Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jul 2011 21:14 UTC
Apple Petty Apple is petty. Amazon, Kobo, and others have changed their applications to conform to Apple's App Store rules, and if there's one word that describes the situation these booksellers are in, it's petty. Still, it's leading to good things: Kobo has announced it's going to bypass the App Store by writing an HTML5 e-reader for iOS (and thus, for other HTML5-capable mobile devices).
Thread beginning with comment 482949
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Not surprising, really!
by Laurence on Sun 31st Jul 2011 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not surprising, really!"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26


It's their App Store. They set the terms and conditions. If they say that they are owed a cut, then they are owed a cut. If you don't like it, then don't distribute your app through Apple's App Store. What is so confusing about that?

But that's the point: Apple are also trying to get a cut from products not sold via the App Store.

I don't have a problem with however much they choose to charge for use of their distribution mechanism. The issue I have is charging people not to use it as well.

With the iPad having outsold the Kindle at 20 to 1 (and growing), I'm sure that Amazon wants to sell books to Apple's customers. But Apple already sells books through their iTunes store.

...and? There is this thing call "competition".
Just because someone builds a stall on my road selling lemonade, it doesn't mean I can't do the same as well.

Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app.

Why should they? It's Apples app.
Furthermore, Apple didn't pay Amazon to distribute their app either. So your point is moot.

Amazon didn't help to pay for the cost to develop the iPad or to set up the App Store.

No, but the former is covered in iPad sales and the latter should be covered in app sales.
Sales of ebooks et al does not come under either of those two categorise you described.

And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

Again, how does buying a book harm Apple's hardware sales or App sales? It simply doesn't. So your logic is flawed.

This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Well actually legally you can.

However the situation is a little more complicated than your example as walmart don't charge you entry into their supermarket nor dictate that rival shops pay them a percentage for sales that didn't even take place in walmart.

Reply Parent Score: 2

fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13


But that's the point: Apple are also trying to get a cut from products not sold via the App Store.

If you go to Amazon's web site and buy an ebook, Apple does not charge a cent to Amazon or you. But it's less convenient for you; Apple wants you to prefer the convenience of in-app purchasing of ebooks from Apple's iTunes store over web-based purchases from their competitors. Or they want to get a percentage of the competitor's in-app sales, so that they make more money. It's called a revenue model.

...and? There is this thing call "competition".
Just because someone builds a stall on my road selling lemonade, it doesn't mean I can't do the same as well.

It's not "your road." It's a public road. The Apple App Store is not publicly owned. Apple can set up whatever terms they like. You tell someone that they can set up a lemonade stand on your lawn if you get a cut from the sales. If they don't like it, they can't just set up the stand and then refuse to pay you.


" Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app.

Why should they? It's Apples app.
"
That's idiotic and blatantly false. Amazon wrote the app and own all legal rights to it. Their copyrights and trademarks are all over it. Apple had nothing to do with the creation of the app and they don't own any part of it.


Furthermore, Apple didn't pay Amazon to distribute their app either. So your point is moot.

Why would Apple pay Amazon when Amazon is providing the Kindle app that takes sales away from Apple? Is critical thinking that hard for you?


" And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

Again, how does buying a book harm Apple's hardware sales or App sales? It simply doesn't. So your logic is flawed.
"
Stop being purposely obtuse. Buying a book from Amazon, rather than buying the same book from Apple's iTunes store, harms Apple. I specifically cited the iTunes store which is where they sell books (not apps or hardware), so stop making straw man arguments.


"This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Well actually legally you can.
"
No, you cannot. Walmart prohibits solicitation in their stores. End of story.


However the situation is a little more complicated than your example as walmart don't charge you entry into their supermarket

Apple didn't charge Amazon for entry into the App Store. Nor do they charge customers to enter the App store.


nor dictate that rival shops pay them a percentage for sales that didn't even take place in walmart.

Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple a percentage, so they removed the in-app purchasing capability. They understand that it's Apple's App Store and that Apple has decided to charge for in-app purchases when the apps are distributed through Apple's App Store.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

That's idiotic and blatantly false. Amazon wrote the app and own all legal rights to it. Their copyrights and trademarks are all over it. Apple had nothing to do with the creation of the app and they don't own any part of it.

I was replying to your comment about an Apple app for the Kindle, not Amazon's app for the iPhone. If you meant the latter then you phrased your comment wrong and hence the confusion here.

Why would Apple pay Amazon when Amazon is providing the Kindle app that takes sales away from Apple? Is critical thinking that hard for you?

No, but clearly it is for you seeming as you gaffed up your earlier post which lead us to this confusion. ;)

(oh look, we can both play the petty insults game - look how productive it is. any chance you can keep this discussion mature?)

Stop being purposely obtuse. Buying a book from Amazon, rather than buying the same book from Apple's iTunes store, harms Apple. I specifically cited the iTunes store which is where they sell books (not apps or hardware), so stop making straw man arguments.

lol, you lose an argument so you move the goal posts and then claim victory.

I've already pointed out how the various costs you described are already covered with the various costs Apple charge. However feel free to ignore those arguments and throw petty insults as has been the basis of your whole discussion thus far.

No, you cannot. Walmart prohibits solicitation in their stores. End of story.

Walmart != law.

So I repeat, legally you can. Walmart might request you to leave, but you're legally entitled to do so.

Apple didn't charge Amazon for entry into the App Store. Nor do they charge customers to enter the App store.

That's complete bullshit. Submitting apps to Apple's App Store is not a free process.
Now I'm not arguing against the cost as I think that charge is fully justified. However the fact remains it's not a free process thus the earlier point I made.

Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple a percentage, so they removed the in-app purchasing capability. They understand that it's Apple's App Store and that Apple has decided to charge for in-app purchases when the apps are distributed through Apple's App Store.

I know this. You're just reiterating the same bloody point I've been making. So well done for stating the obvious.

However, and the point I keep arguing: I think Apple expecting a percentage for documents not affiliated with Apple nor downloaded via Apple's distribution mechanisms is wrong. And then expecting developers who actually wish to use their own distribution mechanisms to cripple their own applications to the point where it offers significant and unfair advantages to Apples own distribution mechanisms is anti-competitive and abuse of the "walled garden" that they'd locked consumers into.

Like I said before, if developers which to utilise Apples distribution mechanisms, then I can't see why Apple shouldn't charge. But to force users into it is just plain wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2