Apple's App Store Subscription Policies Raise Antitrust Issues as Content Providers F

[quetzalcoatl]

I don't know why people care, if for for example, this hurt Amazon in the e-Book business.

Due to contracts, Amazon and iBooks sell the books for the same exact price. So to the consumer it doesn't matter at all. They can buy the books for the same cost.

From Apple's perspective they are a direct competitor of Apple's in the e-book space, and thus got to pay to play.

Apple controls this particular retail space and can charge or require whatever they want for access, just like any other store can do the same. Companies can meet those requirements or not sell there. It may require changes to some businesses, but the world changes and evolves. It is what it is.

Safeway is not required to carry any product that someone else is selling. They can even put requirements on the distributers and manufacturers for getting access ot their shelf space. It is how business works.

This whole thing has zero anti-trust legs at all. Retailers are not required to carry someone's product just because someone wants them to do it. The App Store is a STORE. A Retail Store.

We care because amazon has 6X the amount of books as iBooks and can be read across multiple platforms. And since they sell for the same price do you think we will get to keep the benefit of those books with this change? And this fact is the single biggest reason I choose the iPad at the time multiple readers that I could use. And if I loose the biggest one I will vote with my walet and apple will loose a customer!

 

[CMStrawn]

I don't know why people care, if for for example, this hurt Amazon in the e-Book business.

Due to contracts, Amazon and iBooks sell the books for the same exact price. So to the consumer it doesn't matter at all. They can buy the books for the same cost.

From Apple's perspective they are a direct competitor of Apple's in the e-book space, and thus got to pay to play.

Apple controls this particular retail space and can charge or require whatever they want for access, just like any other store can do the same. Companies can meet those requirements or not sell there. It may require changes to some businesses, but the world changes and evolves. It is what it is.

Safeway is not required to carry any product that someone else is selling. They can even put requirements on the distributers and manufacturers for getting access ot their shelf space. It is how business works.

This whole thing has zero anti-trust legs at all. Retailers are not required to carry someone's product just because someone wants them to do it. The App Store is a STORE. A Retail Store.

Wow. I can not believe the amount of people willing to defend Apple over this. I also can not believe in the amount of ridiculous defenses they are bringing to the table to defend Apple as well.

- "Magazines and papers pass ink and paper cost on to the customers."
- "The post office gets paid to mail a letter."


To start, like many have said, THE CONTENT ISN'T STORED IN AN APPLE SERVER OR APPLE ISN'T SUPPLYING THE MERCHANDISE. I do not understand where Apple gets off believing they get something from some other companies hard work that has nothing to do with Apple other than they have an App on an iOS device. Hell! Apple should be thanking these companies. It's these companies that make the app store great and make having an iOS worthwhile.

I have owned every iPhone since the original and had planed on getting the next as well. But increasingly more and more Apple is getting to big for its breeches and I feel it's time to look elsewhere for a phone. I couldn't imagine what people would do if Microsoft all of the sudden told everyone that if they wanted to run a program they had to purchase it through them and that they get to decide what is allowed to run in Windows. Also if you want to offer any services or sell anything Microsoft gets 30% just because it's their OS.

Not only is Apple trying to line their pockets on the backs of other companies, they are trying to screw the consumer as well by forcing other companies of increase prices so that they can keep making a profit as well.

 

[McWatt]

Safeway is not required to carry any product that someone else is selling. They can even put requirements on the distributers and manufacturers for getting access ot their shelf space. It is how business works.

This whole thing has zero anti-trust legs at all. Retailers are not required to carry someone's product just because someone wants them to do it. The App Store is a STORE. A Retail Store.

People keep making similar analogies in a lot of posts. But they never work, for one simple reason: people do not pay hundreds of dollars for a device to shop at safeway.

Apple gets money for their hardware and their iOS. It then artificially restricts people's access to what can run on that hardware and OS, by only allowing people to install apps from the app store. Now, many people in this forum defend this practice, saying that all the apps run well, are vetted beforehand, don't have viruses, etc. This may be true. But if that's the case, why not still allow users to install apps from outside the market? If the app market is as good as people say it is, everyone will still use it.

But Apple doesn't give you any other option. So after spending hundreds of dollars on an ipad, you're limited to what Apple lets on the market. You would then think that Apple would have some sort of duty to its customers to make sure that they get the best apps possible. Instead, Apple starts rejecting apps, not because they're harmful, but because the apps compete with some of Apple's other services. Now you have Apple negatively impacting their customers just to make money for themselves (instead of doing what had made them so successful in the past and making money by appealing to customers).

