3 ms·

Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any

Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart, or even providing any contact details in the box to obtain a spare from them directly. You'd file that under "WTAF?" and complain to the nearest competition regulator. So yes, this is unusual, and in my country at least, misusing your market power to force another party to mislead the consumer and distort a market is illegal. Don't conflate the product with the platform. Otherwise you implicitly allow that you basically don't own the product even after you've bought it, which is unconscionable.

mrkstu 6y ago
Its par for the course. You can't buy a Kobo book on a Kindle. The question of course is an iPhone a specialized device or a general one. I would say Apple has worked as hard as it has to keep things locked down so it can say, with a straight face, that its platform is no different than a Kindle or a Leapfrog. Its just a very successful specialized device that 3rd parties have decided to come and join the party (hosted by Apple.) So much like Xerox successfully fought off becoming a generic term, Apple is fighting off becoming a legally generic platform.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Compatibility isn't an issue either. The analogy fails: I've got Kindle books that have a back page directing me to the publisher's website to buy more. Apple's rules would prohibit it. Apple's restrictions on any content that suggests the consumer may access services by any means other than making an in-app purchase are not "par for the course", they are an unusual abuse of market power that directly misleads the consumer. I've also just re-read the App Store rules and noticed that for multi-platform services, it even contains a covenant outside of the walled garden: "your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase."
dwaite 6y ago
> Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? You can indeed find terms for physical products that they can't do this. If someone did this with Wal-Mart, I imagine the best the manufacturer could hope for is that Wal-Mart returns all 'defective' products on the manufacturer's dime.

mrkstu 6y ago

Its par for the course. You can't buy a Kobo book on a Kindle. The question of course is an iPhone a specialized device or a general one. I would say Apple has worked as hard as it has to keep things locked down so it can say, with a straight face, that its platform is no different than a Kindle or a Leapfrog. Its just a very successful specialized device that 3rd parties have decided to come and join the party (hosted by Apple.) So much like Xerox successfully fought off becoming a generic term, Apple is fighting off becoming a legally generic platform.

inopinatus 6y ago
Compatibility isn't an issue either. The analogy fails: I've got Kindle books that have a back page directing me to the publisher's website to buy more. Apple's rules would prohibit it. Apple's restrictions on any content that suggests the consumer may access services by any means other than making an in-app purchase are not "par for the course", they are an unusual abuse of market power that directly misleads the consumer. I've also just re-read the App Store rules and noticed that for multi-platform services, it even contains a covenant outside of the walled garden: "your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase."

dwaite 6y ago

> Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer? You can indeed find terms for physical products that they can't do this. If someone did this with Wal-Mart, I imagine the best the manufacturer could hope for is that Wal-Mart returns all 'defective' products on the manufacturer's dime.