# Apple Won't Carry eBook that Mentions Amazon



## Steerpike (Jul 30, 2012)

More bad business from Apple, who seems intent on become the top "evil corporation" in the tech industry (probably already are):

Apple won't carry an ebook because it mentions Amazon - Boing Boing

Holly Lisle, for those who don't know, is also a Fantasy writer with a good number of titles published since about the late 1980s.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jul 30, 2012)

... Which is why I don't have, buy or intend to buy any Apple products. 

As Holly says, it's all about Amazon sales. Sorry iFriends. Apple products may be user friendly and such, but .. yeah.

Shame. Apple really could be great, but there is a huge reason why Microsoft wins out more often than not.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm the same way, JC. I won't do business with Apple, either. I don't like their practices, the controls that lock down their products, or the fact that they charge a premium just to have a picture of a fruit on your device 

I have used Linux primarily for the last decade or so, but I have to admit I'm kind of interested in the Microsoft Surface.


----------



## Ankari (Jul 30, 2012)

> Shame. Apple really could be great, but there is a huge reason why Microsoft wins out more often than not.



I'm with you.  But this is more true with Google Android compared to both companies.


----------



## Zophos (Jul 30, 2012)

Agree. Despise them and won't buy their stuff.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 30, 2012)

Disallowing the mention or images of a competitor in any type of supported content is a common business practice. I agree it may be a little short-sighted in this case.

I'd have to read the piece to give an honest opinion though. If Amazon does 90% of the E-book business and the book's content discusses Amazon publishing 90% of the time, or speaks to iBooks being inferior (in terms of volume possibilities, like 5% iBooks, 5% nook, 90% Amazon) then perhaps it is understandable why they wouldn't want to support this work. Why would they want to foster a notion that their service is of such little value?

There is no free speech ideal for a distributor to abide by, it's just business & marketing.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 30, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There is no free speech ideal for a distributor to abide by, it's just business & marketing.



It is still a bad practice. The guidelines should be content neutral, except I suppose for obscenity and material like that. Imagine if Amazon refused to sell any Apple product or any product that referred to Apple products. They'd get hit with a lawsuit in a hurry, I imagine.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:
			
		

> Imagine if Amazon refused to sell any Apple product or any product that referred to Apple products. They'd get hit with a lawsuit in a hurry, I imagine.



On what grounds? A company or an individual has the right to sell & distribute the material they choose. They do not owe any other company, especially a competitor, marketing rights.

It is a free market after all.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 30, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> On what grounds? A company or an individual has the right to sell & distribute the material they choose. They do not owe any other company, especially a competitor, marketing rights.
> 
> It is a free market after all.



Anti-trust. As much market share as Amazon has, if they decided to stop selling products of their chief competitor and any products referring to those products, I don't think it is hard to get from there to the anti-competitive effect. They'd probably lose. 

Companies can't proceed in any way they like, which is why Apple and publishers are in the cross-hairs right now, Microsoft was in it years ago, and so on. 

Imagine if Microsoft took that same position and said "Hey, we don't own our competitors anything, so we're going to ensure that only software made by Microsoft runs on Windows." They'd go down in flames in an anti-trust action


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 30, 2012)

The anti-trust legislations arose from wealthy companies (originally robber barons) lowering their prices to take losses, in order to drive smaller competitors and upstarts out of business. I don't see how anti-trust statutes apply here.

As far as Microsoft would be concerned, if they wanted to restrict their platform they could certainly do so. It wouldn't be illegal. They wouldn't though because it would be a bad business choice. Consumers want their systems to use a broad variety of software. If you didn't build your platform to accept those designs and a competitor did, they may overtake your market leader position.

Now, if Bill Gates said "I've got enough capital to keep everything afloat for ten years without making a profit!" and then went out and sold the new windows software for $5 a copy just to make it impossible for other companies to survive (thereby ensuring MS is the only company left standing after 10 years and can then charge whatever the hell they want) now you've got anti-trust concerns.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer but this is my understanding of basic anti-trust laws.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 30, 2012)

@T.Allen.Smith:

I don't think that analysis is correct. If you remember the Microsoft anti-trust case, they were in trouble initially merely for deciding to bundle IE with Windows. As part of the settlement, they were forced to share their APIs with third party. If they closed their platform off to others, they'd not only be in a lot more trouble in terms of anti-trust, but I suppose they'd also be violating the settlement of their last anti-trust case. 

Predatory pricing is not the only form of anti-competitive behavior addressed by anti-trust laws. This is a huge body of the law and you are focusing on one small aspect of it. Look, for example, at the famous anti-trust case against the Hollywood studios that eliminated block booking. Under that practice, theaters had to take multiple movies from the same studio as a block. If you wanted one, you had to take the others. Nothing to do with predatory pricing, but the U.S. Supreme Court made the practice illegal in a long-term anti-trust case.

Alcoa was busted up via anti-trust suits merely because of market share, even though there as no evidence it was harmful and in fact there was evidence it might be a good concentration of power.

There are plenty of other examples if we want to get into the nuts and bolts of anti-trust law, but the upshot is that predatory pricing (which is what you're talking about) is only one form of anti-competitive behavior addressed by anti-trust laws. They extend well beyond that. They extend to contractual limitations (any agreement that unreasonably restrains competition and affects interstate commerce is subject to anti-trust), tying arrangements among products, consolidations of power (such as through mergers and acquisitions and otherwise), maintenance of market power, and so on.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jul 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I'm the same way, JC. I won't do business with Apple, either. I don't like their practices, the controls that lock down their products, or the fact that they charge a premium just to have a picture of a fruit on your device
> 
> I have used Linux primarily for the last decade or so, but I have to admit I'm kind of interested in the Microsoft Surface.



I'm not a fan of either MS or Apple. Linux forever!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 30, 2012)

Valid points.

I still have trouble accepting the idea that a company would be forced to market the products or services of a competitor under the anti-trust laws. That is what this argument is truly focused on right? The author feels slighted because her book discusses Amazon and Apple doesn't want to give voice to their competitor.

Interesting debate though & like most legal issues it seems rather unclear.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jul 30, 2012)

The Author in question was always going to paint a picture that favours her own interests. Not consciously perhaps, but still.

 The thing that got her so riled up is how the ibook people said one thing, she complied and then they said something else entirely. Rightly so she felt slighted. "Why should I try to play the game if they're going to keep batting me away. I'm offering them something I believe is going to sell pretty good. Do they care?" 

(oh, and we needn't mention her right to say what ever she wants in her writing - aka freedom of speech)

I do believe she is on the right track with the 90% sales going to Amazon though (although those numbers are probably an exaggeration), but only because Amazon have been in the book selling market far, far, _far_ longer that Apple have been. Today its losing the readership of one pretty succesful writing advice series, tomorrow Apple might try it on someone who isn't going be kind enough to _just_ withdraw their offerings and ignore it.

The problem with Apple is that they, like a lot of other companies, draw in enough profit that they feel they can do what ever they like - because it just isn't going to cut into their revenue. Let's not forget they get the pick of the best when it comes to defense in court.

Who ever's "right", I still won't buy from Apple. Its the attitude. I can see through the vinear of "user-friendly wholesomeness". 

They bundle their products too much for my liking. They pull bad business decisions like the above all over the place. I could go on but there's not much point... I've used plenty of Apple products in my time (I'm a music technologist.. most studios insist on using Macs) and well, they're all too, what's the word, shiney, like I'm being treated like an idiot and not trusted to use things responsibly. Protecting themselves from competition by picking and choosing is just another thing to add to my list.

But when I feel they treat me like a person I'll reconsider 

EDIT: Someone commenting on that blog post said something I thought was 100% spot on. 

"After all, Amazon doesn't refuse to sell "Steve Jobs a Biography")."

Make of that what you will hehe


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jul 30, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Valid points.
> 
> I still have trouble accepting the idea that a company would be forced to market the products or services of a competitor under the anti-trust laws. That is what this argument is truly focused on right? The author feels slighted because her book discusses Amazon and Apple doesn't want to give voice to their competitor.
> 
> Interesting debate though & like most legal issues it seems rather unclear.



