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

[Judas1]

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.

Developers choosing not to develope for certain platforms is totally different from the platform banning the developers or restricting the developers. You're trying to create a false equivalence. Apple has a very restrictive appstore. Others do not have such a restrictive appstore. The kindle app for android can buy books directly from amazon. The nook app can buy books from B&N.
The Amazon appstore is less popular and less developers support it. So, from your example, they don't have some of the Sony mobile games thats on Android. It has nothing to do with the restrictiveness of Amazon.

 

[carlgo]

Here's the thing: Amazon is given all this praise, but ....-- never exposed the miserable pay and conditions in Amazon's warehouses?

Well, they are in the US and others have praised the pay and benefits available to people who need jobs and aren't lucky sperm or highly educated.

They seem to compare favorably with jobs at other places like WallofChinaMart.

 

[iChrist]

Shame on u Steve!

Steve's email barely made sense. It's a child-like knee jerk reaction b/c he feels someone hurt his feelings by saying you can also read a book on Android.

The more I learn about Steve, the more the mystique begins to fade.

 

[Oletros]

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.

Nothing prevents Microsoft or Sony from distributing their apps in the Amazon Appstore.

 

[69650]

They would have to remove all in-app purchases.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. In many cases In-App purchases are simply a way of hiding the true cost of an App. Apple could simply sell books and magazines direct using iBooks and Newsstand. The real price of games and apps would be transparent and many parents wouldn't get stung like they do now.

----------

If you need to ban competitors it means your own offer is inferior, otherwise you would compete on merit.

In my opinion Apple offers the best hardware device with the best software, but in many cases the best software comes from third-parties, not from Apple itself. Take Google Maps vs Apple Maps: in my country there is no question that Google Maps is a far superior choice. Apple banning it would mean may customers would start to look for alternative devices.

I have hundreds of ebooks in my Amazon account and I read them on non-Apple devices too. The moment Apple decides to ban the Kindle App is the moment I will actually consider buying a non-iOS smarphone and tablet.

If you use the Kindle App to buy eBooks then read them on non-Apple devices like the Kindle how is that benefiting Apple? Once consumers realise they don't need an iPad they will start shifting to cheaper tablets. It's in the email from Phil Schiller. The iTunes Store is the main reason many people buy an iPhone or iPad.

 

[giantfan1224]

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.

It's an app on iOS, hence the platform. Why is that so hard to understand? So much different than logging onto a website through a browser.

 

[macUser2007]

...
If you use the Kindle App to buy eBooks then read them on non-Apple devices like the Kindle how is that benefiting Apple? Once consumers realise they don't need an iPad they will start shifting to cheaper tablets. It's in the email from Phil Schiller. The iTunes Store is the main reason many people buy an iPhone or iPad.

Really?! Sounds either like BS, or someone has very little faith in the iPad.

I buy quite a lot of ebooks and never read them on my iPad: I simply have a strong preference for eInk ereaders when I read book.

I find the iPad to be the best tablet on the market, because of the combination of 4x3 screen ratio, design and fit and finish, and iOS.

But I am also an Android user (my main phone is a Lenovo K900) -- I find Android better for phones, mainly because of multitasking (which is finally coming to iOS with version 7).

iTunes is relatively low on my list and in fact, I wish that my Apple TVs did not need it running on a computer in order to access my NAS library.

It's amazing how many (generally lame and at times bizarre) excuses there are in this thread for Apple's actions in the ebook market, which hurt all of us as consumers and destroyed price-competition among sellers.

 

[bobenhaus]

Steve's email barely made sense. It's a child-like knee jerk reaction b/c he feels someone hurt his feelings by saying you can also read a book on Android.

The more I learn about Steve, the more the mystique begins to fade.

Just another greedy company trying to snuff out competition for more profit and control. All these companies are the same nothing different. I don't know why people think Steve Jobs was an angel when clearing he was not and was just a typical CEO at a helm of a company. Its ok to use their products but don't put them on a pedestal and think they are above the law. I thinks its time for all these companies to get caught and start being a real company instead of this mob type mentality

 

[Oletros]

It's an app on iOS, hence the platform. Why is that so hard to understand? So much different than logging onto a website through a browser.

It is an app on Windows, hence the platform. Why is that so hard to understand? So much different than logging onto a website through a web browser.

And not so much different, to log in the site (that it is an app) you have to use a web browser, that it is an iOS app, so you're still using the platform.

Really, why it is so hard to understand?

 

[giantfan1224]

It is an app on Windows, hence the platform. Why is that so hard to understand? So much different than logging onto a website through a web browser.

And not so much different, to log in the site (that it is an app) you have to use a web browser, that it is an iOS app, so you're still using the platform.

Really, why it is so hard to understand?

You may believe it doesn't warrant Apple getting a cut but it's certainly their right to take a cut if they wish since it's an app on iOS. And really, what is it that you think I don't understand?

 

[Oletros]

You may believe it doesn't warrant Apple getting a cut but it's certainly their right to take a cut if they wish since it's an app on iOS. And really, what is it that you think I don't understand?

So, if Apple wants a cut from every purchase in the ebay app or in an airline app you'll agree.

Because it is an app on iOS, isn't?

So, you agree that Microsoft has every right to get a cut for every purchase made on iTunes, isn't?

What you and a lot don't understand is that the doesn't give a heck if it is an app or a web app, the content is not on Apple/Google servers, the content is not distributed by Apple/Google, the content is not marketed by Apple/Google. There is no difference between purchasing an item from a web browser and purchasing it from an app, the process is exactly the same, and Apple has been involved exactly the same, nothing.

 

[giantfan1224]

So, if Apple wants a cut from every purchase in the ebay app or in an airline app you'll agree.

Because it is an app on iOS, isn't?

So, you agree that Microsoft has every right to get a cut for every purchase made on iTunes, isn't?

What you and a lot don't understand is that the doesn't give a heck if it is an app or a web app, the content is not on Apple/Google servers, the content is not distributed by Apple/Google, the content is not marketed by Apple/Google. There is no difference between purchasing an item from a web browser and purchasing it from an app, the process is exactly the same, and Apple has been involved exactly the same, nothing.

My gosh why do you keep harping over the same old stupid argument? Over and over. This has been responded to over and over by me and others on this forum. Get over it already. Just because you or anyone else thinks it's unreasonable does not make it illegal.

 

[Oletros]

My gosh why do you keep harping over the same old stupid argument? Over and over. This has been responded to over and over by my and others on this topic. Get over it already. Just because you or anyone else thinks it's unreasonable does not make it illegal.

Old stupid argument? Yap, because you and others don't want to understand. And it is clear that you don't want to understand since your put some legal or illegal argument when nobody has talked about being illegal.

Stupid argument the one saying that it is iOS platform

 

[blucurv]

Microsoft can sell their games on Amazon Appstore like they sell them on Google Play.

And Amazon has their apps on Google Play

What I'm referring to is distribution platforms in the form of apps not the apps themselves. Amazon doesn't publish the ebooks, they distribute them. It's not their product, it's the publisher's product.

MS can sell their games, but they can't sell a game from an app that contains the apps which relates only to MS.

A better example is Sony and their PS Mobile store. They sell other people's games on the Android platform through their app and Google is okay with that. However, Amazon isn't because it would compete with their App Store and therefore would never consider supporting PS Mobile.

 

[giantfan1224]

Old stupid argument? Yap, because you and others don't want to understand. And it is clear that you don't want to understand since your put some legal or illegal argument when nobody has talked about being illegal.

Stupid argument the one saying that it is iOS platform

So it's not an iOS App?

 

[blucurv]

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.

Let's be clear here, the DoJ's argument is that there's no difference between selling ebooks in the kindle app than selling physical books in the Amazon app.

The thing is, there's a huge difference and that's what's really bugging me. Amazon will never allow third-party companies to sell their digital content on their Kindle Fire tablets, they really want to control the experience, hence why the modified and restricted the heck out of Android.

What I'm saying is, let's be fair here, if the DoJ, thinks that what Apple did is unlawful, then why does it continue to allow the rest of the industry to have such practices, including Amazon?

 

[Oletros]

What I'm referring to is distribution platforms in the form of apps not the apps themselves. Amazon doesn't publish the ebooks, they distribute them. It's not their product, it's the publisher's product.

MS can sell their games, but they can't sell a game from an app that contains the apps which relates only to MS.

A better example is Sony and their PS Mobile store. They sell other people's games on the Android platform through their app and Google is okay with that. However, Amazon isn't because it would compete with their App Store and therefore would never consider supporting PS Mobile.

Ein? The Sony app doesn't sell Android games.

And Google, like Amazon doesn't allow other Android apps stores in their store, hence why you have to sideload the Amazon Appstore app.

And this is the great difference, Google, Amazon and B&N allow sideloading apps

 

[blucurv]

Steve's email barely made sense. It's a child-like knee jerk reaction b/c he feels someone hurt his feelings by saying you can also read a book on Android.

The more I learn about Steve, the more the mystique begins to fade.

You really have no idea what the roles of CEOs are, do you? Their main responsibility is to strategize and to figure out how they can make the best impact in the industry. All Steve Jobs did was make a strategic suggestion to someone which may be a potential partner that raised the concern of being able to read Kindle books on iOS.

This is common back-and-forth in the industry.

----------

Ein? The Sony app doesn't sell Android games.

And Google, like Amazon doesn't allow other Android apps stores in their store, hence why you have to sideload the Amazon Appstore app.

And this is the great difference, Google, Amazon and B&N allow sideloading apps

No, no, no. You're missing the point. The PS Mobile does sell PS Mobile certified games through their PSN store within the PS Mobile app, which you can play on Android certified games.