But then Apple takes it one step further, and starts charging content providers 30% in order to operate in the only marketplace that Apple has allowed people to use to install apps on their ipads. What is this 30% charge for exactly? The right to have content placed on their ipads. But at this point, the ipads are not Apple's. They are the consumers, who paid a lot of money for them. The content is developed and distributed by the content providers. The only thing Apple has to do with the transfer of the content to the ipad is that they allow a small app (that Apple did not develop) to be downloaded from their store, something that could just as easily be accomplished by allowing users to download apps directly from content providers. So to simplify, Apple artificially restricts downloads to their store, and then jacks up the prices because its the only game in town.

What is the result? Nobody knows yet, but it cannot possibly be good for the consumer. Either prices will rise (consumers pay more money) or content providers will leave or never develop apps for iPads in the first place (consumers have fewer options and may have to spend more money on an inferior service). And Apple will get more money. That's it. I think that shows an incredible amount of disrespect to iPad owners.

You can argue that people knew what they were getting into when they bought an Apple product. But I don't think anyone could imagine Apple would try to take such advantage of their absolute power over the content that is available on a device people bought just to use to access the content.

Now its time for my attempt at what is certain to be a bad analogy: let's say I buy a toaster. It's a nice toaster, easy to use with some good features, and expensive, but in the end I only bought it so I could cook food. But this turns out to be an Apple toaster, and so I can only buy the food I cook in it from Apple. Fine I think: they will always have good food, and this way I won't get food poisoning. Then Apple decides not to allow bagels in their toaster, because Apple is coming up with its own solution to a quick and delicious breakfast. Well, I get a little pissed off because I really like bagels. But still, there are plenty of other options out there. Then Apple says: we are going to charge all the outside providers of food to our store 30% more, because running this store, which by the way we make you buy all of your food from, costs us a little bit of money, and, frankly, we just want more profit. This is too much for some food manufacturers, and now Eggo leaves, aunt Jamima leaves, and the english muffins let Steve know exactly what nook and cranny he can kiss as they walk out the door.

So now here I am, with this expensive but easy to use toaster that I paid for, and I can't use it to cook most of the food I wanted, and the food that is still available has shot up in price. How am I supposed to look at Apple's actions and still be glad that I bought their toaster?

And then I remembered the good old days, when you would buy a toaster, and you would figure out what you wanted to cook in it, and the toaster's manufacturer had no say in it. I think I might sell my Apple toaster and get one of those.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't know why people care, if for for example, this hurt Amazon in the e-Book business.

Due to contracts, Amazon and iBooks sell the books for the same exact price. So to the consumer it doesn't matter at all. They can buy the books for the same cost.

From Apple's perspective they are a direct competitor of Apple's in the e-book space, and thus got to pay to play.

Apple controls this particular retail space and can charge or require whatever they want for access, just like any other store can do the same. Companies can meet those requirements or not sell there. It may require changes to some businesses, but the world changes and evolves. It is what it is.

Safeway is not required to carry any product that someone else is selling. They can even put requirements on the distributers and manufacturers for getting access ot their shelf space. It is how business works.

This whole thing has zero anti-trust legs at all. Retailers are not required to carry someone's product just because someone wants them to do it. The App Store is a STORE. A Retail Store.

That argument MIGHT hold water if they allowed 3rd party App stores but in this case that is not the case.

Also under you example Apple still get busted for doing predatory pricing which falls under Antitrust laws in both the US and EU. Apple could be busted for doing that. If apple had enforced it on day one not as large of an issue but the fact that they are doing it now means they have years to be nailed on it.

 

[StructAural]

People keep making similar analogies in a lot of posts. But they never work, for one simple reason: people do not pay hundreds of dollars for a device to shop at safeway.

Apple gets money for their hardware and their iOS. It then artificially restricts people's access to what can run on that hardware and OS, by only allowing people to install apps from the app store. Now, many people in this forum defend this practice, saying that all the apps run well, are vetted beforehand, don't have viruses, etc. This may be true. But if that's the case, why not still allow users to install apps from outside the market? If the app market is as good as people say it is, everyone will still use it.

But Apple doesn't give you any other option. So after spending hundreds of dollars on an ipad, you're limited to what Apple lets on the market. You would then think that Apple would have some sort of duty to its customers to make sure that they get the best apps possible. Instead, Apple starts rejecting apps, not because they're harmful, but because the apps compete with some of Apple's other services. Now you have Apple negatively impacting their customers just to make money for themselves (instead of doing what had made them so successful in the past and making money by appealing to customers).

