3 ms·

Sadly this sounds like business as usual for small companies who sell accessories or add-ons for larger products. I imagine if the execs in charge of "encourag

Sadly this sounds like business as usual for small companies who sell accessories or add-ons for larger products. I imagine if the execs in charge of "encouraging" M-Edge to play along hadn't been so heavy handed then we would have never even heard about this.

ukdm 15y ago
This looks to be more than a heavy-handed approach. Amazon kept updating the terms in order to stifle M-Edge. They even demanded a cut of the profits from sales to other retailers, while at the same time copying (and infringing) M-Edge's jacket design. At least, that's what is being claimed in the lawsuit.
- jonknee 15y ago
  That's pretty much the name of the game in the accessory market. You're never going to have as much information as the company who makes the device and they are always going to want a chunk. See Apple for a good example, they're snatching 10% of all accessories off the top (that's for all sales, with they're own massive sales channel the return really fattens up). Not to mention that Apple makes and markets their own accessories.
  - Terretta 15y ago
    > Not to mention that Apple makes and markets their own accessories. It's interesting to me that you cannot, and never could, buy an Apple case[1] for your iPhone. Also interesting how quickly Apple killed their Bluetooth earpiece. Seems like if you want to make accessories, making them for Apple's devices means you don't have to worry about competing with the device maker. - - - 1. Where "case" is defined as a container to protect the device from both screen damage and drops. Apple does sell two items that protect the iPhone from one or the other, but not both: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/iphone_accessories/cases#m.manufacturer=apple http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/iphone_acc... Apple also sells the non-drop-protecting case for original iPad, but it's so unattractive that its purpose seems to have been to have a cover at launch without leaking device specs, rather than to take advantage of the case market. iPad 2's "Smart Cover" also isn't a case, so seems to be Apple's way of carrying the iPod color choice concept over to the iPad line.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      I think it was probably due to Steve Jobs' insistence that the device as shipped was perfect and that a case is ugly and not necessary. He seemed pretty stoked about the Smart Cover because it added to the iPad instead of covering it up.
yardie 15y ago
The thing about accessories is the profit margins are so incredibly fat you can make all sorts of demands and most accessories makers will acquiesce. When I was working at BB most accessories were in the 10x cost range. This is the first time I've seen an accessories maker push back. But this is the first time I've seen a retailer try to get a commission retroactively. I can probably imagine this came from an over eager Amazon exec trying to squeeze a little extra into his quarterly reports. I can't imagine even Walmart trying something that brash.

ukdm 15y ago

This looks to be more than a heavy-handed approach. Amazon kept updating the terms in order to stifle M-Edge. They even demanded a cut of the profits from sales to other retailers, while at the same time copying (and infringing) M-Edge's jacket design. At least, that's what is being claimed in the lawsuit.

jonknee 15y ago
That's pretty much the name of the game in the accessory market. You're never going to have as much information as the company who makes the device and they are always going to want a chunk. See Apple for a good example, they're snatching 10% of all accessories off the top (that's for all sales, with they're own massive sales channel the return really fattens up). Not to mention that Apple makes and markets their own accessories.
- Terretta 15y ago
  > Not to mention that Apple makes and markets their own accessories. It's interesting to me that you cannot, and never could, buy an Apple case[1] for your iPhone. Also interesting how quickly Apple killed their Bluetooth earpiece. Seems like if you want to make accessories, making them for Apple's devices means you don't have to worry about competing with the device maker. - - - 1. Where "case" is defined as a container to protect the device from both screen damage and drops. Apple does sell two items that protect the iPhone from one or the other, but not both: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/iphone_accessories/cases#m.manufacturer=apple http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/iphone_acc... Apple also sells the non-drop-protecting case for original iPad, but it's so unattractive that its purpose seems to have been to have a cover at launch without leaking device specs, rather than to take advantage of the case market. iPad 2's "Smart Cover" also isn't a case, so seems to be Apple's way of carrying the iPod color choice concept over to the iPad line.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    I think it was probably due to Steve Jobs' insistence that the device as shipped was perfect and that a case is ugly and not necessary. He seemed pretty stoked about the Smart Cover because it added to the iPad instead of covering it up.

yardie 15y ago

The thing about accessories is the profit margins are so incredibly fat you can make all sorts of demands and most accessories makers will acquiesce. When I was working at BB most accessories were in the 10x cost range. This is the first time I've seen an accessories maker push back. But this is the first time I've seen a retailer try to get a commission retroactively. I can probably imagine this came from an over eager Amazon exec trying to squeeze a little extra into his quarterly reports. I can't imagine even Walmart trying something that brash.