Google allowed, in this instance and with some restrictions, another digital content distributor to sell their own games on their platform through an app. Yet, we will never see the PS Mobile app on Amazon's Kindle Fire since they made sure to modify Android to only sell their content.

Sure you can manage around such restrictions, but the thing is, Amazon went out of their way to prevent users from doing just that which Apple is doing with iBooks.

 

[Oletros]

The thing is, there's a huge difference and that's what's really bugging me. Amazon will never allow third-party companies to sell their digital content on their Kindle Fire tablets, they really want to control the experience, hence why the modified and restricted the heck out of Android.

The problem is that this is wrong, the Amazon Appstore has the Kobo ebook app where you can buy books from Kobo.

Apart that you can sideload applications if they are not published in the Appstore

 

[pezareawesome]

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you sell something in my store, I get a piece of it. Just like physical stores. There's no difference as the size or type of sale. A sale is a sale and I get a piece. Sure you could sell your wares someplace else, but this is revenue, in my store, that you would not get if you were not in my store.

Again, why can't people understand this? I've countless post from people who don't get it. I even read tons of posts that wrongly say the opposite - that Apple should pay the app devs.

This is simple business. Apple has to make money of IAP. Imagine this. All apps go free but have IAP. Apple make NO money. So now you see why. Those IAP are sales in their store. Please try and understand.

You'd be right if you weren't so horribly wrong.

All these physical store analogies are off because physical store and digital stores are different but I'll give it a try anyways. Imagine apple is a store like walmart. The kindle app, then, is a magazine which you can buy at walmart. Because Amazon already paid already paid Apple their developer fee, they have a right to showcase their "magazine" in Apple's store. So let's say you walk in to walmart, see the magazine and decide to buy it. In that case, Apple should get a cut because they sold it to you directly and they handled the transaction.

Now let's say you get home, open up the magazine, and you find one of those stupid little coupon things for a twelve month subscription to said magazine for only 19.95 and you decide to buy it. Apple should not receive a cut for this transaction because they aren't doing anything anymore. Their part was over as soon as you walked out with your magazine. You are now dealing with the magazine people directly.

Same with Apple.

 

[blucurv]

Nothing prevents Microsoft or Sony from distributing their apps in the Amazon Appstore.

And nothing prevents Amazon from distributing their apps on the App Store either. We're not talking about the app itself here. We're talking about the restrictions bound within the app itself of whether it could sell other publisher's digital content, which is what everyone in the industry does, including Amazon.

 

[Oletros]

whether it could sell other publisher's digital content, which is what everyone in the industry does, including Amazon.

Wrong, Google and Amazon allow that.

 

[Judas1]

You may believe it doesn't warrant Apple getting a cut but it's certainly their right to take a cut if they wish since it's an app on iOS. And really, what is it that you think I don't understand?

Whats the difference between using the app and using a web browser? They are both just software inside iOS. I would argue that Apple has less rights to take a cut from within the app, since a third party created the app, not Apple. You're just agreeing to the standard that Apple has set up, because all you've known is Apple.

 

[aristotle]

The Kindle App is still in the App Store, only it's a version without the ability to purchase ebooks.

Google: Kindle Cloud Reader or go here.

You can buy books from here:
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-eBooks/

There is nothing preventing Amazon from expanding their cloud reader to have the ability to buy from within the cloud reader app itself since it is a web app.

 

[Renzatic]

Since a lot of us here are pretending to be Expert Businessmen, lets break down IAPs into a more storebased analogy.

Say there's this awesome TV out made by HighDefCo, and everyone wants one. Due to an agreement with the manufacturer, this TV can only be bought at one store. If you want this TV, you have to buy it from there.

Does this store deserve a 30% cut of the sales? Yes, they do. They're providing shelf space for the TV, and advertising it. They should get a cut.

Now lets say this is a Smart TV, and the store also hosts the server you get apps from. When you buy an app, you get it from them. The store takes a 30% cut off the top of all app sales. Are they in the right? Yes. They are. They're running a service, and advertising these apps on this TV.

So what if you want to subscribe to HBO on this TV? Does the store or manufacturer deserve a 30% cut of HBOs revenue? No, they don't. The store isn't paying for any of HBO's programming, nor are they involved in any way with getting the picture to the TV. Neither is HighDefCo. They're just the medium. Why should they get a 30% cut from HBO?

So would you say that HBO is preying on HighDefCo's customer base? No, that'd be dumb. If you had this awesome TV, but couldn't watch HBO on it, it wouldn't be quite as awesome now, would it? Doesn't matter if their TV has the best picture quality ever if you can't watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it.

...and this is why Apple shouldn't charge for in app purchases for services outside their control. Why should they get a 30% cut of Netflix's subscription fees just because you subscribed from inside the app rather than from Safari? It makes no sense.