Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 125
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    No, but they own the ecosystem.

    If I'm a publisher and I want to reach iOS users without paying the related costs for distribution and payment processing, I can easily publish to the web, no?
    No

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    If you type PreCentral on a TouchPad
    It changes to PreMenstrual
    That situation needs to be fixed!
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Apple owns the App Store.

    I fail to see what market Apple controls: the electronic book market? the smartphone app market? the tablet market? Is there nowhere else to read an electronic magazine? Is there nowhere else to watch a movie on a mobile device? Where else can I buy an app?

    Price is a perfectly good reason to not want to use a vendor. You don't have to justify it on any technical or quality grounds. You can just say "I don't like your price". You can certainly say "I'm not dealing with you if you are going to undercut my price with your own factory store". You can even say "I'm not going to sell your stuff if you sell it to anyone else but me."

    What's wrong with that?
    They control the distribution of apps on their devices. You cannot install any apps on iOS unless you go through them. They in effect hold everyone using iOS or wishing to utilize mutual iOS customers hostage with these new rules. I could buy directly from Amazon Kindle if I wanted to, and Amazon could sell to me if they wanted to. Not anymore(well I think they have 90 days). We all have to go through Apple. Amazon has to sell books through Apple, they have no choice if they want to reach their mutual customers. Why do I have to go through Apple to reach Amazon?

    But they do have about 90 days to fix this crap!!
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    No

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    BTW, you must know now that HP isn't the only corporation I can call out for questionable practices.

    Any of them are fair game, lol. Every time I turn around, something's going on!
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    You may not like it. I don't like the price of food and drink at stadiums and theme parks. I figure it in to my desire to go to an event. However, it's not illegal even though the venues typically control exclusive access to these teams of performers
    Sorry but I didn't buy a seat in Apple's stadium. I bought a hardware device that I want to be able to use to it's fullest potential just as I would want to do with any other product I purchased. I'm not a lessee of an Apple product.

    One of two things are likely to result from this, either Apple backs off or we see something similar to what happen to Microsoft with IE and Apple ends up being required to offer jailbreaks for their devices to exit their "ecosystem".
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    You may not like it. I don't like the price of food and drink at stadiums and theme parks. I figure it in to my desire to go to an event. However, it's not illegal even though the venues typically control exclusive access to these teams of performers
    These restaurant and ballpark analogies are simply not the same at all.


    I'm not going to be told by anyone where I can shop. And if I were a vendor, I'm not going to hand over my profits and control over my customers to a competitor who gains from gimping over everyone else to sell it's own content!!! Not to mention lording it's app store position so it can gouge and/or control everyone!! NO company should have this much control!!

    You all know I'm not a pro-business person, but even I can see this is a disaster to lose control over even your own existing customers through a competitor by force. Force as in risking loss of said customers, and make no mistake, this is what Apple is banking on. That companies kiss their behind or be forced to leave the App Store, because either way, Apple wins. This is heavy handed control. Apple keeps doing this and it seriously needs to stop!
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  6. spare's Avatar
    Posts
    662 Posts
    Global Posts
    664 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Yes, and you can't bring outside food into most restaurants. The Outback Steakhouse is holding you hostage and preventing McDonalds from reaching their mutual customer while you are having dinner.
    Restaurants are liable if you get sick in their place, no matter where you get the food. Apple is not liable if a jailbroken app bricks your phone.
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Look, in the US, the FTC only cares if you have a monopoly and are using that monopoly to restrain the free market. Nobody here has made a case that Apple exerts monopoly control over any market. The closest you might get is their share of the 1 year-old tablet market and their market share will probably be down to about 50% by the end of the year. There are plenty of platform competitors - not the least of which happens to be Google.
    Uh... You realize that this is an active investigation, right? So, apparently the case is being made by someone.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    If you type PreCentral on a TouchPad
    It changes to PreMenstrual
    That situation needs to be fixed!
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Sorry but I didn't buy a seat in Apple's stadium. I bought a hardware device that I want to be able to use to it's fullest potential just as I would want to do with any other product I purchased. I'm not a lessee of an Apple product.
    Ahhh, but see that's part of the complexity of this issue. It's going to sound like I'm flip-flopping now, but I'm really not, since my position remains the same based on the principle of what's going on.

    That said, you are a "lesee of an Apple product". Or more accurately, you hold a license to their product. You don't own the OS on the phone (if you own an iPhone), you license it. Thus, Apple is free to employ certain constraints.

    The problem is that most folks don't realize this, they think they own it. However, as Apple (and other companies, including HP if they choose a similarly restrictive route) continues this practice, it's going to become more and more obvious how the consumer is getting screwed over by such practices (there's a reason Apple's profit margin is so high).

    In short, the practice is anti-competitive. It's designed specifically so Apple can control the market. If the laws don't apply, they will be changed. Anti-competitive practice laws, both in actual changes and in interpretation of the law, have been very fluid. Without those laws, capitalism fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    One of two things are likely to result from this, either Apple backs off or we see something similar to what happen to Microsoft with IE and Apple ends up being required to offer jailbreaks for their devices to exit their "ecosystem".
    Yep, I agree on this one. Microsoft tried standing on the idea that it's their OS, they can add whatever requirements they wanted. Interestingly enough, the Europeans were more proactive than we were (MS paid big money in fines in Europe), but restrictions were put in place, and that whole scenario was much more complex and difficult to "see" than this one.
  9. #29  
    Apple under pressure over 30 per cent subs cut | News | TechRadar UK

    More Apple-related antitrust issues.

    Thoughts?
  10. #30  
    What are yours? Be nice to see your input on it, given you were the one who posted it.

    My view; I'm glad this stuff is coming out into the public like it has been lately. This is one of several reasons I will never own an apple product. I don't need someone controlling/telling me how I can use a device that I purchased. I love how Jobs pretty much said they are going to make their own flash that works just like adobes but will be better cause it's apple..
  11. #31  
    I see this issue an oportunity for HP to offer the newspapers and magazines a free charge for including them on their devices. Maybe some kind of trade with free publicity of HP devices will be fair enough.
  12. #32  
    its fairly straight forward. If you want to distribute your media in the app store/ibooks/etc? You have to follow apples rules. Its been a standard 30% since day 1, I dont see what the issue is. This is great for publishers, theyre getting a different area of the market that wants to consume different media. I used to buy a pop sci whenever I go on a flight, but i'd never think about paying for a subscription. With my iPad its 15 bucks and I get content on a device I carry around with me nearly everywhere.

    If content providers have an issue with the rules, tough luck gtfo.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by akitayo View Post
    I see this issue an oportunity for HP to offer the newspapers and magazines a free charge for including them on their devices. Maybe some kind of trade with free publicity of HP devices will be fair enough.
    so content providers get free publicity vs a 70% cut. I'd rather get 70%.
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Garage91 View Post
    its fairly straight forward. If you want to distribute your media in the app store/ibooks/etc? You have to follow apples rules. Its been a standard 30% since day 1, I dont see what the issue is. This is great for publishers, theyre getting a different area of the market that wants to consume different media. I used to buy a pop sci whenever I go on a flight, but i'd never think about paying for a subscription. With my iPad its 15 bucks and I get content on a device I carry around with me nearly everywhere.

    If content providers have an issue with the rules, tough luck gtfo.
    This has nothing to do with distributing apps in the apps catalog. Apple is insisting that providers price their own content at Apple's price when they distribute it themselves. This isn't an app, it's a subscription service.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    This has nothing to do with distributing apps in the apps catalog. Apple is insisting that providers price their own content at Apple's price when they distribute it themselves. This isn't an app, it's a subscription service.
    Great. Same concept. If you want to distribute your media using the iPad you've got follow apples rules. Apple wants to maintain that price point of a subscription-if you buy it from the app store or if you buy it outside of apple.

    If you have an issue with their pricing policy, bug off and distribute your media somewhere else.
  16. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    That said, you are a "lesee of an Apple product". Or more accurately, you hold a license to their product. You don't own the OS on the phone (if you own an iPhone), you license it. Thus, Apple is free to employ certain constraints.
    I see your angle. I'm not an Apple user but for this lessee concept MUST be enforced by some agreement between the buyer and Apple. Does anyone recall agreeing to such terms when buying a iphone/ipad/etc? Even if, that's a pretty shaky standing that could be broken in court.

    Regardless, I think the same thing will happen again. EU will start thumping it's chest and Apple will voluntarily change its policy to avoid the legal fight (which would lead to more important negative press in the mainstream media). Changing their policy enough to avoid legal rulings that forces or ties their hands to a protocol is all important (they've learned form MS's troubles).
  17. #38  
    But Amazon isn't saying that the book seller can't sell his book for less elsewhere. (i.e. he can't just crank the price up only on Apple's app store to cover Apple's 30% cost, and sell it less directly or somewhere else)
  18.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Garage91 View Post
    Great. Same concept. If you want to distribute your media using the iPad you've got follow apples rules. Apple wants to maintain that price point of a subscription-if you buy it from the app store or if you buy it outside of apple.

    If you have an issue with their pricing policy, bug off and distribute your media somewhere else.
    Nope. There's no other mechansim for distributing the media. Apple controls that remember?

    Besides, there really are laws concerning this stuff. That's why they're being investigated.
  19. #40  
    I don't see any way apple can win this if it goes to court, but they totally ignored the ruling that they must allow jailbreaking. Someone has to actually take this to court.

    Just like microsoft back when they were under the antitrust gun. It took court action in the US and Europe to get them to make even little changes. And th only outcome was that every competitor got the details from the govt case to sue MS directly so that microsoft essentially "paid off" all the competitors that cried foul. An easy $billion for each of them.

    In this case, there aren't any big dogs like Novell or Real to push this, so the EU will end up fighting this.

    if Apple made it possible for sellers to offer stuff outside of iTunes, it would be legal.

    I sure hope that palm (and google) are going to use this to siphon developers from apple.

    Apple is doing exactly what Standard Oil did - allocationg business and fixing prices.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/20/2011 at 02:28 PM. Reason: typo
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions