Guess you missed the part where it’s Apple’s store, hosted on Apple’s servers, and available for Apple’s devices.
That's a load of horse hockey.
I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?
Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.
I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?
Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.
So you know what pct this e-book vendor takes? Does this e-book vendor store free books as Apple does free apps/books? Are they expected to be open 24/365? How many downloads or transactions do they process in a year? How many countries are they available in?
Hopefully Apple can hold out until we can get a non-fascist president elected.
To the people saying Apple should give up, or pretending like Apple is guilty-- you are the reason the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Your lack of morality & honesty is shameful.
So you know what pct this e-book vendor takes? Does this e-book vendor store free books as Apple does free apps/books? Are they expected to be open 24/365? How many downloads or transactions do they process in a year? How many countries are they available in?
What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!
I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they deserve to be paid for handling the transaction.
But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft. And it is theft from my pocket, and yours. I don't know about you, but I do not have kind words for thieves. (Apple's current "compromise" stops just short of theft, but just barely.)
Imagine if Google or Amazon tried to make the same kinds of demands for extra cash because you're using an Android or Kindle device. You would be screaming bloody murder (and I would agree with you). Such a double standard demonstrates bias.
I love Apple's products, and have for so long that I still bleed six colors. But that does not mean Apple has carte blanche to misbehave.
What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!
I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they deserve to be paid for handling the transaction.
But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft. And it is theft from my pocket, and yours. I don't know about you, but I do not have kind words for thieves. (Apple's current "compromise" stops just short of theft, but just barely.)
Imagine if Google or Amazon tried to make the same kinds of demands for extra cash because you're using an Android or Kindle device. You would be screaming bloody murder (and I would agree with you). Such a double standard demonstrates bias.
I love Apple's products, and have for so long that I still bleed six colors. But that does not mean Apple has carte blanche to misbehave.
I forget, where in the EULA states I'm forced to buy ebooks in my idevice?
What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!
I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they deserve to be paid for handling the transaction.
But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft. And it is theft from my pocket, and yours. I don't know about you, but I do not have kind words for thieves. (Apple's current "compromise" stops just short of theft, but just barely.)
Imagine if Google or Amazon tried to make the same kinds of demands for extra cash because you're using an Android or Kindle device. You would be screaming bloody murder (and I would agree with you). Such a double standard demonstrates bias.
I love Apple's products, and have for so long that I still bleed six colors. But that does not mean Apple has carte blanche to misbehave.
All property is theft, man and come the revolution the mans gonna pay, that's if we can stop smoking pot long enough to get off this couch, man.
For once I agree with you, the truth should come out and the innocent book buyers that had book prices jump up overnight due to Apple's shenanigans shouldn't be punished and should get their money back! [/quote]
Maybe you should add the below links to your reading literature
What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!
Perhaps you should get real.
You didn't pay Apple $240 (30% of $800 in purchases). You didn't pay Apple ANYTHING. You went to a site and decided that the price was good enough that you'd buy something - and you did so.
The VENDOR chose to pay Apple 30%. They felt that what Apple offered (access to the ecosystem, servers in some cases, management of the iTunes store, money collection, whatever) was worth 30% to them. That's their choice and they made it.
You don't get to dictate how your supplier spends their money. If you think the price is too high, don't buy it. Analogy: In my town, Krunchers potato chips are only available in one retail chain (call it Groceries Deluxe). My daughter likes Krunchers chips. Now, I could argue that I don't want to pay Groceries Deluxe for the chips and that their prices are too high because Discount Groceries sells most items for less (but doesn't have access to Krunchers). So I could scream and yell and say it's not fair that I have to pay Groceries Deluxe's extortionate fees. Or, I could be rational and say "there are 100 different potato chips I could buy. If I want Krunchers, I have to follow the procedures set up by the manufacturer. I don't like them, but they have rules. Or I could buy a different chip".
The developer you're dealing with reached a deal with Apple and they're happy paying 30% to Apple. The rest is none of your business. Either buy or don't buy, but stop the whining.
You didn't pay Apple $240 (30% of $800 in purchases). You didn't pay Apple ANYTHING. You went to a site and decided that the price was good enough that you'd buy something - and you did so.
That's right. I didn't pay Apple anything. Yes, I did pay the vendor.
Quote:
The VENDOR chose to pay Apple 30%. They felt that what Apple offered (access to the ecosystem, servers in some cases, management of the iTunes store, money collection, whatever) was worth 30% to them. That's their choice and they made it.
Wrong. Pay attention. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. They didn't use Apple's ecosystem in any way to sell that content. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. Nor should they, since they didn't use Apple's ecosystem. That is the POINT! Apple superfanboys think Apple should be able to take a cut even when they have nothing to do with the transaction other than the content being used on a device Apple has already been paid for. That is the bias.
Quote:
You don't get to dictate how your supplier spends their money.
Sure I do. Here's how:
Quote:
If you think the price is too high, don't buy it.
Oh wait, you said that. And you're right to say it. If a Vendor chooses to pay the 30% premium and another does not, the second vendor is able to sell that exact same content for less because their costs are lower. (Unlike your analogy, which has product available from only one source.) What Apple tried to do with app content was to force prices to be higher by 30% even when that content was sold without Apple involvement. In your analogy, that would be like Groceries Deluxe forcing Discount Groceries to raise prices so GD can compete. The ruling of the court is that Apple succeeded in doing exactly that with e-books.
Quote:
Either buy or don't buy, but stop the whining.
Why shouldn't I complain when someone artificially inflates prices everywhere (or tries to)?
Thank you, Marvin, but with this formulation the US reader will provably be confirmed in his view that France is a communist country !
The price is not fixed by law (or the government) ! It is fixed by the publisher, but is unique, this is what the law says.
The 1981 law has been recently reinforced in the sense that Amazon can no longer offer for free the delivery of "physical" books, which was Amazon tactic to circumvent the law.
The US reader also has to know that one of the reasons why Amazon could do this is that it supported in France a lower tax scheme than the other "normal" (what you call "brick and mortar", I believe) distributors ... (it still does, by the way, because changing this would require a decision at European level)
France is a democratic country that tends to elect a socialist party. There is a big difference between communism and socialism.
Giving Amazon a monopoly on book pricing where they sell the books below cost just to sell their Kindles is not a fair judgement. The authors are getting screwed and so is Amazon's competition. The Justice Department seems to feel an Amazon ebook store monopoly is the only solution. I applaud Apple to not just "let it go already"
Most people do not get that. Before Amazon came around, book publishers distributed books much like movie publishers distribute movies. First, hard covers were leased at a premium price. This covered the development, author advance, and distribution cost of the book. Six months to a year later when hardcover sales dropped, a softcover was released as a lower price point.
Amazon has always had an unfair advantage over traditional book sellers. Namely, it has not had to collect taxes whereby traditional book sellers have had to do this. Amazon also has other advantages by virtue of its business model. For instance, it has a lower overhead. These advantages helped Amazon claim a near monopoly position on online traditional books sales.
With the introduction of e-books, Amazon engaged in classic anti-trust and generally illegal behaviour. It used its dominant position in traditional online book sales to apply pressure to publishers to lower prices on e-books. Publishers wanted to continue using their tiered release schedule for books. Hardcover books still get released first, and e-books get released later.
Amazon, however essentially told publishers we will not carry your hardcover books if they do agree to release e-books at the same time as hardcover books. Since Amazon has a near monopoly position in online tradition book sales, publishers hardly had a realistic choice but to agree. Current agreements allowed Amazon to lower the price of books to whatever it wanted. So, Amazon released hardcover and e-books at the same time, but lowered the price of e-books significantly below the price of hardcover books. This undercut the market for the hardcover books, which is where publishers generally recuperated their costs. Stores like Borders closed, and Amazon quickly gained a 90 percent monopoly share in e-books.
Publishers hated Amazon because it was forcing them to distribute both hardcover books and e-books at the same time, while undercutting the e-book prices below retail prices. The pricing model was not sustainable for publishers.
Barnes and Noble told publishers the solution was switching to an agency model where publishers choose the pricing, and retailers take a standard cut. Apple, a company that did not sell e-books, came along and proposed the same model. It did not have any power to force publishers to change pricing models, and publishers already were looking for ways to switch pricing models. The trail made clear Apple negotiated the contracts individually, and there was no collusion.
The government, however, got caught up on the idea that changing pricing models might cause consumers that were paying an artificially and not sustainable low price to possibly pay more in the case of new releases. Since, Apple's deal was not with a competitor (publishers are not an Apple competitor), and Apple was a new player in the market with no real power to tell publishers what to do, it is unprecedented for the government to take action. Considering, Amazon is a huge supporter of the current administration, the whole thing stinks. Especially since Apple's deal caused Amazon's 90 percent share to drop to about 69 percent, with companies like Barnes and Noble and Apple benefiting the most.
Apple should definitely appeal, especially since the judge showed bias even before the trial started. The judge in the famous Microsoft trial merely said outside court after the verdict was handed down that Microsoft engaged in fragrant illegal behaviour, and the case was taken from him and his order to break up the company was withdrawn and a new judge decided the punishment.
