5 ms·
I think Apple and Amazon (an Amazon lawsuit is linked inside the article) will argue that they are similar to video rental stores like Blockbuster back when it
by tareqak 6y ago
I think Apple and Amazon (an Amazon lawsuit is linked inside the article) will argue that they are similar to video rental stores like Blockbuster back when it was in business. However, Blockbuster did have physical copies of movies available to purchase in the form of VHS, and DVDs so I would argue that Blockbuster calling itself a store was still alright even though it might have done more business in rentals.
I’m not how Apple and Amazon’s respective media rental businesses would rename themselves to remove the word “store” e.g. App Store to App Rental. I do agree that both companies, Google, and others mislead potential customers by labeling what is essentially conditional, long-term rentals / leases as ownership.
- dukoid 6y agoI think the long term outcome will be some sort of account "locking" where the account becomes purely passive
- l-lousy 6y agoI think the main problem is that because the conditions of the rental are not known at the time that you make a purchase (accounts can be terminated at any time for any reason) you can’t call it rental or buying really.
- SuchAnonMuchWow 6y agoAlso, blockbuster rental terms were clearly defined. For example you knew for how long you had the movie. In the case of apple you don't know, because apple might decide to terminate your account before you even had time to watch the movie.
- fastball 6y agoYeah, that's the hypothetical that should definitely be played up – "buying" a movie and Apple terminating your account 5 minutes later. Makes it exceedingly clear that this certainly isn't "buying" and calling it such is false advertising.
- dane-pgp 6y agoIn fact I wouldn't be surprised if a potential race condition exists in their cloud architecture such that you could "buy" a movie after you were banned from watching it.