DOJ claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 161

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post


    Apple raised the prices



    I thought the publishers set the prices?  Apple was only allowed to drop the publisher's prices to match the competition.

  • Reply 62 of 161
    nikiloknikilok Posts: 383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post







    So who does the editing? How about the typesetting? Who goes around to all the vendors and makes sure they all are going to carry the authors book? Who provides monetary support for the author before he is finished writing his book and foots the bill on the upfront cost to get the book into the store?



    If the author is overworked and underpaid in the current system, how do you expect him to function with his support stripped away?


     


    Apple has spell checking software that can auto edit :)


    Typesetting, now no one better than Apple at setting beautiful fonts for books.


     


    About upfront paying the author, something can be worked out by Apple..


     


    I think in a day were physical books become obsolete, makes no sense in having a book publisher as middle man.

  • Reply 63 of 161


    In other news, the DOJ is saying the NSA is doing a fine job.

  • Reply 64 of 161
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    nikilok wrote: »
    Apple has spell checking software that can auto edit :)
    Typesetting, now no one better than Apple at setting beautiful fonts for books.

    About upfront paying the author, something can be worked out by Apple..

    Spell checking software isn't good enough to edit a high school book report, nevermind a book set to be distributed commercially. Apple isn't in the publishing business, nor do they have a desire to be.

    We have forgotten why we are having this discussion anyway. Self publishing is being proposed as a way to cut the middleman and allow books to be distributed more cheaply and/or make the author more money. What you are proposing isn't cutting the middleman at all; it is simply creating a new middleman (Apple).

    The fact is that this publisher free system is a pipe dream. We need publishers, and if they go away the quality of books will suffer.
  • Reply 65 of 161
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    The DOJ has also rebuked Apple for colluding with publishers and organizing "a blatant price-fixing conspiracy to raise e-book prices and end retail e-book price competition." The department has also accused the company's leadership of "willful and blatant violations of the law." Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services, is specifically taken to task as the "ringmaster" behind the conspiracy.


     


    So where are the criminal charges?


     


    Let's see these clowns bring on the higher burden of proof a criminal trial requires.

  • Reply 66 of 161
    nikiloknikilok Posts: 383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post





    Spell checking software isn't good enough to edit a high school book report, nevermind a book set to be distributed commercially. Apple isn't in the publishing business, nor do they have a desire to be.



    We have forgotten why we are having this discussion anyway. Self publishing is being proposed as a way to cut the middleman and allow books to be distributed more cheaply and/or make the author more money. What you are proposing isn't cutting the middleman at all; it is simply creating a new middleman (Apple).



    The fact is that this publisher free system is a pipe dream. We need publishers, and if they go away the quality of books will suffer.


     


    Imagine a day when books are no longer printed. Like the App Store has systems in place for curating apps, Apple could put systems in place to curate books.


    Your not saying paper books are going to live on in the future are you ?


     


    With automated systems in place, the book author would infact make more money than they do today via publishers.

  • Reply 67 of 161
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    dontuwish wrote: »
    Really?

    What really? You brought it up first. Am I just kidding? Of course i am, of course I am . . .
  • Reply 68 of 161
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    In other news, the DOJ is saying the NSA is doing a fine job.

    Or the NSA is making sure that the DOJ is doing a fine job.

    Edit: Just kidding . . .
  • Reply 69 of 161
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,036member


    I am sorry, I do not understand this statement the government made, I am assuming the government made this since I do not trust most of what I read anymore


     


    Quote:


    the government believes that "five years might not be enough time to restore competition to the e-books market and to ensure that Apple changes its troublesome business practices to prevent a recurrence of the illegal conduct."



    How in the hell did Apple disrupt or change the e-book market prior to get into this. Does the DOJ remember they put a stop to what they believe was anti-competive practices before it even got started. The more I read about this the more it does not make any sense, the DOJ is using some really flawed logic in this case. 


     


    Many already said it, Amazon destroy the market as it exist prior to them getting into the market. The whole Music industry complained about apple wanted to sell songs for $.99 but as we have seen the music industry is now selling more song online than they ever had and people are pirating less now. If anything Apple has made various markets more competitive.


     


    The DOJ is basically saying that pricing can only go down not up and not creator of content is allow to set their price only companies like Amazon can and they can sell below cost if they want. I bet if the Obama administration did the math they realize this mean the government will just collect less taxes since companies will make less selling thing for less or at a loss thus never paying taxes.

  • Reply 70 of 161
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    Ebook price drops based on "volume" are a joke.


     


    In printing, it makes sense.  there is paper, ink, manpower, etc. involved.


     


    In Ebooks, it is the eBook creation one time.  then uploaded to servers. that's it.


     


    Then downloading which costs next to nothing per ebook after amortizing server cost with everything else those servers are doing.


     


    Amazon is the one with the unfair practices.


     


    All Apple's pricing model did was to make sure that if a publisher sells cheap on Amazon, then they have to sell cheap on Apple too.


     


    And that's as fair as it gets.



     


    So why don't you write an eBook, upload it to a server...


     


    ...then sit back and wait for the money to roll in.


     


    Not going to happen unless a lot of people know:-


     


    i) it's there to be downloaded,


     


    ii) it's worthwhile downloading and paying for and


     


    iii) there is an easy way to pay.


     


    Which all add to the true cost.

  • Reply 71 of 161
    nikiloknikilok Posts: 383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    I am sorry, I do not understand this statement the government made, I am assuming the government made this since I do not trust most of what I read anymore


     


    How in the hell did Apple disrupt or change the e-book market prior to get into this. Does the DOJ remember they put a stop to what they believe was anti-competive practices before it even got started. The more I read about this the more it does not make any sense, the DOJ is using some really flawed logic in this case. 


     


    Many already said it, Amazon destroy the market as it exist prior to them getting into the market. The whole Music industry complained about apple wanted to sell songs for $.99 but as we have seen the music industry is now selling more song online than they ever had and people are pirating less now. If anything Apple has made various markets more competitive.


     


    The DOJ is basically saying that pricing can only go down not up and not creator of content is allow to set their price only companies like Amazon can and they can sell below cost if they want. I bet if the Obama administration did the math they realize this mean the government will just collect less taxes since companies will make less selling thing for less or at a loss thus never paying taxes.



     


    Well the DOJ can't see beyond 2 days ahead and realize they are shooting there own leg :D haha ! Fools !

  • Reply 72 of 161

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    What really? You brought it up first. Am I just kidding? Of course i am, of course I am . . .




    I'm not kidding. Apple has refused, on many fronts, to cooperate. Unlike Google, Amazon, and MS (Windows 8 and TPM 2.0) that are willingly giving them everything they want. Interesting that Apple has been the main bluster target on tax haven issues, even though the others are doing the same. And, they keep fixing exploits that allow access into their iOS devices. Try and image one without jailbreaking it.....

  • Reply 73 of 161

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post







    Apple does not set the prices. They use the agency model.



    Maybe next time do a little research before you make yourself look like an idiot.


    True ... about the Agency model. It was what I had in mind, but no need to be rude. The fact is the agency model favored by Apple helped in rising the prices of the books even though they did not decided the prices themselves. (and before you are rude about my English, it's not my first language)

  • Reply 74 of 161
    What is everyone talking about regarding Apple's "superior" payment process? Amazon's one click purchase is too many steps?
  • Reply 75 of 161

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nikilok View Post


     


    Have you noticed the model with Apps sold on App Store ? Apple Publicizes those awesome apps, likewise Apple could publicize the top selling books.


    Granted its a lot harder than judging an app, compared to reading the entire book to rate it :P


     


    I think digital book stores could take up the role of what Publishers did in the past.


    And about fronting the author with money while writing books, come on i think authors can fund themselves.. not like the upfront costs of creating a book is high unlike App / Game development.



    The most comically absurd observation in a long time: "...come on i think authors can fund themselves.. not like the upfront costs of creating a book is high unlike App / Game development."


     


    Time from conception to market can run from one year to eight years, some more. This logic coming, obviously, from someone who has never (and likely will never) write a novel, a play, a screenplay, a script for advanced games nor support a wife or husband, children, rent and food, and publishers aren't throwing money out their windows to anyone who thinks they the next greatest novel/play/screenplay. It's a vetting process that cuts the numbers to a fraction of submissions.


     


    And the topper: "... likewise Apple could publicize the top selling books. Granted its a lot harder than judging an app, compared to reading the entire book to rate it..."


     


    So how many monkeys are going to be hired to read thousands of books, and who's going to translate from monkey talk to AppStore review talk? The poster may feel very content in a world full of nothing but apps..my life only needs apps.. and leave reading to 'others' but there may be something(s) one would miss in that world, for me, at least.


    ZoomInto: Pictures, Images and Photos



     

  • Reply 76 of 161
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    Am I the only person here who realizes that Amazon's old pricing model single handedly destroyed the market for big box bookstores in the US? If anything Apple's pricing would have saved that entire industry by setting ebook pricing more in line with their physical counterparts. Amazon's old strategy has worked to destroy something that I believe was essential to our culture. People don't go to bookstores anymore. Amazon put them all out of business. Only now the DOJ steps in. This is so very wrong. Where we're they then? Amazon's whole strategy has always been to destroy the competition by underpricing them to the point of being uncompetitive. This isn't how I want my tax money spent. I like physical books and physical book stores. What is the DOJ doing about that? I want to see the government forcing booksellers to sell ebook sat the same price as physical books and not a dime less. That is the only way we can get our book stores back. Who's with me?

    Funny because all the bookstores I go to have plenty of people in them. It's the music stores that Apple killed that I really miss.
  • Reply 77 of 161
    9secondko wrote: »
    Heck, maybe the DOJ needs to... you know... actually be just and fair and make Amazon have iTunes available on Kindles

    No excuses.  iTunes is available on Mac and PC. Easily done on Kindle.

    That's really the only monopolistic, anticompetitive behavior going on.

    Sorry to take the wind out of the sails of your idiotic rant but...

    Amazon isn't stopping Apple from bringing iTunes to the Kindle. Google isn't stopping Apple from bringing iTunes to Android. I bet both of them would advertise the crap out of it if Apple did. I could see the ad. "Now it's even easier to leave the iToys behind. iTunes is now available on the Amazon AppStore for Android."

    Kind of kills your whole rant. Sorry for the inconvenience of facts.
  • Reply 78 of 161
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    mikejones wrote: »
    And yet both Google and Amazon take 30% of app sales and in-app purchases as well. I'm not sure Amazon does but Google specifically forces you to use their in-app purchase system as well if you use Google Play to distribute your app.

    I'd like to know if Google takes 30% from Amazon for ebooks purchased through the Kindle app. I also agree that there should be tiered percentages. Amazon handles the storage and delivery of their content alleviating Apple of that responsibility so why shouldn't they pay less?
  • Reply 79 of 161
    9secondko wrote: »
    Steve wasn't even talking about crippling amazon.

    ...
    ...

    It was all about showcasing the Apple device superiority to Android, etc.  Not a jab at Amazon.

    I was tempted to write, "You can't really be this stupid, can you?" But I've read some of your other posts on this article so I know what the correct answer is to that question.
  • Reply 80 of 161
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    dontuwish wrote: »

    I'm not kidding. Apple has refused, on many fronts, to cooperate. Unlike Google, Amazon, and MS (Windows 8 and TPM 2.0) that are willingly giving them everything they want. Interesting that Apple has been the main bluster target on tax haven issues, even though the others are doing the same. And, they keep fixing exploits that allow access into their iOS devices. Try and image one without jailbreaking it.....

    I believe you, and consider what you're saying to be a possibility if not a probability. The implication is that all the foregoing discussion about the merits of the case are irrelevant, because the whole thing is a sham, and that there is an extralegal channel of influence between the investigative agencies and the DOJ, one that probably persists from one administration to another, and one that no president since the 60s would dare tamper with.

    So all the talk here about the mechanics of ebook pricing and the "choice" of the DOJ to pursue this are pointless when set beside the implications of this scenario of privacy protection vs. "data sharing."

    It is not possible for a patriotic person to accept this situation, since as we all know this is a country of laws, not backroom intrigue. Therefore, being a patriotic person, I officially reject your hypothesis.

    I like that phrase "bluster target" though.
Sign In or Register to comment.