That's not what the article is about. The article is talking about Amazon (and other companies too) providing links in apps to their website to purchase other things. That's profiting from Apple's customers. BTW, when you're using Apple's products and downloading apps from their store (whether free or paid) that allow you to buy products from competitors you are still Apple's customer. Don't want to be Apple's customer use an Android phone. You'd still be considered Google's customer.
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.
DoJ Claims Apple Implemented In-App Purchase Rules to 'Retaliate Against Amazon'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's not what the article is about. The article is talking about Amazon (and other companies too) providing links in apps to their website to purchase other things. That's profiting from Apple's customers. BTW, when you're using Apple's products and downloading apps from their store (whether free or paid) that allow you to buy products from competitors you are still Apple's customer. Don't want to be Apple's customer use an Android phone. You'd still be considered Google's customer.
Actually, the difference is that Apple didn't bring the customer at all. The customer already knows the brand and bought it themselves. Even if a customer used the app to get a service, Apple still didn't bring the customer. So this division between an app, and a web browser is just something Apple arbitrarily implemented.
They have the right to do so.
it would be dumb as a post. but if they chose to go the same business route that Apple does, I think it would be their right to choose to do so.
I'd promptly leave their ecosystem and choose with my wallet to spend my money elsewhere
Explain why this is a problem. This is where you lose me.
----------
They have the right to do so.
it would be dumb as a post. but if they chose to go the same business route that Apple does, I think it would be their right to choose to do so.
I'd promptly leave their ecosystem and choose with my wallet to spend my money elsewhere
Exactly this.
I say: Nope.
iTunes is just the "browser"; it is a convenience Apple provides to Windows users (I think, these days, pretty much everything you can buy with the iTunes computer app you can buy with the iTunes Store app and App Store app, both directly installed on all iOS devices). The iTunes on Windows app is convenient to use but it is not what makes money.
It is the apps/ebooks/IAPs on the iOS devices that make money. Microsoft and the Windows OS have no part in that.
If you think Microsoft should get a share of purchases made through the iTunes on Windows app (because it is running on Windows), you'd probably think Microsoft should get a share of purchases made using Chrome or Firefox (as they are running on Windows, too). And... Who should pay? The creators of Chrome/Firefox/(your favorite browser) or the seller of the goods (say, Amazon)? I think neither. That's just not how it works.
Since Apple doesn't allow any competition the only offer is Apple's IAP, but without this control there could be third-parties offering payment-management services, most likely competing on prices and features. Then developers could decide to implement their own solution or opt for what they consider the best service among different competitors.
DOJ is claiming that. But I don't see Apple leading the charge in fixing book prices to 'make more money'.
- I believe it was the book publishers that wanted to increase prices. (And deal with Amazon pushing book prices down.)
The book publishers colluded to force prices up.
And the book publishers went to Apple to find a competitor for Amazon where ebooks could be sold.
- I see Apple's focus on wanting to create the App store where customers would buy products tied to iOS.
iBooks is one example of that.
And in the cited e-mails between Schiller and Jobs in the article, the only issue they discussed was trying to better tie the customer to iOS.
Money is not part of those e-mails.
I got to Amazon's website and search for a book. The only listings are for the hard copy, paperback and Kindle version. NO LINKS FOR THE NOOK OR IBOOKS VERSIONS! Man, that Amazon. It's like they're competing with Apple.
You're not using any sort of business logic at all. Of course Apple brought the customer. Here's an example for you. Say you created a fantastic piece of software to be sold on DVD. You can choose to either place it in the Microsoft retail stores or the Apple retail store's shelves. Well being that you are a good business man/woman and want to be successful you choose to put your software in the Apple retail stores due to extreme high traffic vs. almost no traffic at the Microsoft stores.
By you putting your software in the Apple stores Apple is bringing YOU the customer because otherwise your product would not sell or have very low potential to sell at the Microsoft store.
Same thing with iOS. Amazon knows Apple has mega millions of customers with iPhones and there's very high potential for Amazon to get business by creating an Amazon app because Apple is bringing them the customer.
What's wrong here is posting links inside apps that aren't Amazon products to lure the customer to buy books from Amazon vs. the iBooks store.
If you still don't understand this please Google "Business 101".
----------
You've got this a bit backwards here. The difference is iTunes being installed on someone's computer doesn't mean much. Microsoft isn't hosting iTunes, doing any POS work or advertising of iTunes for Apple. If Microsoft was going to host iTunes on their website and allow iTunes sales to happen via their website then yes, Microsoft would deserve the right to get a cut.
The model being Agency or Wholesale has nothing to do with physical books being sold with massive discounts after the initial sales. Physical books at that point tend to require massive price dumps because they are inventory and you want to get rid of them. Ebooks have no such problems, you don't need to "get rid of the unsold ebooks", so you can keep the price as high as you want, you'll have poor sales in the worst case, but no extra costs. With physical books you have to consider the extra cost of them actually being an unsold lump of dead wood taking precious space your store and warehouse into account.
Yes, you are. Kindle books are not hosted by Apple. Yet Apple wants a 30% cut of kindle book sales.
So you say that Apple wants to make sure that purchases are 'secure' and handled by them, through the simplicity of entering your Apple ID password. Fine... But then shouldn't they force ALL apps selling ANY products to use the system?
Of course they don't. And that's the main point - That forcing eBook sales to be handled though Apple and their 30% cut was a naked attempt at preventing competition against iBooks.
This is not always the case, it could very well be the software which brings the customer to Apple. In my case the presence of the Kindle App is a requirement to even start considering a device. Apple without the Kindle App to me would mean Apple with an iPhone sale less and an iPad sale less, lost to whatever devices happens to offer me what I require. It would have maybe less battery life or an inferior design, but without the app I need even a wonderful design is secondary.
Apple doesn't allow any alternative, excluding HTML5 which is in a different ballpark. Microsoft actually requiring Windows desktop applications to be installed only through their own store and forcing every in-app sale to go through their payment processing service, 30% cut included would be irrealistic... but interesting.
But the point is, if you used iBooks, you wouldn't need to go to Apple.com to buy the book, you could do so right within the App.
I can honestly say that I think the DOJ has is right on this one. There is NO reason that apps shouldn't be able to have links to their own stores, with their own payment systems. In this instance, Apple is not hosting anything, they are not promoting anything, why should they get a cut? Yes, they should get a cut of the original App, seems only fair, since they hosted and possibly promoted it, but not necessarily all of the content as well.
I agree.
I also think that to ensure fair competition, all of these walled gardens should be cracked open: Consumers should be able to purchase stuff like ebooks from wherever they chose. It will provide more options, better prices and not turn us into "pirates" every time we buy a new ereader or a tablet.
I disagree. Forcing everything to be open is wrong. Should Disney be forced to sell Bugs Bunny merchandise inside Disneyland? No. It's their own private place to do business as they please, same as Apple's iOS. You can choose to not go to Disneyland, and go to Universal Studios instead, just like you can not choose iOS and choose Android instead.
There's a flaw to this logic though, Apple is not preventing the sale of books through this model. Heck, one could argue that Apple does allow amazon to sell their ebooks through the device's browser.
Here's the rub, Apple is tying digital distribution to their ecosystem. If the ecosystem is broken, then who's to stop Amazon from distributing and selling their apps on iDevices, and who's to stop Microsoft from selling games on PSN.
Last edited:
So you would say this even if it were Microsoft.
Okay, as long as we're being even. I can't fault you for being honest.
Or they actually think Apple is wrong.
Nah, that couldn't be it.
They have the right to do so.
it would be dumb as a post. but if they chose to go the same business route that Apple does, I think it would be their right to choose to do so.
I'd promptly leave their ecosystem and choose with my wallet to spend my money elsewhere
Now we have two people who I am starting to respect more and more.
No, iTunes is no more a browser than the Kindle app. What is good for one is good for the other.
And iTunes isn't hosting Kindle books. So we are leveraging one app vs another. Why is it alright for Apple to get 30% of sales within an app and not Microsoft? Why not just admit your reasoning is that one is Apple?
Except that Apple does provide ALL devs with a reliable and stable platform to distribute their apps. Hence why Apple controls their platform's ecosystem.
A fair comparison would be asking why MS won't let devs use their own servers on Xbone and MS letting Sony sell and distribute their games on MS's platform.
It doesnt matter if it is physical space or digital space. Since Apple is a closed system, forcing them to open up is too much for my taste. They've controlled their services, software and hardware to make it a closed loop. You as a customer have choices in other devices. Use your choice and stop using the govt to try and force a company to do something. Buy other products. You aren't forced to buy Apple products. It isn't essential to have Apple toys. But if you decide to dabble in the Apple ecosystem, be prepared to play by their rules. And I feel the same applies to all companies. This isn't directed towards anyone. Just my opinion.
Why do you so quickly assume that if someone sides with Apple on this issue that they would not side with Microsoft if it was the same scenario?
Anyone else starting to feel like this is retaliation for Apple not playing ball on NSA stuff?
Last edited:
Because that is how a lot of people are. They have a favorite team and they root for them. Notice how many people responded to my question of iTunes on Windows with various excuses about how it is completely different.
----------
You really believe Apple isn't playing ball with the NSA?
For the same reason they refuse to compete solely in the market place against Samsung. Instead they seek to restrict Samsung by getting products banned, waging a public war via their various shills cultivated over the years, and in many ways carry out the thermonuclear intent declared by the late Steve Jobs. The internal culture of Apple can be quite acerbic.
Quite a few people, myself included, said that if it was the same situation for Microsoft then they should be treated the same. The law is the law. Too often the law gets skewed, however, not in favor of the big bad conglomerate.