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.
U.S. and European Regulators 'Looking At' Apple's App Store Subscriptions Program
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Amazon do want apps. But not rival stores.
https://kdk.amazon.com/gp/vendor/sign-in?ie=UTF8&originatingURI=%2Fgp%2Fvendor%2Fmembers%2Fkindlepubs%2Fkdk%2Fhome
C.
Huh?
Mmm,
"yes": you're right
"it isn't", it isn't predatory price
Sorry for my bad English
as it has been pointed out before. To be busted for antitrust does not require a monopoly.
All that is required to be busted for anti trust is to show what a company is doing is harmful to the consumer. Now with out being a monopoly it is rarer to be busted for it because it is harder to prove.
It is jacking up the price like Apple is doing that is going to drive others out of the market and prevent them from competing and they did it by going free to get into the market gain enough market share to have some major power and then jack it up to knock them out of the market.
Predatory because it allowed them to gain enough market share to screw everyone over.
Btw I suggest you read the link you provided. Even in the link it does not require a monopoly to be in place before they go after a company. In the link it even explains it just requires enough power to influence the market or exclude competitors. Both of which apple has. Apple is abusing its power to squeeze out competitors and prevent them from even playing.
By demanding that their customers get the lowest prices possible for products, it is going to be hard to say that Apple is doing something that is bad for consumers.
"HOW DARE YOU DEMAND CUSTOMERS GET THE LOWEST PRICES POSSIBLE!"
"We DEMAND YOU MAKE CUSTOMERS PAY MORE FOR LESS OR ELSE!"
"HOW DARE YOU DEMAND CUSTOMERS GET THE LOWEST PRICES POSSIBLE!"
"We DEMAND YOU MAKE CUSTOMERS PAY MORE FOR LESS OR ELSE!"
It is a retail store. They are not required to allow ANY competition if they don't want to...
Since when are retail stores required to carry anyone's products? That is not how retail stores work.
Microsoft can't demand that Apple sells Windows 7 in the Apple Stores.
Since Microsoft has a dominant position in the OS marketplace, Apple can't force Microsoft to sell Mac OS in Windows Stores or on Microsoft's Website.
I am going to demand Amazon sell my widget, because they have a dominant position in the online ordering space... Oh yeah Amazon can tell me to get stuffed if they want.
im curious how you think they will get lower prices, currently they get the same price as theres no in app purchase so buy from source for the same price everyone else does.
if apple gets there way with this the companies involved probably wont absorb the loss of revenue so will put the prices up , thus everyone pays more still the same equal price across platforms.
Who told you this? Whomever it was, they are wrong, so please go tell them so.
Apple is not carrying Amazon books or Netflix videos.
The funny thing is that until Apple hasn't changed the rules, NO one of you said NOTHING about allowing competition, stores, etc.
Take Kindle for example... Sure Amazon could charge more for ebooks, but wait no they can't. The deal they have with the book publishers does not allow them to do so.
So prices are not going to go up in that case. In other cases if businesses are unable to efficiently market themselves on the IOS platform others will replace them with equal or better service and prices will remain the same.
Apple's whole point is they don't want companies charging IOS customers MORE for stuff they sell. That is not some kind of evil goal. It is one that would have been a real problem. As an IOS user, I am glad Apple is concerned about all these greedy companies trying to charge us to run their business inefficiently.
So far they all have been circumventing the system and getting a free ride at Apple's expense. The only companies who have been greedy so far are the likes of Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Rhapsody and the rest. Apple is saying, now it is time to pay up for the huge value we provide you and your business, and everyone acts like Apple is being greedy. It is absurd.
Prices for all those services did not go down when Apple was eating the costs of them being on the IOS platform. They just pocketed all the money Apple was spending for them to be there. They need to figure out how to operate their business in a better manner then just hope other companies provide them with huge valuable benefits for no cost to them. Most businesses don't run that way. They should consider what Apple has provided them until this point a big gift, and figure it out or get out of the IOS environment. Crying about it is the last thing they should do.
They are all the ones who chose to have "free" apps so Apple did not get any of the revenue they were entitled to from the beginning. They could have charged a nominal amount for their apps for their customers if they wanted to and this might be a lot different, but they decided to be exceptionally greedy and take, take and take some more from Apple. Apple has determined what it believes the values of its products and services are and payment is due.
If customers don't feel it is worth it, then they will not pay it. If they do they do. Apple has a lot of experience making money selling products and services for premium prices. I think they will be just fine here as well.
Just because it has been said before, doesn't make it true. I provided you with a link to the FTC site. "Significant and durable market power" is required." Which is how the FTC defines a monopoly.
No, that is not all that is required.