But then Apple takes it one step further, and starts charging content providers 30% in order to operate in the only marketplace that Apple has allowed people to use to install apps on their ipads. What is this 30% charge for exactly? The right to have content placed on their ipads. But at this point, the ipads are not Apple's. They are the consumers, who paid a lot of money for them. The content is developed and distributed by the content providers. The only thing Apple has to do with the transfer of the content to the ipad is that they allow a small app (that Apple did not develop) to be downloaded from their store, something that could just as easily be accomplished by allowing users to download apps directly from content providers. So to simplify, Apple artificially restricts downloads to their store, and then jacks up the prices because its the only game in town.

What is the result? Nobody knows yet, but it cannot possibly be good for the consumer. Either prices will rise (consumers pay more money) or content providers will leave or never develop apps for iPads in the first place (consumers have fewer options and may have to spend more money on an inferior service). And Apple will get more money. That's it. I think that shows an incredible amount of disrespect to iPad owners.

You can argue that people knew what they were getting into when they bought an Apple product. But I don't think anyone could imagine Apple would try to take such advantage of their absolute power over the content that is available on a device people bought just to use to access the content.

Now its time for my attempt at what is certain to be a bad analogy: let's say I buy a toaster. It's a nice toaster, easy to use with some good features, and expensive, but in the end I only bought it so I could cook food. But this turns out to be an Apple toaster, and so I can only buy the food I cook in it from Apple. Fine I think: they will always have good food, and this way I won't get food poisoning. Then Apple decides not to allow bagels in their toaster, because Apple is coming up with its own solution to a quick and delicious breakfast. Well, I get a little pissed off because I really like bagels. But still, there are plenty of other options out there. Then Apple says: we are going to charge all the outside providers of food to our store 30% more, because running this store, which by the way we make you buy all of your food from, costs us a little bit of money, and, frankly, we just want more profit. This is too much for some food manufacturers, and now Eggo leaves, aunt Jamima leaves, and the english muffins let Steve know exactly what nook and cranny he can kiss as they walk out the door.

So now here I am, with this expensive but easy to use toaster that I paid for, and I can't use it to cook most of the food I wanted, and the food that is still available has shot up in price. How am I supposed to look at Apple's actions and still be glad that I bought their toaster?

And then I remembered the good old days, when you would buy a toaster, and you would figure out what you wanted to cook in it, and the toaster's manufacturer had no say in it. I think I might sell my Apple toaster and get one of those.

Good post. Maybe the posters with the mental agility of a tea partier will read it and understand. I doubt it though.

Apple controls this particular retail space and can charge or require whatever they want for access, just like any other store can do the same. Companies can meet those requirements or not sell there. It may require changes to some businesses, but the world changes and evolves. It is what it is.

It is is it?

So if companies don't want to meet those requirements and don't want to sell there, where do they sell?

Safeway is not required to carry any product that someone else is selling. They can even put requirements on the distributers and manufacturers for getting access ot their shelf space. It is how business works.

This whole thing has zero anti-trust legs at all. Retailers are not required to carry someone's product just because someone wants them to do it. The App Store is a STORE. A Retail Store.

In a retail space of exactly one. I'm quite happy to go outside the App store, the same way I buy most of my apps on the Mac. It creates a relationship with the developer, I get updates when they release them, I may get a 30 day trial or some extras for being a loyal user.
So let me do that on MY iPhone, oh no I HAVE to use the App Store. And now Apple can stand between my developer or content provider and me and demand its toll of 30%. (All whilst holding all its own massive profits - ensured by getting serfs in 3rd world countries to build their products - offshore so it can avoid paying legimate tax in it's country of origin that is suffering quite badly under an economic downturn. Still as long the consumers of said products are paying their taxes like good citizens the corporate rich can continue to shaft the rest of you).
That's MY iPhone, btw, not 'Apple's Platform' it's my phone that I bought – an important distinction that a few are missing.

 

[dethmaShine]

It doesn't cost Apple a dime to allow me to purchase eBooks from the Kindle app or watch Netflix movies in the iOS app. Amazon/Netflix handle the billing, hosting the content, and delivering the content. There is no system to keep running. Apple's entire server/network could crash and go offline and the Kindle and Netflix apps would continue working as usual.

And they paid for all that when they signed up to be a developer. Getting an app onto the app store isn't free, even if the app itself is free.

I have read almost all your posts in this thread. You simply have no argument except for:

Apple got $100 from xyz company; what else?

Do you plan to contribute something meaningful. I mean, I didn't; but you keep pestering people with just one opinion and one thought and disregard all the other pro/against comments in this thread.

Weird seeing you as a demi-god here.

That's a great point. Everyone needs to remember that this content is going on a device that was created by Apple, and not the developers. For that matter, I would like to see Apple get 30% of the cost of people's internet service, because that is also being used on an Apple device. Furthermore, all these web pages are getting off scot-free. Why should a web page be able to be accessed from an Apple device, but not have to pay its fair share? They should have to give 30% of their advertising revenue to Apple as well. As a consumer, this just makes me angry. Why should the money I spend on content go entirely to the person who created and distributed that content? What about the person who I paid hundreds of dollars to in order to buy the device it is displayed on? What do they get out of it?

Are you for real? I mean, I believe Apple should get some of the cut; may be 20%/30% or even 5%; but your comment is just being a typical fanboy.

Do you pay for a service on your mac or a windows machine. I know this doesn't equate to the iPad but do you? It's like if I use a pioneer stereo system in a car, pioneer must pay some share to Honda because Honda provided me with a car. Nonsense.

 

[OllyW]

Weird seeing you as a demi-god here.

It probably doesn't mean what you think it means...

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us#How_do_I_contribute_to_MacRumors.com.3F

 

[dethmaShine]

It probably doesn't mean what you think it means...

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us#How_do_I_contribute_to_MacRumors.com.3F

Right. I see.
Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[StructAural]

Are you for real? I mean, I believe Apple should get some of the cut; may be 20%/30% or even 5%; but your comment is just being a typical fanboy.

Do you pay for a service on your mac or a windows machine. I know this doesn't equate to the iPad but do you? It's like if I use a pioneer stereo system in a car, pioneer must pay some share to Honda because Honda provided me with a car. Nonsense.

I think you missed the sarcasm there...

 

[JRoDDz]

Safari is an Apple made app on the iOS device. Why isn't Apple charging 30% of any purchases made through it? Buying airline tickets? That'll be 30% sir. Buying clothes? Cough up 30% for those jeans. Paying your taxes online? Tsk Tsk Tsk, that'll be 30% of whatever you pay Uncle Sam. Buying your 12 year old one legged daughter a wooden leg with a kickstand? Cough up the 30% or no prosthesis.

What's with the double standard?

 

[dethmaShine]

Safari is an Apple made app on the iOS device. Why isn't Apple charging 30% of any purchases made through it? Buying airline tickets? That'll be 30% sir. Buying clothes? Cough up 30% for those jeans. Paying your taxes online? Tsk Tsk Tsk, that'll be 30% of whatever you pay Uncle Sam. Buying your 12 year old one legged daughter a wooden leg with a kickstand? Cough up the 30% or no prosthesis.

What's with the double standard?

lol

I don't think you understand the issue.

 

[JRoDDz]

lol

I don't think you understand the issue.

Actually I do, however I was just trying to be funny here

 

[azurehi]

I have read almost all your posts in this thread. You simply have no argument except for:



Do you plan to contribute something meaningful. I mean, I didn't; but you keep pestering people with just one opinion and one thought and disregard all the other pro/against comments in this thread.

Weird seeing you as a demi-god here.

Is it true that to be a Demi-God, one must contribute to MacRumors? Ahh, my question is answered...'Tis true.

 

[McWatt]

I think you missed the sarcasm there...

I thought I was laying it on pretty thick...

 

[eye]

If Apple loses Netflix I may as well throw my Apple TV 2 in the trash.

 

[davefave]

Ah... the rise and fall of the iPhone.

Shame, I just got an iPhone 4.

But the new Samsung Galaxy is looking sweet!

 

[CQd44]

I know it has to have been said at least a hundred times in this thread, but the market will ultimately decide what happens. If apps are pulled, Apple will have to rethink their policy (and possibly garner negative PR). If prices are raised across the board, the consumers will either pay up or just refuse the shenanigans, which would be interesting to see.

I think Apple will lose this one though.

 

[michaelcyee]

I know it has to have been said at least a hundred times in this thread, but the market will ultimately decide what happens. If apps are pulled, Apple will have to rethink their policy (and possibly garner negative PR). If prices are raised across the board, the consumers will either pay up or just refuse the shenanigans, which would be interesting to see.

I think Apple will lose this one though.

T minus 131 days.

While we're here, can we drum up a list of apps that are possibly affected by this, so that we can download them in anticipation of a stand-off? Hulu, Kindle, Netflix are the ones bandied around so far. People are saying that anything that uses Dropbox might be affected because Dropbox offers premium services.

 

[Synergie]

So my question is this:

Let's say Kindle is pulled.... what about those of us with it already installed? Will we still be able to continue using it? I mean all the current app does is allow you to log on and access ebooks you've already purchased. Apple can't make the app that just 'disappear' off our devices can they??

I don't use Kindle but I do use Kobo. And I am considering downloading all the other apps that will be affected, before they get pulled... just in case.