Wrong. Pay attention. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. They didn't use Apple's ecosystem in any way to sell that content. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. Nor should they, since they didn't use Apple's ecosystem. That is the POINT! Apple superfanboys think Apple should be able to take a cut even when they have nothing to do with the transaction other than the content being used on a device Apple has already been paid for. That is the bias.
So your problem is that the vendor can't create its own products and ecosystem? That's not Apple's fault, either.
Apple has a reason for having a closed ecosystem - security. You don't like it? Buy an Android device.
What Apple tried to do with app content was to force prices to be higher by 30% even when that content was sold without Apple involvement. Why shouldn't I complain when someone artificially inflates prices everywhere (or tries to)?
But it is interesting that you have no problem with Amazon trying to artificially lower the price of e-books by forcing publishers to do away with their traditional tiered release schedules by using its monopoly position to make the publishers release both hardcover and e-books at the same time while significantly undercutting the price of hardcover books. In the short term, that might benefit consumers, but in the long term it hurts consumers, as well as the competition. Surely, you have to agree that Amazon, not Apple, is the big gorilla on the block when it comes to book sales. Apple had no power to dictate terms to publishers that they did not thmeselves want. That, however, is what anti-trust is all about.
Your grievance seems to be with the Most Favored Nation Clause where publishers agreed to not price new releases cheaper at any other retailers then at Apple. If Apple was Amazon, a monoply making that request, I might see your objection, but Apple was a newer player and had little power to force publishers to agree to that condition. Apple merely didn't want publishers to go offer their new release books for less to other parties. More importantly, most favored nation clauses are common in business especially in music and movies. They are not illegal. For all we know, the publishers, not Apple insisted on the most favored nations clauses as a way to pressure Amazon.
It is important to know, the most favored nation clause did not force publishers to give Apple the books that it gave other retailors. For example, other retailors could negoiate the exclusive rights to carry the works upon initial release thereby denying Apple the right to carry the work while it was a new release. This is common. After the book was no longer considered a new release, publishers could offer different prices to different retailers.
You often can't find releases when they were new like Harry Potter and the Hunger Games on iBooks. Amazon also has exclusive rights to carry James Bond books. There are countless examples. So, while it was true new releases that were carried both on Apple and Amazon were the same price, it was often the case that Amazon still managed to get the exclusive rights to carry the works thereby shutting out Apple entirely.
I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?
Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.
Does any of that refute what I’ve said? Why do you think you should magically get to host your software on Apple’s servers for free? Why do you think Apple’s advertising of your software should be free?
Do you similarly take offense at the government “deserving a [percentage you pay in taxes] cut of my money”?
Does any of that refute what I’ve said? Why do you think you should magically get to host your software on Apple’s servers for free? Why do you think Apple’s advertising of your software should be free?
Your reading comprehension aren't not so goot, are it? </sarc> Reread what I wrote (and you quoted):
Quote:
The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content.
Comments
Guess you missed the part where it’s Apple’s store, hosted on Apple’s servers, and available for Apple’s devices.
That's a load of horse hockey.
I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?
Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.
So you know what pct this e-book vendor takes? Does this e-book vendor store free books as Apple does free apps/books? Are they expected to be open 24/365? How many downloads or transactions do they process in a year? How many countries are they available in?
To the people saying Apple should give up, or pretending like Apple is guilty-- you are the reason the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Your lack of morality & honesty is shameful.
So you know what pct this e-book vendor takes? Does this e-book vendor store free books as Apple does free apps/books? Are they expected to be open 24/365? How many downloads or transactions do they process in a year? How many countries are they available in?
What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!
I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they deserve to be paid for handling the transaction.
But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft. And it is theft from my pocket, and yours. I don't know about you, but I do not have kind words for thieves. (Apple's current "compromise" stops just short of theft, but just barely.)
Imagine if Google or Amazon tried to make the same kinds of demands for extra cash because you're using an Android or Kindle device. You would be screaming bloody murder (and I would agree with you). Such a double standard demonstrates bias.
I love Apple's products, and have for so long that I still bleed six colors. But that does not mean Apple has carte blanche to misbehave.
Exactly - everyone proven guilty should pay and Samsung is just pathetic there - perhaps the worst!
That's your problem, you confuse a ruling by a government employee for "proof".
You have the facts wrong.
But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft.
Never happened.
I forget, where in the EULA states I'm forced to buy ebooks in my idevice?
They tried.
Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases
All property is theft, man and come the revolution the mans gonna pay, that's if we can stop smoking pot long enough to get off this couch, man.
[/quote]
Maybe you should add the below links to your reading literature
[URL=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/amazons-hit-man-01252012.html]http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/amazons-hit-man-01252012.html[/URL]
[URL=http://booksprung.com/it-begins-publishers-starting-to-hike-prices-on-amazon-ebooks]http://booksprung.com/it-begins-publishers-starting-to-hike-prices-on-amazon-ebooks[/URL]
[URL=http://www.techhive.com/article/228688/ebook.html]http://www.techhive.com/article/228688/ebook.html[/URL]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/32850/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Perhaps you should get real.
You didn't pay Apple $240 (30% of $800 in purchases). You didn't pay Apple ANYTHING. You went to a site and decided that the price was good enough that you'd buy something - and you did so.
The VENDOR chose to pay Apple 30%. They felt that what Apple offered (access to the ecosystem, servers in some cases, management of the iTunes store, money collection, whatever) was worth 30% to them. That's their choice and they made it.
You don't get to dictate how your supplier spends their money. If you think the price is too high, don't buy it. Analogy: In my town, Krunchers potato chips are only available in one retail chain (call it Groceries Deluxe). My daughter likes Krunchers chips. Now, I could argue that I don't want to pay Groceries Deluxe for the chips and that their prices are too high because Discount Groceries sells most items for less (but doesn't have access to Krunchers). So I could scream and yell and say it's not fair that I have to pay Groceries Deluxe's extortionate fees. Or, I could be rational and say "there are 100 different potato chips I could buy. If I want Krunchers, I have to follow the procedures set up by the manufacturer. I don't like them, but they have rules. Or I could buy a different chip".
The developer you're dealing with reached a deal with Apple and they're happy paying 30% to Apple. The rest is none of your business. Either buy or don't buy, but stop the whining.
Perhaps you should get real.
Perhaps you should pay attention.
That's right. I didn't pay Apple anything. Yes, I did pay the vendor.
Wrong. Pay attention. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. They didn't use Apple's ecosystem in any way to sell that content. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. Nor should they, since they didn't use Apple's ecosystem. That is the POINT! Apple superfanboys think Apple should be able to take a cut even when they have nothing to do with the transaction other than the content being used on a device Apple has already been paid for. That is the bias.
Sure I do. Here's how:
Oh wait, you said that. And you're right to say it. If a Vendor chooses to pay the 30% premium and another does not, the second vendor is able to sell that exact same content for less because their costs are lower. (Unlike your analogy, which has product available from only one source.) What Apple tried to do with app content was to force prices to be higher by 30% even when that content was sold without Apple involvement. In your analogy, that would be like Groceries Deluxe forcing Discount Groceries to raise prices so GD can compete. The ruling of the court is that Apple succeeded in doing exactly that with e-books.
Why shouldn't I complain when someone artificially inflates prices everywhere (or tries to)?
Thank you, Marvin, but with this formulation the US reader will provably be confirmed in his view that France is a communist country !
The price is not fixed by law (or the government) ! It is fixed by the publisher, but is unique, this is what the law says.
The 1981 law has been recently reinforced in the sense that Amazon can no longer offer for free the delivery of "physical" books, which was Amazon tactic to circumvent the law.
The US reader also has to know that one of the reasons why Amazon could do this is that it supported in France a lower tax scheme than the other "normal" (what you call "brick and mortar", I believe) distributors ... (it still does, by the way, because changing this would require a decision at European level)
France is a democratic country that tends to elect a socialist party. There is a big difference between communism and socialism.
Giving Amazon a monopoly on book pricing where they sell the books below cost just to sell their Kindles is not a fair judgement. The authors are getting screwed and so is Amazon's competition. The Justice Department seems to feel an Amazon ebook store monopoly is the only solution. I applaud Apple to not just "let it go already"
Most people do not get that. Before Amazon came around, book publishers distributed books much like movie publishers distribute movies. First, hard covers were leased at a premium price. This covered the development, author advance, and distribution cost of the book. Six months to a year later when hardcover sales dropped, a softcover was released as a lower price point.
Amazon has always had an unfair advantage over traditional book sellers. Namely, it has not had to collect taxes whereby traditional book sellers have had to do this. Amazon also has other advantages by virtue of its business model. For instance, it has a lower overhead. These advantages helped Amazon claim a near monopoly position on online traditional books sales.
With the introduction of e-books, Amazon engaged in classic anti-trust and generally illegal behaviour. It used its dominant position in traditional online book sales to apply pressure to publishers to lower prices on e-books. Publishers wanted to continue using their tiered release schedule for books. Hardcover books still get released first, and e-books get released later.