Driving people out of the market isn't illegal without significant and durable market power.
Again, predatory pricing is not jacking up rates to remove competitors from the market. It is lowering rates to remove competitors from the market.
Maybe you should read a little closer. "Enough power to influence the market or exclude competitors" is how the FTC defines a monopoly. Apple is not preventing competitors from competing in any significant market. They are excluding competitors from competing on their own platform. There are other platforms that their competitors can move to. Do you think Kindle is going to stop selling books if they are removed from iOS devices?
+1
It's probably already been said, but just in case, where was all this rancor when Amazon was charging publishers 70% to be on the Kindle until iBooks forced them down to 30%? Or how about this gem:
Since December, Amazon has been pushing publishers to sign a new round of legal agreements that would guarantee that the Kindle price for their content is always the same or lower than the price on other electronic reading devices, such as the iPad or the Sony Reader. The clause, a variation of a legal concept known as “most favored nation,” would guarantee that Amazon’s customers would always get the best price for electronic versions of magazines, newspapers and books. Link
To me this seems much more likely to pose any real type of threat to competition and, thereby, consumers. I'm not saying it is an "Amazon is worse" case. I really don't see Apple's move can possibly hurt customers but is only a risk to itself by publishers flocking to competing platforms like Google's Android (who obviously timed their 10% offer based on Apple's move).
Apple is not a non-profit. If people want to sell their wares through the iTunes Store, why is Apple supposed to do it for free?
P.S. LOL on the avatar, Marksman. Fantastic!
Which companies have been charging iOS users more than others?
Which companies have been "circumventing the system and getting a free ride"? What did they circumvent? What was this free ride they got?
Actually, there is a company that have been charging iOS users more. And making great profits from it. Guess which one.
Umm the market is a lot more than 10 months old. It goes back to when the App store first opened in 2008.
i dont think anyone in this thread has suggested that apple doesnt deserve to get paid for apps and subscriptions on the app store. just the 30% sense to high for what they do which is handle payment.
the marketing i just dont accept they dont market individual apps (not without the owner of the app paying to be part of a tv ad or to get into the featured section of the app store)
the 30 % seems like nothing more than an attempt to get certain apps off the app store so they can replace or push there own apps
the marketing i just dont accept they dont market individual apps (not without the owner of the app paying to be part of a tv ad or to get into the featured section of the app store)
the 30 % seems like nothing more than an attempt to get certain apps off the app store so they can replace or push there own apps
Even that much makes it a nascent market.
But when we look at the games market - no one is complaining of a 30% revenue split. We are used to paying MS 70%.
The eBook market is used to much more punitive terms than 30%.
This stuff is way too new and way too unstable for anyone to be accused of abusing the market.
Why go running to lawyers and governments when there are plenty of market forces to resolve things? They are the ultimate in arbitration. They weed out unsuitable and unfair practice.
C.
market forces do if they are aware of it, lets be honest how many ios users will be aware of this the only time they might be come aware is if an app takes itself out of the market place and they go looking for answers.
by that point it will be to late
Apple is not entitled to anything up til June when the new rule go into effect. Apple offered the possibility to create free apps and many people did so and in the end Apple approve every single one of those.
Many of the companies bringing those great service to the plattform are operating on very slim margins trying to bring a cool new service to the people. Apple earns billions of dollars of the iOS ecosystem. Thats why their move to earn even more by shoving some of those service out the door is perceived as greed.
I am baffled by the people defending this move so badly. I hope you guys own a ton of Apple stocks and no iOS device. Because for you as a customer this is going to be a bad move no matter how you slice it. Most likely some of those service hit by the new rules will leave the plattform other will have to raise prices and some (and that is the best outcome possible) will change nothing.
Apple could have ruled the mobile market for a decade or more if they wouldn't be so freaking stubborn with some things .. business mistakes like the one at hand are the only reason Android is able to gain grounds so fast. So maybe one shouldn't even be happy about this as a stockholder.
T.
Everyone with some content to sell is used to paying 30%, 40% or even 50% to gain access to market.
When Electronic Arts puts a boxed game on the shelves of GameStation how much do you think they get from the sale price?
For any content owner, a 30/70 split is a good deal. The only people who are set to lose out are middlemen outfits who sell other people's content and literally cannot afford to pay for access to market.
Which is fairest? To ban them outright, or simply charge them the same as everyone else?
C.
When Electronic Arts puts a boxed game on the shelves of GameStation how much do you think they get from the sale price?
For any content owner, a 30/70 split is a good deal. The only people who are set to lose out are middlemen outfits who sell other people's content and literally cannot afford to pay for access to market.
Which is fairest? To ban them outright, or simply charge them the same as everyone else?
C.