LOL Amazon pointing to ibooks as power to hurt them?
This is a new low in logic for you Rodimus. I think your circuits have finally fried.
Time for a full circuit board replacement. Hope you got RodimusCare.
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 Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL Amazon pointing to ibooks as power to hurt them?
This is a new low in logic for you Rodimus. I think your circuits have finally fried.
Time for a full circuit board replacement. Hope you got RodimusCare.
Marksman, you alone today have restored my faith in humanity. I can now go to my weekend and rest easier than I have in days. Thanks you.
Over and out.
No Apple would want to kick out competitors like kindle so iBook store can get a huge leg up.
It is another item to use against Apple. iBooks hurts Apple's defense against anti trust. Sure as hell does not help them in any way shape or form in this matter. The more services Apple offers the harder it will be for them to defend themselves because they are using there power in Tablet market to effect all the others.
Ok, and Amazon can also be sued for not including iBooks or a Barnes and Noble app on their Kindle? Right?
Do you expect those lawsuits to happen soon?
One or two devices does not constitute a market. Given that Android phones currently outsell Apple's, and that PCs still outsell Macs and iPads together, where is this "market power" of which you speak?
Come back when the iPhone is the dominant majority of all smartphones in use, or iPads start vastly outselling all PCs. (And that's not impossible.)
Apple is not bound to to host any app on their own App Store. Besides, this isn't about kicking anyone out, it's about letting everyone know that they need to bring themselves into compliance with a particular rule. It appears Apple is trying to help folks do that.
You're right, I don't have a ton of legal experience since I haven't finished law school yet. Having said that, a lot of it depends on things like market power and market definitions (are iOS users a separate market, or are they just part of a larger market) and there are a lot of technicalities. I'm certainly not saying Amazon would win or even has a good case. I'm just saying a lawsuit wouldn't be totally off the wall.
Have to fall back on an old standard for bad days: eat ice cream.
You mean Kindle??
An antitrust lawsuit would.
I doubt there will be any successful Anti-Trust lawsuit anywhere, but actually in the EU it's not so unrealistic. In any case there is no need of any lawsuit, people should trust the free market more.
Apple is free to decide whatever rules it likes for its App Store, and the customers will then decide if they like the way apps work for them or if it's worth to focus development in the platform. Otherwise, there are other options.
In short, if Apple really wants it would probably win the "my rules, or out of my store" war, but winning it like this would hurt Apple far more than it's worth. It's not like they backed off from the original IAP rules because they suddenly became compassionate...
Apple is free to decide whatever rules it likes for its App Store, and the customers will then decide if they like the way apps work for them or if it's worth to focus development in the platform. Otherwise, there are other options.
In short, if Apple really wants it would probably win the "my rules, or out of my store" war, but winning it like this would hurt Apple far more than it's worth. It's not like they backed off from the original IAP rules because they suddenly became compassionate...
you can make that your argument all you want but tell me how the hell do you expect Amazon to turn a profit with the kindle App on iOS with Apple demanding 30% gross considering Amazon that would mean everything sold threw the kindle app would be sold at a loss since Amazon only gets 30% of the gross to cover all its cost plus make profit.
Apple changed the rules all of a sudden.
I would agree with your argument in some sense if Apple would allow 3rd party App stores or side loading Apps. Both of which Apple does not do. Only way to get on iOS is to go threw Apple. This is a lot like MS anti trust case back in the day as something that is like it.
Apple just wants Amazon to remove a single button from their app. How is that kicking Amazon out ?
And like I said before Amazon will tell Apple to "go pound sand" before that happens.
Amazon has both the balls and the power to tell Apple off.
For the record, Hulu is NOT in compliance. The rules are that they remove outside links AND add IAP.
What likely happened is that they asked for more time to make the IAP work and 'in the meantime we have removed the external link and submitted that update' which Apple was happy to take as a sign of good faith
Antitrust? Market? These do not mean what you think they do.
The AppStore is to support one group of devices in a market of devices. Just as HP has their WebOS market to support that group, Microsoft theirs etc.
For what Apple is doing to be anti-trust they would have to show that they are crossing markets, not just groups within a market. The AppStore isn't doing that.
Now where they could perhaps be hit is in development. If I want to be an iOS developer I must get/own a Mac. I can't write apps on a Windows machine, Apple won't give me the tools. So one could argue that they are using the power of iOS to push their hardware sales. And THAT would be anti-trust because you are dealing with two markets
Trouble with that idea is that Kindle etc were allowed in and allowed to stay after iBooks was released. AND said companies signed a list of rules they agreed to follow that contained a rule that Apple is free to change the rules and they agree to change also or get out.
So basically Amazon etc sold their souls to Satan and they will have to pay for it.
What likely happened is that they asked for more time to make the IAP work and 'in the meantime we have removed the external link and submitted that update' which Apple was happy to take as a sign of good faith
Antitrust? Market? These do not mean what you think they do.
The AppStore is to support one group of devices in a market of devices. Just as HP has their WebOS market to support that group, Microsoft theirs etc.
For what Apple is doing to be anti-trust they would have to show that they are crossing markets, not just groups within a market. The AppStore isn't doing that.
Now where they could perhaps be hit is in development. If I want to be an iOS developer I must get/own a Mac. I can't write apps on a Windows machine, Apple won't give me the tools. So one could argue that they are using the power of iOS to push their hardware sales. And THAT would be anti-trust because you are dealing with two markets
Trouble with that idea is that Kindle etc were allowed in and allowed to stay after iBooks was released. AND said companies signed a list of rules they agreed to follow that contained a rule that Apple is free to change the rules and they agree to change also or get out.
So basically Amazon etc sold their souls to Satan and they will have to pay for it.
Last edited:
Ok, but why? Did they really expect Amazon to embrace IAP? That was a war Apple could not win, it was not going to happen with that pricing and whoever thought otherwise was just delusional. Thankfully Apple's management regained sanity pretty quickly and backed down from the original IAP rules.
Now they are trying to make less convenient for Kindle App's user to buy Amazon's content. I can understand them, and probably they can do that too, technically speaking. But I doubt this will steer Amazon's customers to iBooks or whatever. In the end this will just mean the Kindle App in iOS will be less convenient to me end-user compared to the same app in other devices, thanks to Apple's rules.
My old 3GS is pretty battered and I am eagerly waiting for the iPhone5's specifications, but I'm an Amazon customer too and I use the Kindle App a lot. Suddenly Apple made me interested in looking at their competition's devices...
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Amazons business model has nothing to do with the app stores right to 100% determine what products they sell in their store. There is no law out there that relates to this topic at all. Feel free to cite US,EU,Zimbabwe or any other law that requires a retailer to not only carry and sell a product they may not want to sell but also do it with terms and conditions they don't accept. Instead of just dancing around and
pretending like there is legal relevance actually cite a single relevant example. Here is a hint anything to do with
Microsoft is not a relevant example. Unless you have some legal ruling
that allows apple to sell macs and Mac os in microsoft stores.
It is like Charlie browns reacher saying "wan wan legal wan wan law wan wan wan anti trust"
Actually say something pertinent and relevant about these perceived legal issues for once.
Rodimus Prime said:
Amazons business model has nothing to do with the app stores right to 100% determine what products they sell in their store. There is no law out there that relates to this topic at all. Feel free to cite US,EU,Zimbabwe or any other law that requires a retailer to not only carry and sell a product they may not want to sell but also do it with terms and conditions they don't accept. Instead of just dancing around and
pretending like there is legal relevance actually cite a single relevant example. Here is a hint anything to do with
Microsoft is not a relevant example. Unless you have some legal ruling
that allows apple to sell macs and Mac os in microsoft stores.
It is like Charlie browns reacher saying "wan wan legal wan wan law wan wan wan anti trust"
Actually say something pertinent and relevant about these perceived legal issues for once.
Yeah. Not happening. Apple can do whatever the market lets them get away with - the fact that they had to back off the original version of the rule is evidence that Apple doesn't have sufficient market power to significantly affect competition.
False and Misleading Advertising
A good case can be made that Apple has engaged in false and misleading advertising. They've released several well-publicized "There's an App for That" ads bragging about how open iOS is and mentioning all the third-party apps that run on it. In the public mind, that would include popular ereaders from Amazon and B&N. Yanking those apps would constitute 'bait-and-switch.' Buy an iPad, perhaps instead of a Kindle, to get the Kindle app and then have that app yanked away. Not good.
It's a bit like buying a car that comes with two-years of free satellite radio and then having that satellite service yanked by the automaker because they're in a dispute with the satellite radio company. You promise, you have to deliver. If you don't you're likely to face the wrath of both the FTC and class actions lawsuits. I suspect there are law firms already preparing for action the minute the Amazon app gets yanked.
The same isn't true of Amazon. It's been careful to position Kindles as a way to read books from their own store. They've promised much less, but they're delivering everything they've promised.
A good case can be made that Apple has engaged in false and misleading advertising. They've released several well-publicized "There's an App for That" ads bragging about how open iOS is and mentioning all the third-party apps that run on it. In the public mind, that would include popular ereaders from Amazon and B&N. Yanking those apps would constitute 'bait-and-switch.' Buy an iPad, perhaps instead of a Kindle, to get the Kindle app and then have that app yanked away. Not good.
It's a bit like buying a car that comes with two-years of free satellite radio and then having that satellite service yanked by the automaker because they're in a dispute with the satellite radio company. You promise, you have to deliver. If you don't you're likely to face the wrath of both the FTC and class actions lawsuits. I suspect there are law firms already preparing for action the minute the Amazon app gets yanked.
The same isn't true of Amazon. It's been careful to position Kindles as a way to read books from their own store. They've promised much less, but they're delivering everything they've promised.
That or another option. Apple back off knowing that they would be facing some major trouble with the courts. Question comes up on why the all of a sudden did such a major rule changed demanding a huge cut were none was before. 30% of a payment processor is a huge rip off no matter how you cut it.
Apple back off the DRM on iTMS not because they felt good about it but because the writing was on the wall and chances were getting pretty good that they would be facing some major lawsuits that they could not win. Dropping fairplay from iTMS caused those to back off.
Honestly anyone that does remove the links I would think they should point the finger at APple in the App wiht something like
"We are sorry that we can not provide you a link to our site due to Apple restrictions and demanding an insane amount of money but feel free to go there on your computer"
You seem to think that every competitive action is legally-actionable. This is simply not the case. Apple isn't even close to the line. Maybe in some backwater country where they have a 32-hour workweek and you can't be fired without a court hearing, but in industrialized countries it's simply not against the law to compete so long as you don't violate certain rules (for example leveraging a monopoly in one market to injure competition in another). Despite what you claim, there is no generalized prohibition on "injuring competition." Everything every business does is supposed to injure the competition - that's the point of being in business.
You rail against the 30% cut, but publishers in other industries frequently demand 70% (I know. I was involved in such a deal). I reckon Microsoft and Sony take at least 30% of game sales for 360 and PS3. This is the way business is done, and if a company doesn't want to pay the 30% they can go to other outlets. There's no inherent right to make money off of someone else's platform.
If a developer updates their app to be in compliance, how long does approval take? Are they ever in a Catch-22 waiting for Apple approval when they are trying to meet Apple's own deadlines?
Apple would almost certainly reject any app with such a "finger".
Approval for updates can take a few days or it can take a few weeks. So, yes, I think they could possibly be in a Catch-22.
You are confused, Apple in these cases is not publishing anything, it's just processing a payment. Actual publishers might require a 30% fee or whatever, but this can be justified with the need to cover the costs of hosting the media, uploading it to the customers and the whole publishing infrastructure in general.
Apple publishes only the application itself, but this is already taken into account and paid by the developer's license. It does not publish any of the application's contents, so it's unreasonable to ask the same fee as an actual publisher for that.
They can try this only because they basically decided there is only one way for an iOS application to process a payment directly, and that's through Apple's IAP, meaning there is no competition and whatever fee they decide, it's the only option (I don't consider manually navigating to the actual publisher's web store to be a comparable option). If there were other companies handling electronic payments allowed to manage IAPs, Apple would have to lower the fee to stay competitive.
In my opinion Apple's "vision" from the user's point of view is the correct one: every application makes use of the same system to handle payments. No need to give credentials to different companies and such... it would be very interesting. But they messed up the pricing.
I'm not at all confused. Apple does indeed publish something - apple publishes the app.
As I said, the App is indeed published by Apple, but Apple is not demanding any compensation for this publishing (developer's license apart). In this they are on-par with the competition which rarely makes expensive to develop and publish for it's own ecosystem, after all the more apps the better.
Apple is demanding compensation for processing In-App Payments for content which is published by other companies. It's a completely different game in which Apple does not play the publisher role, but the payment processing role, for which a fee of 30% is just ridiculous considering what companies in this business usually charge for the same operation.