Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 125
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    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.
    Actually, this isn't entirely true. On top of price matching Amazon also requires that the content provider provide 95% of the content that is also available in the print edition and that the content is delivered at least three hours before print delivery begins.

    That seems a bit more oppressive than Apple, I'd say.

    If you want to learn more, check this out: Is Amazon’s 70% Royalty on E-books Worth the Restrictions? | Publishing Perspectives
  2. #82  
    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 are many other viable platform's available to them.
    Standard oil wanted to own all of the gas stations that sold their gas and oil. They owned an end-to-end ecosystem from the well to the car. Ant-trust laws forced them to split up that ecosystem.

    The more ubiquitous the iPhone and iPad products become (read: integral to business use) the more they will be pressured to open that ecosystem up.

    Same thing was true when Boeing was an airline AND the company that made the airplanes. Anyone know which airline was spun off from Boeing because of this issue? Some good reading if you like history.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by bulliedog View Post
    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?
    What I am saying is, it's always interesting to see the attacks on Apple when they make moves like these but always ignore the structure or condition of the market before Apple decided to play their hand.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Standard oil wanted to own all of the gas stations that sold their gas and oil. They owned an end-to-end ecosystem from the well to the car. Ant-trust laws forced them to split up that ecosystem.
    I could see the analogy if Apple owned and controlled all mobile phones, but they don't, not even close to it.
  5. #85  
    That's why I used the context of "approaching ubiquity" and "integral to business use". They aren't the biggest installed base yet, but they are headed that way. And considering that they haven't reached market share levels that Microsoft did, Apple is clearly influencing the industry far beyond their market share. That's an impressive accomplishment. As you can see from the cross-platform forum, Apple becomes the topic of almost every thread. Every app developer, hardware maker, and carrier is focused on trying to create the next killer device, killer app, or iPhone/iPad killer.

    They aren't a monopoly yet, but the US and EU antitrust regulators have been very successful locking anti-competitive behavior long before any "monopoly" status is achieved. Anti-competitive tactics are rejected even on a small scale. If you read up on "allocating business" and price fixing, you will discover that anti-trust regulators and efforts to stop organized crime have some overlap in areas that have been REALLY close to what Apple has been doing.

    The big difference in this case is that there aren't a bunch of huge competitors that are leading the charge (or they have kept it out of the press if they have). It will take a couple of Amazon-type companies to challenge these practices. Hulu and Rovio are not in a position to do this over the many years and $billions it takes to fight these things.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/20/2011 at 08:49 PM.
  6.    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Actually, this isn't entirely true. On top of price matching Amazon also requires that the content provider provide 95% of the content that is also available in the print edition and that the content is delivered at least three hours before print delivery begins.

    That seems a bit more oppressive than Apple, I'd say.

    If you want to learn more, check this out: Is Amazonís 70% Royalty on E-books Worth the Restrictions? | Publishing Perspectives
    That's for that particular program. Publisher are free to engage in other delivery methods, with no restrictions from Amazon.

    Again, if I want to publish a newsletter, and don't want to involve Amazon, I'm free to do so.

    If I want them to distribute it for me, and give me 70% of the proceeds, I must follow those guidelines you've pointed out.

    That is nothing like what Apple is doing. Apple allows no other method of distribution over which they exercise no control.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    I can say that you can't sell your product in my outlet if you sell it anywhere else, right? We call that an exclusive and it happens all the time. If I can keep you from selling your product anywhere else, can't I offer to let you sell your product in other outlets based on my terms?
    It's a bit more complicated than that, and that isn't always the case. If someone can prove that being excluded from the Apple store would harm them to the point that they couldn't sell through other channels... it could be considered anti-competitive.

