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

[lilianeloirinha]

Retailers don't offer customers. Customers offer themselves. This is besides the point, there are hundreds of thousands of applications in the App Store. Customers must know Amazon, type their name in the search, download their app and use it. Apple is not advertising for Amazon. Amazon pays for the adverts that air on TV and their own website. Apple just hosts the application, and Amazon is paying the developer fee for that. Other than that, Apple has no right to anything. Customers are still choosing to use Amazon or not. Your "Apple is offering customers" argument is weak because you imply that every app in the store can be successful just because Apple has customers using the service. There are horrible apps there that nobody ever buys. Amazon earns customers because their service is good, not because they're just on Apple's App Store.

And so is Apple receiving the benefit from having developers hosting apps on their store. If developers didn't, Apple wouldn't be able to claim to have the biggest number of apps available. Look at Windows Phone and their pathetic market share. Their market share is bad because they don't have as many apps to offer.

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.

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.



Not at all. It like saying if you want something from me, here are the conditions.

----------

Bla bla bla bla bla bla...


Bla bla bla...

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.

 

[BaldiMac]

You were against the lawsuit against Microsoft then

Then you agree that Microsoft has all the right to get a cut from every purchase done in a Windows computer?

Maybe some people consider there to be a difference between the actions of a company with monopoly control of the market and a company that doesn't.

 

[LordVic]

I agree. That's why I included where there is plenty of competition.

I do agree. Apple was not in a place of monopoly in this case. They were charging a premium fee for selling out of their "real estate".

the competition is more than welcome to create their own devices, own real estate to try and establish their own market. And Amazon has shown to be succesful.

As I said earlier. I do not LIKE apples business practices in this regard. But i dont think there's anything particular wrong with them.

While i think the DOJ had to step in to avoid the collusion that was occuring with ebook pricing, I do not see why, or how this continues to carry on to the methodology of selling items on the i-devices themselves.

 

[I.Love.Apple]

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

If market was totally free, Apple - the company - would not exist today. Microsoft would have killed it in 1990s. Apple does not have to make anything easier for consumers but government does and it did it quite efficiently (way faster than free market would ever do). You are arguing as if government actions were starving Apple from capital that it needed to invest in new products. Apple has more capital than they know what to do about it. A little regulation that redirects some money towards consumer is good thing sometimes.

 

[TheHateMachine]

What collusion? Since when is an agency model that gives control to the individual publishers collusion? Apple gave up control over pricing of the goods. The agency model is a hands off model.

Who said the agency model was collusion? As pointed out in this case and other people on the forums when Apple wrangled up the publishers and asked everything to go all in on this agency model and push it is when it became collusion. Plenty of evidence from the trial ranging from emails to ole Jobs not picking his words correctly on sidewalk interviews gave them up. To deny it would be simply silly.

Bottom line, Apple didn't wanna compete with Amazon on pricing because not only would they lose, their margins would would be at a level not even worth it. So they rigged up a plan to force Amazon to no longer compete with them on pricing.

 

[giantfan1224]

Then you agree that Microsoft has all the right to get a cut from every purchase done in a Windows computer?

I suppose that if there is plenty of competition to the Windows OS, then yes. But at the same time, if I'm on my iPhone and want to avoid Apple's premium, I can use Safari or Chrome to go to Amazon's site to purchase content directly. It may not be as easy, and I may wish Apple would just let me do it through the more convenient app, but I fail to see why Apple CAN'T charge a premium for the convenience.

 

[LordVic]

Then you agree that Microsoft has all the right to get a cut from every purchase done in a Windows computer?

to be fair. If Microsoft did the same thing Apple did, And forced all apps on Windows to sell directly through Microsoft and Microsoft having the 30% cut off all sales through those apps, They would be entirely within their right.

As a consumer, we would then have the choice to go elsewhere (if there was competition in the OS market place).

I would say Microsoft would have been in their right do so.

And likely, if they did that, they would lose users at a ridiculous pace.

as long as consumers have the ability to fight with their checkbooks, it is not monopolistic. Apple isn't a monopoly in the tablet or phone space. we all have the right and ability to choose to go elsewhere. And if you look at market indicators, such as market share (take with a grain of salt) you will see that the largest bulk of users these days are choosing to go elsewhere.

 

[TheHateMachine]

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.

You should take a look at the average ebook price graph that was released during the trial.

 

[Oletros]

I suppose that if there is plenty of competition to the Windows OS, then yes. But at the same time, if I'm on my iPhone and want to avoid Apple's premium, I can use Safari or Chrome to go to Amazon's site to purchase content directly. It may not be as easy, and I may wish Apple would just let me do it through the more convenient app, but I fail to see why Apple CAN'T charge a premium for the convenience.

What convenience?

 

[LordVic]

What collusion? Since when is an agency model that gives control to the individual publishers collusion? Apple gave up control over pricing of the goods. The agency model is a hands off model.

the Agency model wasn't the collusion. That was deemed legal.

the 5(6 including apples direction) companies temaing up together and bullying retailers to take their prices or get no books from anyone is the collusion they were found guilty of

 

[giantfan1224]

If market was totally free, Apple - the company - would not exist today. Microsoft would have killed it in 1990s. Apple does not have to make anything easier for consumers but government does and it did it quite efficiently (way faster than free market would ever do). You are arguing as if government actions were starving Apple from capital that it needed to invest in new products. Apple has more capital than they know what to do about it. A little regulation that redirects some money towards consumer is good thing sometimes.

No, we all know Apple is not starved for capital. I'm merely arguing that they have the right to charge whatever they want since it's proven there is plenty of competition out there in this realm, in this case to iBooks and in general to smartphone or handheld OS.

 

[BaldiMac]

Retailers don't offer customers. Customers offer themselves.

I'm not sure how to respond. Especially as someone who makes a good proportion of my money from referrals.

Other than that, Apple has no right to anything.

Where is this list of rights of things that a company can charge for? Why weren't these charges part of the DOJs lawsuit?

----------

I do agree. Apple was not in a place of monopoly in this case. They were charging a premium fee for selling out of their "real estate".

the competition is more than welcome to create their own devices, own real estate to try and establish their own market. And Amazon has shown to be succesful.

As I said earlier. I do not LIKE apples business practices in this regard. But i dont think there's anything particular wrong with them.

While i think the DOJ had to step in to avoid the collusion that was occuring with ebook pricing, I do not see why, or how this continues to carry on to the methodology of selling items on the i-devices themselves.

Great comment! I agree completely.

 

[giantfan1224]

What convenience?

Arguing whether it's a convenience or not is a totally separate debate. Like, for example, if it's more convenient to access an app on my iOS and make purchases from there, versus having to use a browser or a different computer altogether.

 

[dermeister]

Reminds me of this:

Antitrust, by Greenspan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8FTRZ__608

 

[bbeagle]

So a judge should be allowed to decide how much profit a company can make? In a free market system? With plenty of competition?

Not what I'm saying. (Maybe it was what I typed, but not what I meant)

Maybe I can clearly articulate what I meant....

Amazon has an in-app purchase, which happens to be an e-book. Amazon was able to make a Kindle app for the iPhone for FREE because they expect people to buy books, that some of that money will go into paying the developers to make the free Kindle app. Shouldn't Amazon CHARGE for the Kindle app, thus giving Apple a percentage? That's more fair if people don't want the 30% per book charged.

But Amazon instead wants to give that app away for FREE, and then the books for FREE. That's wrong also. It's like if Sony sold Playstations for FREE, then wanted 100% of the profit from the games that GameStop sold. That would be sort of what Amazon wants to do.

