8 ms·

Why is everyone assuming Apple's being evil here? Not that they're perfect by any means, but the pattern seems pretty clear: they start off with a restrictive

by cpr 15y ago

Why is everyone assuming Apple's being evil here? Not that they're perfect by any means, but the pattern seems pretty clear: they start off with a restrictive situation, see how it works, and then adjust. (Sometimes they restrict more, then relax; sometimes they stay more restrictive.) They're engaged in a learning process, folks. Nothing quite like the App Store has been attempted before on this scale, and you know they've gotta be rather conservative at each step. You would if you were in their shoes. Yes, they're trying to make money, but I see lots of signs that they're also trying to accommodate the needs of users first, then developers. Never assume malice when it could just be incompetence (i.e., learning from mistakes), etc. (I'm not shilling for Apple. I didn't even attend WWDC this year for the first time in many years. ;-)

mortenjorck 15y ago
The "same price or less than it is offered outside the app" clause was the part I always imagined to be most likely to set off a DOJ smoke detector. Not surprised to see it go.
- dlikhten 15y ago
  Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.) This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage. I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges.
  - tc7 15y ago
    Where are they a monopoly?
    - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
      iTunes music accounts for 70% of legal music downloads.
      - heimidal 15y ago
        Size does not matter when defining a monopoly. Monopolies restrict trade. There are many services that are actually equal in price or less than iTunes with similar catalogs. Definitely not a monopoly.
        ugh 15y ago
        Also, just because one part of the business is a monopoly doesn’t mean that other parts of their business are monopolies.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        They don't need to be. If Apple's policies in regard to iOS (not a monopoly) leads to competitors of iTunes (arguably a monopoly) going out of business, that fits into the jurisdiction of the DOJ. It's not hard to see that had companies like Rhapsody and Rdio been kicked off of iOS, they might not have been able to sustain a business on the other platforms alone (not to mention that the other platforms could do the same thing). I think it's crazy to say this possibility isn't part of the reversal.
        MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        If they were to put Rhapsody out of business that would qualify as restricting trade, no?
        DenisM 15y ago
        No, the mere possibility of restricting trade makes a "monopoly". Actual restriction of trade is "abuse of monopoly".
  - berberich 15y ago
    Do you think Apple really cares about competition from an e-book company who we never heard of before their open letter, and who's name we can't remember now? I find that unlikely.
    - nkassis 15y ago
      Microsoft used to take on little companies too and either buy them out or run them out of business with any means necessary. If you wait too long they get hard to kill.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I personally find the notion that anyone at Apple with influence over app store t's & c's has ever heard of iFlowReader insulting to our intelligence. I'm saying that this notion that Apple actively tried to kill iFlowReader is pure geek fantasy, a product of nerds like us wanting stories with clear bad guys and underdogs. It bears no relation to reality. Apple did not give a shit about them.
        recoiledsnake 15y ago
        As Gruber writes: >Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard. And who exactly can’t afford a 70/30 split? Middlemen. It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen. .. >This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it. This is not a fear that in-app subscriptions will fail because Apple’s 30 percent slice is too high, but rather that in-app subscriptions will succeed despite Apple’s (in their minds) egregious profiteering. I.e. that charging what the market will bear is somehow unscrupulous. To the charge that Apple Inc. is a for-profit corporation run by staunch capitalists, I say, “Duh”. >If it works, Apple’s 30-percent take of in-app subscriptions will prove as objectionable in the long run as the App Store itself: not very. The above was from http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent Looks like Apple didn't really succeed and backtracked once Amazon and Netflix started threatening to pull their apps which would make the iDevices much less valuable to many users. You can only pillage the ecosystem so much before it starts hurting you.
