No, you're missing the point.
There is no logical reason for Apple to be making 30% off Amazon's books.
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
No, you're missing the point.
There is no logical reason for Apple to be making 30% off Amazon's books.
Some jerk? Are you serious? You actually LIKE to be ripped off? Who cares if Apple loses from competition? This is capitalism, if they can't compete on prices, they should get off the market. You as the CONSUMER should WANT Apple to have competition. You people are freaking sad, do you realise that you're defending a business who's taking advantage of you for nothing in return? There is nothing special about iBooks. All the content is digital and the same can be found somewhere else, e.g the Kindle or Nook apps. One thing is businesses copying Apple's design, another entirely different thing is one company trying to force consumers to pay more for the same product being sold for less.
Apple is not providing free advertising and exposure to Amazon/B&N ebooks or Netflix shows.
Are you talking about some fringe case about books published by Amazon? In general, Amazon has absolutely no influence on what authors get because they are not a significant book publisher, they are a retailer.
Further, the iBook store drove the price of ebooks down significantly on average, though not on every book. Before the iBook store I remember most ebooks costing as much or more than hardcovers.
The debate is if Apple has the right to do this. And yes, they do. It's their platform. If they want to charge more than where I can get it for cheaper, again they have the right. If consumers consistently buy stuff from Apple at inflated prices because they're so loyal to Apple and they are "shills" then that's their problem. But get off the idea that there is no competition. There's plenty of it.
Somehow you consistently fail to apply the same arguments when government fines Microsoft. Why is that?
Wrong, accused publisher ebook prices went up
You have a bad memory, then
Well, maybe then we should let the car companies implement "features" in their cars preventing consumers from purchasing gas from stations which do not pay the car maker a cut of 30%.
Then we should let the majors get together and set minimum prices for gas, just in case some "pirates" are still tempted to utilize unapproved gas stations.
Strange ideas of what "free market" means....
Good for the DOJ.
And there is plenty of competition in the market. But why does Apple, or any other company HAVE to make it easier. The free market will bear this out.
----------
This
he's not corret 100% either.
There were ongoing lawsuits that Apple had in place against microsoft and many other people at the time (sound familiar) about the use of GUI systems and their adherance to WIMP processes.
Simple fact of the matter was that Apple had at that point in time won none of those lawsuits. There was no "settlement" or awarded amounts.
What it was, was microsoft tiring of the whole debacle offering an olive branch because Bill Gates, while a very shrewd businessman, has admitted to being friendly with Steve Jobs and didn't wish to see his company collapse.
was it a "settlement?"
that can be spun either way. But Microsoft was under absolutely no obligation or responsibility at the time to make such offer. I don't consider it a settlement because, typically in Settlements, one side has to pay the other. Microsoft didn't "pay" Apple. Microsoft purchased non-voting stock and an ownership stake in Apple. This is a financial deal. Not a settlement. Microsoft was in position at the time to simply let Apple go bankrupt, then buy up whatever Patents/ Assets they needed to to stop the lawsuits. But they chose a different, more friendly rout this time, and if you look at Microsofts history in the 90's, this was a-typical of them, when precendent had Microsoft buying up smaller companies that were suing them, instead of fighting in court.
People on here need to seriously wake up, get your heads out of Apples behind. Is this right? Probably not but the fact is boys n gals you live in a capitalist world, just look at Sky in the UK, it was forced by the courts to let its direct competitors air its channels, is that fair to Sky? Of course not, but that's a capitalist world and if you lot don't like it, best you just hide for the rest of your life's.
Last edited:
Because you can't compete with a company whose investors don't care if they ever make any money. Amazon has been given a pass on profitability for a long time now. Apple's investors insist on exponential profit growth quarter after quarter.
This whole case has been silly from the beginning. Amazon's business strategy has been anti-competitive since day one. Their plan only works if they dominate the book market, that is why they went to the DOJ.
I only own e-books from Amazon and I would never buy them from anywhere else. It is really just a matter of flexibility. No one else is even close. Let's not be naive and pretend like we believe that Apple somehow did something to hurt Amazon or e-book consumers here.
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
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
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.
No its not, capitalise on anything you can to make money. That's what the competitors are doing, and the law backs them up. It hides under prevention of monopolies.
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.
Simple, Amazon did not and does not have to support continued development of the underlying platform on which the Kindle and Kindle app is developed. iOS apps, just like any other closed platform, must have a model that provides for future development and enhancement ( not unlike XBox, PS, ... all of whom use various functions to skim off their ecosystem ). The costs for skinning Android and developing the Kindle android apps are insignificant to that of a whole operating system.
And this.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
From Wikipedia:
That is essentially how I recall it going down too. The "financial deal" was in fact part of settlement. Maybe Microsoft could have waited for Apple to collapse and then hoped the suits would go away, maybe not. However, it was in fact a settlement.
What do you mean, "you people"?
I don't buy ebooks. Simply pointing out that someone, somewhere, will always be right around the corner ready to sue.And I fail to see how any consumer is being "ripped off" by what Apple is being accused of..