Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 125
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I don't see any way aple 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.
    And the real kicker (to me) on all of this is that the Apple fans pretend this is all a good thing.

    Of course, I've seen on here how some Apple fans will laud the success of Apple maintaining a high profit margin, then villify HP for doing so with their toner & ink cartridges. Odd, to say the least.
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurgling View Post
    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)
    Not only that, but Kindle (Amazon's hardware device) is not restricted to reading content that only they are authorized to distribute.

    I have no qualms with Apple charging whatever markup their buying public will support, as long as they do not attempt to restrict competition from doing the same.
  3. #43  
    Hopefully subscription services and booksellers, like Amazon, will choose to stop selling on iPads and iPhones. People like buying from Barnes & Noble and Amazon (Kindle). One of the things the iPad and iPhone boasts is the ability to use a Kindle app.

    I know that with my PalmOS, I had numerous book sites that I could purchase content from. But only one site to get my audio books (audible). Consequently, I sometimes found that I purchase a few books more than once, but from different sites. That never happened with my audio books and it no longer happens now that I purchase all my books through Amazon or B&N; mainly Amazon.

    Amazon was the first site that sold cheap digital books. All of my previous sites sold the electronic version at a higher cost than the paper version (which I always thought was ridiculous). Now that Amazon has shown that there's a market, Apple wants to take over that market for any customer that uses their device. Their opening salvo was when they showed the iPad and stated that buying books from Amazon would be a thing of the past.

    I hope Amazon and others don't accept the new terms. I know it hurts in the short term, but in the long term, accepting Apple's terms will hurt Amazon more (i.e. Apple will siphon of the Kindle customer to ibooks over time). I also hope that Amazon learns a lesson from this and open up their Kindle content (I'd like to be able read google e-books, on my Kindle, to support my local bookstore).
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    No, it would be like a resturant charging a corking fee when you bring your own bottle of wine into your own dining room.

    Apple doesn't own the phone.
    Apple thinks it controls (and it does) the content on every device they sell.
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by bdhu2001 View Post
    Hopefully subscription services and booksellers, like Amazon, will choose to stop selling on iPads and iPhones. People like buying from Barnes & Noble and Amazon (Kindle). One of the things the iPad and iPhone boasts is the ability to use a Kindle app...
    Actually, I'm hoping for a similar, but slightly different outcome. Wouldn't this be interesting:

    Apple proceeds as they've currently indicated. Then (assuming HP is successful, and Android offers a similar type application) companies offers something like this:

    FaveMag e-Subscription rates:
    Android: $6.99
    WebOS: $6.99
    iPhone: $9.99

    Think such a scenario would garner the interest of iPhone users, even those currently defending this practice?
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Actually, I'm hoping for a similar, but slightly different outcome. Wouldn't this be interesting:

    Apple proceeds as they've currently indicated. Then (assuming HP is successful, and Android offers a similar type application) companies offers something like this:

    FaveMag e-Subscription rates:
    Android: $6.99
    WebOS: $6.99
    iPhone: $9.99

    Think such a scenario would garner the interest of iPhone users, even those currently defending this practice?
    I think iPhone users will simply claim the magazine is better on the iPhone/iPad and move on. That's assuming they even notice the price difference. I'm not sure they spend much time looking at other platforms.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    And the real kicker (to me) on all of this is that the Apple fans pretend this is all a good thing.

    Of course, I've seen on here how some Apple fans will laud the success of Apple maintaining a high profit margin, then villify HP for doing so with their toner & ink cartridges. Odd, to say the least.
    Because Apple fans have no real direct link or knowledge of what's going on and quite frankly, those that do could care less. All they care about is the experience that Apple delivers and that they continue to do so.

    All Apple is doing here is looking out for their consumers, as they always do.

    If a company/publisher want's to up the price for whatever it is they're selling, then so be it, but it's not just going to happen to iPad/iPhone customers, it has to happen all across the board.

    I don't see what the real quarrel is here; what I find more astonishing is those that think Apple isn't entitled to a cut when they're responsible for making the sale in the first place. It's like those little kiosk stands inside Costco, Sams Clubs, etc. that sell mobile phones and other things – you don't think Costco makes a cut on top of the rent that's already being paid? If you don't, you may want to have another look.

    The problem here isn't Apple, it's the middleman who is already taking a large chunk of the profit; the publisher, distributor, etc and I suspect this move by Apple will cause another shift in yet another market, like they did with music. We'll begin to see more books self-published.
  8. #48  
    I don't see the market for magazine subscriptions being all that big for a while. Where I think this it an issue is in selling or subscribing to movies, TV, and Music.

    I would love to see Rhapsody charge $5 more for iPad/iPod users. I would love to see Kindle books cost 40% more for iPad/iPod purchases, etc etc.

    I don't know if those services can charge differently without massive system changes. But I hope they try so iPad/iPad users can enjoy having the cost passed on to them.

    I just don't understand how Apple can enforce this for anything that can be purchased in more than one way. If I subscribe to HuluPlus from my PC, does Apple automatically get 30% if I use an i/PadPodPhone to watch the subscription? If I create a Kindle account on my PC and buy a kindle book from a PC, Kindle, etc, does Apple retroactively get 30% of anything I bought in Kindle format as soon as I use the i/PPP to access that book?

    The more I try to think this through, the more the pain behind my eye increases.

    If I were Amazon I'd make the kindle app able to read books, but not be able to buy them from within an iOS app. Either that, or make them 30% more expensive if they are purchased through an iOS app. Does Apple have terms that restrict those methods?

    What am I missing?
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    All Apple is doing here is looking out for their consumers, as they always do.

    If a company/publisher want's to up the price for whatever it is they're selling, then so be it, but it's not just going to happen to iPad/iPhone customers, it has to happen all across the board.
    You don't seem to understand the issue.

    The publisher don't want to "up the price", Apple is requiring them to. Apple is requiring the publisher to match Apple's built in 30% surcharge. In the examples I gave, there is no corresponding surcharge.

    In my example, Apple adds the $3 to the $6.99 price. They also are forcing the publishers to add that $3. So now you're saying if the Apple subscription has the $3 added, it has to be "across the board"? Why? Google and HP aren't forcing the publisher to do so. Surely you don't think forcing across the board price increases benefits the consumers that Apple is "watching out for"?

    Now please explain how Apple requiring the publisher to charge the same inflated price for the subscription as they charge is "watching out for their consumer".

    Not only that, you seem totally confused on the topic at hand. A magazine publisher is not the "middleman" for their product. They produce the publication. In this instance, Apple is the middle man. And Apple is trying to say "You can offer your subscription outside of the App Store, but if you do you can't sell less than our 30% markup".

    That's a crock of crap.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I just don't understand how Apple can enforce this for anything that can be purchased in more than one way. If I subscribe to HuluPlus from my PC, does Apple automatically get 30% if I use an i/PadPodPhone to watch the subscription? If I create a Kindle account on my PC and buy a kindle book from a PC, Kindle, etc, does Apple retroactively get 30% of anything I bought in Kindle format as soon as I use the i/PPP to access that book?
    No, Apple only get's 30% if the subscription is bought on the iPhone/iPad. A consumer is still free to buy outside if they choose to do so.

    Their logic behind this is, if they drove the sale then they want a cut. Makes sense.
  11.    #51  
    Wait. What am I thinking. I forgot. Apple surely invented electronic magazine subscriptions.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    So now you're saying if the Apple subscription has the $3 added, it has to be "across the board"? Why? Google and HP aren't forcing the publisher to do so. Surely you don't think forcing across the board price increases benefits the consumers that Apple is "watching out for"?
    Because Google/HP don't put their customers first, like Apple does. But I won't begin to debate this with you because you see it as the exact opposite.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    No, Apple only get's 30% if the subscription is bought on the iPhone/iPad. A consumer is still free to buy outside if they choose to do so.

    Their logic behind this is, if they drove the sale then they want a cut. Makes sense.
    Then I am confused as to why this is an issue. Apps should just turn off in-app purchases or charge more if you buy it through Apple than if you buy it elsewhere. I was under the impression that the users had no other choice than to buy from within the app.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Because Google/HP don't put their customers first, like Apple does. But I won't begin to debate this with you because you see it as the exact opposite.
    Each company might ave a different idea as to how to show they like their customers, and they might even have a different definition as to who the customer is... but you just won't get any traction with the idea that Apple "loves" their customer and HP/Google/etc see their customer as the enemy.

    My view is that Apple sees the end-user as the customer, and Google sees the hardware maker as the customer. In the world of Smartphones, HP sees the carrier as the customer.

    That's why Apple works so hard to control the product end-to-end. They decide what their customer wants/needs, and they try to provide it themselves where they can ensure the customer gets what Apple intends. That's why they have Apple stores, Expert bars, iTunes for ecommerce, their own activation system for the device, etc. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's something only Apple has been able to be successful with. They only work through a carrier (or put an expert bar in a Best Buy) if they can be sure that it will be exactly the same and completely controlled. Proof of that is that the iPhone took much longer to originally launch because Apple wouldn't let AT&T sell/provision phones their way. AT&T had to completely recreate the provisioning process so that they could be sold/activated directly with Apple, support would be there for visual voice mail, etc. At&t resisted at every step (naturally) and it took forever to create something that Apple would sign up for - that's why they had to offer an exclusive deal.

    And that's a big part of what the VZW CEO was talking about when he said they had to "earn" the iPhone. Once Apple proved themselves right, VZW had to build the same system before they could sell it.

    Another place you see proof of this... try to create a user review for an iPhone. Conveniently you can leave a review on VZW or AT&T websites for any phone EXCEPT the iPhone... Because Apple doesn't allow anything to be published about them on those sites that they don't control. They can't allow me to create a user review that I had any problem or criticism. Apple doesn't allow criticism. Again, it's impressive that they can get away with it so I'm not complaining... let's just not mistake their censorship for having a higher regard for customers than another company.

    The only company that truly hates their customer would be the Monty Python Complaint Clinic.

    just sayin
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Another place you see proof of this... try to create a user review for an iPhone. Conveniently you can leave a review on VZW or AT&T websites for any phone EXCEPT the iPhone... Because Apple doesn't allow anything to be published about them on those sites that they don't control. They can't allow me to create a user review that I had any problem or criticism. Apple doesn't allow criticism. Again, it's impressive that they can get away with it so I'm not complaining... let's just not mistake their censorship for having a higher regard for customers than another company.
    Best Buy breaks your theory.

  16. #56  
    Food for thought: Apple makes money by delivering a user experience that many consumers desire. When that experience is compromised, what model is left?
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Because Google/HP don't put their customers first, like Apple does. But I won't begin to debate this with you because you see it as the exact opposite.
    You have yet to explain exactly how charging a 30% surcharge for someone else's work is "putting the customer first".
  18.    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Food for thought: Apple makes money by delivering a user experience that many consumers desire. When that experience is compromised, what model is left?
    I'm going to keep repeating this, since you don't seem to be getting it.

    The subscription is what we're talking about. That subscription is the same, no matter who is offering it. How is Apple requiring the publisher to charge more protecting that "user experience".

    Unless your view is that paying more is an integral part of that "user experience".
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Best Buy breaks your theory.

    I stand corrected. That's the first time I've seen anything like that. Can't leave reviews at AT&T or VZW.... I wonder how B pulled that off! Or maybe that's what caused Apple to forbid that on carrier sites...

    Good find!
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Food for thought: Apple makes money by delivering a user experience that many consumers desire. When that experience is compromised, what model is left?
    Hopefully there is more than one experience that any given consumer would desire. It's even possible that there is an experience that the consumer would desire more but they won't ever get to make the comparison.

    Variety is the spice of life, and choice is generally a good thing. You will have a hard time taking the position that whatever Apple is doing can't be improved or topped, and that anything else would be bad for the user.

    I didn't say it was a bad experience, only that they are the only ones that have been able to pull something like that off. Others might try (Microsoft now controls Nokia) and someone might actually replace Apple at the #1 spot (once Jobs is gone and a human is running things).
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions