So, is apple heading towards an antitrust investigation...

[Dreadnaught]

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html

"However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app. *

There we go, thank you.

A shining example of a stupid business practice, but not an example of monopolistic behavior.

Apple's business model probably would have been slammed down years ago if it weren't for the fact that Apple simply wasn't a dominant market party in Europe in any market. Now that we have the iPad and no serious competition that may change.

I don't see how that computes at all. You can still read a newspaper from a news stand, or check out its Website. Hell, you can just read that newspaper's Website on the browser of an iPad.

The marketplace is much broader than iPads.

What disturbs me more is the problem of Apple making its market non-viable for competitors. If you already have the business logic for subscriptions, then Apple does not offer anything you will need....That's not something which warrants a 30% cut of the revenue, especially when you have to consider that the profit is way below 30%.

This makes Apple's choice a bad business move. It doesn't make it monopolistic. No one is going to sell in the Apple store at a loss, and what we're seeing is the start of pressuring Apple to get real.

That's business, not anti-trust.

[RandBlade]

100% agreed with Dread.

Not sure what protectionist behaviour Khen is referring to. I'm part and parcel of the "free Market will fix it brigade" and I believe the solution to this is - the free Market.

If Apple prices Amazon and everyone else out of the App store it could end up devaluing the iPad. The reason Apple in 85 lost out to the PC and MS was for precisely their closed behaviour. The free market won then.

The iPhone came out 4 years ago now, why hasn't anyone else come up with a Market-leading phone. Where is the great tablet from someone else. A decade ago most people I knew had Nokia mobiles, now most I know have iPhones. No reason it couldn't be another in another decade. Let Apple shoot themselves in the foot if necessary.

[Hazir]

Here we go again; Dread talking about a non-existant anti-trust case against Apple as if it can be discussed in detail and Randblade not understanding that having a 99% share of the tablet market constitutes market dominance.

[sheadunne]

100% agreed with Dread.

Not sure what protectionist behaviour Khen is referring to. I'm part and parcel of the "free Market will fix it brigade" and I believe the solution to this is - the free Market.

If Apple prices Amazon and everyone else out of the App store it could end up devaluing the iPad. The reason Apple in 85 lost out to the PC and MS was for precisely their closed behaviour. The free market won then.

The iPhone came out 4 years ago now, why hasn't anyone else come up with a Market-leading phone. Where is the great tablet from someone else. A decade ago most people I knew had Nokia mobiles, now most I know have iPhones. No reason it couldn't be another in another decade. Let Apple shoot themselves in the foot if necessary.

I agree with you that the free market will take care of this. I don't agree with your assessment of Apple. In 1985 apple lost ground because they let go of Steve Jobs (for the very reason you say). However, it wasn't until he was brought back onboard that Apple recovered. His strategy of a "closed" system worked during his entire run as CEO (before and now).

However, now that Jobs is disappearing again, I do think that Apple will take a hit. It takes a special kind of crazy to make a "closed" system profitable. I doubt they will be able to find a replacement that will be able to fill his shoes.

[RandBlade]

Here we go again; Dread talking about a non-existant anti-trust case against Apple as if it can be discussed in detail and Randblade not understanding that having a 99% share of the tablet market constitutes market dominance.

That's pathetic, the iPad isn't even a year old so to be talking about market dominance is complete and utter BS. Its a new flaming product, how about we get competitors to release their own and see if they maintain dominance

I highly doubt you have a source for 99% anyway and suspect you are just exaggerating. Either way considering its not even a year old its very silly.

I agree with you that the free market will take care of this. I don't agree with your assessment of Apple. In 1985 apple lost ground because they let go of Steve Jobs (for the very reason you say). However, it wasn't until he was brought back onboard that Apple recovered. His strategy of a "closed" system worked during his entire run as CEO (before and now).

However, now that Jobs is disappearing again, I do think that Apple will take a hit. It takes a special kind of crazy to make a "closed" system profitable. I doubt they will be able to find a replacement that will be able to fill his shoes.

I don't think losing Jobs was the sole reason. MS and IBM PC simply offered a better product - in large part better due to its openness. Apple has never been open in its entire history. It would not surprise me in the least to find better phones and tablets in the future that are more open.

I own the iPhone not because I'm an Apple fan but because I consider it to be the best. If we get one that's better in the future, I'd switch to that. Given how much Apple is handicapping itself, it shouldn't be difficult - but so far is.

[sheadunne]

In the late 80s/early 90s (Post/Pre Jobs) Apple did licenses its OS. It was a failure, partly because it was behind Microsoft getting into that market. Jobs killed the program when he returned to Apple. People don't want an apple clone. They want an apple.

[Dreadnaught]

Here we go again; Dread talking about a non-existant anti-trust case against Apple as if it can be discussed in detail and Randblade not understanding that having a 99% share of the tablet market constitutes market dominance.

You're the one who seems to be discussion a non-existant anti-trust case against Apple as if it can be discussed in detail.

But there are some core anti-trust principles that can be discussed and I think they are very clear on the need to define the market at stake. And I think it's clear the market is far larger than iPad applications. It's also clear that the definition of "tablet" is far wider than the iPad. It's taken only a year but there is a ton of competition on the horizon from the Samsung Galaxy tablet, Motorola Xoom and possibly even B&N Nook (see Minxdroid thread in General Chat where Minx modified a Nook to run Android Honeycomb).

In the late 80s/early 90s (Post/Pre Jobs) Apple did licenses its OS. It was a failure, partly because it was behind Microsoft getting into that market. Jobs killed the program when he returned to Apple. People don't want an apple clone. They want an apple.

Welcome!

You're right, Jobs is the one guy who can pursue closed systems and make it into a reliably solid consumer experience. I think the question is whether any of these products will have a "dominant" position in any given marketplace besides the marketplace for Apple products.

[Ominous Gamer]

That's pathetic, the iPad isn't even a year old so to be talking about market dominance is complete and utter BS. Its a new flaming product, how about we get competitors to release their own and see if they maintain dominance

There were tablet attempts before Apple. Not that I blame you for not knowing that since they sucked. The tablet is not a new concept, its just a concept that Apple dominated in using both its established consumer base and sweet pricing agreements with OEMs, just like they did with the iPod and iPhone. Which is why the tablets we're seeing on the horizon are several hundred more than the iPad.

[Hazir]

You're the one who seems to be discussion a non-existant anti-trust case against Apple as if it can be discussed in detail.

What is there to be confused about. It is my personal opinion that Apple has a business model that is reminescent of organised crime.

With regards to anti-trust rules I merely set out what the pre-conditions to start one are.

[RandBlade]

There were tablet attempts before Apple. Not that I blame you for not knowing that since they sucked. The tablet is not a new concept, its just a concept that Apple dominated in using both its established consumer base and sweet pricing agreements with OEMs, just like they did with the iPod and iPhone. Which is why the tablets we're seeing on the horizon are several hundred more than the iPad.

I know that I said the iPad isn't a year old, ie Apple's iPad, not general tablet computing. Agreed that others have sucked. The solution isn't litigation but reasonably priced, non-sucky alternatives.

The fact that less than a year ago they launched arguably the first decent mass Market tablet doesn't make it grounds for anti-trust.

As a free marketeer, I'm glad Apple have raised the bar in the last decade for the music, phone and now tablet devices. For those who hate Apple's restrictions, there are alternatives following on.