But Forcing Amazon to lose 30% of the sales is also wrong. If a book is $10, and Amazon wants the full $10, they should be able to tell Apple to sell it for $13, and keep the $10, that would be FAIR. But Amazon is not allowed to do that - they HAVE TO sell it at $10. This part is the wrong part.

 

[Glideslope]

You were against the lawsuit against Microsoft then

Ya know, eh?

 

[schmidm77]

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.

Steal or profit from Apple's customers? If I am using the kindle app to buy books, then I am Amazon's customer, not Apple's. Apple doesn't own a permanent claim to me just because I bought an iPhone.

 

[Michael Goff]

I suppose that if there is plenty of competition to the Windows OS, then yes. But at the same time, if I'm on my iPhone and want to avoid Apple's premium, I can use Safari or Chrome to go to Amazon's site to purchase content directly. It may not be as easy, and I may wish Apple would just let me do it through the more convenient app, but I fail to see why Apple CAN'T charge a premium for the convenience.

Linux in general
OS X
PCBSD

They exist, you know.

 

[bbeagle]

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.

I'm for and against it. The app, if free, is using Apple's App Store for 'advertising'. Then profiting all by using Apple's servers. I wrote my reasons in my previous comment.

Again, it's much like Sony selling the playstation at GameStop for FREE, then expecting 100% of the profits from games sold, and not giving GameStop anything. GameStop has more costs than the App store for each transaction, but the App store STILL has costs.

It's a free market, and if SkyDrive doesn't like the 30% fee, they can go elsewhere. But, again, what is fair and legal are two different things.

 

[lucasgladding]

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.

I came into the conversation late, so I might be missing something. Regardless:

1: The app was developed for iOS and the hardware that runs it. That's what they're offering.

2: See 1.

Consider this: Amazon releases an SDK for In-App Purchases using Amazon accounts. They charge 15%. Everyone switches to Amazon for In-App Purchases. That's why Apple doesn't want other companies providing alternative payment systems.

Regarding selling cheaper content: wouldn't you have a problem with a competing business opening shop in your store? Here's an experiment for you: go buy some cheap DVDs from Walmart and try selling them in a specialty shop with higher prices.

You can argue that 30% is too much for what Apple provides, but saying they provide nothing ignores the device, OS, and infrastructure that Amazon would be leveraging.

 

[Oletros]

Arguing whether it's a convenience or not is a totally separate debate. Like, for example, if it's more convenient to access an app on my iOS and make purchases from there, versus having to use a browser or a different computer altogether.

But what convenience are you talking about to gives Apple to take a premium?

 

[giantfan1224]

Linux in general
OS X
PCBSD

They exist, you know.

I didn't say they didn't. But thanks.

 

[Michael Goff]

I'm for and against it. The app, if free, is using Apple's App Store for 'advertising'. Then profiting all by using Apple's servers. I wrote my reasons in my previous comment.

Again, it's much like Sony selling the playstation at GameStop for FREE, then expecting 100% of the profits from games sold, and not giving GameStop anything. GameStop has more costs than the App store for each transaction, but the App store STILL has costs.

It's a free market, and if SkyDrive doesn't like the 30% fee, they can go elsewhere. But, again, what is fair and legal are two different things.

Interesting point.

Would this extend to iTunes on Windows? After all, most recent OS calculations (by people who want to show how Microsoft is no longer the leader) show them having 20% of the overall OS market.

----------

I didn't say they didn't. But thanks.

You said "I suppose if" as if there was a question as to whether or not it's true.

 

[Trius]

Doesn't the DOJ have better things to worry about? I just don't understand why this is even a thing.. Why can't a person/company make a product in a free market and impose their own terms of use on said product without scrutiny from the government? Amazon doesn't like it? So what?

 

[Michael Goff]

Doesn't the DOJ have better things to worry about? I just don't understand why this is even a thing.. Why can't a person/company make a product in a free market and impose their own terms of use on said product without scrutiny from the government? Amazon doesn't like it? So what?

Because this isn't the wild west, there have to be regulators.