Apple Accuses DOJ of Wanting Amazon to Have 'Significant Competitive Advantage'

[MacDav]

Are you all kidding me? Apple is so wrong on this one. Even the biggest Apple fan boy should be able to see this!

This case is a lot more complex than your simplistic view that Apple is the bad guy. Even if apple was in the wrong and did collude with the publishers (this has not been proven by any honest measure) you don't fix the problem by giving Apple's competitor a distinct advantage in the market place. How is this helpful to anyone but Amazon? This DOJ is pathetic in their lack of understanding how the market place works. The whole Obama Administration is financially ignorant. Hope the country can survive until 2016. Even Hillary would be better and that's not saying much. No... I'm not a Republican. I'm an independent and you should be too. Think for yourself instead of towing the party line.

 

[Oletros]

Even if apple was in the wrong and did collude with the publishers (this has not been proven by any honest measure)

A 160 pages ruling disagree with your opinion

 

[drew0020]

This case is a lot more complex than your simplistic view that Apple is the bad guy. Even if apple was in the wrong and did collude with the publishers (this has not been proven by any honest measure) you don't fix the problem by giving Apple's competitor a distinct advantage in the market place. How is this helpful to anyone but Amazon? This DOJ is pathetic in their lack of understanding how the market place works. The whole Obama Administration is financially ignorant. Hope the country can survive until 2016. Even Hillary would be better and that's not saying much. No... I'm not a Republican. I'm an independent and you should be too. Think for yourself instead of towing the party line.

My politics play no role in my thoughts. I'm not going to go into a Republican or Democratic rant because it serves no purpose.

I tried to simplify the answer but obviously nothing is that simple especially in a court case. That said in my opinion Apple should have lost this case. They were wrong and the documents proved that. I don't agree with the entire decision, but again I think that's what will be argued next.

I really don't come to Macrumors for these types of discussions though so this is it for me on this topic.

----------

Are you talking about the verdict or the penalty? DOJ is trying to use a civil case to rewrite anti-trust law, and at the same time taking the civil verdict as evidence that Apple has monopolies in book sales, movie sales and music sales. All of these things are plainly ridiculous.

Verdict. I have some issues with the penalty.

 

[apolloa]

The political debate started with the original MR article. If you don't want political debate, read other articles.

Or as per Mac Rumors OWN rules, no political discussion takes place in forums for news items, this thread should be moved to the political forum.

 

[cgk.emu]

This case is a lot more complex than your simplistic view that Apple is the bad guy. Even if apple was in the wrong and did collude with the publishers (this has not been proven by any honest measure) you don't fix the problem by giving Apple's competitor a distinct advantage in the market place. How is this helpful to anyone but Amazon? This DOJ is pathetic in their lack of understanding how the market place works. The whole Obama Administration is financially ignorant. Hope the country can survive until 2016. Even Hillary would be better and that's not saying much. No... I'm not a Republican. I'm an independent and you should be too. Think for yourself instead of towing the party line.

I'm independent, and share your views, though I've found that even slightly disagreeing with the current administration and folks will label you a right-wing lunatic.

 

[JAT]

Sorry but no. Those two, especially Borders were dead in the water way before Apple came in the picture. Because Amazon could afford to loss leader ebooks and due to lack of overhead basically the same on physical books. It just took a bit longer for them to realize they were dead and turn off the life support, especially with their ebooks

You completely misunderstood my point. Go back further.

 

[the8thark]

Or as per Mac Rumors OWN rules, no political discussion takes place in forums for news items, this thread should be moved to the political forum.

In that case a majority of articles should be put in the PSRI area to begin with. As the main article here has political discussion in it. The words DOJ for a start are political as well as legal.

This is a news item on a legal and political subject. And there are many others like it.

 

[Mystic386]

It doesn't matter if Apple thinks it's wrong or not. What matters here is if their actions are illegal according to antitrust laws.

And hey, wouldn't you know it...price fixing and collusion is actually pretty illegal. I mean far be it from me to interrupt yet another Obama The Socialist Boogeyman paranoia thread with sound logic and levelheadedness, but the government generally doesn't go after their beloved corporations unless they believe they have damn good reasons to do so. They're not gonna punish Apple just because the DOJ bought a bunch of Android phones the day before the hearing.