  - adw 15y ago
    One small competitor did, yes. One rather dominant one didn't. Amazon are, fair to say, a fairly significant threat...
    - tptacek 15y ago
      In what practical sense did Apple's original rules ever impact Amazon's Kindle app? Are you just saying Apple was playing chicken with Amazon? Ok. They lost. And?
      - recoiledsnake 15y ago
        Err, I take it that you haven't been keeping up with the hoopla? Both the Netflix and Kindle apps were totally affected by these rules and would have had to pay up 30% of their subscriptions/ebooks. The deadline for enforcement was June 30th. In the meantime, Apple started killing off the small guys while approving updates to Kindle and Netflix. Things were suppose to come to a head this month.
        tptacek 15y ago
        Did Amazon change the way it paid Apple? Did Apple hold back the Kindle app?
        pyre 15y ago
        Presumably, had they not flinched, they would have starting June 30th. People are talking about how Apple waited until the 11th hour to relent.
        recoiledsnake 15y ago
        Amazon doesn't pay Apple nor Apple pays Amazon. That was set to change on June 30th.
  - jad 15y ago
    "Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.)" "This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage." Do you really think Apple went through all this to kill off some tiny company building software for their platform? No. They're relenting to make sure companies like Amazon, Netflix, and major newspaper and magazine publishers stay on iOS. "I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges." In what market does Apple enjoy a monopoly?
    - mortenjorck 15y ago
      The DOJ would have most likely been looking for evidence of restraint of trade. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restraint-of-trade/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restraint-of-trade/ Note that only Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust act even mentions monopolies. The rest of it deals with anti-competitive actions, of which monopoly may only be a potential outcome.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      Do you really think Apple went through all this to kill off some tiny company building software for their platform? There has been at least one "coincidence" of this sort before: http://sivers.org/itunes http://sivers.org/itunes
  - tsieling 15y ago
    If they wanted to kill them off, why allow them in the App Store at all?
josefresco 15y ago
It's like price-anchoring (see iPad) except instead of dollars it's restrictions. Apple sets the restriction bar at a crazy level, and then when they relax the restrictions it feels like we're all getting something great when in fact Apple is getting exactly what they wanted.
- aero142 15y ago
  What is apple getting that they wanted?
  - mcherm 15y ago
    30% of everything.
hnsmurf 15y ago
I don't think anyone is calling them evil due to the app store restriction here. But they definitely stole the guy's app and logo. That's both illegal (at least the logo part) and immoral. Reject the app, sure. Build similar functionality yourself, perhaps a bit scumbaggy but also probably legal. (This crowd still hasn't forgiving Microsoft for doing that 20 years ago.) Do all of that and steal the logo too and you've crossed the line.
- Johngibb 15y ago
  The logo was a combination of two of Apple's own images (iSync, and the wifi menu bar). I think your claim that they "stole the guys app and logo" is a little murky, at least regarding the logo.
llambda 15y ago
They're engaged in a learning process, folks. Nothing quite like the App Store has been attempted before on this scale, and you know they've gotta be rather conservative at each step. You would if you were in their shoes. It never fails to amaze me how early adopters react to new services and technology. Of course it's understandable that devs want to be treated fairly and (notwithstanding Apple's missteps) make a living. However it would behoove us to bear in mind that these services are new and still being developed. It's natural that a system should go through changes some of which are actually mistakes that will hopefully be reversed. Such evolution, one would hope, ensures that at some point an equilibrium is reached wherein both parties interests are addressed. Keeping in mind that the better the AppStore is (for users) the wider the reach will become and in turn this should mean a larger user base for devs.

by cpr 15y ago

mortenjorck 15y ago

The "same price or less than it is offered outside the app" clause was the part I always imagined to be most likely to set off a DOJ smoke detector. Not surprised to see it go.

dlikhten 15y ago
Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.) This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage. I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges.
- tc7 15y ago
  Where are they a monopoly?
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    iTunes music accounts for 70% of legal music downloads.
    - heimidal 15y ago
      Size does not matter when defining a monopoly. Monopolies restrict trade. There are many services that are actually equal in price or less than iTunes with similar catalogs. Definitely not a monopoly.
      - ugh 15y ago
        Also, just because one part of the business is a monopoly doesn’t mean that other parts of their business are monopolies.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        They don't need to be. If Apple's policies in regard to iOS (not a monopoly) leads to competitors of iTunes (arguably a monopoly) going out of business, that fits into the jurisdiction of the DOJ. It's not hard to see that had companies like Rhapsody and Rdio been kicked off of iOS, they might not have been able to sustain a business on the other platforms alone (not to mention that the other platforms could do the same thing). I think it's crazy to say this possibility isn't part of the reversal.
      - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        If they were to put Rhapsody out of business that would qualify as restricting trade, no?
      - DenisM 15y ago
        No, the mere possibility of restricting trade makes a "monopoly". Actual restriction of trade is "abuse of monopoly".
- berberich 15y ago
  Do you think Apple really cares about competition from an e-book company who we never heard of before their open letter, and who's name we can't remember now? I find that unlikely.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    Microsoft used to take on little companies too and either buy them out or run them out of business with any means necessary. If you wait too long they get hard to kill.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I personally find the notion that anyone at Apple with influence over app store t's & c's has ever heard of iFlowReader insulting to our intelligence. I'm saying that this notion that Apple actively tried to kill iFlowReader is pure geek fantasy, a product of nerds like us wanting stories with clear bad guys and underdogs. It bears no relation to reality. Apple did not give a shit about them.
      - recoiledsnake 15y ago
        As Gruber writes: >Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard. And who exactly can’t afford a 70/30 split? Middlemen. It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen. .. >This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it. This is not a fear that in-app subscriptions will fail because Apple’s 30 percent slice is too high, but rather that in-app subscriptions will succeed despite Apple’s (in their minds) egregious profiteering. I.e. that charging what the market will bear is somehow unscrupulous. To the charge that Apple Inc. is a for-profit corporation run by staunch capitalists, I say, “Duh”. >If it works, Apple’s 30-percent take of in-app subscriptions will prove as objectionable in the long run as the App Store itself: not very. The above was from http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent Looks like Apple didn't really succeed and backtracked once Amazon and Netflix started threatening to pull their apps which would make the iDevices much less valuable to many users. You can only pillage the ecosystem so much before it starts hurting you.
- adw 15y ago
  One small competitor did, yes. One rather dominant one didn't. Amazon are, fair to say, a fairly significant threat...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    In what practical sense did Apple's original rules ever impact Amazon's Kindle app? Are you just saying Apple was playing chicken with Amazon? Ok. They lost. And?
    - recoiledsnake 15y ago
      Err, I take it that you haven't been keeping up with the hoopla? Both the Netflix and Kindle apps were totally affected by these rules and would have had to pay up 30% of their subscriptions/ebooks. The deadline for enforcement was June 30th. In the meantime, Apple started killing off the small guys while approving updates to Kindle and Netflix. Things were suppose to come to a head this month.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Did Amazon change the way it paid Apple? Did Apple hold back the Kindle app?
        pyre 15y ago
        Presumably, had they not flinched, they would have starting June 30th. People are talking about how Apple waited until the 11th hour to relent.
        recoiledsnake 15y ago
        Amazon doesn't pay Apple nor Apple pays Amazon. That was set to change on June 30th.
- jad 15y ago
  "Right after that e-book competitor shut it's doors (It's been like 3 weeks.)" "This is how apple kills off competitors. They "experiment", competitors close shop, then they come to their senses and undo the damage." Do you really think Apple went through all this to kill off some tiny company building software for their platform? No. They're relenting to make sure companies like Amazon, Netflix, and major newspaper and magazine publishers stay on iOS. "I am surprised Apple is not being brought up on monopoly charges." In what market does Apple enjoy a monopoly?
  - mortenjorck 15y ago
    The DOJ would have most likely been looking for evidence of restraint of trade. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restraint-of-trade/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restraint-of-trade/ Note that only Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust act even mentions monopolies. The rest of it deals with anti-competitive actions, of which monopoly may only be a potential outcome.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    Do you really think Apple went through all this to kill off some tiny company building software for their platform? There has been at least one "coincidence" of this sort before: http://sivers.org/itunes http://sivers.org/itunes
- tsieling 15y ago
  If they wanted to kill them off, why allow them in the App Store at all?

josefresco 15y ago

It's like price-anchoring (see iPad) except instead of dollars it's restrictions. Apple sets the restriction bar at a crazy level, and then when they relax the restrictions it feels like we're all getting something great when in fact Apple is getting exactly what they wanted.

aero142 15y ago
What is apple getting that they wanted?
- mcherm 15y ago
  30% of everything.

hnsmurf 15y ago

I don't think anyone is calling them evil due to the app store restriction here. But they definitely stole the guy's app and logo. That's both illegal (at least the logo part) and immoral. Reject the app, sure. Build similar functionality yourself, perhaps a bit scumbaggy but also probably legal. (This crowd still hasn't forgiving Microsoft for doing that 20 years ago.) Do all of that and steal the logo too and you've crossed the line.

Johngibb 15y ago
The logo was a combination of two of Apple's own images (iSync, and the wifi menu bar). I think your claim that they "stole the guys app and logo" is a little murky, at least regarding the logo.

llambda 15y ago

They're engaged in a learning process, folks. Nothing quite like the App Store has been attempted before on this scale, and you know they've gotta be rather conservative at each step. You would if you were in their shoes. It never fails to amaze me how early adopters react to new services and technology. Of course it's understandable that devs want to be treated fairly and (notwithstanding Apple's missteps) make a living. However it would behoove us to bear in mind that these services are new and still being developed. It's natural that a system should go through changes some of which are actually mistakes that will hopefully be reversed. Such evolution, one would hope, ensures that at some point an equilibrium is reached wherein both parties interests are addressed. Keeping in mind that the better the AppStore is (for users) the wider the reach will become and in turn this should mean a larger user base for devs.