Will Kindle App Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance?

[pdjudd]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Couldn't any vendor get around this by having the user click link or button in the app that would send an SMS message with a link that users could click to take them to the website that would require one click for purchase

No they cannot do that. Users have to do everything outside of the app. The App cannot lead the user out and back in.

No because the shareholders demand they make money. It is not up to Apple.

Indeed. In fact I believe they are legally and contractually obligated to act in that fashion.

ETA:

Greed knows no bounds.

You don’t have much choice when you are publicly held. If you don’t make the company money they fire you and replace you with someone that will.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Just as I would expect Amazon would do if the tables were turned. Imagine a "buy from Apple" button on the Amazon site.

Amazon sells Apple products on their site, including Macbooks, etc. I don't think Amazon gets 30% of the gross receipts from the sale of those Macbooks. In fact, Apple exerts control over how much resellers are ALLOWED to sell their products for and yet Apple thinks they are allowed to dictate how much profit others can make on their products when it's on Apple's store. I find that not only immoral, but hypocritical as well.

The very idea that a magazine should have to sell its product for an equal or lesser price on Apple's store as their own YET Apple gets 30% of the gross take when it's sold on their store is UNWORKABLE for the seller. It's downright UNFAIR. It's actually absolute and complete bullcrap. It's right out there with a guy knocking on a door of a business in a New York City neighborhood and telling them that they have to pay a protection fee to operate in THEIR neighborhood. A bunch of hoodlums that think they should get 30% of the money for doing NOTHING more than a credit card transaction (and people thought the freaking credit card companies were crooks!). Steve Jobs is now the primo-facto 'mob' boss of the tablet/smart phone world. He's a man so rich he thinks he can buy his health indefinitely, moving to the front of the transplant lines so long as he has a ton of money to throw at whatever state will move him to the front of the line. Get the man a transplant for his heart next because it's clearly been poisoned with absolute greed.

 

[pdjudd]

Amazon sells Apple products on their site, including Macbooks, etc. I don't think Amazon gets 30% of the gross receipts from the sale of those Macbooks. In fact, Apple exerts control over how much resellers are ALLOWED to sell their products for and yet Apple thinks they are allowed to dictate how much profit others can make on their products when it's on Apple's store. I find that not only immoral, but hypocritical as well.

And you know how they do this? By a mutual agreement. Amazon doesn’t have to abide by Apple’s demands (which Apple is free to demand) in a take it-or-leave-it negotiation. Clearly Amazon wants to sell products that are highly desirable so they agree to Apple’s terms. That’s how the market works.

 

[gkpm]

It's not patronizing. I stated my opinion and you repeated yours for a second time. I don't want to go back and forth stating the same thing over and over nor do I want to read your contrary opinion. Call it a conservation of words/discussion.

The difference is you just stated "It's not the same" 3 times without making any argument for why it's not the same.

If you're not prepared to argue your point maybe you should consider aiming for maximum conservation of words, where content -> 0.

 

[hans1972]

Apple can require IAP and take 30% because they have, through technical lockdowns. It doesn't mean it's justifiable, just means that they can.

Microsoft could come out and say "All software will have to be digitally signed by us to run on Windows 8. We will only sign software if the developer agrees to give us 30% of their revenue." I'm guessing you'd be OK with this, right?

Of course it is about enforcement and not what is fair or justifiable.

I am not against Microsoft doing the same if their market share were to be reduced to below 70% or something.

If Microsoft did this with Windows 8 they would create a huge incentive to move to OS X, Linux, tablets and other platforms.

 

[gkpm]

Get the man a transplant for his heart next because it's clearly been poisoned with absolute greed.

Now that's just an incredibly stupid statement. Come back to us if you ever happen to be in his situation.

 

[Liquorpuki]

I'm not even sure what market you guys are referring to when you talk about companies being anti-competitive. eBook market? eBook reader market? Tablet market? OS market?

The Kindle is not a market. The iPad is not a market.

