• This forum is for posting news stories or links from rumor sites. When you start a thread, please include a link to the site you're referencing.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM TO ASK "WHAT IF?" TYPE QUESTIONS.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO USE YOUR MAC OR SOFTWARE.

    This is a NEWS and RUMORS forum as the name implies. If your thread is neither of those things, then please find the appropriate forum to ask your question.

    If you don't have a link to a news story, do not post the thread here.

    If you don't follow these rules, then your post may be deleted.

Angry Apple makes hollow threat to bar Kindle, other ebook apps...

Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,428
Reaction score
295
Points
83
Location
Waiting for a mate . . .
Your Mac's Specs
21" iMac 2.9Ghz 16GB RAM - 10.11.3, iPhone6s & iPad Air 2 - iOS 9.2.1, ATV 4Th Gen tvOS, ATV3
This is well worth the read . . . .

Angry Apple makes hollow threat to bar Kindle, other ebook apps.


xAt the time, then-CEO Steve Jobs put it plainly: “Our philosophy is simple – when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share,” he said in a February 2011 statement. “When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing.”
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
797
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Location
Merriam, KS
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP Core Duo 2.0GHz 1.5GB, 20" iMac C2D 2.4GHz 4GB, PowerPC G4 500MHz 512MB
Very interesting article. Personally, I side with Apple on this.

Apple is under no duty to allow other retailers to offer apps on the iPad in the first place, much less on terms that subsidise their operations
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,235
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
I'm completely against them on it. Why do they demand a royalty for ebooks and not other goods? Why should they be entitled to a 30% cut? They aren't hosting the content. They aren't processing the payment. And with their collusion with the publishers to switch everyone to the "agency" model, in combination with their "most favored nation" clause, demanding 30% of someone else's sales would mean zero profit margin for the others. Their "philosophy" is overly simplistic and quite frankly abusive. If they really want to kick Kindle and other ereader apps off, that would be a very hostile move and unfriendly to their customers, many who bought an iPad so they can enjoy content from a variety of sources.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Bremm (Mosel), Germany
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro (late 2011) Latest 10.12.5, 2,4 Ghz, Intel Core i7, RAM 16G GB 1333 MHz 1TB SATA Dis
Instead of being faced by bully boy tactics I bought a Nexus Android with a Kindle App, no problem! However Google could start getting heavy handed with Amazon!!!! I think all these companies are getting too big for their boots, remember what happened to Ma Bell ?
 

bobtomay

,
Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
26,561
Reaction score
677
Points
113
Location
Texas, where else?
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP '06 2.33 C2D 4GB 10.7; 13" MBA '14 1.8 i7 8GB 10.11; 21" iMac '13 2.9 i5 8GB 10.11; 6S
Agree with lifeisabeach. Such a decision would only serve to cement my decision to stay with a Kindle or Android tablet. It would push me toward an Android phone in lieu of iOS and possibly back to Windows (or give Linux another go) with my next computer purchase.

If Microsoft had hatched a plan with the introduction of Win 3.1 or Win95 that afforded them a 30% cut of everything that could be sold to work and run in Windows, MS would not exist today.

This feeling that they deserve a 30% cut of everyone else's work because they created the operating system is, as far as I am concerned, the height of greed.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
797
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Location
Merriam, KS
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP Core Duo 2.0GHz 1.5GB, 20" iMac C2D 2.4GHz 4GB, PowerPC G4 500MHz 512MB
So much for letting the market decide what it will bear. Why does everyone feel the government needs to regulate the private sector economy? What happened to a free market?
 

RavingMac

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
8,303
Reaction score
242
Points
63
Location
In Denial
Your Mac's Specs
16Gb Mac Mini 2018, 15" MacBook Pro 2012 1 TB SSD
As I am heavily invested in Amazon media (mostly Kindle eBooks) any move to prevent me accessing it on my iPad would cause me to exercise my free-market choice to switch to another platform.
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,248
Reaction score
1,833
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
remember what happened to Ma Bell ?

