And who is to say that they have a right to do so?
(Pyramid)
They are not forcing people to use iBooks! Nobody is forcing you to use an iPad!
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.
Will Kindle App Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
(Pyramid)
They are not forcing people to use iBooks! Nobody is forcing you to use an iPad!
Using your criteria I can't imagine how any company could ever be considered to have a harmful monopoly.
Other than food, water and shelter there's very little anybody actually needs to buy.
First, the earlier poster was wrong about the share. Second, findings under antitrust law (at least in the US) require, in most cases significant and "durable" market power. There isn't going to be an antitrust investigation into a year old market. You aren't anti-competitive just because you invented a new market.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm
(As an aside, there is a nice summary of the Microsoft case as an example on this page for all those people that think it was only about bundling IE.)
I look forward to your legal citations.
That isn't relevant to a discussion about anti-competitive behavior. How many of these other apps sell something that Apple also sells through its own store?
The fact that Apple is positioning competitors to be more expensive by manipulating their terms is a clear sign of anticompetitive behavior.
Apple has a very large share of the tablet and app store markets (relative to other app stores and tablets). It can use this dominance to manipulate the nature of the market, and exclude other competitors from realistically having an equal playing field. You don't need 100% of the market, or even 50% of the market necessarily, to be guilty of this. All that matters is that a company uses its market influence as leverage in other sectors.
The market for e-ink book readers has grown more rapidly than tablets according to this article.
While I'm sure the Kindle shares that honor with several other devices, it is most likely the lead device because they are very popular and in everyday life they are the ones I see most often on buses, trains, and the like.
If Amazon refused to remove the button and the Kindle app was removed from IOS, B&N could agree to remove the button, stay on IOS, and thus eliminate their Amazon competition on IOS (i.e. it would drive many more people who use IOS and don't own a Kindle towards a Nook).
Remember EU laws are a hell of a lot less forgiving than US laws. The fact that it is quetionalable that they could get in trouble in the US makes the threat of the EU a hell of a lot higher.
Apple tends to back down then they know they are going to get slammed legally. They did it with fairplay DRM on music. They were looking at being dragged into multiple law suits in Europe for anti trust. Their kept being case after case popping up over there so it was safe to say that they were going running a real risk of being nailed big time so they gave and remove the DRM from the iTMS to not protect against it from happening.
I assure you than here in Europe, if Apple bans every ebook/music/video competitor from its App Store may have legal problems for anti competitive practices.
I prefer the App infrastructure for my book purchases now, even though I own some Kindle books. I won't miss it if it goes.
Apple is not the only way to get Kindle eBooks or other eBooks. Other than Apple's IOS platform you can get kindle books on:
1) Mac's
2) PC's
3) A Kindle Made by Amazon
4) Any compatible Google Android device (Lets assume that it has the marketplace - not sure if that is a requirement).
5) Blackberry devices
All of this was found in a minute.... Here.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Yes. You bring this up in every antitrust decision without any evidence to support the legality under EU law of the specific claims being discussed.
I'd prefer links to assurances. If WalMart decided to sell only WalMart brand products, would they have legal problems too?
So you consider a simple money transaction service a "gateway" worth a 30% cut? Even when Apple handles the transaction the customer is entirely dependent on its own network service and the content provider to actually get the content. Apple walks away with their 30% and don't care anymore.
Where was _I_ wrong? I just referred to an article here on Macrumors that claimed the tablet market share for iPad is over 85% worldwide, 97% in the US
Which assurances? European Union laws? Prior fines to companies here for anti competitive practices?
My God, Apple faced legal problems only for not allowing a citizen from country A buy iTunes music from country B store when prices in B where lower than A even when there was no Apple fault.
Nobody is forcing you to use a cellphone but if one company had a 90% marketshare in cellphones, you'll likely call it a monopoly.
That does not mean that eBooks on full-mode tablets is a market that is clearly defined enough to matter to antitrust authorisation. They could easily include the Kindle hardware in the market definition and then the iPad is far from having a monopoly.
I'm well aware of how the Kindle Store works, it does not change the fact that if you want to use an iOS device all of that is irrelevant. The App Store is the only way for an iOS user to access Kindle books.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I've been enjoying and agreeing with your postings -- you seem to be the only one who's taking a look at the larger context -- the publishers, not just Amazon.
I'd argue with your "reasonable" description. A traditional publisher assumes all sorts of risks -- upfront costs, advertising, printing, distribution, returns (the dreaded returns) royalties, and others. So it can be argued that a fairly high price is OK, because the print publisher invests/risks more. Fair enough.
With e-books, nope. By any metric, the cost to produce and distribute e-books is very low.
Publishers are trying to offset some of their costs/risks in the print arena by high prices in the e-arena. Most traditional publishing contracts pay the author the same royalty on an e-book as on a print book. From the author's point of view this looks like a bad deal, because of the publisher's lower costs and not-very-much-lower price. The author gets about the same amount, but of the publisher's share, much more is profit.
Again, a different problem than the one being discussed. I'll just say again that it's important to see a somewhat larger picture than just Apple vs. Amazon. I'm glad you started showing that.
So in your opinion Ma Bell is entitled to a cut on all telesales activities because they invented the phone?
Seriously? Your argument is "companies have been fined in the past for anti-competitive practices, so Apple is being anti-competitive." That's hilarious.
The same laws that apply directly to that situation do not apply to the situation being discussed.
I just asked for legal citations that back your claim that Apple would have legal problems in the EU if they banned other ebook apps from the app store. Should be simple if you know what you are talking about.