 

[gkpm]

Apple can require IAP and take 30% because they have, through technical lockdowns. It doesn't mean it's justifiable, just means that they can.

Microsoft could come out and say "All software will have to be digitally signed by us to run on Windows 8. We will only sign software if the developer agrees to give us 30% of their revenue." I'm guessing you'd be OK with this, right?

Not sure about Windows 8 but doesn't Microsoft do that with Windows Phone 7?

Possibly more for some titles on the Xbox 360.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Amazon needs to tell Apple to F-off and pull their app, as does NetFlix, etc.

I love the sound of that solution, but unfortunately, you can never get enough people to pull out. Clearly, most of the app developers making money off this platform would rather make some money than no money even if they're being taken for a ride. The businessman who pays organized crime to operate in a given town or city does so because they need to make a living, even if a parasitic leach is attached to them. What other choice do they have? Move? Go try and find Candy Land where everyone is nice and doesn't try to rip them off? Sadly, it doesn't exist. Humans have proven themselves to be immoral greedy cowering animals that slaughter each other over as little as a slice of pizza for a handful of change in a 90 year old woman's purse. You cannot argue with that kind of evil filth. You just have to imprison it...for all eternity if necessary.

And you know how they do this? By a mutual agreement. Amazon doesn’t have to abide by Apple’s demands (which Apple is free to demand) in a take it-or-leave-it negotiation. Clearly Amazon wants to sell products that are highly desirable so they agree to Apple’s terms. That’s how the market works.

Sorry if I offend some by waxing poetic here based on my own spiritual experiences and beliefs, but a wise man once said a camel would sooner pass through the eye of a needle than a businessman get to heaven. But people don't really believe in that sort of thing or they wouldn't risk eternity over a trivial temporal existence that amounts to little more than a test of one's moral integrity and ability to either help or harm others through their actions, to work for one's own benefit only or for the benefit of everyone. It's a simple thing to understand, but a near impossible thing for most to do something about. They can't help but reveal their true nature here. Personally, I don't believe in a classical "Hell" as such or world religions either for that matter (religions tend to be man-made organizations that attempt to explain what they do not understand whereas the truth is more spiritual in nature) but I do believe people don't move upward so-to-speak as long as their light is focused inward only toward oneself rather than seeking to illuminate the whole.

Money doesn't last. Pleasure doesn't last. Everything here is temporary. You can't take it with you so why spend a lifetime trying to build huge reserves of something that's ultimately not going to benefit you? If there's nothing after this life, then it was all a waste of time and you won't remember you even lived so what is the point of anything, really? If it's not the end, well... one might consider the implications of such and the futility of chasing shadows instead of light. Just a thought for those that have ears to hear and eyes to see. The rest will laugh or curse. It matters not which.

Now that's just an incredibly stupid statement. Come back to us if you ever happen to be in his situation.

Unlike you, I don't fear death. I'd rather die with a clear conscience than buy a little more time at the expense of someone else waiting in line for a transplant that really needs the time here.

 

[gkpm]

Unlike you, I don't fear death. I'd rather die with a clear conscience than buy a little more time at the expense of someone else waiting in line for a transplant that really needs the time here.

Yeah, sure... Heard that before mate during a clinical internship. As I said you only truly know that when you get there. Those who talk like you now are usually the first to fold and step over anything and everyone to get there.

So try to be respectful in the meantime.

No one needs their time more or less anyway. SJ has children and a wife too.

PS: You should take care of yourself, reading your full post makes it look like you're chasing the dragon a bit too much.

 

[manu chao]

I don't get how people are saying Apple is anti-competitive in this case when Amazon has a huge closed platform themselves called.. 'Kindle' e-book reader. it has many more units out there than there are iPads.

Can Apple sell iBooks on Kindle without paying Amazon *at least* 30% comission (or 70% on many markets)? No.

Is there an option to install an Apple store on the Kindle? No.

Maybe the anti competition authorities some commenters have in mind could look into this problem.