Amazon, however essentially told publishers we will not carry your hardcover books if they do agree to release e-books at the same time as hardcover books. Since Amazon has a near monopoly position in online tradition book sales, publishers hardly had a realistic choice but to agree. Current agreements allowed Amazon to lower the price of books to whatever it wanted. So, Amazon released hardcover and e-books at the same time, but lowered the price of e-books significantly below the price of hardcover books. This undercut the market for the hardcover books, which is where publishers generally recuperated their costs. Stores like Borders closed, and Amazon quickly gained a 90 percent monopoly share in e-books.
Publishers hated Amazon because it was forcing them to distribute both hardcover books and e-books at the same time, while undercutting the e-book prices below retail prices. The pricing model was not sustainable for publishers.
Barnes and Noble told publishers the solution was switching to an agency model where publishers choose the pricing, and retailers take a standard cut. Apple, a company that did not sell e-books, came along and proposed the same model. It did not have any power to force publishers to change pricing models, and publishers already were looking for ways to switch pricing models. The trail made clear Apple negotiated the contracts individually, and there was no collusion.
The government, however, got caught up on the idea that changing pricing models might cause consumers that were paying an artificially and not sustainable low price to possibly pay more in the case of new releases. Since, Apple's deal was not with a competitor (publishers are not an Apple competitor), and Apple was a new player in the market with no real power to tell publishers what to do, it is unprecedented for the government to take action. Considering, Amazon is a huge supporter of the current administration, the whole thing stinks. Especially since Apple's deal caused Amazon's 90 percent share to drop to about 69 percent, with companies like Barnes and Noble and Apple benefiting the most.
Apple should definitely appeal, especially since the judge showed bias even before the trial started. The judge in the famous Microsoft trial merely said outside court after the verdict was handed down that Microsoft engaged in fragrant illegal behaviour, and the case was taken from him and his order to break up the company was withdrawn and a new judge decided the punishment.
So your problem is that the vendor can't create its own products and ecosystem? That's not Apple's fault, either.
Apple has a reason for having a closed ecosystem - security. You don't like it? Buy an Android device.
What Apple tried to do with app content was to force prices to be higher by 30% even when that content was sold without Apple involvement. Why shouldn't I complain when someone artificially inflates prices everywhere (or tries to)?
But it is interesting that you have no problem with Amazon trying to artificially lower the price of e-books by forcing publishers to do away with their traditional tiered release schedules by using its monopoly position to make the publishers release both hardcover and e-books at the same time while significantly undercutting the price of hardcover books. In the short term, that might benefit consumers, but in the long term it hurts consumers, as well as the competition. Surely, you have to agree that Amazon, not Apple, is the big gorilla on the block when it comes to book sales. Apple had no power to dictate terms to publishers that they did not thmeselves want. That, however, is what anti-trust is all about.
Your grievance seems to be with the Most Favored Nation Clause where publishers agreed to not price new releases cheaper at any other retailers then at Apple. If Apple was Amazon, a monoply making that request, I might see your objection, but Apple was a newer player and had little power to force publishers to agree to that condition. Apple merely didn't want publishers to go offer their new release books for less to other parties. More importantly, most favored nation clauses are common in business especially in music and movies. They are not illegal. For all we know, the publishers, not Apple insisted on the most favored nations clauses as a way to pressure Amazon.
It is important to know, the most favored nation clause did not force publishers to give Apple the books that it gave other retailors. For example, other retailors could negoiate the exclusive rights to carry the works upon initial release thereby denying Apple the right to carry the work while it was a new release. This is common. After the book was no longer considered a new release, publishers could offer different prices to different retailers.
You often can't find releases when they were new like Harry Potter and the Hunger Games on iBooks. Amazon also has exclusive rights to carry James Bond books. There are countless examples. So, while it was true new releases that were carried both on Apple and Amazon were the same price, it was often the case that Amazon still managed to get the exclusive rights to carry the works thereby shutting out Apple entirely.
That's a load of horse hockey.
I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?
Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.
Does any of that refute what I’ve said? Why do you think you should magically get to host your software on Apple’s servers for free? Why do you think Apple’s advertising of your software should be free?
Do you similarly take offense at the government “deserving a [percentage you pay in taxes] cut of my money”?
Like that time when they…
Or when it…
Maybe back when…
Does any of that refute what I’ve said? Why do you think you should magically get to host your software on Apple’s servers for free? Why do you think Apple’s advertising of your software should be free?
Your reading comprehension aren't not so goot, are it? </sarc> Reread what I wrote (and you quoted):
Your reading comprehension aren't not so goot, are it? </sarc> Reread what I wrote (and you quoted):
Send me a list of your $800 worth of books so I can torrent them for free,
F*ck paying anyone for books when you can steal them from a library.
There, that is theft.