• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Apple positioning anti-trust over subscriptions in their App Store?

Various EU members have gone after Apple before for monopolistic practices and lost - and lost fairly in my opinion I believe their charges were without foundation and trying to protect the home court.

If an anti-trust issue is taken forward in the US, I predict the EU floodgates will open against them.

There's considerable grass-root political tensions over the Nokia-Microsoft deal and the ejection of MeeGo and Symbian.

It will be interesting to see whether the backlash of both will drive up Android sales to mainland Europe.
 
There are plenty of sheeple in the UK but there are also plenty of Android users and there are more and more all the time. There's a good number of Blackberry users too among teenage girls because to them BBM is the killer application.
 
Supposedly, Apple is going to give Netflix an exemption to their rule which seems complete BS. If they give big name providers like Netflix, Amazon, Rhapsody, etc... a free pass they're basically going to drive away all the small devs. It's ridiculous.

Also, the most entertaining piece of Apple fanboy nonsense I saw today justified Apple's decision by saying, "They are letting the vendor gain access to the 50 million wealthiest people on the planet. Is there a cheaper way to get to that market?"
 
^I happily believe that these are not at all predatory business practices and are, in fact, doing these other companies a big favor - right about the time I believe that the emperor's new clothes look marvelous.
 
So let me get this straight?

Apple knows Android is coming up fast and the only way Apple has stayed ahead so far was by getting devs to make more apps for the iPhone.

Now, they're screwing over the dev's?

I wouldn't be surprised if all those devs started advertising getting their app for Android now, since they'll make more money off of the Android Market / user.
 
I love reading the arguments made by fanboys about this. They are a huge source of entertainment for me. Latest one I read that cracked me up is an argument that this is justified because without iOS Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc..... would not have customers at all.
 
Being a "fanboy" ot a "fangirl" always blurs the facts. Fact is that Apple did a superb job in pricing the iPad and erected a big wall for the others to climb.

Fact is also that Moto must have been very timid in their forecast. After all, the price results from the cost on the one side and the forcasted number of units on the other side. ( I know it is a bit more complicated, I have done that for 20 years. But for the purpose of this discussion, it suffices).

Now the Xoom is in a catch22. It will not sell (in great numbers) because the price is too high and the price cannot be lowered because it does not sell. Forget all the beautiful functions - that is for the enthusiasts. For the masses it is the price that counts.

Lesson learned: Agressive pricing makes the sale.
 
EarlyMon said:
Huh. You speak of that in the hypothetical.

I'm the only one remembering history? Remember the WalMart / RubberMaid story?

USATODAY.com - Wal-Mart's influence grows

Pacific Views: WalMart's Deal With the Devil

Wal-Mart Is Not a Business, It's an Economic Disease

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mkCUK3kcKs

Because all that talk about RubberMaid and WalMart certainly sounded exactly like your statement, to me:





Indeed.

I'm hoping the Google model works - Angry Birds started making over $1million/month in advertising on Android, whereas it's a paid app on an iPhone.

It certainly puts me in a quandry.

On the one hand, how can I not want good prices for us consumers?

On the other, how can I know what actions I'll be taking that bites the hand that feeds me?

Not easy to see, not for me, anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry Early, I just don't think these are the same type of situations at all.

Rubbermaid raised their prices, and Walmart changed which lines it sold...

Yes, Walmart has a lot of economic power, but these are decisions that MUST be made in order for any company to remain profitable.

Walmart made no requirements of Rubbermaid as opposed to it's dealings with other retailers.
 
Perhaps the example was weak. It was in response to "suppose WalMart did price fixing with CocaCola" and went on to argue the point.

My point was there was nothing to suppose, WalMart does price-fix and tells vendors to suffer that in other outlets or leave. They will even demand exclusivity and then set price later.

I know a WalMart buyer, so I know this is truly the case and an opposite-case hypothetical was not cromulent, and don't want to give details that could lose a guy his job.

So - I trotted out the RubberMaid example, it was in my mind at the time of posting, close enough to make the point.

It seems to me from many experiences, not just the poster here, that people will insist that certain actions aren't taken by large corporations because they're evil or illegal - further that because they're illegal practices, they _can't_ be taken.

In actual fact, evil, illegal actions are taken quite frequently.
 
IIRc Wal-Mart did the same with vlassic pickles and drove them out of business damn near.

Perhaps Apple being in bed with China has learned from Wal-Mart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom