Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 125
  1.    #1  
    Severall allegations against Apple have been simmering for a while, but this is another investigation that may come to a boil quickly

    Bloomberg.com: News

    The short version is this:

    Apple (typically) charges a 30% fee for their App Store offerings. They've also, in the past, restricted those offerings to the App Store.

    Now, they're allowing some App Store subscriptions to be sold outside the App Store.

    Those sales won't have the 30% surcharge.

    Apple is saying those sales can't use the savings as a discount, in other words, those outside sales can't be sold cheaper.

    I know that's a slimpification, but it does describe the situation.

    Apple may be in trouble on this one.
  2. #2  
    How is this different from Walmart dictating what gets sold in their store, and their guarantee that they have the best possible pricing from their providers?

    You want access to the larger retailer bases and it costs more (and not surprisingly, you sell a lot more too, as any Walmart vendor will tell you)
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    How is this different from Walmart dictating what gets sold in their store, and their guarantee that they have the best possible pricing from their providers?

    You want access to the larger retailer bases and it costs more (and not surprisingly, you sell a lot more too, as any Walmart vendor will tell you)
    Because once you buy a computer from Walmart's store, they don't get to dictate where you purchase add-ons or software from to put on it or at what price those items can be sold to you compared to the prices in the Walmart store.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    How is this different from Walmart dictating what gets sold in their store, and their guarantee that they have the best possible pricing from their providers?

    You want access to the larger retailer bases and it costs more (and not surprisingly, you sell a lot more too, as any Walmart vendor will tell you)
    This is essentially price fixing. Apple is saying - if you sell your product outside of our store, it can't be sold for less than inside of our store. If Walmart pushes a manufacturer to get pricing that lets it have the lowest price that's different from telling a manufacturer that they cannot sell their product outside Walmart for less than Walmart sells it for themselves. Furthermore - Walmart is the buyer and reseller not a simple distribution point. Walmart sets the price of the goods on their shelves not the manufacturer.

    This area is pretty sticky and legal opinion is not clear: Here's a little sample..

    Suggested retail price - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Price fixing usually refers to an agreement between competitors. I'm wondering whether most retailers would allow a manufacturer to sell its products direct to the customer online for a lower-than-retail price. I'm wondering how long that would go on.
    True - the term is usually reserved for collusion between outlets. In this case Apple is dictating the price match - but not what the price should be precisely. It's a weirdly similar but not exact match to a few concepts like MAP, MSRP, Price Fixing, etc.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Price fixing usually refers to an agreement between competitors.
    And that's exactly what it is in this case as well, the difference is that one of the competitors is also the final arbitrer in what can and cannot be released.

    Apple runs their app store, and sells for a markup. They are telling the originator of the product that they must sell it for the same price, in order not to take away from their (Apple's) sales.

    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    I'm wondering whether most retailers would allow a manufacturer to sell its products direct to the customer online for a lower-than-retail price. I'm wondering how long that would go on.
    Good point, and it's typically handled in a business-type fashion, typically manufacturers will pledge not to sell below their own MSRP.

    However, the Apple scenario throws a new wrench in the works. In the example you're given, if the mfgs don't have such an agreement, the only recourse of the retailer is to either not sell the product, or sell it as a value-added service. The latter is relatively common. "Yes, you can buy direct from the factory, but they can't give you the service we can" or any number of similar stances.

    Apple's situation in this is different though. They, the retailer, have veto power over the "manufacturers" of the product. That skews things considerably.

    Retailers don't have the power to say "Do it our way, or you can't sell it at all". Apple has that power.

    Prepare to see some fireworks. I've thought it would be coming for quite some time.


    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Apple isn't telling the developer what to charge. It's just not going to allow the developer to sell their app direct to the customer for less or allow the developer to link to an external site to buy direct. It sounds like a pretty common agreement between manufacturer and retailer to me.
    Actually, it's not a common agreement at all. Apple is close to be unique in the ability to tell the manufacturer that they cannot sell their product (in a usable fashion at all. There may be a similar situation, but I can't think of one.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post

    Good point, and it's typically handled in a business-type fashion, typically manufacturers will pledge not to sell below their own MSRP.

    However, the Apple scenario throws a new wrench in the works. In the example you're given, if the mfgs don't have such an agreement, the only recourse of the retailer is to either not sell the product, or sell it as a value-added service. The latter is relatively common. "Yes, you can buy direct from the factory, but they can't give you the service we can" or any number of similar stances.

    Apple's situation in this is different though. They, the retailer, have veto power over the "manufacturers" of the product. That skews things considerably.

    Retailers don't have the power to say "Do it our way, or you can't sell it at all". Apple has that power.
    Actually that's a really eloquent way of putting it. If Apple simply added the in-app subscriptions and the only REQUIREMENT they made was that companies put in an option to subscribe in-app, that would be fine and would be akin to the retailer example here.

    But Apple went MUCH further than that and that's what they'll get hit on.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    How is this different from Walmart dictating what gets sold in their store, and their guarantee that they have the best possible pricing from their providers?

    You want access to the larger retailer bases and it costs more (and not surprisingly, you sell a lot more too, as any Walmart vendor will tell you)
    I don't like where this is headed either.

    Does Apple really have a right to tell vendors what to charge elsewhere? Does Apple have a right to tell vendors they can't direct their own customers to the vendor's website? Does Apple have the right to hold it's customer base hostage and to demand that vendors cannot get access to their mutual customers unless they sell through Apple?

    If you use an iOS device and wish to use any apps not using Apple content effectively, the vendors you are also a customer of are being strong armed by the biggest app store. Apple is also a content provider and is demanding control over it's competitors' practices and profits.

    How far is this going to go? Will Amazon, Best Buy, eBay, etc. eventually have to pay Apple for the physical sales made through their apps also?
    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!
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    It sounds like all Apple is saying is "follow our rules or find some other place to sell your magazines". They certainly don't have veto power over the smartphone or tablet distribution of any magazine. Apple's smartphone marketshare is something like 25% isn't it? Their tablet marketshare is 80% but a couple of dozen Android tablets are on the way that will definitely be changing that. It certainly isn't a monopoly.
    These other companies do sell elsewhere but will not be able to access their mutual customer base on iOS, because you cannot install iOS apps any other way unless you jailbreak. Apple knows this. Apple has also shut off the way for vendors to reach their customers through their own websites. That is just ridiculous!! What if I want to shop in Kindle, not in iTunes?? I don't get a choice either!!
    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!
  10. #10  
    Then why would Apple even approve these types of apps to begin with? If users will not be allowed to use them effectively unless everyone bows to Apple? Keep in mind they are also changing the rules now. Now that they figured out they can hold the mutual customer base hostage.

    I would like to be able to read Kindle books as was originally intended and as has been the case, but I do not want to buy any Kindle books through Apple. I don't want to pay Apple for a Pandora subscription. Apple is not using their servers for the streaming, but Pandora is using it's own servers. I effectively can no longer buy where I choose from on my iDevice.
    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!
  11. #11  
    It does when a dominant content provider and market controller demands the profit and control over customers of it's competitors and also tells them how to do business!!! If iOS devices were allowed to be more open, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. The others could tell Apple to hang somewhere and provide their own downloadable apps elsewhere. BUT you cannot install iOS apps any other way but iTunes and App Store, unless you jailbreak. But Apple does not allow this(see the iBook situation). And that is why someone needs to take a look at this.

    P.S. I keep getting Gateway time outs, anyone else?
    Last edited by The Phone Diva; 02/18/2011 at 05:58 PM.
    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!
  12. #12  
    This seems a lot like a restaurant charging a corking fee when you bring in your own bottle of wine.
  13. #13  
    It will be interesting to see this conversation again when WebOS builds its own ecosystem.

    Every retailer of size in the world has deals with suppliers that favor the retailer, in turn for allowing access to their customer base.

    Vendors that don't want to play -- and I totally get why they wouldnt, and as a vendor, if it wasn't clearly worth it, I would shun the app store -- can access other markets.

    If Apple finds that they lose more business than they gain, they will change.

    If Apple was the only smartphone, or the only App Store, I'd agree that this was monopolistic. But its not even close.
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    It sounds like all Apple is saying is "follow our rules or find some other place to sell your magazines". They certainly don't have veto power over the smartphone or tablet distribution of any magazine. Apple's smartphone marketshare is something like 25% isn't it? Their tablet marketshare is 80% but a couple of dozen Android tablets are on the way that will definitely be changing that. It certainly isn't a monopoly.
    And that's where the government steps in. It's one thing to say you can't sell in our store. It's an etirely different thing to say you can't sell to run on devices we made - based not on technology or quality, but solely based on pricing, specifically pricing that competes with their pricing.
  15.    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    This seems a lot like a restaurant charging a corking fee when you bring in your own bottle of wine.
    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.
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    It will be interesting to see this conversation again when WebOS builds its own ecosystem.

    Every retailer of size in the world has deals with suppliers that favor the retailer, in turn for allowing access to their customer base...
    WebOS, Windows, Apple, it won't matter for me, my view has been consistent for decades now.

    Taking your scenario, who is the retailer, who is the supplier?

    In this case, the supplier is selling their own stuff. Apple is saying "Not unless you sell it with the same markup we charge". Who is Apple to tell the mfg and seller what they must charge?

    And they are doing this for two reasons - they don't want someone selling for less then them, and because they can.

    Whether or not it is legal has yet to be determined.

    BTW, I saw these same types of arguments when MS tried to force the world to use IE. Fortunately, the Europeans saw through the scheme.
  17.    #17  
    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. What's even worse is that your child has no way of getting chicken nuggets for dinner even if that's the only thing they will eat. Does Outback have the right to tell you what to feed your child?.
    Outback owns the resturant. Apple doesn't own the phone.
  18. #18  
    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?
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    WebOS, Windows, Apple, it won't matter for me, my view has been consistent for decades now.

    Taking your scenario, who is the retailer, who is the supplier?

    In this case, the supplier is selling their own stuff. Apple is saying "Not unless you sell it with the same markup we charge". Who is Apple to tell the mfg and seller what they must charge?

    And they are doing this for two reasons - they don't want someone selling for less then them, and because they can.

    Whether or not it is legal has yet to be determined.

    BTW, I saw these same types of arguments when MS tried to force the world to use IE. Fortunately, the Europeans saw through the scheme.
    Another reason, they are a content provider themselves. There's been speculation that they bought Lala to start their own music subscription or cloud service. And guess who gets screwed over? Music subscription services. Apple owns good old iBooks. And who else got affected? Sony eReader(this all started when they rejected that app) and likely this will move to Kindle and Nook.

    This could indeed likely be ruled illegal in the EU. They have no tolerance for stuff like this.
    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!
  20. #20  
    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, because Apple doesn't allow Flash, the primary way content providers stream media requiring DRM controls over the web.

    Just more evidence of the REAL reason Steve was so against Flash on his iPhone.
Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions