Not in any way relevant to the conversation. Apple simply chose to draw the line at digital goods available within the app. Just a choice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses DOJ of Wanting Amazon to Have 'Significant Competitive Advantage'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not in any way relevant to the conversation. Apple simply chose to draw the line at digital goods available within the app. Just a choice.
Its not illegal to be a monopoly. Sometime you are the strongest player and other players get eliminated. What is illegal is using unfair tactics like price fixing. And that was what Apple was found guilty of. Don't just accuse the DOJ of bias because Apple lost. Why don't you try to prove Apple didn't fix prices?
Fair? That would seem to be a bad business decision by Apple.
To me, the line they have currently drawn seems "fair". It eliminates developers bypassing Apple on App sales, while still allowing for the sale of most goods and services.
I'd suggest an alternative.
Apple leaves the eBook business. Completely.
At the same time, they leave the eBook site open as it is, as a public service both to business wanting to sell books and to customers wanting to read books on Macs and iOS devices.
They send a letter to all the publishers cancelling their contracts at the nearest possible date, and ask them whether their publications should be removed, should continue to stay on the store for the current advertised price, or should continue to stay on the store for 70% of the current advertised price. And obviously publishers can add / remove books or change prices at any time.
Apple collects payments and sends them straight to the publishers. There is no contract between Apple and publishers, Apple can close the store any time they wish, but will leave it open as long as Apple device customers are happy with it.
Since this is a public service, Apple will remove DRM from all books and will only offer books in DRM free ePub or iBooks Author format. Apple also will stop distributing any apps for reading books in proprietary formats.
I think that would be an excellent thing to do. It should certainly reduce prices since the publishers are free to sell their books at what they would consider "wholesale" price. And nobody can complain that Apple is doing anything anti-competitive because they just left the competition.
What you're talking about is the agency model, which Apple introduced. Are you so blindly loyal, you're defending Apple against the very model they introduced, and instead blamed Amazon? Before Apple, the publishers had no leverage against Amazon, so how can they pressure Amazon to raise prices? Geez!!!! I'm dying here.
Did you read my post? No, I'm not blindly loyal. I said they were stupid and they should have come up with another way.
I happen to like both Apple and Amazon (and other companies). They both have their pros and cons. So no I'm not blind. But I feel Amazon's business practices are the ones who stifle competition, not Apple's.
Also you need to do research. The pubs did put pressure on Amazon. HOW? With the threat to withhold their ebooks! They could have said sorry we're not selling thru you. Get it?! They didn't like the idea of the public thinking ebooks were cheap, or simply a book should be cheap. So they told Amazon, if we sell with you we want the prices raised, which Amazon did. Ultimately Amazon let them set the price. All before Apple showed up. History showed it, as I've explained.
Question: Are you blindly hateful towards Apple?
What is wrong with people? If you offer a well-explained alternate POV, you're either "mad" or "blind". Get real people.
But it is illegal to use your monopoly position to prevent competition through tactics like predatory pricing.
Yep.
Don't just imply someone is a fanboy because you disagree with them.
Well, they didn't fix prices. They didn't even set prices.
----------
1. Possibly. At least, as monopoly is defined by the FTC.
2. Amazon had 90% share when Apple entered the market.
No, it was at the time Apple presented the iPad when Macmillan pressed Amazon
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...cmillan-books-over-e-book-price-disagreement/
And where would these publishers sell their ebooks then? They couldn't make that ultimatum without Apple. I don't know where you're getting the idea that these publishers are so powerful they can force Amazon's hand like this.
I'm going to only say it once, because its been said many time. Loss leader is not predatory pricing. If Amazon was using such a tactic, they would have gone down when they were investigated by the DOJ. I have no choice but to see a fanboy if someone refuses to see facts. Like ahem, the fact that someone refuses to accept that Amazon was not participating in predatory pricing.
It's really -almost- fair, but the idea of them getting money from subscriptions and e-books seems a bit weird to me.
See Oletros's last post. MacMillan had that power all by itself.
That's your opinion. I simply disagree. For many reasons that I've gone into before. If you can't see the overlap between loss leaders and predatory pricing, I'm not sure where the discussion can go.
----------
Fair enough.
Who is John Galt?
I feel as though we are getting ever closer to the scene of Hank Reardon addressing the government tribunal... Cant wait!
"If we who were the movers, the providers, the benefactors of mankind, were willing to let the brand of evil be stamped upon us and silently to bear punishment for our virtues what sort of good did we expect to triumph in the world?"
I feel as though we are getting ever closer to the scene of Hank Reardon addressing the government tribunal... Cant wait!
"If we who were the movers, the providers, the benefactors of mankind, were willing to let the brand of evil be stamped upon us and silently to bear punishment for our virtues what sort of good did we expect to triumph in the world?"
You know it's easy to pick at other people's thoughts when you're not offering any of your own.
I was talking generally about IAP. I realize these apps in both the Google Play and the Apple App Store are treated differently. But I hope you can at least agree as a basic rule, a cut of IAP makes sense, because apps would go free with only IAP and stores like Google Play or Apple App Store would make no money.
Again, Yyep, these apps are treated differently doesn't seem to make obvious sense. I never said I have the answer for everything, but we can speculate.
One reason could be that these are basically shopping apps, and that's why they are treated differently. If additional fees were added on shopping in the app, would make Apple, Google and others look bad, when these items could be bought else where so easily. Maybe it's Google and Apple want to play nice with another power player. Also as in business there are always exceptions.
But if we are going to question why Apple treats these apps differently, we need to ask why Google and MS treat these differently too. Maybe there's an industry wide logic we all don't know.
Umm, thanks for condescending. Not. I know the web browser is an app.
But that might make sense. Maybe they don't get a cut on these types of sales - shopping apps - either thru an app or the web. I'd buy that. I'm fine with Apple, Google, etc. taking a slice of IAP from all other non-shopping apps, and shopping apps are allow us to make purchases without any slice.
In the end Apple isn't the only one doing this, so we need to ask them all their logic.
Well, I remember spending three years getting my law degree (JD)... and never taking a single course on politics... so I believe they are seperable. Its one thing to say a law is iladvised or ineffective. It is something altogether different for commenters to start railing about who owns what newspaper, why they purchased it, how some politician is going after some company because he/she is in canoots with someone else...
I cannot believe some of the posts in this thread, such as this one.
It is rather ignorant to point out that Walmart makes money on selling an entry product when that is exactly what Apple does. Apple is not giving away the devices required to read iBooks. Good lord.
Michael
You know it's easy to pick at other people's thoughts when you're not offering any of your own.
And then you call others for condescending tone? Pot, kettle?
A cut of IAP doesn't make sense if the App Store owner doesn't gets involved, so no, we don't agree.
Then, it is clear that having a cut from ones and none from the other is just arbitrary.
You don't even understand my post. Or more likely, you are just willfully ignorant. I have no interest in discussing anything with you.
Actually, what the DOJ is asking for is reasonable and makes complete sense. Bottom line is Apple abused their position and in this case that abuse was found to be illegal, they should indeed be punished for such abuse.
That being said, the DOJ should suggest that all in App links should be allowed, not limiting it to eBooks, so that it does not seem that Amazon or Barnes and Noble (notice no one mentions them when making the legal arguments) are getting an unfair advantage just because they sell eBooks.
That being said, the DOJ should suggest that all in App links should be allowed, not limiting it to eBooks, so that it does not seem that Amazon or Barnes and Noble (notice no one mentions them when making the legal arguments) are getting an unfair advantage just because they sell eBooks.
Read the article. MacMillan already had a deal with Apple using the Agency model. So MacMillan did not have the power all by itself.See Oletros's last post. MacMillan had that power all by itself.
That's your opinion. I simply disagree. For many reasons that I've gone into before. If you can't see the overlap between loss leaders and predatory pricing, I'm not sure where the discussion can go.
----------
Fair enough.
And the difference between loss leader and predatory price is not just my opinion. They are different things. One is legal, the other is illegal. If you disagree, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with facts.
Actually, punitive damages are specifically disallowed by law. Any remedies would have to be for the purpose of correcting any market harm.
Even though this had nothing to do with what Apple was found to have done wrong?
Um No, that was not condescending. It was a simple point. I took time to explain something in detail and you just pulled out snippets without explanation. And yeah, it's condescending to say I didn't know the browser was an app.
If you can't even attempt to make some logical distinction between why these apps are different then there's no point in discussing it with you. It seems you can't even agree that in general a slice of sales makes any sense if you are running a store.
But I now remembering, I've had wasted attempts at discussion with you before. If memory serves you never budge and are not open to new points of view. It all falls back to a circular arguing. I'm open to ideas and that Apple may make mistakes. All the companies Google, MS, etc treat these differently, not just Apple.
I've already made a solid post explaining my points. You haven't returned the favor. Maybe someone will make better points. I'll be open to hearing them. Thank you for your time.