What surprises me is that Amazon are allowed to sell product below cost; which I consider dumping and anti competitive behaviour and they can do this by diverting income through offshore businesses cutting the income they pay in the USA meaning they can wipe out all the bookstores in the US that do pay US tax.

Apple also fires income through offshore. I don't know the extent to which they are avoiding tax but I understand Amazon has this at an extreme level.

In my mind Apple was just bringing back a fair playing field that Amazon had gutted.

Personally I think the US government move was and is stupid, narrow minded and arguably for the reasons stated above they went after the wrong corporate.

Never underestimate a Government Department's need to prove their right and continue to try and prove their right when they get it wrong.

Consumers aren't the winner here. And I'm a book consumer. I lose. Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive behaviour just as the oil refinery industry did before the US Government forced it to be carved up into the series of big petro companies we see today.

I guess we could argue this till the cows come home.

 

[Snowshiro]

Oh noes! Amazon will be allowed to sell books cheaply, instead of having to accept Apple's rigged pricing scheme.

Giving consumers what they want is CLEARLY handing Amazon an unfair advantage. How the fanboys on this site manage to defend Apple even when it goes against their own interests blows my mind.

 

[Oletros]

What surprises me is that Amazon are allowed to sell product below cost; which I consider dumping and anti competitive

What you consider is not important, what it is important is what law consider and "loss leader" is not dumping nor anti competitive.

Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive behaviour

Any proof of that?

 

[Brian Y]

I still think this is just more of the normal "Apple is the bad guy - let's try to get some money out of them" behaviour.

Let's take another view. I go to buy a game on Steam. Is there a link to the publisher's own store where I can buy the game? No. How on earth is that any different to what Apple are doing?

 

[Oletros]

Let's take another view. I go to buy a game on Steam. Is there a link to the publisher's own store where I can buy the game? No. How on earth is that any different to what Apple are doing?

Mmm, taking into account that the DoJ is not talking about the App Store but the apps in the App Store yes, is totally different. By the way, I have links to its site from Trackmania downloaded from Steam

 

[unplugme71]

Yeah, it's pretty arbitrary. I could buy tons of ebooks on Amazon and download them to the Kindle app on my iPad, and Apple doesn't get a dime. But if I want to do the same thing through the app, Apple charges developers and services a 30% cut.

It doesn't make any sense. How is buying through an app any different than getting it off the webpage?

I can understand the % for in-app purchases that use your iTunes account. Apple wants to charge a fee to use their payment system. But for items purchased on their respective payment processors, why should Amazon pay 30% plus the 0.5% or whatever low fee they get charged for transactions.

 

[eugarps]

Think Washington Post

All,

Prepare your flame throwers but I think it's a pay off. The administration knows Amazon is buying the Washington Post and wants to keep the rag in their pocket.

My $0.02 and worth just that,

Bill

 

[Gasu E.]

the anti-apple campaign began last september and continues on to this day. his anti-business message is old. just like him.

Currently, there is an epidemic of crappy, shallow "thinking"; and this is ruining America.

Reality check: there are not two sides in the world, one pitted against the other, except in the minds of shallow-thing, lazy-minded morons. Most real topics, such as the one under discussion, have high degrees of depth and nuance that escape the peanut-brained.

 

[InfernoShade]

Simple Business - Physical and Digital Store Are Similar

I'm posting these thoughts again because maybe it'll be clearer and it's related to these discussions. But it seems people refuse to understand a simple business idea. Why people aren't open to listening to this simple ideas is beyond me. I make a simple post explaining something and it's called "madness". Wow, people overreact.

There are a few things about running an app store people need to understand. And they are both like a physical store.

OPERATING COSTS and INFRASTRUCTURE are part of running stores, be they app (digital) or physical. Running a store is not free, it costs money - everything from staff to electricity. Digital is not magic, it has operating costs. It's a simple thing to understand.

The other issue is REVENUE. This is the reason people open stores to sell their or other people's products - ultimately to make money. Like how Barnes and Noble's store is filled with 1000's of other people's products. Both B&N and the other company make money off these sales. (I'm simplifying but you should get the point.) Not to mention, each store that is opened is another opportunity to sell these products - a chance for more revenue that didn't exist before.

So see the app store works like a physical store. Sales are split with Apple and the devs. FYI all other app stores do this. Simple idea.

Lastly IAP is no different. They are sales in the store. Look at this and you'll see why it makes sense. So imagine all apps went FREE, and all transactions became IAP that did not split sales with the store. If you were running the store, guess what, you'd lose money. You're paying to run a store but you get no revenue from allowing others to sell their wares. Makes no sense.

Don't get hung up on the actual delivery system. iOS and the App Store together allow devs to sell their wares. Now I agree that if you purchase something outside this store and open it in your app, it's yours, no charge. But if you start to make purchases in this environment, then the sales should be split, again because of operating costs and simply you're making money by selling in that sore. Again, simple idea.

Lastly, come on, Amazon does the same thing when you sell your wares on there. They take a slice. It's operating costs and revenue from the sale. Its a simple time-honored business model since the beginning of time. Digital sales are no different. Not to mention Amazon undercuts competition in a way Apple does not.

If you want to feel outrage against a business, think of how the phone companies rip us off by pretending that one type of data is different than other. It's all data! And the 50 line items of cost. Or how the cable companies price things so that you have to pay thru the nose and you don't use 99% of the product. Not to mention who you have so few choices, and in some areas only one or two. Those systems are out of control.

 

[BaldiMac]

Book prices were raised when Apple colluded with all of the publishers. How is this good for consumers.

Because some consumers believe that the value that authors bring to our culture is more important than cheaper prices at any cost.

And there was the fact that, on average, book prices came down after Apple entered the market. Even though prices among the accused publishers went up.

and why would every company settle? (except Apple of course).

Because the DOJ threatened any company that didn't settle with the total damages from all the companies that were accused. It was too big a risk for any individual publisher. A loss would mean the end of the company.

I understand this is a fan boy site but I expect even the most ignorant fan boys to stay away from this one ha!

And, yet, you don't need to be a fanboy to disagree with the DOJ.

There was a trial. Evidence was presented. The evidence proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Apple in fact did collude. I read the evidence enough to see the truth. Trust me Apple is guilty.

That's not true. "Reasonable doubt" is not a standard in a civil case. And there was no direct evidence of Apple colluding. It was simply a question of who you believe.

And that's completely Apple's fault. If they want to make money off of service apps, then they should charge for them. Once it's off the app store and on the springboard, Apple doesn't deserve a cut of the profits.

edit: I'll add a modifier to my statement. Apple doesn't deserve a cut if they don't host the bandwidth or help with the upkeep of the service the app is providing.

Deserve? By what measure? Other than your arbitrary opinion?

Oletros beat me to it. The app isn't the App Store. You get it from the App Store, sure, but once it's outside of it, it's all Amazon's.

And it was sold by Apple on the App Store subject to certain conditions.

A 160 pages ruling disagree with your opinion

And some people disagree with the 160 page ruling. It happens.

What you consider is not important, what it is important is what law consider and "loss leader" is not dumping nor anti competitive.

Hard to believe, but "what law consider" is hardly black and white. Different people can have different interpretations of the law.

Any proof of that?

Probably about the same amount of proof as exists that Apple colluded.

 

[Oletros]

Lastly IAP is no different. They are sales in the store. Look at this and you'll see why it makes sense. So imagine all apps went FREE, and all transactions became IAP that did not split sales with the store. If you were running the store, guess what, you'd lose money. You're paying to run a store but you get no revenue from allowing others to sell their wares. Makes no sense.

Can you give any reason why the Kindle app and the Amazon app are different?

 

[Michael Goff]

And it was sold by Apple on the App Store subject to certain conditions.

So I take it you'd be okay with Apple taking 30% from every purchase on E-bay from the E-bay app?

 

[Judas1]

I'm posting these thoughts again because maybe it'll be clearer, and it related to these discussions. But it seems people refuse to understand a simple business idea. Why people aren't open to listening to this simple ideas is beyond me. I make a simple post explaining something and it's called "madness". Wow, people overreact.

There are a few things about running an app store people need to understand. And they are both like a physical store.

OPERATING COSTS and INFRASTRUCTURE are part of running stores, be they app (digital) or physical. Running a store is not free, it costs money - everything from staff to electricity. Digital is not magic, it has operating costs. It's a simple thing to understand.

The other issues is REVENUE. This is the reason people open stores to sell their or other people's products - ultimately to make money. Like how Barnes and Noble's store is filled with 1000's of other people's products. Both B&N and the other company make money off these sales. (I'm simplifying but you should get the point.) Not to mention, each store that is opened is another opportunity to sell these products - a chance for more revenue that didn't exist before.

