DoJ Claims Apple Implemented In-App Purchase Rules to 'Retaliate Against Amazon'

[etrinh]

You should read his full paragraph. He even quoted the DOJ. Your point doesn't make any sense with regards to his statement. His statement was that the DOJ claims Apple was harming the consumer by not allowing customers to do price comparison.

I didn't knew that Apple has released a iBook app for the Kindle or the Nook.

By the way, you can buy books from B&N using the Nook app in the Kindle Fire and you can buy books on the Nook using the Kindle app.

 

[Michael Goff]

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.

After reading a thousand and one responses, I sometimes forget who the sensible people are.

 

[iSRS]

Better yet, it's like Home Depot allowing a vendor to set up shop in one of their stores to sell a product. Can Home Depot allow them to do that for free? They could. Are they out of line asking for a cut of all sales made inside their store? Of course not. The DOJ is dead wrong on this.

Apple has every right to ask for a cut, and determine how their non-monopoly walled garden works.

You, the consumer, can tell Apple to take a flying jump if you want to, but that's YOU, the consumer's, choice.

Better yet, is like a mall having an IKEA catalog and the mall trying to get a cut when I order from that catalog.

REally, do you people know what the IAP is and where the ebooks are stored? Apple doesn't have the ebooks, Apple doesn't distribute the ebooks so the Home Depot allowing a vendor to set up a shop is a deadly wrong analogy.

I am pretty sure malls do charge rent.

 

[etrinh]

You are amazing. Why don't dev's make only html5 apps? Then they bypass iOS AppStore rules and you have an app that Apple doesn't get a cut of the revenue. You can enter your credit card info into each time you want to purchase something. Problem solved.

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.

 

[giantfan1224]

After reading a thousand and one responses, I sometimes forget who the sensible people are.

I've read every comment as well and it seems to be a redundant theme of yours, assuming an "Apple Good, Microsoft Bad" sentiment held by anyone defending Apple.

 

[Judas1]

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.

I'm talking about Google, Amazon, etc that are well established. What traffic are you talking about that Apple gave them? Most people don't see their app in the app store. They get their device, knew about the service in the first place, searched for the app, then install it. Apple provided no promotion, no traffic. Get it? Their customer was their customer from the get go before and after Apple.
edit: Its these companies that provided traffic to Apple's gadgets. Imagine if they did not have any of the apps for these companies. Do you think iOS devices would sell as much?

 

[Trius]

So you would say this even if it were Microsoft.

Absolutely. The company makes no difference. I'm not defending Apple here, I'm defending the free market.

 

[Judas1]

Absolutely. The company makes no difference. I'm not defending Apple here, I'm defending the free market.

I don't know if you know this, but the free market is not perfect, and would implode on itself if there is no regulation at all. So is this what you want? Or do for some reason think the free market is a panacea for everything?

 

[Michael Goff]

I've read every comment as well and it seems to be a redundant theme of yours, assuming an "Apple Good, Microsoft Bad" sentiment held by anyone defending Apple.

I apologize for assuming.

Absolutely. The company makes no difference. I'm not defending Apple here, I'm defending the free market.

I can respect that.

 

[blucurv]

I don't know if you know this, but the free market is not perfect, and would implode on itself if there is no regulation at all. So is this what you want? Or do for some reason think the free market is a panacea for everything?

I hate the term Free Market. It's too generic and it's used too loosely. Having said that though, it seems silly to impose such harsh regulations to one company in particular without punishing others with the same practice.

Heck, Amazon itself has such a tight-lid ecosystem. Why can't MS sell their mobile games through the Amazon app store? Or why does Google restrict Amazon from selling their apps through Google Play?

 

[Michael Goff]

I hate the term Free Market. It's too generic and it's used too loosely. Having said that though, it seems silly to impose such harsh regulations to one company in particular without punishing others with the same practice.

Heck, Amazon itself has such a tight-lid ecosystem. Why can't MS sell their mobile games through the Amazon app store? Or why does Google restrict Amazon from selling their apps through Google Play?

That would be an excellent idea, but the idea of selling others isn't what this particular spat is about.

 

[SaxSmith]

Is 30% not a license fee to made money on write and distribute App in Apple platform?