LOL, they're alive and well.... Ever hear of AT&T? The new but old AT&T! ;)
 
M

MacInWin

Guest
No, AT&T is not Ma Bell. Ma Bell took care of everything from the user's hand to the user's hand on the other end...house wiring, local service, long distance, etc, etc. AT&T of today isn't that end-to-end.
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
Why does everyone feel the government needs to regulate the private sector economy?
This alone is a good reason. Beyond that, if the government didn't regulate the economy, low paying jobs would see salaries plummet since there would be no reason to pay workers at a minimum rate (lacking skills, many of these people wouldn't be marketable). ;)
What happened to a free market?
Never left. The economy has never been free from regulation.
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,248
Reaction score
1,833
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
AT&T of today isn't that end-to-end.

Yeah, I know, but the way AT&T customer service acts sometimes reminds of the old AT&T....
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,235
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
So much for letting the market decide what it will bear. Why does everyone feel the government needs to regulate the private sector economy? What happened to a free market?

LOL! How naive. Have you missed the fact that Apple colluded with publishers to fix prices and harm the competition by denying them the opportunity to compete on price? Left unchecked, the "haves" will abuse the "free" market. Here's a great example in the news right now:
McDonalds’ suggested budget for employees shows just how impossible it is to get by on minimum wage | Death and Taxes

In the "free" market, there'd be no minimum wage. And I GUARANTEE YOU low income workers would be making even less. Look at that comedy of a "budget" McDonalds has laid out for their workers. There is no way to make ends meet. None. Which means government assistance is required for these people to survive. How do you like the notion that your goods and services are subsidized by your tax dollars because the workers bringing them can't survive on what they make? It'd be even worse if they made $3/hour in the "free" market.
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
AT&T What? Customer service? hahahahahaha. Are you kidding! :D Many times now I had to do their troubleshooting for them!

My issue with going back to windows is and I don't care what anyone says, Windows 8 is not a good desktop OS. But 8.1 has a Start menu! Does it? I have 8.1. It brings up Metro. That is not the Start menu. People are mad.

I need adobe. The Gimp for me is not even close so Linux is out for my overall use. I could use it for the internet though.

Apple is getting greedy for sure and going a different way lately than they should have gone. Not sure what to do if this continues which have a feeling it will.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
797
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Location
Merriam, KS
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP Core Duo 2.0GHz 1.5GB, 20" iMac C2D 2.4GHz 4GB, PowerPC G4 500MHz 512MB
This alone is a good reason. Beyond that, if the government didn't regulate the economy, low paying jobs would see salaries plummet since there would be no reason to pay workers at a minimum rate (lacking skills, many of these people wouldn't be marketable). ;)
I would say that The Great Recession actually supports my argument, not yours. The government has been heavily regulating things since long before this most recent recession, yet it still happened. So, how's that regulation going for us? Really well, by the looks of things.
LOL! How naive. Have you missed the fact that Apple colluded with publishers to fix prices and harm the competition by denying them the opportunity to compete on price? Left unchecked, the "haves" will abuse the "free" market. Here's a great example in the news right now:
McDonalds’ suggested budget for employees shows just how impossible it is to get by on minimum wage | Death and Taxes

In the "free" market, there'd be no minimum wage. And I GUARANTEE YOU low income workers would be making even less. Look at that comedy of a "budget" McDonalds has laid out for their workers. There is no way to make ends meet. None. Which means government assistance is required for these people to survive. How do you like the notion that your goods and services are subsidized by your tax dollars because the workers bringing them can't survive on what they make? It'd be even worse if they made $3/hour in the "free" market.
Yes, Apple colluded with publishers to raise eBook prices. But do you understand why they did it? It was because Amazon was selling books at a loss to stifle competition. So don't go saying that Apple was harming competition! I would say without a second thought that there is more competition in the eBook industry now than there was 4 years ago.

I wholeheartedly agree that a truly free market wouldn't work in today's society. My wife and I just had a long discussion on that exact thing about a month ago, and I was using all the same argument points you currently are (yes, I was arguing against an unregulated economy). I'm well aware of the need for some restrictions on businesses, and some minimum requirements for employees; However, the more I see the government telling businesses how to run their businesses the more upset I get. "Some" restrictions is very different than mandating exactly how a business can practice, which is the point I was getting at.
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
I would say that The Great Recession actually supports my argument, not yours. The government has been heavily regulating things since long before this most recent recession, yet it still happened. So, how's that regulation going for us? Really well, by the looks of things.
I don't see how that's the case. How is the unchecked selling of untenable mortgages a product of over-regulation? The governments of the world didn't tell banks and financial institutions to sell bad rates (read that as "unmanageable") nor did the government tell these groups to take part in shady financial practices that ultimately hurts millions. Companies can find ways around things which would suggest the opposite of what you're saying which is the need for closer oversight. A perfect example of this - Canadian banks, during the peak of the financial crisis, received nothing in support because they've always been well regulated (source). In fact, they were still turning profits (albeit considerably smaller) during the peak of the global downturn.

Regulating the actions of groups that are heavily invested in the social good (as banks are) is never a bad thing. And let's not forget the flip side to your argument - the governments were regulating financial institutions when the economy was strong. True, they may have been able to make more but really, there's something to be said for consistency in financial markets and not "let's hope for the best" that comes with ruthless deregulation. You can also enjoy regulation while being free - Canada's economy is heavily regulated in comparison and it is, by some measures, freer (whatever this means) than the American economy (source).

A minor point - the credit rating of the government is wholly exclusive of their regulatory practices. One is about managing their own money (credit rating) and the other is about regulating the spending of other people's money (regulations). The former was significantly hurt by the inability of some groups to regulate their own practices and not an intrinsic fault.

I wholeheartedly agree that a truly free market wouldn't work in today's society. My wife and I just had a long discussion on that exact thing about a month ago, and I was using all the same argument points you currently are (yes, I was arguing against an unregulated economy). I'm well aware of the need for some restrictions on businesses, and some minimum requirements for employees;
Then you don't actually disagree with me?

However, the more I see the government telling businesses how to run their businesses the more upset I get. "Some" restrictions is very different than mandating exactly how a business can practice, which is the point I was getting at.
Collective good over the individual(s) good. On top of that, all regulations restrict how businesses can engage in their various practices (that's what they're designed for).
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,235
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
Yes, Apple colluded with publishers to raise eBook prices. But do you understand why they did it? It was because Amazon was selling books at a loss to stifle competition. So don't go saying that Apple was harming competition! I would say without a second thought that there is more competition in the eBook industry now than there was 4 years ago.

That may or not be a myth. I've read that they sold some books at a loss, but overall they are profitable on them. There's is nothing illegal about it anyway. And in the realm of a "free" market that you long for, there wouldn't be any laws allowed to regulate it anyway, right? Apple's collusion eliminated Amazon's (and indeed, anyone's) ability to use price as a competitive tactic. Apple didn't want to compete on price so they colluded to take away Amazon's (and everyone's) ability to do so.

Also, to further elaborate on why I frown on Apple's refusal to allow 3rd parties to sell ebooks (and other media) directly via an app... some people are increasingly using an iPad as their sole computer. Without doubt, that will increase in time as iOS becomes more capable. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, in such a scenario, it is impossible to buy ebooks and other media from anyone but Apple except through Safari, and you can't get it on your iPad without syncing over a computer. If the iPad is your computer, then you are stuck in Apple's ecosystem. And if OS X heads in this same direction over time (I'm not convinced it will, but who knows for sure?), then what? Switch to another OS? HAH! MS would likely just follow suit, and Linux isn't going to cut it for a lot of people for a lot of reasons.

The argument can be made that the Kindle and Nook don't allow 3rd party stores, but then they NEVER have. These are also truly more like "consumption" devices than the iPad is. Really, they are little more than ereaders with an LCD screen instead of eink. Maybe the iPad isn't "quite" beyond being a mere consumption device, but it's getting there, and again, for many people it is there.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
797
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Location
Merriam, KS
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP Core Duo 2.0GHz 1.5GB, 20" iMac C2D 2.4GHz 4GB, PowerPC G4 500MHz 512MB
I don't see how that's the case. How is the unchecked selling of untenable mortgages a product of over-regulation? The governments of the world didn't tell banks and financial institutions to sell bad rates (read that as "unmanageable") nor did the government tell these groups to take part in shady financial practices that ultimately hurts millions. Companies can find ways around things which would suggest the opposite of what you're saying which is the need for closer oversight. A perfect example of this - Canadian banks, during the peak of the financial crisis, received nothing in support because they've always been well regulated (source). In fact, they were still turning profits (albeit considerably smaller) during the peak of the global downturn.
Ford Motor Company didn't receive any support during the financial crisis because their executives saw the direction things were heading, and chose to be proactive and prepared. They came out of the financial situation stronger than they went in - all WITHOUT the government telling them what to do.

You can't regulate enough to protect poor choices by consumers (and I wouldn't want to, anyway). Ultimately, the fault lays with the consumers who were getting way in over their heads because they didn't do their research and the executives/decision-makers of companies who didn't plan for potential changes in the future. Every regulatory change I see to 'protect' someone lasts for a generation, until the new youth reaches that same age, then they come up with their own new, stupid choices. As an example, look at the number of ridiculous warning labels on every appliance you buy nowadays, and yet people still manage to do something new and dumb with it to hurt themselves. Same thing goes for financial regulations.

Regulating the actions of groups that are heavily invested in the social good (as banks are) is never a bad thing. And let's not forget the flip side to your argument - the governments were regulating financial institutions when the economy was strong. True, they may have been able to make more but really, there's something to be said for consistency in financial markets and not "let's hope for the best" that comes with ruthless deregulation. You can also enjoy regulation while being free - Canada's economy is heavily regulated in comparison and it is, by some measures, freer (whatever this means) than the American economy (source).
How is an electronics company "heavily invested in the social good"? This doesn't pertain to Apple at all.
A minor point - the credit rating of the government is wholly exclusive of their regulatory practices. One is about managing their own money (credit rating) and the other is about regulating the spending of other people's money (regulations). The former was significantly hurt by the inability of some groups to regulate their own practices and not an intrinsic fault.
The two go hand in hand. Did our credit rating drop as a sequela to the financial crisis that occurred despite government regulations on businesses? Yes.
Then you don't actually disagree with me?
As I said, I have never believed a truly free market economy can work in today's society. It doesn't mean I don't want less regulation, nor that I'm not against more regulation.
Collective good over the individual(s) good. On top of that, all regulations restrict how businesses can engage in their various practices (that's what they're designed for).
I don't view it as the government's job to force ethics and morals on people. Apparently we vote different party lines.



That may or not be a myth. I've read that they sold some books at a loss, but overall they are profitable on them. There's is nothing illegal about it anyway. And in the realm of a "free" market that you long for, there wouldn't be any laws allowed to regulate it anyway, right? Apple's collusion eliminated Amazon's (and indeed, anyone's) ability to use price as a competitive tactic. Apple didn't want to compete on price so they colluded to take away Amazon's (and everyone's) ability to do so.
I think it was pretty well known that Amazon was losing several dollars on every new bestseller eBook they sold (Article from '09 touching on Amazon's losses.). And as I specified prior to your post, I have never believed a truly free market economy can work in today's society. It doesn't mean I don't want less regulation, though, or that I'm not against more regulation.
Also, to further elaborate on why I frown on Apple's refusal to allow 3rd parties to sell ebooks (and other media) directly via an app... some people are increasingly using an iPad as their sole computer. Without doubt, that will increase in time as iOS becomes more capable. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, in such a scenario, it is impossible to buy ebooks and other media from anyone but Apple except through Safari, and you can't get it on your iPad without syncing over a computer. If the iPad is your computer, then you are stuck in Apple's ecosystem. And if OS X heads in this same direction over time (I'm not convinced it will, but who knows for sure?), then what? Switch to another OS? HAH! MS would likely just follow suit, and Linux isn't going to cut it for a lot of people for a lot of reasons.
Ok, I'll correct you. You're wrong. You can open any book in Safari and transfer it to iBooks, Marvin, Kindle, or whatever eBook reader you want to use. And even if Apple did restrict such a thing, let the demand drive their choices. Poor business practice = fewer purchases = lost revenue = changed business practices. (Look at the recent Microsoft XBox One announcement for examples of that!)
The argument can be made that the Kindle and Nook don't allow 3rd party stores, but then they NEVER have. These are also truly more like "consumption" devices than the iPad is. Really, they are little more than ereaders with an LCD screen instead of eink. Maybe the iPad isn't "quite" beyond being a mere consumption device, but it's getting there, and again, for many people it is there.
This is a very interesting point that I hadn't considered. What you've pointed out is akin to saying that it would be ok for the government to suddenly decide that Amazon has to allow for the sale of eBooks from the iBookstore on their devices. And what about the Kindle Fire? No different. Apple allowed, by its own choice, to have the Kindle app, etc in the App Store because it knew it would be able to make money from them. Take away that incentive, and why should a company continue to allow the app? They shouldn't have to, yet the government wants to force them to do exactly that.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
1,227
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Location
UK
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 2.66 GHz 20", iPad Mini2 32GB, iPhone6 64GB, Watch Sport 42mm Black, iPad Air 2 128GB
Agree with lifeisabeach. Such a decision would only serve to cement my decision to stay with a Kindle or Android tablet. It would push me toward an Android phone in lieu of iOS and possibly back to Windows (or give Linux another go) with my next computer purchase.

If Microsoft had hatched a plan with the introduction of Win 3.1 or Win95 that afforded them a 30% cut of everything that could be sold to work and run in Windows, MS would not exist today.

This feeling that they deserve a 30% cut of everyone else's work because they created the operating system is, as far as I am concerned, the height of greed.

As I am heavily invested in Amazon media (mostly Kindle eBooks) any move to prevent me accessing it on my iPad would cause me to exercise my free-market choice to switch to another platform.


I agree completely with both of these comments.

I have an iPad Mini, which I use so I can read Kindle, Nook, Kobo and other eBooks (amongst other things). I would be very unhappy having to carry at least 4 separate eReaders in order to do this.

Why should Apple be entitled to anything at all in return for people using their OS in order to use someone else's content? They wrote the OS and created the device. They were paid for both of those. That should be enough.

How we use the products should be up to us :Angry:
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
797
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Location
Merriam, KS
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP Core Duo 2.0GHz 1.5GB, 20" iMac C2D 2.4GHz 4GB, PowerPC G4 500MHz 512MB
I agree completely with both of these comments.

I have an iPad Mini, which I use so I can read Kindle, Nook, Kobo and other eBooks (amongst other things). I would be very unhappy having to carry at least 4 separate eReaders in order to do this.

Why should Apple be entitled to anything at all in return for people using their OS in order to use someone else's content? They wrote the OS and created the device. They were paid for both of those. That should be enough.

How we use the products should be up to us :Angry:

The app developers agreed to the terms of service and the price they'd have to pay. What I'm hearing from you is no different than signing a mortgage on a house and then being pissed about the terms afterward.

Is it also not fair that Apple requires carriers to pay more for their phones than other companies do?
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
Ford Motor Company didn't receive any support during the financial crisis because their executives saw the direction things were heading, and chose to be proactive and prepared. They came out of the financial situation stronger than they went in - all WITHOUT the government telling them what to do.
That makes it sound as if Ford operated beyond the boundaries that is regulation. They're success was, and always will be, in part due to regulations which ensure that they don't do stupid things that are thought to be wise through the lens of greed.

You can't regulate enough to protect poor choices by consumers (and I wouldn't want to, anyway). Ultimately, the fault lays with the consumers who were getting way in over their heads because they didn't do their research and the executives/decision-makers of companies who didn't plan for potential changes in the future.
The issue here is you are creating a binary in which you have no regulation on one hand and excessive regulation on the other.

Every regulatory change I see to 'protect' someone lasts for a generation, until the new youth reaches that same age, then they come up with their own new, stupid choices. As an example, look at the number of ridiculous warning labels on every appliance you buy nowadays, and yet people still manage to do something new and dumb with it to hurt themselves. Same thing goes for financial regulations.
And warnings/regulations have never saved anyone from something? You're making a tenuous logical link between the presence of warning labels and personal ignorance. So, is the answer to simply remove all labels? That's a risky game to play that leads to nothing beneficial.


How is an electronics company "heavily invested in the social good"? This doesn't pertain to Apple at all.
You were talking about the federal credit rating and I responded by talking about financial institutions. It was entirely relevant.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top