Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Rejects 'Sony Reader' From App Store, 'Kindle' Removal Next?

Ha! Told you guys apple would enforce a rule that the price in the app can't be higher than the price outside the app!

Of course, that guy arguing with me won't come back to apologize.
 
Winni said:
Well, the French people disagreed with that back in 1789 and decapitated their king. And what did one of the unauthorized biographers of Steve Jobs say in an interview? "Steve Jobs would make a good king of France..."

Anyway. This whole development is yet another reason to distrust Apple and no longer support them with my money. Apple's business practices are worse than Microsoft's ever were. The beauty of Apple's products is only skin deep; underneath lies unacceptable ugly, greedy American corporate evil.
Click to expand...

Many a socialist support will burn their youth to "fight for the people" only to have themselves swept away by the next generation. Their latter years of those "for the people" view you as a useless liability for society and forgotten as the pawn of a social experiment. You have no property and thus no influence.
 
This is why I would never buy an iPhone or iPad. Seriously, yes the interface is good. But I want to be able to download books from whoever I like, and be able to install what I like on my devices with FREEDOM (excuse the shouty capitals - although I am not that apologetic really).

I would still buy an Apple PC/laptop but imagine if they said you can't download stuff on these except through the new App Store?!!!!

The Competition Commissions in the US/EU/UK need to get their bums into gear and start investigating Apple now! Capitalism is not about large firms abusing their market position, it is about open competition.
 
cmaier said:
What legal trouble? As so many fandroids love to point out, Apple has no monopoly to illegally leverage. No law that I know of says a small market participant has to grant other parties equal access to its infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Apple controls 93% of the tablet market. If Apple allow third-parties to make apps, but restrict anything that may compete with their other products then you could argue that they're abusing their dominant position in a hardware area to dominate media distribution.
 
Denarius said:
Apple controls 93% of the tablet market. If Apple allow third-parties to make apps, but restrict anything that may compete with their other products then you could argue that they're abusing their dominant position in a hardware area to dominate media distribution.
Click to expand...
I'll never understand this line of argument. If Apple's stated policy to developers is that developers cannot create software the duplicates the base applications included with a virgin installation of the OS, that's pretty much their agreement with developers. I think the murkier issues Apple gets into, is when it adds NEW rules that impact existing applications due to something it decides after the fact. This new subscription policy is a bit harsh, because its predicated on the notion that Apple believes these rules were always in the agreement, but they've only chosen to clarify and enforce them now. Feels more like one of those submarine patents.

In any case, I think Apple is playing chicken with the fact that its certainly created a desirable platform for making revenue. I think they've got a good point too... consumers would like to have the choice to pay through their iTunes account for paid content they view using any given app. Conversely, Google has given manufacturers and carriers a "choice" on whether to use Android 2.3's new video calling SIP stack to unify video messaging like iOS has with Facetime, and I think everyone is clear its going to be roundly ignored by the pre-installed apps (carriers know VOIP undercuts per minute plans). Sometimes shepherding a platform means putting your foot down and really pushing for a better consumer experience.

Such a mixed bag.

~ CB
 
It's pretty simple math, really. Apple wants 30% of the revenue for handling a simple store electronic transfer (costs them next to nothing relative to per app given the volumes they deal in) and they want the developer to offer their stuff at the sameprice or less on Apple's store than on their own. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that Apple is demanding that content providers screw themselves over just so Apple can take 30% of their money for basically doing nothing that the provider isn't already doing themselves. The only person that benefits is the consumer having to go to another site and for that they'll have to pay 30% higher prices (the developer sure as heck isn't going to eat that 30% of their livelihood so it will come out of the consumer's hide). I don't know about you, but I would gladly go to another web site and fill out whatever order forms I had to fill out in order to save 30% off the price of something.

Apple is in the wrong here to make that demand (that the prices be the same or less for them when they are taking 30% of the revenue, which makes that impossible for the developer to do without jacking up the price on both sites to make up for Apple taking their money for doing nothing beneficial). Apple is little more than a thief in this regard, IMO by making the demands they are now making. They're making money hand-over-fist as it is with the hardware and App store and now they want content providers to give them 30% of their cut too. Screw Apple. Their greed will be their eventual undoing. This will come back to haunt them in the future. Many content providers (like Sony) are already looking to stop providing iTunes with product as soon as they feel they won't lose significant market share by bypassing Apple. Sooner or later, the iTunes store will start losing major artists and it will be all due to Apple's greed and inflexibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back