 

[Judas1]

I hate the term Free Market. It's too generic and it's used too loosely. Having said that though, it seems silly to impose such harsh regulations to one company in particular without punishing others with the same practice.

Heck, Amazon itself has such a tight-lid ecosystem. Why can't MS sell their mobile games through the Amazon app store? Or why does Google restrict Amazon from selling their apps through Google Play?

I think you believe there are restrictions when there is not. Microsoft chooses not to support the Amazon store. And Amazon is not an app developer. Their one app, the kindle, is on Android.

 

[HenryDJP]

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?

Admit? I think you need to admit that you lack business understanding. Please don't take that as an insult, I'm a business owner and I can tell when someone lacks business understanding. Why would Microsoft deserve to get a cut of iTunes sales simply because iTunes gets installed on Windows machines. You do realize that installing iTunes is completely the decision of the customer and not a requirement, right? Anyone can buy an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch, iTunes comes built-in and consumers can buy software and music right from the iTunes store without any intervention of the iTunes Desktop software.

Installing iTunes on a Windows machine and the customer purchasing software and music from it does not in any way constitute a sales split between Apple and Microsoft. That makes zero sense. When I download free Mac software that also has a paid version with enhanced features, Apple doesn't get a piece of that pie when I click "Upgrade" to purchase the enhanced version.

Apple commands the 30% because their iOS platform is not only hosting the Developer's app but they are also advertising it for them and selling it by way of POS. They are also emailing the customer their receipt for purchase. Is Microsoft doing any of that when you install iTunes on a Windows PC? Come on man.

 

[Michael Goff]

Admit? I think you need to admit that you lack business understanding. Please don't take that as an insult, I'm a business owner and I can tell when someone lacks business understanding. Why would Microsoft deserve to get a cut of iTunes sales simply because iTunes gets installed on Windows machines. You do realize that installing iTunes is completely the decision of the customer and not a requirement, right? Anyone can buy an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch, iTunes comes built-in and consumers can buy software and music right from the iTunes store without any intervention of the iTunes Desktop software.

Installing iTunes on a Windows machine and the customer purchasing software and music from it does not in any way constitute a sales split between Apple and Microsoft. That makes zero sense. When I download free Mac software that also has a paid version with enhanced features, Apple doesn't get a piece of that pie when I click "Upgrade" to purchase the enhanced version.

Apple commands the 30% because their iOS platform is not only hosting the Developer's app but they are also advertising it for them and selling it by way of POS. They are also emailing the customer their receipt for purchase. Is Microsoft doing any of that when you install iTunes on a Windows PC? Come on man.

I think you're misunderstanding my problem. 30% of the app price is understandable because they're hosting the application. It is IAP that I am arguing against them having a cut in, especially that high of a cut.

 

[HenryDJP]

I'm talking about Google, Amazon, etc that are well established. What traffic are you talking about that Apple gave them? Most people don't see their app in the app store. They get their device, knew about the service in the first place, searched for the app, then install it. Apple provided no promotion, no traffic. Get it? Their customer was their customer from the get go before and after Apple.
edit: Its these companies that provided traffic to Apple's gadgets. Imagine if they did not have any of the apps for these companies. Do you think iOS devices would sell as much?

I think it's you that doesn't "Get It".

 

[Judas1]

I think it's you that doesn't "Get It".

So what traffic did Apple provide then? Give me data on the number of people that sign up for Netflix just because of iOS. Give me data on the number of people that began using Amazon only because they saw an Amazon app on iOS.

 

[HenryDJP]

I think you're misunderstanding my problem. 30% of the app price is understandable because they're hosting the application. It is IAP that I am arguing against them having a cut in, especially that high of a cut.

Okay, it still has nothing to do with iTunes in terms of what you're saying Microsoft deserves, but I'll address your post in terms of IAP.

Someone said it earlier already and it's not the first time it's been said on MacRumors. Developers would try and scheme their way into making money while bypassing Apple's 30% cut. All the Developer has to do is create a free app for their customers to download and include IAP's throughout the app. Many games do this crap already. Entices the customer to download the free game only to find out there's a bunch of "gotchas" in it. Well if Apple didn't take the 30% cut of the IAP then every Developer could get away with bypassing it by offering only free apps with IAP's. I'm not here trying to advocate for Apple, I'm trying to explain good old fashioned Business.

