4 ms·

In effect, it's an advertisement for a competing retailer. Very few retailers are going to allow you to use their facilities to advertise for the competition.

In effect, it's an advertisement for a competing retailer. Very few retailers are going to allow you to use their facilities to advertise for the competition. Is that something they should be forced to do in the name of the consumer? If Black & Decker wants to print "cheaper directly from our website!" or "cheaper at Lowe's Home Improvement!" on the packaging for a drill, should Home Depot be required to allow that? The situation is a bit different here because Apple's app store is the only game in town if you have an iPhone. But that's a problem of monopoly or other excessive leverage, not one of what retailers in general should be required to do.

Waterluvian 6y ago
Correct. Apple is trying to be a monopoly but also be able to say, “look! We allow external purchases to take place!”
- Bud 6y ago
  This simply isn't what "monopoly" means. And we shouldn't be using it this way just because corporations are tossing it around like a word grenade. Exercising control within your own platform, which has other competing platforms, is not a "monopoly".
inetknght 6y ago
> Is that something they should be forced to do in the name of the consumer? If Black & Decker wants to print "cheaper directly from our website!" or "cheaper at Lowe's Home Improvement!" on the packaging for a drill, should Home Depot be required to allow that? Yes, I think so. I think Home Depot should absolutely allow the manufacturer to put whatever they want on it. And I think Home Depot should be liable for whatever is printed on it, too. That also means that if Home Depot doesn't like the liability that's put on it then Home Depot doesn't have to sell the product.
- jachee 6y ago
  Home Depot won't disallow B&D from putting "cheaper at Lowe's" on their boxes, but they would absolutely stop carrying and selling them.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  By that argument, all Apple is saying “we don’t have to sell products that would violate this clause.” And that’s what people appear to be up in arms about.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > By that argument, all Apple is saying “we don’t have to sell products that would violate this clause.” And that’s what people appear to be up in arms about. In Apple, it's different. Customers can't buy the apps from a third party app store. Customers can't buy the apps directly from the app's producer.
Fnoord 6y ago
Yeah, that exists. Some products contain a suggested sales price. You can go higher than that, no problem. But its stated on the package. Informing the customer about how the price of a product is comprised (for example VAT, or how workers are paid a more fair wage, or how for example a part of the pay is for specific car taxes or copyright taxes [we got both here]) ought to never be illegal. A company (or government) should not have the right to forbid another party from mentioning such.
- smabie 6y ago
  You don't think stores should be able to decide what products they sell? If I had a product that on the box said "Target is a shitty company" you really think Target should be forced to stock it?
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    Your comparison is moot. Your example is defamation. There's no defamation going on in the case of Apple and IAP mention. Its factual, honest, transparent. Its solely to inform the customer, its in the customer's interest. As for stores being able to decide what products they sell. This isn't just some small store. Its a huge store. They have [arguably] clear rules (a lot of them). And the rule that a customer isn't allowed to mention the "Apple tax" is unfair because it attempts to hide valuable information _about_ the sale _from_ the customer.
rkagerer 6y ago
In effect, it's an advertisement for a competing retailer. If you slap it right on the store page, true enough. But if you're sharing the information in-game, the analogy doesn't quite hold. In fact I'd argue it breaks down even if the label is on an Apple dialog that pops up in (or from) your game. When you allow Apple into your user experience like that, you're the one who's giving eyeballs to them.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If you have a free game with IAP, I think the analogy holds even if it’s in-game.

Waterluvian 6y ago

Correct. Apple is trying to be a monopoly but also be able to say, “look! We allow external purchases to take place!”

Bud 6y ago
This simply isn't what "monopoly" means. And we shouldn't be using it this way just because corporations are tossing it around like a word grenade. Exercising control within your own platform, which has other competing platforms, is not a "monopoly".

inetknght 6y ago

> Is that something they should be forced to do in the name of the consumer? If Black & Decker wants to print "cheaper directly from our website!" or "cheaper at Lowe's Home Improvement!" on the packaging for a drill, should Home Depot be required to allow that? Yes, I think so. I think Home Depot should absolutely allow the manufacturer to put whatever they want on it. And I think Home Depot should be liable for whatever is printed on it, too. That also means that if Home Depot doesn't like the liability that's put on it then Home Depot doesn't have to sell the product.

jachee 6y ago
Home Depot won't disallow B&D from putting "cheaper at Lowe's" on their boxes, but they would absolutely stop carrying and selling them.
sokoloff 6y ago
By that argument, all Apple is saying “we don’t have to sell products that would violate this clause.” And that’s what people appear to be up in arms about.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > By that argument, all Apple is saying “we don’t have to sell products that would violate this clause.” And that’s what people appear to be up in arms about. In Apple, it's different. Customers can't buy the apps from a third party app store. Customers can't buy the apps directly from the app's producer.

Fnoord 6y ago

Yeah, that exists. Some products contain a suggested sales price. You can go higher than that, no problem. But its stated on the package. Informing the customer about how the price of a product is comprised (for example VAT, or how workers are paid a more fair wage, or how for example a part of the pay is for specific car taxes or copyright taxes [we got both here]) ought to never be illegal. A company (or government) should not have the right to forbid another party from mentioning such.

smabie 6y ago
You don't think stores should be able to decide what products they sell? If I had a product that on the box said "Target is a shitty company" you really think Target should be forced to stock it?
- Fnoord 6y ago
  Your comparison is moot. Your example is defamation. There's no defamation going on in the case of Apple and IAP mention. Its factual, honest, transparent. Its solely to inform the customer, its in the customer's interest. As for stores being able to decide what products they sell. This isn't just some small store. Its a huge store. They have [arguably] clear rules (a lot of them). And the rule that a customer isn't allowed to mention the "Apple tax" is unfair because it attempts to hide valuable information _about_ the sale _from_ the customer.

rkagerer 6y ago

In effect, it's an advertisement for a competing retailer. If you slap it right on the store page, true enough. But if you're sharing the information in-game, the analogy doesn't quite hold. In fact I'd argue it breaks down even if the label is on an Apple dialog that pops up in (or from) your game. When you allow Apple into your user experience like that, you're the one who's giving eyeballs to them.

sokoloff 6y ago
If you have a free game with IAP, I think the analogy holds even if it’s in-game.