So see the app store works like a physical store. Sales are split with Apple and the devs. FYI all other app stores do this. Simple idea.

Lastly IAP is no different. They are sales in the store. Look at this and you'll see why it makes sense. So imagine all apps went FREE, and all transactions became IAP that did not split sales with the store. If you were running the store, guess what, you'd lose money. You're paying to run a store but you get no revenue from allowing others to sell their wares. Makes no sense.

Don't get hung up on the actual delivery system. iOS and the App Store together allow devs to sell their wares. Now I agree that if you purchase something outside this store and open it in your app, it's yours, no charge. But if you start to make purchases in this environment, then the sales should be split, again because of operating costs and simply you're making money by selling in that sore. Again, simple idea.

Lastly, come on, Amazon does the same thing when you sell your wares on there. They take a slice. It's operating costs and revenue from the sale. Its a simple time-honored business model since the beginning of time. Digital sales are no different.

While I get your business is business rant, you have it all wrong. IAP, is not purchased through the appstore, its purchased through the app (in app purchase). Why should Apple get a cut? They don't get a cut when its done through the web browser (if you didn't know already, the web browser is just an app that accesses the internet). So why does Apple get a cut in one case and not in the other? I would argue that Apple doesn't deserve a cut in either case, but they can get away with it through the app because most people, especially fanboys, are ignorant of the fact that there is no difference between app and a web browser. They bought into the standard that Apple arbitrarily created and now can't see that other standards exist. Like on Android, the Kindle app can buy from Amazon, and the nook app can buy from B&N, even though Google have their own ebook store.

 

[gnasher729]

Are you all kidding me? Apple is so wrong on this one. Even the biggest Apple fan boy should be able to see this!

Amazon has a monopoly in the ebook market.
Apple tried to break the monopoly.
Amazon complains, the DOJ fully supports Amazon, which can only serve to strengthen their monopoly.

I wonder if the NSA is asking Apple to spy on its customers, and Apple refuses. At least that would be a logical explanation.

 

[Michael Goff]

Amazon has a monopoly in the ebook market.
Apple tried to break the monopoly.
Amazon complains, the DOJ fully supports Amazon, which can only serve to strengthen their monopoly.

I wonder if the NSA is asking Apple to spy on its customers, and Apple refuses. At least that would be a logical explanation.

Yep, it's all a conspiracy against Apple...

 

[BaldiMac]

So I take it you'd be okay with Apple taking 30% from every purchase on E-bay from the E-bay app?

Why not? I would take 30% of every purchase from ebay if I could negotiate that with them.

 

[InfernoShade]

Book prices were raised when Apple colluded with all of the publishers. How is this good for consumers and why would every company settle? (except Apple of course). I understand this is a fan boy site but I expect even the most ignorant fan boys to stay away from this one ha!

Apple rarely does wrong in my opinion but they missed this one by a mile. Now I do not agree with having to link the bookstores but I do agree they are in the wrong on this case and they deserve to lose.

Actually no. Book prices were already raised before Apple showed up on the scene.

I know because I owned a Kindle since day one. Bezos promised books at $5 but the publishers pressured then to raise them to $10 within less than a year. Then they continued to pressure Amazon until a year later they were up to $15 and then many ebooks priced higher than physical books. All this before Apple showed up. That's why Amazon labeled things with "price set by publisher", trying to say it's not their fault. When hey, Amazon was making the deals with them. I felt duped and was annoyed at prices before Apple showed up. Also their sales used to be 99cents now they are $2.99.

I do think Apple was stupid to get in bed with the publishers in this way. IMO yes there is some evidence but it's far from conclusive. We'd be foolish to think things like this don't happen all the time - exes silently agreeing to gouge the public. (Cable/movies, and phone services are the one that really need distruption.) Apple should have been smarter and approached it from another way. What's unfair, again IMO, is the pubs simply get to bow out by settling but Apple is being made an example.

In the end it seems Amazon has more pull in Washington (no matter if the gov bought Macs) and that's how business really works. Hey Bezos bought the Wash Post, small world. It's a shame because, while legal, we all know it's Amazon who has crushed competition for years now with really very little hope for competition from other big players let alone mom and pop shops.

 

[Michael Goff]

Why not? I would take 30% of every purchase from ebay if I could negotiate that with them.

XD

Excellent. 30% from every purchase. Amazon, Kindle, E-bay, everything.

That way it's fair...