If a company (eg, Better Place) started to create its own network of battery changing stations to sell its own electric cars, it would not be required to change batteries on cars from other manufacturers. But if an existing network of battery exchange stations (with lots of customers and being the de facto monopoly) started to manufacture cars and then would charge other cars 30% more (with these other cars having no alternative to change batteries), it could be in trouble.

In the end it all comes down to defining markets. If you cannot easily separate two parts of a business, you cannot force it to separate. Take you electricity: often production and distribution is handled by the same company which naturally has no interest in letting other companies sell electricity in their region. But you can separate the two and enforce competition.

So, anti-anticompetion action requires:
1) an existing or easily imaginable market (ebooks on iOS, ebook stores on Kindle hardware, battery change service)
2) a dominant market position (eg, Apple with tablets, Amazon with Kindle books on the Kindle hardware, battery exchange stations)
3) abusive behaviour

So, yes, ebook stores on Kindle hardware is an imaginable market (similar to distribution of electricity as a separate entity was while production and distribution were still integrated) but it clearly is not an existing one yet (as third-party apps on the iPad clearly is already). It is much harder to define the viability of a non-existing market and to define and prove abusive behaviour in a non-existing market (you cannot prove electricity companies overcharge customers for the production of electricity unless you have forced them to open their distribution to others). Usually this kind of market opening (or rather market creation) requires some political push to get going (though sometimes a legal complaint can also kickstart this).

As I said before, to postulate market domination you first have to define a market and all competition law requires that adjacent markets are considered. Thus ebooks on Kindle hardware has as adjacent market actual physical e-ink e-readers (Nook, Sony and others). And including this adjacent market, the ebook store Kindle might not be that dominant anymore. The same can be said for the Kindle app on iOS, of course the Kindle software on the Kindle hardware is an adjacent market. And for the battery changing stations the market could be defined as providing vehicles with energy. And unless a large proportion of that energy would be provided by those stations (and not by petrol, hydrogen, or charging), they might not be considered to dominate that market.

 

[gkpm]

So, yes, ebook stores on Kindle hardware is an imaginable market (similar to distribution of electricity as a separate entity was while production and distribution were still integrated) but it clearly is not an existing one yet (as third-party apps on the iPad clearly is already) [...]

As I said before, to constipate market domination you first have to define a market and all competition law requires that adjacent markets are considered. Thus ebooks on Kindle hardware has as adjacent market actual physical e-ink e-readers (Nook, Sony and others). And including this adjacent market, the ebook store Kindle might not be that dominant anymore.
The same can be said for the Kindle app on iOS, of course the Kindle software on the Kindle hardware is an adjacent market.

I apologize but you lost me a bit at "constipate market domination". Suddenly I imagined an adjacent market laxative and derailed my thoughts. That's probably why IANAL, too easily amused.

But interesting analysis, thanks for that. Just one thing is that an e-store already exists on the Kindle platform, it's exclusively tied to Amazon.

So I think this may fit in as being the distributor in your scenario and thus a candidate to being split and deregulated?

Another thing is that Amazon has a clear dominant position even considering the adjacent e-readers.

But I wasn't trying to prove that Apple or Amazon have a monopoly. Just that they sit on similar grounds wrt, so it's a bit cheeky of Amazon to be demading that Apple open their store when they themselves don't.

 

[pdjudd]

So, yes, ebook stores on Kindle hardware is an imaginable market .

Yep. It’s called the Kindle made by Amazon. A monopoly that Amazon has every right to control. Outside of that, they are at the mercy of the owners of those platforms.

Of course this is a very limited market that you cannot really use in Anti-trust since Amazon legitimately owns and controls said market. If Amazon wanted to add the Android Market on the Kindle, Google would have every right to say “Hell No” or “maybe under these terms” or “go right ahead”. That’s because Google controls the Android Market and have every right to a monopoly of their own product.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



No because the shareholders demand they make money. It is not up to Apple.

