Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 125
  1.    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    That's easy. It prevents publishers from charging App Store customers more than they charge others. I wonder how the consumer would feel if paying via credit card cost 3% more than paying by cash?
    Nope. The publishers aren't charging any more for anyone; or at least they're trying not to. Apple is adding the surcharge when you buy the subscription from them. They're insisting that the publisher add the same surcharge when they sell.
  2. #62  
    Hey hparsons, where was the outcry when Amazon took a 70% cut and also required price matching across the board?
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Hey hparsons, where was the outcry when Amazon took a 70% cut and also required price matching across the board?
    I don't know, wasn't really following Amazon at the time (still don't, much). However, it's not the same thing.

    Pick a title. Amazon was not telling the publisher of that title that their work could not be loaded on a Kindle unless the publisher sells for that price everywhere.

    Again, I don't have a problem with what Apple wants to sell their product for. I don't have a problem with the price that Apple wants to charge in their store.

    I do have a problem with them telling a publisher the price they can charge for their own product.

    I hope you see the difference, but I don't think you'll acknowledge there is one.

    Edit

    I might add, there's no real outcry from me on this. It's just a topic for discussion. As I pointed out in the original post, it's the US Justice Department and the FTC that's conducting an investigation. Since you appear to be a bit sensitive about the matter, maybe instead of asking me you should ask them?
    Last edited by hparsons; 02/20/2011 at 07:00 PM.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I don't know, wasn't really following Amazon at the time (still don't, much). However, it's not the same thing.

    Pick a title. Amazon was not telling the publisher of that title that their work could not be loaded on a Kindle unless the publisher sells for that price everywhere.

    Again, I don't have a problem with what Apple wants to sell their product for. I don't have a problem with the price that Apple wants to charge in their store.

    I do have a problem with them telling a publisher the price they can charge for their own product.

    I hope you see the difference, but I don't think you'll acknowledge there is one.
    But that's the thing, Apple isn't setting any prices here, they're simply saying that you can't charge anymore than what you charge outside their app store. There is a difference and this is protecting their [Apple's] users. If The publisher wants to charge more, they can also up the price wherever else they sell their content.

    Also, Amazon initially implemented the same thing, except they took 70% of subscription revenue from magazine and newspaper publishers. That was quickly changed after Apple introduced their 30%/70% model which Amazon matched.

    Kindle Is Just Another Way for Papers to Lose Money : CJR
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Edit

    I might add, there's no real outcry from me on this. It's just a topic for discussion. As I pointed out in the original post, it's the US Justice Department and the FTC that's conducting an investigation. Since you appear to be a bit sensitive about the matter, maybe instead of asking me you should ask them?
    Of course Apple is going to be under a lot more scrutiny than say Amazon, but I suspect that if something does come of this, others [Amazon] will be thrown under the bus as well.
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    But that's the thing, Apple isn't setting any prices here, they're simply saying that you can't charge anymore than what you charge outside their app store.
    And they have built in to their app store a surcharge. Nothing wrong with that. But, you can't say "you can't sell your own product elsewhere, including your own store, for less".

    That's anti-competitive practices. Plain and simple. The product is the same in both locations, so the "user experience" nonsense you keep repeating is the same. They are saying they can offer it cheaper.

    It appears that Apple feels the "user experience" of the App Store doesn't justify the extra charge they impose. Or maybe it's just they fear their customers won't see it that way.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    ...Also, Amazon initially implemented the same thing, except they took 70% of subscription revenue from magazine and newspaper publishers. That was quickly changed after Apple introduced their 30%/70% model which Amazon matched.

    Kindle Is Just Another Way for Papers to Lose Money : CJR
    The difference is that Amazon never restricted distribution soley to Amazon. Distribution of periodicals has been available in other means almost since the introduction of the Kindle. The difference is in the ease of distribution. Kindle is charging for the ease of use. I don't mind that. Convenience stores sell more, but they don't try to tell the grocery store they can't sell gas too (or sell it for less).
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    And they have built in to their app store a surcharge. Nothing wrong with that. But, you can't say "you can't sell your own product elsewhere, including your own store, for less".

    That's anti-competitive practices. Plain and simple. The product is the same in both locations, so the "user experience" nonsense you keep repeating is the same. They are saying they can offer it cheaper.
    They're not saying that. They're saying you can't sell in their App Store for more. It's the way you word it. They're not controlling the price set outside their store, only what's set within.
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Hey hparsons, where was the outcry when Amazon took a 70% cut and also required price matching across the board?
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Of course Apple is going to be under a lot more scrutiny than say Amazon, but I suspect that if something does come of this, others [Amazon] will be thrown under the bus as well.
    Sounds like you already knew the answer to your question (you did say "of course") so I'm unclear as to why you've asked me.
  10.    #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    They're not saying that. They're saying you can't sell in their App Store for more. It's the way you word it. They're not controlling the price set outside their store, only what's set within.
    Nope. They're saying exactly what I said. Plus, they're taking it a step further.

    They're saying if you choose not to sell it in our store with our imposed markup, you can't sell your product anywhere.

    When they take that extra step, they are then attempting to control the price everywhere.

    They're saying we're charging a surcharge for our store. If you choose to compete with us, you cannot sell your product anywhere.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Sounds like you already knew the answer to your question (you did say "of course") so I'm unclear as to why you've asked me.
    I asked because like many others, you seem to be making a large deal out of this when I've never seen you or others mention Amazon's dealing in this market.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Nope. They're saying exactly what I said. Plus, they're taking it a step further.

    They're saying if you choose not to sell it in our store with our imposed markup, you can't sell your product anywhere.

    When they take that extra step, they are then attempting to control the price everywhere.

    They're saying we're charging a surcharge for our store. If you choose to compete with us, you cannot sell your product anywhere.
    Both the online and in-app price is set by the seller; the only thing Apple controls is ensuring that the in-app price matches or doesn't exceed that of the online price. I'm no expert but I don't see how that can be considered antitrust.
  13.    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    I asked because like many others, you seem to be making a large deal out of this when I've never seen you or others mention Amazon's dealing in this market.
    Funny. There's no Amazon thread anywhere on this forum. I know, I know, you get a little antsy if something negative is said about Apple, but the investigation is on-going regardless, and my simple discussion in this forum had nothing to do with it.

    And it's really not even a "big deal" for me, but I suspect it's going to be for Apple. These are the kind of things that end up having a profound affect on companies.

    Years ago, Ashton-Tate owned the most popular database system around - dBase. Other companies made competing products, and finally discovered that if they made their file-type compatible, they could better compete. Ashton-Tate sued, in part, stating they own the file type. They lost. Not only did the courts determine they don't own the file system, but they determined the entire product was a derivative from a public domain product.

    Ashton-Tate's not around any more.

    Again, this type of "I'm gong to control it all" greed, rather than "I'm going to compete on the merits of my product, service, and offerings" is what gets companies in trouble.

    I think Apple is in trouble on this one, and none of the whining from the Apple fans about how xyz did it and no one complained is going to help avoid that problem.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    I asked because like many others, you seem to be making a large deal out of this when I've never seen you or others mention Amazon's dealing in this market.
    I guess I am late to the party, but the very fact that you mention Amazon and a similar situation and try to paint that as something others should have outrage over makes me wonder what's the real issue here. If the Amazon and now Apple situations are similar (are they?) then wouldn't you say that either Amazon and Apple are both "guilty" or both "doing right" by their customers?
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by bulliedog View Post
    I guess I am late to the party, but the very fact that you mention Amazon and a similar situation and try to paint that as something others should have outrage over makes me wonder what's the real issue here. If the Amazon and now Apple situations are similar (are they?) then wouldn't you say that either Amazon and Apple are both "guilty" or both "doing right" by their customers?
    My position is, I don't understand why Apple has their backs pressed to the wall when others have practiced this same model for some time.
  16.    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Both the online and in-app price is set by the seller; the only thing Apple controls is ensuring that the in-app price matches or doesn't exceed that of the online price. I'm no expert but I don't see how that can be considered antitrust.
    You're leaving out another important part of the puzzle.

    Apple also controls whether or not the product can be offered at all. That's a key piece.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Funny. There's no Amazon thread anywhere on this forum. I know, I know, you get a little antsy if something negative is said about Apple, but the investigation is on-going regardless, and my simple discussion in this forum had nothing to do with it.

    And it's really not even a "big deal" for me, but I suspect it's going to be for Apple. These are the kind of things that end up having a profound affect on companies.

    Years ago, Ashton-Tate owned the most popular database system around - dBase. Other companies made competing products, and finally discovered that if they made their file-type compatible, they could better compete. Ashton-Tate sued, in part, stating they own the file type. They lost. Not only did the courts determine they don't own the file system, but they determined the entire product was a derivative from a public domain product.

    Ashton-Tate's not around any more.

    Again, this type of "I'm gong to control it all" greed, rather than "I'm going to compete on the merits of my product, service, and offerings" is what gets companies in trouble.

    I think Apple is in trouble on this one, and none of the whining from the Apple fans about how xyz did it and no one complained is going to help avoid that problem.
    What exactly is Apple controlling other than their own ecosystem? They're not exactly controlling any market; publishers aren't forced to sell their content on iOS and there are many other viable platform's available to them.
  18.    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    What exactly is Apple controlling other than their own ecosystem? They're not exactly controlling any market; publishers aren't forced to sell their content on iOS and there and many other viable markets available for them.
    That's just it, Apple doesn't own the devices. They do own the OS, but that's a grey area that's been fought, defended, and lost (by the OS company) in the past.
    Based on what's happened in the past, Apple may be in trouble on this one.
  19.    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by bulliedog View Post
    I guess I am late to the party, but the very fact that you mention Amazon and a similar situation and try to paint that as something others should have outrage over makes me wonder what's the real issue here. If the Amazon and now Apple situations are similar (are they?) then wouldn't you say that either Amazon and Apple are both "guilty" or both "doing right" by their customers?
    Actually, the situation with Amazon is quite different. Publications for the Kindle are, and have been, available outside Amazon. Amazon has no control on those other distribution methods, nor are they trying to exercise control over them.

    Other than to offer a more convenient service.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    My position is, I don't understand why Apple has their backs pressed to the wall when others have practiced this same model for some time.
    Forgive me if I make an incorrect assumption based on your response, but if you are saying that others should have had their "backs pressed against the wall", are you not saying that maybe, just maybe, the practices are questionable no matter who is responsible? Or are you saying that since no one else has been in trouble over this before, it must be okay so just leave Apple alone? I can see either being an acceptable view - but from a purely logic based discussion view, if it is the latter, then why even bring Amazon into it?
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions