Sidebar Sidebar
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'

Gasu E. said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the price they 'decided to charge' just happened to be the cover price? Odd...

I'm sure that there is a win-win in that relationship somewhere. And probably a lose-lose... The store loses the floor space, they lose the purchases of people just breezing in to grab a 'coffee', they obviously pay for the lighting and heat/cooling. Whatever...
 
Michael Goff said:
No, you're missing the point.

There is no logical reason for Apple to be making 30% off Amazon's books.
Click to expand...

I'm against the lawsuit with Apple, but I agree with you on this. If the judge ruled that Apple should not make 30% on e-BOOKS, then this would be fair. But not the overreaching punishing judgement.
 
Oletros said:
How it is Apple system better or easier than the Amazon, Google or B&N in this case?
Click to expand...

I never said it is or was. I'm simply responding to someone that is implying that Apple is ripping them off for providing an easier system. Follow. Thread.
 
lilianeloirinha said:
Hmm here we go, "I don't have an argument so I'm just going to attack this guy's by calling it ridiculous". Your example is pathetic. If you want first class vs economy, you're being served by the same business. Imagine if Boeing came to you while you were on your First Class seat and demanded that you gave them 30% of your fare because they built the plane that American Airlines paid for! Don't you see that you are the one being ridiculous? Dude, I have no time for you any more, you're the sort of person who lets businesses get away with uncompetitive behaviour that makes prices go up for people like me
Click to expand...

Except that nothing that you've been arguing against is anti-competitive.
 
bbeagle said:
I'm against the lawsuit with Apple, but I agree with you on this. If the judge ruled that Apple should not make 30% on e-BOOKS, then this would be fair. But not the overreaching punishing judgement.
Click to expand...

And how do you feel about things that you can get a subscription for in-app? The SkyDrive thing earlier this year being an example.
 
bbeagle said:
I'm against the lawsuit with Apple, but I agree with you on this. If the judge ruled that Apple should not make 30% on e-BOOKS, then this would be fair. But not the overreaching punishing judgement.
Click to expand...

So a judge should be allowed to decide how much profit a company can make? In a free market system? With plenty of competition?
 
1st bit: Physical retailers take a cut because they're offering real estate and utilities. Virtual retailers who provide services in return also ask for fees, BUT Amazon is not asking Apple to use their payment system, Apple is forcing Amazon to do it because they are uncompetitive.

2nd bit: Make more money from what? They're doing nothing for Amazon. The only thing they're doing is processing payments, but this is because they chose to force this upon Amazon. Amazon wants to use their payment processing system, but Apple is not allowing this, so screw Apple and whoever thinks that this is right.

Apple is acting like a bully. It's like forcing a kid to give their lunch to the bully or they can't cross the street to go home.

BaldiMac said:
Forcing? This rant reads as if you are unaware other retailers take a cut of each sale as well. That's how they make money.



Absolutely NO REASON... other than they want to make more money. You know, like most companies.
Click to expand...
 
notabadname said:
Perhaps, if the Kindle Reader were required to have the iBook Store . . .
Click to expand...

That doesn't really make sense either. Kindle is a one purpose device. You can't install apps, and it isn't advertised to install apps.

If iBooks would use a standard DRM free format though, you could add them to a Kindle.
 
giantfan1224 said:
So a judge should be allowed to decide how much profit a company can make? In a free market system? With plenty of competition?
Click to expand...

In a true "free market" economy, there would also be zero control of monopolies, collusion and predatory pricing. Historically, when allowed complete freedom, this is what tends to happen and it always has a negative impact on economic conditions.

That is why, despite the desire for pure capitolism, even the states, practices some form of government regulation on it's market economy
 
LordVic said:
That is actually untrue;

according to Apple Financial statements (viewable online http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1047469-97-6960&CIK=320193)


1997

Places Apples Cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments......... $ 1,45Billion (which yes, is good)

Total Assets at 4.5B

Total loss on 1997
1.04 Billion.


Their liquid cash and equivelant was going in < 2 years at that point.
Was their 2nd full year in a row running a loss (850 million the year before)

By 1998, After the investment from Microsoft, Due to investor and market confidence by the deal, Saw Apple's profit increase to 300million for 1998. With 2.3 Billion in "cash equivelence". This also included a major overhaul of the company from top to bottom with lots of layoffs and corporate restructuring (see the 1998 financials to see a more detailed description).
Click to expand...

numbers are right, but the reason is not necessarily true. Apple wrote off $1B+ off of unsold inventory in 1997. Then Jobs, sold the inventory in the next quarter for $308M profit (that's Apple's Q1, holiday season). The $150M deal with MS was postulated to be a ploy by Jobs to distract attention to huge loss. By taking the loss and then liquidating of the unsold inventory the next quarter made it looked like he "turned the company around"... even though revenue went down by more than $1.1B YoY.
.
 
Last edited:
lilianeloirinha said:
so screw Apple and whoever thinks that this is right.
Click to expand...

Well since you didn't go away, I guess you're still going to have to deal with me. Your problem is that you say things like this, you come into the argument already extremely biased and agitated. Makes it very hard to hold a constructive argument. You know?
 
macUser2007 said:
Good argument for a command economy....
Click to expand...

I wasn't making an argument. I was answering a question. Regardless, not sure of the point of your hyperbole.

lilianeloirinha said:
1st bit: Physical retailers take a cut because they're offering real estate and utilities. Virtual retailers who provide services in return also ask for fees, BUT Amazon is not asking Apple to use their payment system, Apple is forcing Amazon to do it because they are uncompetitive.
Click to expand...

Retailers take a cut because they are offering customers. Just like Apple does. Nobody is "forcing" anything. Apple is simply providing conditions that Amazon chooses to agree to in exchange for a place in the Apple's App Store.

2nd bit: Make more money from what? They're doing nothing for Amazon. The only thing they're doing is processing payments, but this is because they chose to force this upon Amazon. Amazon wants to use their payment processing system, but Apple is not allowing this, so screw Apple and whoever thinks that this is right.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that you contradicted yourself in the first three sentences, you are still missing the fact that Amazon benefits from being on the App Store. Or else they wouldn't be there.

Apple is acting like a bully. It's like forcing a kid to give their lunch to the bully or they can't cross the street to go home.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It like saying if you want something from me, here are the conditions.
 
lilianeloirinha said:
1st bit: Physical retailers take a cut because they're offering real estate and utilities. Virtual retailers who provide services in return also ask for fees, BUT Amazon is not asking Apple to use their payment system, Apple is forcing Amazon to do it because they are uncompetitive.
Click to expand...

Why is that a requirement to charge a premium? They have to have physical real estate and limited space? That's a non sequitur. Apple is charging a premium for services that are accessed by way of their ecosystem. That's all. And they have the right to do it. And the consumer has the right to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
 
I should be able to use my eBook reading platform of choice without being financially penalized.

In other words, it isn't fair to consumers that if they buy the wrong tablet, their eBooks might be more expensive.
 
stuffradio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Microsoft made a token investment. At that time, Steve Jobs had ten times more money in his pocket.
 
lilianeloirinha said:
Shut the freak up. I said I don't have time for YOU, there's plenty of clever people here that I can talk to. You're nothing to me, just a naive, silly, lowly, whiny person who doesn't understand anything about what's fair business, but I'm staying to argue with intelligent people, not idiots who have a single argument and keep repeating it over and over and over like a parrot.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. You're right. We need more people exactly like you on here. You know, those that only agree with your point of view, none that might actually have an opposing view. And your constant name calling is exactly what we like here.
 
giantfan1224 said:
Why is that a requirement to charge a premium? They have to have physical real estate and limited space? That's a non sequitur. Apple is charging a premium for services that are accessed by way of their ecosystem. That's all. And they have the right to do it. And the consumer has the right to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
Click to expand...

Then you agree that Microsoft has all the right to get a cut from every purchase done in a Windows computer?
 
LordVic said:
In a true "free market" economy, there would also be zero control of monopolies, collusion and predatory pricing. Historically, when allowed complete freedom, this is what tends to happen and it always has a negative impact on economic conditions.

That is why, despite the desire for pure capitolism, even the states, practices some form of government regulation on it's market economy
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I included where there is plenty of competition.
 
Stephen123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The iBooks store didn't drive e-Book prices down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back