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

[Madmic23]

What if MS wants to take a cut of every iTunes purchase on Windows?

I've been saying this for years. It doesn't make any sense for Apple to get a cut of books sold through the Kindle store.

Let's face it, if Apple allowed users to actually buy ebooks in the Amazon or Kobo app, iBooks would not exist. Why would anyone use iBooks when every other ebook store is cross platform?

 

[notabadname]

The nerve of Apple! Trying to competively respond to a commercial that is a targeted competitive response itself.

 

[JarJarThomas]

...

Their servers don't host the IAP. It doesn't take extra bandwidth.

And no, all apps wouldn't suddenly be free with IAP if it was lifted.

Their servers store transaction history. They pay credit card fees. They deliver an infrastructure. And iAp content IS stored on the servers.

Also it is a big plus for the users.
YES it is. Because you don't have to enter all your credit card informations everywhere. You know for sure that if you buy something it is from a trusted source.

Yes as a developer I would like to have no 30% cut. But truth is everywhere else I pay more, have more work to do and less security.

So as customer and as dev I want that exclusive iap system

 

[LordVic]

Thats like allowing Burger King inside McDonalds to sell Whoppers? Then punishing McDonalds for saying well ok but you have to follow these rules. lol

similar: but a little more complicated.

its like allowing BK to sell their burgers in McD's. Then telling BK that their Whopper can only be the exact same price as the Big Mac, no higher, no lower. But 30% of that sales of that Whopper has to be given to McDonalds.

AND THEN, McDonalds buying up almost all the land available so that BK couldn't easily open their own stores.
at the same time, McDonalds coming to an agreement with the Beef companies for the cheapest beef. And then the beef companies all refusing to sell beef to BK if they try negotiating a better price with them

 

[Born Again]

Seems if you purchase something to use on/within the iOS device, Apple takes a cut, but if it is something not related to an iOS device, Apple does not take a cut.

That's ridiculous

So apple should get a cut from buying my amazon goods on my iPhone ?

 

[notabadname]

I've been saying this for years. It doesn't make any sense for Apple to get a cut of books sold through the Kindle store.

Let's face it, if Apple allowed users to actually buy ebooks in the Amazon or Kobo app, iBooks would not exist. Why would anyone use iBooks when every other ebook store is cross platform?

Perhaps, if the Kindle Reader were required to have the iBook Store . . .

 

[Michael Goff]

Their servers store transaction history. They pay credit card fees. They deliver an infrastructure. And iAp content IS stored on the servers.

Also it is a big plus for the users.
YES it is. Because you don't have to enter all your credit card informations everywhere. You know for sure that if you buy something it is from a trusted source.

Yes as a developer I would like to have no 30% cut. But truth is everywhere else I pay more, have more work to do and less security.

So as customer and as dev I want that exclusive iap system

And all of this entitles them to 30% (storing credit card info definitely is expensive these days). Oh, and let's not forget that those Smurf Berries and Kindle Books are really stored on Apple servers.

Stop apologizing for them being greedy.

 

[Born Again]

similar: but a little more complicated.

its like allowing BK to sell their burgers in McD's. Then telling BK that their Whopper can only be the exact same price as the Big Mac, no higher, no lower. But 30% of that sales of that Whopper has to be given to McDonalds.

AND THEN, McDonalds buying up almost all the land available so that BK couldn't easily open their own stores.

Okay Orwell

U want apple to control all goods purchased ?

 

[Oletros]

Their servers store transaction history. They pay credit card fees. They deliver an infrastructure. And iAp content IS stored on the servers.

ebooks are not stored on Apple servers and Apple stores transaction history because they force to use their own.

By the way, IAP is stored is you want to store it, until last year Apple didn't allowed to store it on their servers

Also it is a big plus for the users.
YES it is. Because you don't have to enter all your credit card informations everywhere. You know for sure that if you buy something it is from a trusted source.

You don't have to enter credit card for Amazon/B&N, they have it already so it is not a big plus for buying ebooks through Kindle/B&N app

 

[giantfan1224]

Thats like allowing Burger King inside McDonalds to sell Whoppers? Then punishing McDonalds for saying well ok but you have to follow these rules. lol

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.

 

[Michael Goff]

The nerve of Apple! Trying to competively respond to a commercial that is a targeted competitive response itself.

Huh?

Try to make sense next time.

 

[bbeagle]

That's ridiculous

So apple should get a cut from buying my amazon goods on my iPhone ?

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.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Here's the thing: Apple is given all this praise, but without Microsoft money in the 90's, Apple would have been out of business.

What a preposterous argument. Not only does this have any context whatsoever in the discussion of iBooks and such, but it's also quite misinformed. Microsoft purchased non-voting shares. As a result, Apple agreed to drop many lawsuits against Microsoft, and Microsoft promised to develop native Microsoft applications for the Macintosh.

This meant that:

1) Apple wins because investors now have faith that Microsoft are dedicating their software to Apple's platform, which is extremely important for businesses who use Office and other MS applications
2) Microsoft wins because they don't have to worry about costly legal battles
3) Apple wins because they get a (150 million?) investment -- not exactly what 'saved' Apple considering they bought NeXT for 600+ million …

Overall, it was a win-win scenario for both companies; mutually beneficial. To claim that $150 million 'saved' Apple is ludicrous.

 

[Michael Goff]

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.

That's a bad analogy.

Books sold on the Kindle App don't take up any space on Apple's servers. Those Smurf berries that people bought do not take up any space on Apple's servers. IAP do not take up space on Apple's servers.

Home Depot, on the other hand, has a limited amount of space that your mini store would be lowering.

 

[Oletros]

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.

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.

 

[roadbloc]

Well who can blame Apple? If Amazon is trying to steal or profit from their customers then I see no reason for Apple not to take action.

That is right. Apple is the victim.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I objected to the Apple model because it allowed Apple to charge more for the books in the iBookstore. I find it offensive to pay was in essence 'cover price' for a 'book' that is never printed, never boxed up with other books, never warehoused, never shipped to another warehouse, never unboxed by human hands, shelved, inventoried, shipped again (possibly), moved from one shelf to another, re-shelved because it was found in a different area, and finally sold by a store that also has a Starbucks and a huge area to sit and read and chat with friends. My point is there is a whole lot of 'overhead' involved in the standard printed trade book that is nonexistent in the 'eBook/iBook'.

Paying 'full price' is ridiculous.

Apple has a way for sometimes competitors to charge for content delivery. Allowing others to allow purchases through the iTunes payment system is a win for everyone, except for the high margin Apple requires. They could make more money if they allowed outside links for purchase and tacked a 5% charge onto each, rather than demand 30% and exclusivity. Turn the iTunes system into a rival of PayPal. Ford knows that PayPal needs the competition. Apple could still benefit, and it might be better in the long run.

Or not...

It seems like the DOJ is out for Apple, to the exclusion of just about everyone else... What about Wal-Mart's deceptive practices? What about the airlines jacking the hell out of us in fees. I'm expecting a charge for a clean seat, and the potential use of the oxygen mask. (Pay toilets aren't a joke for me when it comes to airlines. I first ran into one in an airport, without any change... Yeah...)

 

[peteo]

Can you imagine Walmart being forced by the DOJ to carry Target-brand items? Makes no sense, just as Amazon isn't going to let Google/Apple anyone else sell ebooks on their Kindles.

Let's not forget that you still can't even read epub format on Kindles! Talk about the DOJ barking up the wrong tree.

Except that this idea does not work since I can buy anything physical from amazons iOS app. Also if i go to walmart, i can use their wifi to go to target web site and check a price and buy it online right in the store.

When you purchase an iOS device you should be able to to use it for anything you want. If amazon wants to sell books in an app and use their own payment system then fine. It would be like if you bought a car and ford said you can only drive to approved stores that give for 30% on purchases

If apple does not like this maybe they should charge developers more for the Free apps they host

 

[Gasu E.]

To be less sarcastic about it. Apple treats their profit margin as a "requirement" of doing business. They didn't step into the ebook market and run with existing expected profit margins in the industry. They took their "30%" or whatever, and said "we want ebook prices to automatically reflect this profit margin". it was a fixed percent of profit that they padded into the price no matter what.

I'm sure you think you're being clever, but your logic is off. Under the alleged price-fixing arrangement, publishers could set whatever price they wanted. Apple would take 30% of it. If the publisher wanted to set the price at zero, Apple would get nothing. It didn't work backward from an Apple-set profit figure. The price fixing scheme was that whatever price the publishers set, it would have to be the same on every platform.

 

[MaSx]

I'll never understand why some people always think it's okay for Apple to do wrong and get away with it. When Apple does something wrong, they get a pass and leniency. You have to understand that every corporate company does evil be it Google, Microsoft, Samsung..etc. and non of them should get away with it, esp if it benefits us as a consumers. Stop with the fanboy **** about everything. If they do wrong, regardless of how good they are or who they are, should be held accountable for wrong doing. Simple as that.

 

[giantfan1224]

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.

You're missing my whole point. And yes I know what IAP is. Your constant condescending tone is tiresome.

Apple has the right to take a chunk because it's being sold on their platform. Is it the right business strategy or will it alienate consumers? That is the real debate. Consumers are not being harmed in this since they have plenty of alternatives.

 

[bbeagle]

I didn't knew that Apple stores Amazon ebooks on their servers and they publicize or distribute it. Can you point when I can confirm it?

I never said anything of the sort.

I simply said Apple does not do NOTHING. When you buy something through the Amazon app, Apple's servers ARE contacted for the request and the response of buying the 'in-app purchase'. Apple DOES do the credit card processing and eats the credit card fees. Apple DOES calculate sales tax and spends money to file with the proper states. Apple DOES transfer the 70% money to Amazon's bank accounts, which includes a bank transfer fee that Apple eats. Apple DOES discount their iTunes gift cards, which means the full 30% doesn't always go to Apple.

Apple takes the 30% to pay for these activities, plus as a 'convenience fee', - that you as the consumer can easily avoid Apple taking by going directly to the Amazon site on Safari and doing the same thing. Apple will get 0% that way.

 

[Oletros]

You're missing my whole point. And yes I know what IAP is. Your constant condescending tone is tiresome.

Apple has the right to take a chunk because it's being sold on their platform

Condescending when in this post it is clear that you don't know who IAP works?

It is not sold on their platform, period.

 

[giantfan1224]

Condescending when in this post it is clear that you don't know who IAP works?

It is not sold on their platform, period.

It's being sold on an iPhone or iPad. Hence platform.

 

[Gasu E.]

I objected to the Apple model because it allowed Apple to charge more for the books in the iBookstore. I find it offensive to pay was in essence 'cover price' for a 'book' that is never printed, never boxed up with other books, never warehoused, never shipped to another warehouse, never unboxed by human hands, shelved, inventoried, shipped again (possibly), moved from one shelf to another, re-shelved because it was found in a different area, and finally sold by a store that also has a Starbucks and a huge area to sit and read and chat with friends.

Eh, Apple didn't charge anything. They took a cut of whatever the publisher's chose to charge. The publishers decided to set the eBooks price higher than the printed books, not Apple.

Weird comment about the Starbucks. Obviously Barnes and Noble has those because they make B&N more money, not because it is some public service.