Wow, this is some great spin Brad. Kudos! On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Brad Knowles wrote: > >> So, Apple is protecting their users from being locked into any other content >> distribution channel. That's not anti-competitive, regardless of how much >> the other industry giants might scream and wail and gnash their teeth. It's >> actually the other providers that are being forced to open up, and then only >> if they want to make that distribution channel available on iOS. Frankly, the consolation that Apple is "protecting" users rings extremely hollow. I have never, ever heard a single consumer complain that things just aren't fair because they can only buy a Kindle book on Amazon's website and not through Apple. There are already many competitors in the eBook market that consumers could choose from. As far as the consumer is concerned, Apple taking a slice of other competitors' pie is completely transparent. Consumers aren't being protected from anything. > Think about it this way -- when Barnes & Noble sets up a book store, do they > allow competing book store chains to come in and set up their own shop inside > and then force those customers to check out only at the non-B&N registers? iPads and iPhones are not Apple's property. They do not belong to Apple. They are not storefronts. They are privately owned consumer devices that Apple maintains an undeserved deathgrip on thanks to the epic legislative catastrophe known as DMCA, which consumers only put up with because Apple makes some great software. Apple has taken great measures to ensure that there is no distribution competition on these devices, and we now know why. It was a malicious ploy to ensure that Apple can hold the users of those devices ransom to other potential competitors. > In this case, Apple is allowing other distribution channels to be set up on > the devices that they designed and built and continue to support, which is > more than B&N would do for any other competitor book store chain. In return, > Apple is requiring that they be given equal content access and price equity > with the competing distribution channel, and customers have to be allowed to > choose which distribution channel they want to use. > > That seems more than fair to me. Allowing other distribution channels? Really? So I'll be able to install the Kindle app from the Amazon iPad store now? No, I will not. Because the distribution channel has always been and will continue to be curated, controlled, and dictated by Apple. This doesn't offer any new distribution channels to consumers. It only inserts Apple in their competitors' revenue stream under threat of expulsion from the iOS ecosystem. Price equity? I just finished pointing out that Apple's own competing products will *not* be paying the 30% fee. That's an instant anti-competitive advantage that no other content provider can match. Apple has just ensured that nobody will ever be able to undercut them on content pricing in the growing iOS ecosystem. This is incredibly damaging to consumers to content marketplaces, and is clearly anti-competitive. -- Benjamin _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
