Apple provides one of the most crucial services of hosting the Kindle app itself on the App Store. The server space and bandwidth of people downloading the app and its updates isn't free to Apple. Apple needs to recoup that cost somehow, but instead of charging the developers directly per download or app update submitted and reviewed, they use a 30% contingency model. Apple is smart enough to realize that if they didn't take a cut of IAPs, all developers would simply offer a free app with IAPs to avoid paying any fees to Apple, which would cause Apple to take a huge operating loss on the App Store infrastructure.
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 E-Book Price Fixing Decision Could See Return of Direct Links from Kindle and Other Apps to Their Stores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple provides one of the most crucial services of hosting the Kindle app itself on the App Store. The server space and bandwidth of people downloading the app and its updates isn't free to Apple. Apple needs to recoup that cost somehow, but instead of charging the developers directly per download or app update submitted and reviewed, they use a 30% contingency model. Apple is smart enough to realize that if they didn't take a cut of IAPs, all developers would simply offer a free app with IAPs to avoid paying any fees to Apple, which would cause Apple to take a huge operating loss on the App Store infrastructure.
They could offer paypal, for example, so you keep your cc details. Also, it looks like they're recommending a link to amazon instead of removing in app subscriptions in general.
One thing Apple is capable of is a rush to market to comply with the order ASAP so the time to end of the limit happens ASAP.
I am a believer in the agency model and consider the ruling to be a regulator in a monologue with itself to serve political interests.
That said, an order is an order. This country has too much government generally.
So now maybe Apple can deduct the net loss from their taxes and let the government pay for their own ruling.
Rocketman
I am a believer in the agency model and consider the ruling to be a regulator in a monologue with itself to serve political interests.
That said, an order is an order. This country has too much government generally.
ck2875 said:
So now maybe Apple can deduct the net loss from their taxes and let the government pay for their own ruling.
Rocketman
Without dicing words, I thought Apple allowed in-app purchases for a 30% take. Amazon could have continued with the in-app purchases, but they didn't like the fee.
No monopolies are not against the law. It's how you get there and what you do with it that can be illegal. Like jailbreaking /rooting.
If Amazon got there legally simply by being the first or best that's fine. But there are questions of unfair exclusive title deals, threats of pulling paper books if publishers allowed their stuff on other stories, predatory pricing and price dumps.
However no one cares about that. Just what Apple does
I'm sure that this settlement will include that Apple can't kick out the apps because it would be a clear retaliatory act in contempt of the orders.
What operating loss are free apps supported by ads to the App Store? Do they have to give a cut from the ad revenue to Apple?
No. They were hit by a biased judge and a biased DOJ. Which is why they are appealing.
So what is the limit of IAP? The limits I heard of, e.g. Smurf-berries, were $99 which pretty much covers 99% of any books Amazon sells.
The key is that Apple is appealing this, so I hope this Government proposal is moot.
That applies to the Kindle App itself. However, they have NOTHING to do with the transfer of a book from the Amazon store to the Kindle App. I'm more than happy for Apple to have a cut of anything that they have a part in selling. However, they are NOT selling anything if Amazon sell an ebook. Their servers and systems have absolutely nothing to do with the transfer of the file, the processing of the payment, the hosting of a cloud copy. They deserve no payment for the sale of the ebook.
Huh. According to the DOJ, competition somehow needs to be reset to a point when the market was less competitive. And here I was thinking this was about price fixing. Which should have the simple remedy of returning the money to the consumers that paid too much because of the price fixing. Pricing was moved back to retailers months ago.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but Amazon sure seems to be getting a little bonus here.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but Amazon sure seems to be getting a little bonus here.
I'm confused. Just earlier you were saying what a waste of time this is for the government....
The Justice Department seems fine with subsidies
That's what this is about.
This is going to be the death of Barnes and Noble. Absolutely. Maybe it should die for being an insufficient business model.
Barnes and Noble won't be able to compete in an ecosystem that is primarily books with Amazon that sells practically everything and can subsidize ebooks indefinitely until it is back to it's peak ebook market share of some 90%. Let's call it what it is; predatory pricing.
The Justice Department is fine with monopolies.
Of course, there is that appeal process that Apple is going to pursue.
That's what this is about.
This is going to be the death of Barnes and Noble. Absolutely. Maybe it should die for being an insufficient business model.
Barnes and Noble won't be able to compete in an ecosystem that is primarily books with Amazon that sells practically everything and can subsidize ebooks indefinitely until it is back to it's peak ebook market share of some 90%. Let's call it what it is; predatory pricing.
The Justice Department is fine with monopolies.
Of course, there is that appeal process that Apple is going to pursue.
I hate to say it but I think Apple's "price-fixing" was good in some respects, namely for authors, and to prevent things like the current pricewar between Amazon and Overstock. And it's not like they're price gouging (at least not what I can tell).
Just like we want to support the music we like by paying for it, support the devs we like by paying for the apps, I think it's a good thing to make sure authors are getting the support they need to keep writing.
But maybe I'm just a sucker...
Reference: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021521385_amazonoverstockxml.html
Just like we want to support the music we like by paying for it, support the devs we like by paying for the apps, I think it's a good thing to make sure authors are getting the support they need to keep writing.
But maybe I'm just a sucker...
Reference: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021521385_amazonoverstockxml.html
As if the US government didn't have more important things to worry about.
Like harassing Gibson, for one.
I 'liked' your comment, but that is also called contempt of court, IIRC.
I suspect the court will be looking for dick moves like that, so I think Amazon has a little extra opportunity to push the limits with Apple here.
The Justice Department has proposed a Monitor.
Apple was found guilty of "facilitating a conspiracy" to fix prices in the ebook market in a federal district court.
They don't have a say in the matter. They chose to go to court rather than settle. They lost. They are now bound to whatever resolution the court deems to be acceptable (pending appeal, of course).
Your analogy is completely foolish and wrong, by the way. This is the equivalent of Apple launching an Android app for iBooks, and Amazon then forcing Apple to give Amazon a 30% cut of every iBooks sale on the Android iBooks app, and requiring anyone else who sells iBooks (like Apple themselves) to offer the same high price on every product, and then Amazon conspiring with all of the book publishers to raise prices and force that model onto Apple's store, and then sitting on that business model in bad faith for 2 years until forced by a court to relent and allow Apple to sell ebooks via their iBooks Android app for whatever price they want, and from within the app, and without paying Amazon 30% of every sale. That's the analogy you were looking for. And it shows just how absurdly defensive Apple apologists can be.
Amazon is "winning" right now because they have built up such an incredible infrastructure for real, physical books (and practically everything else) that people go to them like they go to wal-mart. Wal-mart has terrible prices sometimes for certain things (like cheese or milk, for example), but the people who shop there don't know that, because they don't shop anywhere else. Amazon has a lot going for it
rime shipping (no competition), Prime video (better than netflix in a lot of ways), subscribe & save (no real competition), the Kindle (best ereader family), S3 services (best price/performance in the industry), the Marketplace (taking a huge bite out of ebay, et al). What they aren't doing is using anticompetitive practices to actively hinder the business efforts of their rivals in those markets. Apple and the publishers were doing exactly that. If the walled garden philosophy works, then Apple's iBooks store should be able to compete with the Kindle store on iOS without stacking the deck. If you want to pay a 30% commission to Apple for every purchase, then that's your right. It's not Apple's right to dictate pricing for other companies on their own website, which is what the current policy effectively does.