Try and put yourself in the shoes of Big Brother (Apple). You own and create a popular platform that Developers want to get in on so they can become rich or make a great living offering their software on. They understand that you must take a 30% cut since you're doing all the work, hosting, advertising and selling their software.
The Developer feels the need to take it all and not split any of it with you and finds a hole in your system which can bypass you getting your 30% cut. Are you telling me that you'd be okay with this as the owner of the platform? Would you just say, "My Bad, you found a way to get over on me, oh well, my loss"?
I doubt this.

 

[Michael Goff]

Okay, it still has nothing to do with iTunes in terms of what you're saying Microsoft deserves, but I'll address your post in terms of IAP.

Someone said it earlier already and it's not the first time it's been said on MacRumors. Developers would try and scheme their way into making money while bypassing Apple's 30% cut. All the Developer has to do is create a free app for their customers to download and include IAP's throughout the app. Many games do this crap already. Entices the customer to download the free game only to find out there's a bunch of "gotchas" in it. Well if Apple didn't take the 30% cut of the IAP then every Developer could get away with bypassing it by offering only free apps with IAP's. I'm not here trying to advocate for Apple, I'm trying to explain good old fashioned Business.

Try and put yourself in the shoes of Big Brother (Apple). You own and create a popular platform that Developers want to get in on so they can become rich or make a great living offering their software on. They understand that you must take a 30% cut since you're doing all the work, hosting, advertising and selling their software.
The Developer feels the need to take it all and not split any of it with you and finds a hole in your system which can bypass you getting your 30% cut. Are you telling me that you'd be okay with this as the owner of the platform? Would you just say, "My Bad, you found a way to get over on me, oh well, my loss"?
I doubt this.

At this point, they could get around giving Apple money by using the browser for their purchases. I really don't buy the argument that Apple would suddenly lose all app store revenue if they didn't try to get 30% on Kindle store purchases.

 

[Trius]

I don't know if you know this, but the free market is not perfect, and would implode on itself if there is no regulation at all. So is this what you want? Or do for some reason think the free market is a panacea for everything?

I didn't say there needs to be no regulation. I'm saying if I want to make some software and sell it, I don't want the DOJ saying that I am required to allow my competitors to redirect my customers to their store. I'm really struggling to understand why so many disagree...

 

[HenryDJP]

At this point, they could get around giving Apple money by using the browser for their purchases. I really don't buy the argument that Apple would suddenly lose all app store revenue if they didn't try to get 30% on Kindle store purchases.

You don't have to buy the argument, it's already a reality. Just look at your own posts. You're arguing against Apple getting a cut on the IAP's. You're living proof that some people have a problem with Apple taking a cut on IAP's. Multiply your thinking with the many other people who jailbreak their phones with intent to pirate and the rest who download torrents with intent to never pay for software they are downloading. Thank you for proving my point.

I do have one question for you though, why do you care so much what Apple gets? Are you a Developer? Because if you are a Developer then you would understand the entire reasoning from a business standpoint. As a consumer it really shouldn't matter to you. It doesn't affect consumers. It's all behind the scenes business.

At least I can tell you, I hate Microsoft. I've used Skype for too many years and since I use it for business I pay an annual subscription. Now that MS owns Skype my annual subscription goes in their pockets and this pisses me off.

So my question once again, why do you care if Apple gets a cut of the IAP? Do you hate them or something?

 

[Aidyn's X]

Sometimes when I read all the replies that people post, I wonder if Apple is paying them. I know that this site is called MacRumors but wow, some people here are just shills. Things like "people take advantage of Apple" sound so silly. It's like y'all prefer to be abused by Apple. You actually like being abused by Apple. You are content that there's no competition. You're happy that you can only use Apple's apps on your iOS device if you want a good experience, and you're not at all bothered that Apple can charge whatever they want for a digital product that somebody else is offering for a cheaper price. You are happy that Apple is blocking another company from offering you the same digital product for a cheaper price by trying to make the buying experience faster for you. Wow, just wow. How ignorant of some people here. I find it great that Amazon tries to let me buy cheaper books directly from their app. Once I'm running Amazon's app, data is being pulled from Amazon's servers, Amazon is dealing with processing the payments and Amazon is delivering the content. Not once Apple needs to foot the bill for storage or delivery, so NO they do not deserve a 30% cut from the sale of the book. If Amazon was charging for the app, then Apple should be allowed to take a 30% cut because they are hosting, distributing and verifying the app for malware, etc. But the app is free. The sale of goods from within the app is not being handled by Apple, so they have no right whatsoever to get any cut. Stop acting like Apple is 100% correct in everything they do, because they're not. It's great to have competition, I for one don't feel comfortable that a business wants to set prices to whatever they like by blocking others from using their own infrastructure to sell content.

I loved everything about this argument except for the last part about setting prices. Again, the model Apple implemented allows publishers (big and small) to determine their own prices. Apple just wants 30% of that price.

The weird thing is that nobody is up in arms about the fact that apps in the Mac AppStore can not be priced any higher than on the website for the actual company who created the App. (And those who are have the option of not putting their apps on the AppStore... Just like on iOS)

 

[Michael Goff]

You don't have to buy the argument, it's already a reality. Just look at your own posts. You're arguing against Apple getting a cut on the IAP's. You're living proof that some people have a problem with Apple taking a cut on IAP's. Multiply your thinking with the many other people who jailbreak their phones with intent to pirate and the rest who download torrents with intent to never pay for software they are downloading. Thank you for proving my point.

I do have one question for you though, why do you care so much what Apple gets? Are you a Developer? Because if you are a Developer then you would understand the entire reasoning from a business standpoint. As a consumer it really shouldn't matter to you. It doesn't affect consumers. It's all behind the scenes business.

At least I can tell you, I hate Microsoft. I've used Skype for too many years and since I use it for business I pay an annual subscription. Now that MS owns Skype my annual subscription goes in their pockets and this pisses me off.

So my question once again, why do you care if Apple gets a cut of the IAP? Do you hate them or something?

I don't hate Apple. I don't have to hate on or the other to think it's unfair. I would think it's unfair if it was Microsoft, Google, Red Hat. The fact that I don't think they deserve money from IAP doesn't then equate to "if they don't charge for IAP, everybody's moving to free to play with IAP". There is no proof.

I haven't proven any point beyond the fact that I don't think they deserve money from IAP.

 

[Aidyn's X]

...

How does your post even make sense? If you're selling lemonade within the store... you're using their space. It's like you're willingly ignoring my point just so you can continue rambling about how Apple is right to try to get 30% on something they have nothing to do with.

If you went inside Wal-Mart and sold something? They'd be hosting your content within their store, it makes sense. Apple is not hosting IAP.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Kindle App is only in the AppStore to begin with because Apple allows it to be. They could easily reject the App and this whole punishment of "allowing links in an App that Apple has the right to refuse in the fist place" would be moot.

----------

Amazon also FORCES it's payment system on you when you use Amazon.com. Amazon does NOT store, deliver or distribute all it's goods - there are thousands of merchants of Amazon who use Amazon as their 'storefront'. They handle the storing and shipping themselves! Why aren't you taken to the individual's payment system in those cases? Amazon charges all those merchants usually between 15% and 25% plus fees!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=1161240

Great point. I sell on Amazon. They take a percentage of my money because people look on Amazon for my product even though they are not physically hosting my product or shipping it.

----------

What Apple is doing is like piracy. It's like downloading music and not paying for it. Apple is charging 30% for nothing. Apple is doing NOTHING to warrant this charge. Everything inside the application is being handled by Amazon. Consumers purchase from Apple because Apple bundles everything in the system AND prevent others from competing. All those grandmas and papas facetime'ing in the ads, do you think they have the knowledge that there are alternatives? They are sold something "easy to use", "have everything you need", and on top of it Apple does this uncompetitive behaviour of blocking others from offering stuff, so it's obvious that consumers buy it, because they are led to believe that that's the only option they have. Whatever, keep making excuses for Apple, you're the only one who stands to lose, thankfully I am well-informed and responsible with my money, I don't accept a company forcing me to use their app to buy an overpriced digital asset that I can find cheaper somewhere else.

Then Amazon is well within its rights to not have an iOS App and make everything web-based and go through Safari. Why can't people see the alternative? If you don't like the rules of a system, don't join it.

 

[nylonsteel]

re: original article
the usa government needs to spend more efforts in more important matters such as decreasing unemployment and cures for cancer, etc.