Apple demands that it have no big tech competitors near its Mumbai store

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple's lease for its Apple BKC store in Mumbai reportedly includes a specific list of 22 competing brands that it will not allow to have any advertising or retail locations nearby.

Apple BKC in Mumbai
Apple BKC in Mumbai


India's The Economic Times is reporting that Apple has stipulated a no-go exclusive area around its new store in the Reliance Jio World Drive Mall. It's curiously similar to a report about Apple's new office space in Bengaluru, where the owners have agreed to bar 12 rivals including Microsoft and Netflix.

In the new deal, the lease agreement for the Apple BKC store reportedly specifies that the named rivals not be allowed to have stores in the mall, nor have advertising displayed. Of the specified competitors, 21 of the reported 22 specified firms have been revealed.

  • Amazon

  • Bose

  • Dell

  • Devialet

  • Facebook

  • Foxconn

  • Garmin

  • Google

  • Hitachi

  • HP

  • HTC

  • IBM

  • Intel

  • Lenovo

  • LG

  • Microsoft

  • Next

  • Panasonic

  • Sony

  • Toshiba

  • Twitter

Also, unless one of them is the so-far unreported 22nd competing brand listed, there are some curious exceptions. Most significantly, there is no Samsung on the list, nor Spotify -- but there is Apple's major iPhone manufacturer, Foxconn.

Apple's similar list around its new Bengaluru office space does list both Samsung and Spotify. But it only lists 11 competitors, of which only three are on the store's apparent list.

Those are Microsoft, Facebook and Alphabet, Google's owner. Other firms barred from around the office but not on the store's list include Xiaomi, Huawei, Baidu, and Netflix.

According to The Economic Times, Apple's lease on the store is for 11 years. Apple is reported to initially be paying around $51,300 per month, plus 2% revenue share for the next 26 months, rising to 2.5% thereafter.

That rental gets Apple a minimum of 20,800 square feet of space. The lease includes a 15% rent escalation every three years, which is the same arrangement Apple has with the owner of its new Bengaluru office space.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    prolineproline Posts: 223member
    Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two. 
    napoleon_phoneapartelijahgbala1234muthuk_vanalingamksecgrandact73tyler82beowulfschmidtbyronl
  • Reply 2 of 30
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,977member
    From 'walled gardens' to 'walled malls'.

    I might be able to get my head around them not wanting competitors next door or opposite, but not in the same mall/shopping centre is stretching things - a lot. 

    It's a shame that the company doing the leasing seems to be accepting the conditions. 
    muthuk_vanalingamtyler82byronl
  • Reply 3 of 30
    boboliciousbobolicious Posts: 1,168member
    ... will the anti competition lawyers start their engines ...?
    Has Apple become a bully corporation, vs simply pursuit of excellence ...?
    M68000byronl
  • Reply 4 of 30
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member
    proline said:
    Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two. 
    So easily threatened, so easily hurt, a walled garden, tightly controlled Media narrative, why does it sound so much like certain country where they produce their iPhone?
    muthuk_vanalingamgrandact73neoncattyler82byronl
  • Reply 5 of 30
    mikethemartianmikethemartian Posts: 1,477member
    There is a nearby shopping mall that has a Panera and an independent cake shop. I was in the cake shop one day and they told me that when they opened that a Panera representative came over to tell them that Panera had an exclusive contract regarding the sale of certain bakery items at that mall.
    ravnorodomAlex_Vbyronl
  • Reply 6 of 30
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Any reason to accept this “report”as factual? Has any corroborating news source confirmed or produced the alleged lease agreement? Is this based on “anonymous” sources? Notice the use of the word “reportedly” as a hedging term. Yet the usual suspects here are running off at the mouth with their usual anti-Apple agendas.
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 7 of 30
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,144member
    lkrupp said:
    Any reason to accept this “report”as factual? Has any corroborating news source confirmed or produced the alleged lease agreement? Is this based on “anonymous” sources? Notice the use of the word “reportedly” as a hedging term. Yet the usual suspects here are running off at the mouth with their usual anti-Apple agendas.
    CRE Matrix appears to be a legitimate Real Estate Data Analytics company in India. Their Facebook page links back to the news reports so they aren't disputing the reporting.

    These kind of restrictions is pretty common in mall leases with large chains, although I don't recall them specifically naming brands. It's more commonly restrictions on product categories within a certain distance.
    grandact73muthuk_vanalingambyronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 30
    bsimpsenbsimpsen Posts: 399member
    AppleInsider said:
    Apple's lease for its Apple BKC store in Mumbai reportedly includes a specific list of 22 competing brands that it will not allow to have any advertising or retail locations nearby.


    Of the specified competitors, 21 of the reported 22 specified firms have been revealed.

    ...
    • Next
    Next? Is Apple trying to prevent some kind of internal mutiny by elderly NeXT employees?
    bonobobchutzpahbyronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 30
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,123member
    I question how anyone was able to get (and publish) details of the lease agreement between Apple and the property owner.  So I question the legitimacy of this "news" story.

    Assuming it's true, there's a lot of ignorance being displayed here.  No one put a gun to the landlord head and forced them to accept Apple's terms of occupancy.  Having an Apple store is a great way to increase foot traffic to the entire property so obviously the landlord factored this in to the decision process.

    The only ones triggered by this are the typical apple-haters and trolls thinking it's only unique to Apple.
    lkruppbyronlwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 10 of 30
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,297member
    Someone from India can maybe clear up what is advertising like at street/mall level, is it doggy dog in comparison to other countries?
    ravnorodom
  • Reply 11 of 30
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 1,110member
    This reeks on insecurity. 
  • Reply 12 of 30
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 392member
    mikethemartian said:
    There is a nearby shopping mall that has a Panera and an independent cake shop. I was in the cake shop one day and they told me that when they opened that a Panera representative came over to tell them that Panera had an exclusive contract regarding the sale of certain bakery items at that mall.
    Well, isn't Panera special!  I suspect that independent cake shop also has a lease, and unless it restricts them from baking those items, Panera can just fuck off.
  • Reply 13 of 30
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 392member
    danox said:
    Someone from India can maybe clear up what is advertising like at street/mall level, is it doggy dog in comparison to other countries?
    Lol.  Do you mean dog-eat-dog?  Double lol.
    roundaboutnow
  • Reply 14 of 30
    amar99amar99 Posts: 181member
    So the "non-monopoly" Apple wants to have a monopoly on tech access in the area? That's not exactly called fair competition.
    byronl
  • Reply 15 of 30
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,977member
    sflocal said:
    I question how anyone was able to get (and publish) details of the lease agreement between Apple and the property owner.  So I question the legitimacy of this "news" story.

    Assuming it's true, there's a lot of ignorance being displayed here.  No one put a gun to the landlord head and forced them to accept Apple's terms of occupancy.  Having an Apple store is a great way to increase foot traffic to the entire property so obviously the landlord factored this in to the decision process.

    The only ones triggered by this are the typical apple-haters and trolls thinking it's only unique to Apple.
    But what do you think about Apple’s claimed terms of occupancy? 

    If it were Samsung or Xiaomi proposing the same deal, would you avoid giving your opinion?
    edited April 2023 muthuk_vanalingamgrandact73
  • Reply 16 of 30
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,319member
    proline said:
    Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two. 

    My thoughts exactly.  Why don't they think they can compete with these other companies in close proximity?
    byronljony0
  • Reply 17 of 30
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,453member
    Too funny.

    Mumbai has a population of 15 million.

    That Apple would desire to have an exclusive on a narrow but profitable niche of consumer electronics, in a particular mall, certainly doesn't presuppose that its competitors can't find alternatives elsewhere. Given that an Apple Store is notably a destination for well off consumers, of course competitors would want to setup shop in close proximity to draw from that, though, not in the same mall.

    If in fact Samsung or Xiaomi propose a similar deal elsewhere, that is for them to decide, but it is likely that they would not want to pay the monthly tribute to the mall owners for that privilege.





    edited April 2023 byronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 30
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,481member
    proline said:
    Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two. 
    Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor.  Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall. 
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 30
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,977member
    genovelle said:
    proline said:
    Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two. 
    Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor.  Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall. 
    I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies. 

    Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.

    Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.

    There were differences in flooring and staircases.

    FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered. 
  • Reply 20 of 30
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,453member
    avon b7 said:
    genovelle said:
    proline said:
    Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two. 
    Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor.  Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall. 
    I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies. 

    Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.

    Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.

    There were differences in flooring and staircases.

    FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered. 
    Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market. 

    Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
    edited April 2023 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.