I have to say, I think a lot of this case is just digging dirt. I do, however, think that the in app purchase rules that keep Amazon and other companies from at least linking to their stores outside of Apple has always been silly. I don't think that rule helps much of anything, and makes the buying experience on iOS more difficult for us. I would like to see that changed.
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
Of course you can sell your software without the DOJ coming after you if you didn't break the law. Are you saying no law was broken?
edit: That was just the punishment for Apple. Some people are punished a lot worse and actually go to jail. You know, having to give up your right to liberty.
Last edited:
The problem is that if anything goes wrong Apple could be on the hook and that just invites lawsuits. If Apple controls the buying experience then they have less to worry about as it relates to their store.
----------
I never used in app purchasing with Amazon. Amazon didn't implement it. I have always gone to their site just like I do now if i want a book of theirs.
Last edited:
I think "30% In-App Purchase fee" is license fee, apply for all Apps that distributed in Apple platform.
30% that books publisher paid to Apple iBookStore is commission fee.
If iBookStore was third party app, they need to paid "30% In-App Purchase fee" to Apple too.
But iBookStore was Apple app so there are internal paid with internal policy in Apple. So iBookStore have this advantage to all App that try to do same thing in Apple platform.
30% that books publisher paid to Apple iBookStore is commission fee.
If iBookStore was third party app, they need to paid "30% In-App Purchase fee" to Apple too.
But iBookStore was Apple app so there are internal paid with internal policy in Apple. So iBookStore have this advantage to all App that try to do same thing in Apple platform.
You mean to tell me this is what the DOJ is up to right now? Holy ****, William Holder at his best again? This is what my tax dollars are paying for, The DOJ slapping a company that employs thousands of American workers with this chicken **** accusation!!!
Everyone wants a peice of Apple, to bad it's even the very government agency that should be going after the people that have wronged America etc.
**** the DOJ & WIlliam Holder the Hypocrite!!!
Imp A
Everyone wants a peice of Apple, to bad it's even the very government agency that should be going after the people that have wronged America etc.
**** the DOJ & WIlliam Holder the Hypocrite!!!
Imp A
Actually no. Amazon isn't a loss leader in ebook market. THis whole trial actually proved it. Their ebook business has been making a profit. They were only selling some books at loss, which brought more customers into Kindle store and those people are buying enough non-loss books to make the whole division profitable.
Anyway, Apple is really really silly and they will be slapped hard. They lost the trial and they don't seem to be able to accept this and it's done in typical Apple bullish style. All they're doing is pissing off people who can make their punishment more severe. And they have proven they definitely do need outside monitor for whatever the punishment will be.
You want to sell something using Amazon's ecosystem (i.e. Amazon Marketplace), Amazon gets a cut.
You want to sell something on Apple's ecosystem (i.e. iOS), Apple gets a cut.
It really is that simple.
Would you really expect to be able to walk into a mall and set up shop for free?
How are you going to sell anything in Amazon's store without conforming to their infrastructure? Without giving Amazon their cut?
Do you even know what a loss leader is?
Last edited:
But those apps are not for content destined for the iOS device, are they? Can you buy mp3s in the Amazon app and have them appear on your iOS device? I don't know I have no iOS devices, no Android devices either.
If you're bidding on ebay or buying physical items rather than digital content why would Apple take a cut? the ebooks are digital content, why is DOJ saying they should be treated like a physical book? that right there is the BS. the agency model created a competitive marketplace for ebook readers where only Kindle had been the game. Suddenly Nook got 20% and then iPad was getting marketshare and thus Amazon had to kill it. They went to the DOJ and whined; the result is this ridiculous case.
The emails are not at all on point. The DOJ is grasping at straws to make their err Amazon's case. Apple is looking at how to response to an advertising message that makes consumers see Apple's product as interchangeable and Steve wanted to spin this to show where Apple's got an advantage in user experience.
Yes and Amazon isn't one in ebook market. Unless you want to argue a single book is a market on it's own, because that's the only way they can be considered a loss leader - on a single book's market.
It is that simple for companies who didn't break the antitrust laws. Apple isn't such company anymore.
Those DOJ measures are punishment, you do get that? Right?
None of that has anything to do with my post. Read what I responded to.
I am staying out of this ridiculous argument. People on both sides in this thread appear to be frothing at the mouth. Very unsanitary.
Apple distributes ebooks. Amazon distributes ebooks. Apple distributes apps. Amazon distributes apps.
Though MS 'chose' not to sell at the Amazon App Store, they still wouldn't be able to distribute third-party games at all.
A good example would be Sony's PS Mobile store. They sell games on certain Android devices, yet you can't get those games on the Kindle Fire.
All I'm saying is, if we're saying that it's unlawful to prevent companies to distribute digital content on platforms that have closed environments, then we should penalize all of them, including Amazon and Google.
It has everything to do with that. Let's be clear here. What the DoJ is saying is that Apple should allow other distribution Chanel's to sell digital contnt throught their platform. Yet, last time I checked, pretty much everyone else in the industry prevent their competitors from distributing content on their platforms, including Amazon.
What if we reverse things though. Why can't Apple sell their ebooks through the Amazon app store. I'm sure folks would say that Apple wouldn't do that, and I agree. Here's the thing though, even if Apple wanted to, Amazon wouldn't allow them to.
Apple has to worry exactly because it decided to control the experience. Take Windows Desktop as counter-example. Microsoft doesn't control third-party applications and a lawsuit about something going wrong in them would be ridiculous. Apple decided to control the experience, which allegedly makes the App Store's quality higher, but it comes with Apple being responsible (or at least considered to be responsible, how much it actually is responsible is another matter).
You're right, thatnk you. I was about to make a donation to AAPL and send them all my money. It seems most people here feel like doing that too.
He's using the wrong term, confusing loss leader with predatory pricing. The idea is: Amazon sells some books as loss leaders, but is overall profitable in the ebooks market so it's unlikely it's engaged in predatory pricing, which would be against the law.
Apple's platform is used to install the app itself, not to implement the hypothetical store inside of the Kindle App, which would be designed, implemented and managed by Amazon and use Amazon's payment processing, making it part of Amazon's platform.
Apple would not be interested in selling ebooks through Amazon either, it would sell ebooks directly without Amazon's involvment using Apple's own infrastructure for everything, including payment processing. This is possible on a Kindle Fire because Amazon allows third-party apps. Apple could provide an iBooks app outside of the Amazon Store able to do whatever Apple wants.
Amazing how do you still don't understand the difference between IAP and a market place.
I give up
----------
Google Voice say hello
So what's the problem here? I prefer being 'forced' to use their payment system, and I like being in that controlled ecosystem. So I, the consumer have less to worry about. Let Apple handle all the troubles.
People who like more 'freedom' (like many overly tech-and-business-savvy bashers in this forum) have other platforms/ecosystems in the market they can choose from.
Microsoft can sell their games on Amazon Appstore like they sell them on Google Play.
And Amazon has their apps on Google Play
----------
No, no just like iOS, app on OS X can be installed (by now because Apple is restricting what they can do) outside the Mac App Store.
You're missing the point, I was answering to the claim that Apple would be responsible of third-parties handling IAP in the hypotetical scenario where Apple actually allows such a thing. Such a third-party service would be clearly outside of Apple's controlled experience, with Apple being considered responsible for their curated experience only.
This doesn't mean Apple needs to allow this freedom, it simply means that "increased liability" is not an argument against that, the other platforms/ecosystems which you mention are a practical demonstration of that. Amazon is considered responsible for what comes out of their curated app store, but surely not for what is installed from third-party sources.
I disagree with you. But thinking physical retail, I would compare it more with a store within a store concept. And in those cases, the host provides the merchant payment solution. Sephora in a JC Penny, Apple in Best Buy. Merchants always have to go through the host within those concepts. And Apple is the host with iOS.
That's nonsense. When you login to amazon.com on your Mac and order something, does Apple take a cut? It's the exact same situation.
They would have denied Amazon Kindle based on what legal basis, though? Don't act like they're doing this as a kindness.
This started off as a collusion case, and continued with the 30% for IAP. The problem you're stating is a whole different issue. But I suppose one of the biggest problem with iBook on other platforms is actually Apple. That would be like asking why there is no iMessage or FaceTime on anything else.
This is less of an issue of why a product can't be and how you treat a competing product when it actually is, as the ToS are laid out plain that Apple really would have to think of a reason to deny the app. Also, remember, a lot of people are using their iPhone to read books. So there is a vested interest for them to have Kindle on there even if they didn't get 30%.
The nerve of Apple! Trying to competively respond to a commercial that is a targeted competitive response itself.
Perhaps you should look up what competitive actually means, if anything Apple's move is anti-competitive: "Ha! They're trying to say they're better than us- let's hike up their costs!.."
Conversely, a competitive "response" would be: "Ha! They're trying to say they're better than us- let's make our products cross platform and try to sell the stuff cheaper!.."
Last edited: