| > No, it's not. Amazon's App Store application doesn't exist without the Apple ecosystem and Apple's customers. When did I talk about Amazon's App Store? This is about Amazon's Apps on Apple's App store and on iOS. > Amazon is allowed to advertise anything they want outside of the Apple App Store True, I mentioned that and rebutted it in my last post. > The rule is only about advertising for other services within the platform that Apple runs False, at least in the respect that the Kindle Store is not a platform Apple runs, Apple runs the installations system on iOS, they use that to extend their reach into what other companies run. > They absolutely can communicate with their customers ... Amazon can, to use the Kindle app you must have an Amazon account created outside the app, they have the right to communicate outside the app because that point of contact originated outside the app. Any one not already the size of Amazon that starts as an app on iOS is not allowed to try to extend that relationship outside of iOS. That is why a federal judge felt it necessary to rule that Apple's behavior was against California law. > There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors. Except news papers, TV stations, movie studios, ISPs, phone companies, etc. All of these allow competitors to buy add space on their platforms, or use their platforms to communicate competing offers. Did you know movie studios once refused to let theaters run their movies if the previews/trailers were for any movies not from the same studio? Courts put a stop to that, now at most a studio can require that some but not all of the previews/trailers be for their films.
Back when long distance phone companies were a thing people cared about in the US, AT&T tried to block their competitors from cold calling companies to get them to switch, they also lost that case. Yes, none of these companies want to allow their competitors to use their platform, but none of them are allowed by law to stop it. > Your example about a direct ordering phone number is not analogous at all. It's not analogous to Apple preventing Amazon from providing links in the app to Amazon's own web site? How? This is the point of the similarity, you use the Doordash app or website (you use the Apple App Store), you order food (you download an app), when you get your food there is a menu inside that suggests you order direct, maybe even including coupons that give a discount on pickup orders (you open the app and when you pick something to buy you are provided a link to their site instead of an App Store button). Can you explain where I'm going wrong on that analogy? I know it's not 100% the same, it's an analogy, they are never exactly the same. > Your whole argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the agreements made to use the App Store and an inaccurate understanding of the limits imposed by apps. Right back at you. It's curious to me that you seem so adamant to defend a behavior was just ruled illegal. Was the judge wrong? How? Thought experiment, if Microsoft tomorrow said they own the Windows platform, and they have the right to a cut of all transactions done inside apps on the Windows platform, would you be ok with applications like say Steam or Epic Games Store being required to use the Windows Store to process payments and give some percent to Microsoft? If this is not ok how is it different from Apple's policy for iOS? |
I'm not talking about Amazon's App Store. I'm talking about Amazon's applications on the Apple App Store. I will try to be more explicit in the future.
>False, at least in the respect that the Kindle Store
It is not false. Amazon can advertise whatever they want within the Kindle Store. They cannot, however, advertise for buying something on iOS from outside the IAP system. You're conflating two different things and I feel like you're doing so intentionally.
>Did you know movie studios once refused to let theaters run their movies if the previews/trailers were for any movies not from the same studio?
That is not the same thing. The movie studios don't own the theatre. They can't prevent someone from running movies from other studios and that would be anti-competitive because they don't own the theatre. If they owned their own theatres, they could play whatever movies they want and there's nothing that would force them to play movies from other studios.
>It's not analogous to Apple preventing Amazon from providing links in the app to Amazon's own web site?
No, it's not because Apple isn't preventing links to Amazon's site. They're preventing links to purchases within the app from an external source. These are not the same thing and you're intentionally confusing them and misusing these statements.
>Can you explain where I'm going wrong on that analogy?
Yes. I already have. DoorDash does not own the restaurant. They only own the app. Therefore, they can have a rule that says that restaurants who use DoorDash for delivery cannot advertise that they deliver through other services or have discounts on pickup orders that are not made through DoorDash within the DoorDash app or the listings inside of that app. They cannot stipulate that this extends outside of a system that they do not own.
>Right back at you. It's curious to me that you seem so adamant to defend a behavior was just ruled illegal. Was the judge wrong? How?
No, the judge wasn't wrong but you're misframing the decision to make it fit a situation it doesn't. The judge did not rule that Apple's position on App Store payments was illegal. They ruled that Apple was being anti-competitive for "digital mobile gaming transactions" because the transactions happen within the game and not simply within the App Store. That means that the decision would not apply to other in-app purchases that occur within iOS specific apps.
>if Microsoft tomorrow said they own the Windows platform, and they have the right to a cut of all transactions done inside apps on the Windows platform, would you be ok with applications like say Steam or Epic Games Store being required to use the Windows Store to process payments and give some percent to Microsoft?
There's no "if" here. They do own the Windows platform and do have a right to all transactions processed through the Windows Store. If everyone who developed for Windows agreed to those terms, then Microsoft would 100% be within their right to do so as long as they aren't monopolizing that industry or breaking anti-trust laws. They don't do that because they don't currently do that and changing their policy would harm future sales irreparably but they have every right to do that and require it and shoot themselves in the foot if they choose.
The rules aren't in place to protect shitty business decisions. They're there to prevent monopolization and Apple doesn't have a monopoly.