Indeed. In fact I believe they are legally and contractually obligated to act in that fashion.

I love this argument. Are Apple's shareholders forcing them to take 30% and not, let say 20%. Why aren't Apple's shareholders forcing them to take 40%? 50%?

Did Apple's shareholders force them to demand that a product sold in the AppStore couldn't be solder for a different price somewhere else? Why are Apple's shareholders now forcing them to abandon that demand?

Etc.

 

[manu chao]

I apologize but you lost me a bit at "constipate market domination". Suddenly I imagined an adjacent market laxative and derailed my thoughts.

At least I have the excuse that English is not my mother tongue (and it is late at night). I think the word I was looking for was somewhere between stipulate, postulate, conclude, constitute.

Just one thing is that an e-store already exists on the Kindle platform, it's exclusively tied to Amazon.

This is why I mention the ability to separate things. Is it reasonable to assume that you can separate the two parts of the business. Here it is the bookstore from the hardware. Could you for example separate the business of serving the food and cooking the food in a restaurant? Of course you can but the restaurant owner can claim that by offering both services he can create an overall experience that is beyond and above what separate services could deliver.

So I think this may fit in as being the distributor in your scenario and thus a candidate to being split and deregulated?

Yes, in theory. In practice, there are steep hurdles before a split can be carried out and even steep ones before regulation can be applied (although the FCC for example can step in rather quickly in certain markets).

Another thing is that Amazon has a clear dominant position even considering the adjacent e-readers.

But I wasn't trying to prove that Apple or Amazon have a monopoly. Just that they sit on similar grounds wrt, so it's a bit cheeky of Amazon to be demading that Apple open their store when they themselves don't.

I think defining all e-readers (e-ink and LCD, ie, including the iPad) is one reasonable definition (that regulators might agree with) and apps for handheld computers (tablets + smartphones) is another reasonable one (and Apple does not have dominant position in the complete smartphone business).

But in both cases it is easy to draw the borders slightly different (eg, only e-ink ebook readers, eg, Amazon could have dominant position and only apps for iOS, which is dominant in the tablet-sized devices space). The important difference between Amazon's potential troubles and Apple's is that Amazon's market does not exist yet whereas Apple's market already exists (and merely by existing, successfully we could say, bolsters the argument that is a market that is relevant).

 

[manu chao]

That’s because Google controls the Android Market and have every right to a monopoly of their own product.

When you create a monopoly, you have some time to use it. Simply because the fact that you created it might mean somebody else might easily create a similar product that destroys that monopoly again.
Only if a monopoly persists for quite some time (which is an indirect proof that it is difficult for others to break into it), can and do regulators start to regulate or break up the monopoly. Take Ma' Bell, it was not broken up after some long, long years. Take electricity distribution, only in the last ten years have the markets been forced open, after having been shut for decades.

 

[pdjudd]

I love this argument. Are Apple's shareholders forcing them to take 30% and not, let say 20%. Why aren't Apple's shareholders forcing them to take 40%? 50%?

Did Apple's shareholders force them to demand that a product sold in the AppStore couldn't be solder for a different price somewhere else? Why are Apple's shareholders now forcing them to abandon that demand?

Etc.

They are going to come up with a number that they can get away with. It’s not far from their music businesses cut. I honestly don’t know the details on how they came up with that specific number. Ask Apple’s accounting division.

It is a fact that Apple is contractually and legally obligated to make a profit to the shareholders. That’s the way that companies work. Any way that they can make money and not cause people to say “no” the better for them.

 

[gkpm]

At least I have the excuse that English is not my mother tongue (and it is late at night).

No worries, neither is it mine. Just thought it was a funny expression.

Thanks for the very interesting discussion.

It certainly will be interesting to see what happens when Amazon launches their much rumoured tablet supposedly running Android.

I'd like to see how their Terms & Conditions will be then, I have a suspicion they'll make Apple's look quite lenient.

 

[pdjudd]

When you create a monopoly, you have some time to use it. Simply because the fact that you created it might mean somebody else might easily create a similar product that destroys that monopoly again.

I am talking about the monopoly that Google own on it’s own properties. As long as the trademarks are valid, they legally own that monopoly. Of course that’s not the monopoly you are talking about - you are thinking of a broader concept.

 

[Corban987]

Seems I may be buying a Kindle! Stupid Apple. This was one of the reasons I chose the iPad. Apple books are limited, the Kindle app is better. The iPad gave the user the choice of what bookstore to go to and now not quite so. Removing the link from the Kindle app won't hurt, I always buy my books from the Amazon site anyway and hardly use the link in the app.

 

[AaronEdwards]

They are going to come up with a number that they can get away with. It’s not far from their music businesses cut. I honestly don’t know the details on how they came up with that specific number. Ask Apple’s accounting division.

It is a fact that Apple is contractually and legally obligated to make a profit to the shareholders. That’s the way that companies work. Any way that they can make money and not cause people to say “no” the better for them.

1. $1 is a profit.

2. If they are legally obligated to, what happens when they can't? Do the company get sued? Does people end up in jail?

3. Just wondering, which law is it?

 

[Liquorpuki]

So, anti-anticompetion action requires:
1) an existing or easily imaginable market (ebooks on iOS, ebook stores on Kindle hardware

Those are not markets. An eBook bought from X retailer is not a market. If I don't want to buy an ebook from Apple, I'm free to buy the same exact book off other distribution platforms such as the B&N store or the Amazon website.

Otherwise I might as well say hamburgers served at McDonalds are a market and McDonalds is engaging in unfair practices because they have a 100% monopoly on hamburgers served at McDonalds.

Also, all the talk about the Kindle being a closed platform is BS. A Kindle Dev Kit is out - Apple is free to waste money to come up with an iBooks app if it wants to. But they won't because the iBooks library sucks and all they'd be doing is shepherding potential iPad purchasers over to Amazon hardware.

 

[pdjudd]

1. $1 is a profit.

2. If they are legally obligated to, what happens when they can't? Do the company get sued? Does people end up in jail?

3. Just wondering, which law is it?

1) And a percentage of sales is even more. Their goal is to maximize profit. Not just make one.
2) No Jail time since it is not criminal law but civil law. Typically CEO’s/executives (most of them own stock BTW) who aren’t useful to the board get tossed out. If negligence occurs their can be a lawsuit brought by anyone who has the right position.
3) Civil and contract law typically. There is other federal laws that dictate how public companies operate but they wouldn’t apply here.

 

[AaronEdwards]

They are going to come up with a number that they can get away with. It’s not far from their music businesses cut. I honestly don’t know the details on how they came up with that specific number. Ask Apple’s accounting division.

It is a fact that Apple is contractually and legally obligated to make a profit to the shareholders. That’s the way that companies work. Any way that they can make money and not cause people to say “no” the better for them.

And actually, the conservative argument isn't that a company has to make profit, it is that it has to maximize profit. And that that should be it's focus and nothing else. The environment shouldn't be the focus, maximizing profit should.

Your argument about just making profit is a bit washed down. Not just a bit. it's hosed.

And I doubt that charging 30% for iTunes Store, 30% for the iOS AppStore, 30% for the Mac AppStore is maximizing profit. It looks more like they picked a number and are sticking with it.

Should Apple get sued or Jobs be replaced for refusing to maximize profits?

 

[AaronEdwards]

1) And a percentage of sales is even more. Their goal is to maximize profit. Not just make one.
2) No Jail time since it is not criminal law but civil law. Typically CEO’s/executives (most of them own stock BTW) who aren’t useful to the board get tossed out. If negligence occurs their can be a lawsuit brought by anyone who has the right position.
3) Civil and contract law typically. There is other federal laws that dictate how public companies operate but they wouldn’t apply here.

So you can't tell me one law that demands the maximization of profit?