DOJ: Let's force Apple to allow in-app links to bookstores

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Source the reading apps elsewhere?
To do that, Apple would have to allow sideloading of apps and end the itunes appstore exclusivity.
The feds would approve it in a heartbeat.

Errr, I said 3rd party apps not sideloaded - in case you hadn't noticed, Apple doesn't actually create all the apps in the Store - this kinda makes them 3rd party apps...

[TadW]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Apple wants the feds to blow them a kiss...

I find it amusing that Apple wants to decide for themselves what a reasonable injunction would be.

“A potentially valid injunction could include: (1) reasonable limitations on Apple’s ability to share information (akin to the publishers’ consent decrees.)…(2) a prohibition, tracking the publishers’ consent decrees, on retail price MFNs in agreements with the publisher defendants; and (3) reasonable antitrust training obligations for Apple, lasting a reasonable term. No further relief can be justified under the legal standard governing antitrust injunctions or the Constitution.”

[Synergi]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Frankly, if I was Apple, I'd say, "OK, we won't have any special agreements or maintain existing deals with publishers, in fact ebooks are such a small part of our business that we'll drop 'em altogether and not have any 3rd party ebook apps either... just to ensure we aren't accused of unfair action again... anyone who wants to read can use third party (non-publisher/retailer) apps to read books they source elsewhere..." That should please retailers, make all the publishers really happy and keep the DoJ out of the way... all in all, a real benefit to consumers everywhere...

That would just cripple the iPad in my opinion. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually buy that device because they can use their Nook, Kindle, Kobo Apps on it. They do that they may as well say go buy a Google Tablet where you have a bit more freedom.

I don't see what the big deal is. You can buy easy enough through the website on the iPad. Charge a fee for the App being their, not 30% of the sales.

Apparently Amazon was doing something right, even Apple had to go to under handed tactics to get a foot in the ebook door.

[Sregener]

Every decision is two-sided. On the one hand, Apple took away the ability to make in-app purchases that were not cleared by their own store. This gave customers protection against apps that might collect and abuse their financial information. But this protection came at the cost of usability for people who wished to use apps for purchasing.

Frankly, I don't find the current arrangement that bothersome. I don't buy eBooks that often, and using a browser works just fine for me for those times when I do.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by TadW

I find it amusing that Apple wants to decide for themselves what a reasonable injunction would be.

Right. How could they not know you are supposed to hire K Street lobbyists to do that for you

[Canuck_in_Japan]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Frankly, if I was Apple, I'd say, "OK, we won't have any special agreements or maintain existing deals with publishers, in fact ebooks are such a small part of our business that we'll drop 'em altogether and not have any 3rd party ebook apps either... just to ensure we aren't accused of unfair action again... anyone who wants to read can use third party (non-publisher/retailer) apps to read books they source elsewhere..." That should please retailers, make all the publishers really happy and keep the DoJ out of the way... all in all, a real benefit to consumers everywhere...

So you're suggestion is that Apple should take their ball and go home?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Canuck_in_Japan

So you're suggestion is that Apple should take their ball and go home?

No, I'm suggesting that they couldn't be blamed for taking their ball and finding a NEW home...

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by TadW

I find it amusing that Apple wants to decide for themselves what a reasonable injunction would be.

“A potentially valid injunction could include: (1) reasonable limitations on Apple’s ability to share information (akin to the publishers’ consent decrees.)…(2) a prohibition, tracking the publishers’ consent decrees, on retail price MFNs in agreements with the publisher defendants; and (3) reasonable antitrust training obligations for Apple, lasting a reasonable term. No further relief can be justified under the legal standard governing antitrust injunctions or the Constitution.”

Yes, imagine this playing out in other scenarios. "Judge, I only robbed that bank because they wouldn't give me a loan and I need to run my business. Sending me to prison would be draconian, my business, my family and employees would all be impacted. I think a fair punishment would be if you told me not to rob banks for the next 5 years but I shouldn't be restricted from robbing liquor stores or variety stores. That's too vague and would impact my long term job creation plan. Oh and I would agree to go to counselling once a week but I don't want to see a probation officer, they ask personal questions and get in my business."

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Sooo . . . will Amazon allow me to add my itunes links to my Kindle ebooks? . . .

Out of curiosity, does Apple make any apps for non-Apple products? I know there is iTunes for Windows but are there any apps.

I don't know would allow an iTunes or iBooks app on the Fire devices. I doubt it but I also doubt it would hurt them. Both companies seem equal in my mind as far as music is concerned (or the music I'm interested in). If iBooks was an app on the Fire, I would think the Kindle store would still win "unless" iBooks had features that were much better and/or really competed on price.

Truth in advertising, I am a major Amazon/Kindle fan but I do own a couple of Apple products (iPods) and I have purchased an Apple laptop for my mother and will probably buy her the next gen iPad Mini. I also work in an industry surrounded my Apple products but I still love my Windows machines.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Yes, imagine this playing out in other scenarios. "Judge, I only robbed that bank because they wouldn't give me a loan and I need to run my business. Sending me to prison would be draconian, my business, my family and employees would all be impacted. I think a fair punishment would be if you told me not to rob banks for the next 5 years but I shouldn't be restricted from robbing liquor stores or variety stores. That's too vague and would impact my long term job creation plan. Oh and I would agree to go to counselling once a week but I don't want to see a probation officer, they ask personal questions and get in my business."

I laughed.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

. If iBooks was an app on the Fire, I would think the Kindle store would still win "unless" iBooks had features that were much better and/or really competed on price.
)

The only survey I ever saw around here, back in nov 2010, of ebook readers on iOS, had iBooks way behind the Kindle and Nook apps and just ahead of Kobo. Which wasn't bad considering the headstart Kindle and Nook had. Obviously it was unacceptable for Apple, who then started warning that any in-app *mention* of competing ebookstores was forbidden.

So, yes; on any level playing field Kindle would whomp iBooks. But there is no level playing field. Apple only supports their OS and FIRE buyers are predisposed to Amazon in the first place.

I suspect the iPad mini has helped Apple close the gap a bit with Kindle and Nook on iOS but it probably still lags Nook.

Personally, I think mainstream buyers see all the "Amazon domination" talk by Apple and the anti-amazon crowd as a solid *recommendation* to go with Kindle.
(The whole VHS vs Beta thing.)