    Remember how hard Microsoft fought to keep other browsers and office software from being included on new PCs? That cost microsoft $bilions and $billions. Just sayin.
  8.    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    I could see the analogy if Apple owned and controlled all mobile phones, but they don't, not even close to it.
    Go back and read the analogy again. Pay particular attention to this part:

    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Standard oil wanted to own all of the gas stations that sold their gas and oil. They owned an end-to-end ecosystem from the well to the car. Ant-trust laws forced them to split up that ecosystem..
    Standard was not (at that time, at least) trying to own all of the gas stations, just those that sold their gas and oil. Interestingly, at the time, virtually all oil companies exercised the same type of iron grip on the gas stations, they just didn't out and out own them (in the literal sense). The extreme situation was the one that was pursued, and it broke down many of the practices that were going on at the time.

    The analogy to the current situation goes even further though (and it is a very good analogy in this situation). The service you got was much better back then. Once the stations were freer to compete, they competed on what was successful - price. Folks didn't mind not getting their windows cleaned and tire pressure checked, if the price per gallon was cheaper.

    Are we better off now? Debatable, and personally I don't think so. However, we got what we wanted - gasoline without the frills.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Apple doesn't allow criticism.
    LOL. Have you ever read Apple's own support forums?
  10.    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    I can say that you can't sell your product in my outlet if you sell it anywhere else, right? We call that an exclusive and it happens all the time. If I can keep you from selling your product anywhere else, can't I offer to let you sell your product in other outlets based on my terms?
    Yes you can, within certain restrictions (and those restrictions exist). However, as I've stated before, the situation is complicated because apple owns the license to the OS, controls what can be run on the device, and is a competitor.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    LOL. Have you ever read Apple's own support forums?
    That's true. I was speaking specifically about rating products on sites where you purchase their phones. And if you look back a few posts you will see where I was corrected that Best Buy has user reviews. It remains to be seen how heavily censored the Best Buy site is. I left a marginally negative review and we will see if it ever shows up.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    That's true. I was speaking specifically about rating products on sites where you purchase their phones. And if you look back a few posts you will see where I was corrected that Best Buy has user reviews. It remains to be seen how heavily censored the Best Buy site is. I left a marginally negative review and we will see if it ever shows up.
    Do you use an iphone? I mean, I know you probably have "used" one, but do you, or have you actually used one as your phone?

    Because to me, that's the problem with these user review sites. They get bombed by fans trying to make their point (which I expect on sites like this but definitely do NOT WANT on sites like that)
  13.    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    What I am saying is, it's always interesting to see the attacks on Apple when they make moves like these but always ignore the structure or condition of the market before Apple decided to play their hand.
    So, in short (since your query was directed at me, rather than the group making the "attack") you find it "interesting" that a WebOS site would have something negative about Apple.

    I find your "interesting" viewpoint to be ... well ... interesting.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    So, in short (since your query was directed at me, rather than the group making the "attack") you find it "interesting" that a WebOS site would have something negative about Apple.

    I find your "interesting" viewpoint to be ... well ... interesting.
    Exactly. Personal objections without a real basis (or maybe the basis is bias?). Hating just because they can, or better yet, because they want to.

    And my query wasn't directly targeted at you, but you were included.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    Do you use an iphone? I mean, I know you probably have "used" one, but do you, or have you actually used one as your phone?

    Because to me, that's the problem with these user review sites. They get bombed by fans trying to make their point (which I expect on sites like this but definitely do NOT WANT on sites like that)
    I come from the camp that says "pick your carrier first" so the iPhone has never been an option for me until it came to VZW, but I've carried iPhones I didn't own for extensive periods, so I know enough to be at the same level as an at&t or verizon sales rep.

    But that's not the point. The point is that it's the only phone on the VZW and AT&T sites that users can't write reviews. If you remember back to the early days of the internet, user reviews were considered a major part of how sites like Amazon.com became successful and powerful. It has become so ubiquitous that we just take them for granted. The fact is that they have made a clear effort to eliminate that aspect of on-line community and using the internet for research.

    It doesn't make Steve Jobs evil, it's just conspicuous and contrary to what is available for pretty much every product that can be purchased anywhere in the world, on or off the internet . You have to admit it's amazing, because you know they had to force that on the carriers. Carriers aren't ever happy about one-off vendors or use-cases.

    And we are all responsible for actually reading the reviews, and not just counting stars... If I read a review and the person appears to be wrong, incompetent, or focused on things that I don't care about... I have to factor that in. I don't care about most of what people criticize the iPhone for. I stopped reading at "exclusively AT&T) as it pertained to my last smartphone purchase. I read much deeper in to reviews comparing webOS and Android because I had specific requirements and I wasn't going to give up my Centro unless my requirements were met.

    Taking away the ability for me to read what others think about something I'm considering says that either "they are too stupid to write a review" or "I'm too stupid to interpret a user review" or even "only Apple is qualified to write a review that others will find useful."

    Fairly insulting to consumers that do their homework before spending money.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/20/2011 at 09:20 PM.
  16. #96  
    In any case, I'm finished for the evening. No matter which direction this case goes, it will be interesting. I personally could care less what happens, as long my content isn't stripped from me on the iPad.

    You gentlemen have a great evening, and yes, that includes you hparsons (even though we have our differences :P).
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    But that's not the point. The point is that it's the only phone on the VZW and AT&T sites that users can't write reviews. .


    Do you know why that is? Or are you assuming? I think if you don't know why that is, and you're implying something, you are being disingenuous.

    If you do know why that is, you should say.

    If you really don't, but you're just assuming, you should say, if you are interested in being honest in your critique.

    IMO
  18. #98  
    How about because Apple knows that user review sites for tech, in general, use a large amount of *paid* "reviewers" as part of their marketing strategy? Those review sites are cesspools.

    If you have the clout to not be part of that mess, why not?

    There is a reason you have to own, say, an app in order to review it.

    Many consumer retail sites only allow reviews from people who have purchases for the item on record. Not Best Buy of course!



    But I appreciate you clarifying that you are speculating.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    How about because Apple knows that user review sites for tech, in general, use a large amount of *paid* "reviewers" as part of their marketing strategy? Those review sites are cesspools.

    If you have the clout to not be part of that mess, why not?

    There is a reason you have to own, say, an app in order to review it.

    Many consumer retail sites only allow reviews from people who have purchases for the item on record. Not Best Buy of course!



    But I appreciate you clarifying that you are speculating.
    That's the sort of heavy-handed control of information that brought great pain to companies like Firestone, Audi, and Toyota (and Clinton, Nixon, etc). The cover-up always does more damage than what is being covered up.

    But at a more practical level, it's downright insulting to all concerned if Apple really did this because of your suggested reason. Remember what Sy Syms says,f"the best customer is an educated customer."

    I can say that everyone I know at a carrier agrees with me, and a few have told me some stories about Apple tactics that make this one look mild. So I don't agree that I'm speculating. It's an informed opinion that is shared by everyone I know at the carriers being discussed.

    I don't see anyone convincing me that somehow consumers are going to be glad that Apple does this and that it will increase their satisfaction with their Apple purchases. It doesn't make sense, especially considering the costs incurred to make it happen.

    And this isn't about planting reviews (positive or negative) that companies sometimes do. We also aren't talking about sites like C/NET or Engadget. Imagine if I had to get user reviews from a local news site before I bought a kindle book. It wouldn't make sense. E-commerce sites want me to have good information so I'll actually pull the trigger and buy, and they want me coming back for information on future purchases. My last two major appliances were from Lowes, but I sat in their store for a long time looking at user reviews on Amazon, Sears, etc. to make sure I had the facts I considered important.

    Try again, please. This is fun!
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/20/2011 at 10:23 PM.
  20. #100  
    Just because you don't buy my reason, doesn't mean its not valid.

    I don't know "why" (and clearly, you don't know why either) but my theory is valid.

    Fact is, you're just a dude who has no idea why, if they have, Apple has negotiated that. It is no secret they tightly control their public perception. (Something HP clearly has never learned)
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions