content producer signs a contract with a reseller is because of the value the reseller adds to the process. In some cases (especially in those dealing with very large volumes of text) the app is that additional value. In the case of Kindle, that additional value is things like access to the same content across multiple platforms, sharing the same books, notes, highlights, and other settings among multiple (authorized) devices, and so forth. Another value which content produces tend to want resellers to provide is rights management to make sure that their content can't be stolen. Since the reseller is obligated to provided that protection by contract, that's not something which I can see publishers being happy about getting handed over to some third party, or even many third parties.
As I interpret this, the "agreement" mentioned in all of those bullets is an agreement between competitors, where in the case of apples subscription policy this is not happening.
Apple's App Store, is not a Kindle competitor. iBooks and Sony's ereader are kindles competitor.
And there is simply no agreement for pricing between these competitors that I can see.
Feel free to explain how I may be interpreting this incorrectly, this is just how i've read it.
Apple's new policy requires resellers to price content sold in app at, or lower than, the same price as everywhere else the reseller sells. If the reseller wants their app to appear in the App Store, they must AGREE to this, even if it is under duress. That's a pricing agreement.
That sounds pretty silly to me. After all, the reasons a content producer signs a contract with a reseller is because of the value the reseller adds to the process. In some cases (especially in those dealing with very large volumes of text) the app is that additional value. In the case of Kindle, that additional value is things like access to the same content across multiple platforms, sharing the same books, notes, highlights, and other settings among multiple (authorized) devices, and so forth. Another value which content produces tend to want resellers to provide is rights management to make sure that their content can't be stolen. Since the reseller is obligated to provided that protection by contract, that's not something which I can see publishers being happy about getting handed over to some third party, or even many third parties.
I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.
If a content provider wants to have access to kindle readers, they contract with Amazon.
What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?
Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?
The iPad can do more than a single purpose kindle, but the function for the content provider remains the same.
The debate for apple's policies on things having to go through the app store is another one entirely.
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.
So why are they?
Apple's new policy requires resellers to price content sold in app at, or lower than, the same price as everywhere else the reseller sells. If the reseller wants their app to appear in the App Store, they must AGREE to this, even if it is under duress. That's a pricing agreement.
No it isn't. Not between competitors.
the kindle has no agreement to provide book for the same price as iBooks and Sony ereader.
That is price fixing.
Saying you cannot offer your product in apples store for a higher price than outside the store is not price fixing.
It may be many other things, but it in no way fits under price fixing.
Why do content providers NEED native iphone apps?
I mean the whole base of your points is predicated on the fictitious need to have a native app to view content on an ipad.
This is not the case AFAIK.
Restricting the 3rd party native apps from competing with Apple's native apps is anti-competitive. Illegal or not, it is anti-competitive. Why is this so hard for Apple fanboys to grasp. Apple makes great products but they are not your best friend and they are NOT looking out for your best interests.
What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?
As I argued in an earlier comment, they are perfectly free to attempt to negotiate a contract directly with Apple, unless they've agreed to an exclusive contract with someone else. (Not necessarily Amazon, though they're currently the biggest.)
Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?
It doesn't. But this is what Apple is insisting on for content which Apple doesn't have a contract for, which is part of why I have a problem with it.
The debate for apple's policies on things having to go through the app store is another one entirely.
Sort of. When it's done for the purposes of protecting against malware, making upgrades easy and the like, I have no problem with it. In fact, I think most people would still tend to go through Apple for this very reason even if getting applications from other sources without jailbreaking.
But when it's used as a method of engaging in anti-competitive behavior, then it has to be part of the discussion.
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.
So why are they?
Apple is succeeding with iTMS, but not iBooks. I can't say why because I don't know. One possibility is that most publishers just don't like Apple's terms. Another could be that they're already in exclusive contracts. A third could be that they simply don't like Apple. There are almost certainly others. No matter what the reason, the content creators/publishers have the right to choose what contracts they will agree to, and who they will or will not enter into contracts with.
How does that work is Amazon is compelled by their agreement with Apple to sell their ebooks at their web site for no lower price than what they offer through Apple's App Store?
Amazon is not bound to have an agreement with apple at all.
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader.
So why are they?
Because history has shown that when you make a deal with Apple you can count on the terms changing from what you initially agreed to. Apple has screwed developers and content providers in the recent past, so they SHOULD be warry about offering their content through iBooks, iTunes and iTV, especially if doing so will give Apple a near monop[oly power over them the way iTunes was able to grab control of electronic music distribution. It is in the content providers interest to have multiple and competitng distribution channels and this is also in the consumers interest.
As I interpret this, the "agreement" mentioned in all of those bullets is an agreement between competitors, where in the case of apples subscription policy this is not happening.
Apple's App Store, is not a Kindle competitor. iBooks and Sony's ereader are kindles competitor.
And there is simply no agreement for pricing between these competitors that I can see.
Feel free to explain how I may be interpreting this incorrectly, this is just how i've read it.
It's not a agreement between the competitors. It's an agreement between Apple and the publishers. The fact that publishers can do it cheaper elsewhere and not offer their content to iOS users for cheaper if the content was sourced and paid from somewhere else than the iTunes Store doesn't seem fair to consumers at all. Even the people not using iTunes and the App Store get hurt by this, because Apple forbids any discounts from happening on content that is hosted on the App Store but hosted and available elsewhere.
Restricting the 3rd party native apps from competing with Apple's native apps is anti-competitive. Illegal or not, it is anti-competitive. Why is this so hard for Apple fanboys to grasp. Apple makes great products but they are not your best friend and they are NOT looking out for your best interests.
First, dont lump me in with a group you have issue with who've made statements I haven't.
Do I necessarily agree with apple's idea of thier one-store closed system?
I dont know, I guess I do with regards to my phone, because I have an iphone.
I'm not sure this approach is palatable on a tablet. Hence I have not voted with my wallet YET.
HOWEVER, whatever your feelings are on there iOS policies in general, their APPLE APP STORE polices are in no way anti competitive within the structure they set up.
In that way they have set this up very much like a walmart. Again, CONSUMERS are who do or do not decide to accept these terms.
And in that context everything apple is doing is no different that any walmart or Target or whatever.
IF consumers and content providers and content resellers really want to cry foul, it has to happen at the iOS level, because the app store is not violating any laws with regards to how they sell iOS users content though thier store "walls".
This is how I see it, I am no sheep. I wont buy into iOS any further if I don't see value or fairness in it to me.
I will buy a tablet, not sure it will be this one.
It's not a agreement between the competitors. It's an agreement between Apple and the publishers. The fact that publishers can do it cheaper elsewhere and not offer their content to iOS users for cheaper if the content was sourced and paid from somewhere else than the iTunes Store doesn't seem fair to consumers at all. Even the people not using iTunes and the App Store get hurt by this, because Apple forbids any discounts from happening on content that is hosted on the App Store but hosted and available elsewhere.
Price fixing is an agreement between COMPETITORS. Thats the whole point I'm making.
This is not price fixing.
Find another violation to accuse apple of and it may have merit.
Price fixing simply does not apply.
I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.
1) Apple is not distinguishing between the two, so no, there is no need.
2) Amazon Kindle is not just an e-book reseller. The Kindle app provides considerable value add by providing an e-reeder to go with the content, syncing content between devices, syncing my reading progress between devices etc.
In fact, if this BS causes Amazon to pull out of the iOS space my wife and I will be looking at other platforms instead of the iPhone 5 and iPad2. Apps like Kindle and Pandora and other content apps are very important to us and losing them would significantly reduce the value of an Apple device.
Amazon is not bound to have an agreement with apple at all.
No, they're not.
Engadget posted a chart showing Apple's app store market share for the past two years. At 87.2% last year, Apple is clearly in the dominant position for apps on hand-held devices. That is not a market which can be safely ignored.
I think there is a need in your points to separate resellers from content providers.
If a content provider wants to have access to kindle readers, they contract with Amazon.
What exactly is stopping them from getting those same exact services through iBooks?
Why does it make more sense to sell through 2 middle men at all?
The iPad can do more than a single purpose kindle, but the function for the content provider remains the same.
The Kindle as an eBook platform is a far more attractive option than iBooks for most consumers and thus the content providers want their books available through Amazon on devices such as the iPad.
Why would a customer buy an eBook from iTunes when they can only read it on iOS devices when Amazon books can be read on the computer, the Kindle, all iOS devices and soon on anything with a web browser? Customers won't stand for buying the same book twice, so it's in the best interest of content providers to have their books available through Amazon on iOS devices.
In the case of the ipad and content providers, they have absolutely no reason to look at it any differently that they do the kindle or sony ereader
Not many customers have a Kindle and a Sony ereader, because they do the same thing. A lot of customers have both an eReader (Kindle, Sony or otherwise) and at least one iOS device, so of course they will treat them differently.
Price fixing is an agreement between COMPETITORS. Thats the whole point I'm making.
Ummm? You do realize that Apple and Amazon are competitors, don't you? As are Apple, Hulu, Netflix, Sony, and many others.
Ummm… You do realize that Apple and Amazon are competitors, don't you? As are Apple, Hulu, Netflix, Sony, and many others.
It wouldn't be using those price fixing rules.
iBooks is the competitor, not APPLE itself.
Apple is not requiring fixed prices between iBooks and Kindle. They are trying to make sure that they can offer the best prices within thier own store, yes.
The issue alot of you keep bringing up stem from iOS policy, not the APP Store.
Changes have to be made there IMO, not the app store.
The Kindle as an eBook platform is a far more attractive option than iBooks for most consumers and thus the content providers want their books available through Amazon on devices such as the iPad.
Why would a customer buy an eBook from iTunes when they can only read it on iOS devices when Amazon books can be read on the computer, the Kindle, all iOS devices and soon on anything with a web browser? Customers won't stand for buying the same book twice, so it's in the best interest of content providers to have their books available through Amazon on iOS devices.
Not many customers have a Kindle and a Sony ereader, because they do the same thing. A lot of customers have both an eReader (Kindle, Sony or otherwise) and at least one iOS device, so of course they will treat them differently.
I don't disagree with any of that, I just dont know what that has to do with this.
Consumers have to start choosing against iOS for these issues you are pointing out.
If enough content providers don't like it they should leave, if they matter as much as they think they do, users will follow, and change will occur.
iBooks is the competitor, not APPLE itself.
From the very top of the iBooks licence agreement:
ENGLISH
APPLE INC.
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
APPLE IBOOKS SOFTWARE
Right after the header stuff, you see this:
1. General. The Apple iBooks software, documentation and any fonts included in the Software (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple's licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.
Next time, please don't be so silly.
Edited to add: http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
No, they're not.
Engadget posted a chart showing Apple's app store market share for the past two years. At 87.2% last year, Apple is clearly in the dominant position for apps on hand-held devices. That is not a market which can be safely ignored.
Since its widely reported that Android is passing or has already passed iOS in terms of users, then it seems apple just happens to have users who are more inclined to purchase content.
Which are the kind content providers want to sell to.
Or maybe Amazon ought to be focusing on why Android users aren't interested in paying for content and seek to rectify it, since apples policies are being termed "draconian".
Even in the chart you posted, Droid seems to be growing by a rate roughly 5 times that of iOS app store revenues, so maybe they focus on better marketability there and in time it will be a more lucrative market to be in while at the same time giving fuel to anti-apple sentiment in the public.