Do you mean accepting that it _could_ happen (like, that a company could be forced to sell competitors' products) or that it _should_ be possible? Because Microsoft was forced (by the EU) to give users a choice of which web browser to use after they install various versions of Windows. So it most certainly _can_ happen, at least in Europe.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:
			
		

> Do you mean accepting that it could happen (like, that a company could be forced to sell competitors' products) or that it should be possible? Because Microsoft was forced (by the EU) to give users a choice of which web browser to use after they install various versions of Windows. So it most certainly can happen, at least in Europe.



We're derailing the thread a bit lol.... But, I'm saying that in the US I think it's a ridiculous notion to force a company to market competitor products.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 30, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> We're derailing the thread a bit lol.... But, I'm saying that in the US I think it's ridiculous to force a company to market competitor products.



Depends on the situation. For example, you could draw a hypothetical. Say Amazon did 99% of the consumer electronics business in the U.S., and then said "Hey, Apple is our big competitor; we're not carrying their products any more." I could certainly see anti-trust problems there and the end result being that they have to carry them. You go the other direction, and say they do 1% of the electronic business. No one will care. Finding the cutoff is the trick, of course.

In the U.S., the government did require Microsoft to shares its APIs with competitors. It is certainly possible a court could order something like what we're talking about. I can't remember all of the anti-trust case law, and I don't practice that area except to the extent in impinges on IP issues, but I wouldn't be surprised to find similar things in the judicial precedent.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 30, 2012)

There may be judicial precedent. I'd still think its ridiculous in a free market society in most cases.

Am I going to have to start a "Nabokov's a Hack" thread to pull your attention away from this topic?


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 31, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There may be judicial precedent. I'd still think its ridiculous in a free market society in most cases.
> 
> Am I going to have to start a "Nabokov's a Hack" thread to pull your attention away from this topic?



LOL.

Well, I don't mind if my threads get derails down interesting paths. I try (not always successfully) not to derail others too much 

There should be a Nabokov Rules thread in any writing forum!

Your viewpoint on anti-trust isn't uncommon. I am sympathetic to it overall, but I don't mind some anti-trust actions.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 31, 2012)

Yes, the purposes behind anti-trust statutes are sound, but like anything, they can be taken to far.

Don't even get me started on HOAs.... Now that's a derail.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 31, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Yes, the purposes behind anti-trust statutes are sound, but like anything, they can be taken to far.
> 
> Don't even get me started on HOAs.... Now that's a derail.



It is, and I suspect I agree with you (if you think they're a nightmare)


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jul 31, 2012)

This is fairly typical behaviour for a large company like Apple, and is not exactly new either, you will find a history of this kind of attitude with almost any company over the years.  Very few businesses will willingly mention their competitors - in any field, and will only do so if they are forced to.  Amazon of course will publish almost anything, because they are the whores of the publishing business, and have such a huge monopoly that they don't have any fear of the competition.

I originally started out on the BBC computer, then switched to the Amiga, which I used for many years.  Until the corrupt board of directors had siphoned off so much of the companies money for themselves that Amiga went bankrupt.  Then I had to switch to the Microsoft powered PC, despite the horrible operating system and my dislike of Microsoft as a company.

Had it been possible to switch to Linux I would have done so, because Linux is probably the only platform free of corrupt business practices.  But the scarcity of good software to perform all the stuff I wanted to do meant I had to abandon Linux after a few weeks (sure there are always alternatives, but the quality was too low and vital functions missing)  I've tried a few times since and still not been satisfied enough to stick with it.

Nowadays I use an iPhone and am intending to get an iPad too, I also have an Android tablet and a PC and a laptop both running windows 7.  I actually like the slick interface and closed ecosystem of IOS on the iphone and iPad.  But the lack of depth and control would drive me mad on a desktop computer like the Mac, which is why  use the PC for my artwork and other creative software ect.  The Android tablet hardly gets used because I find Android 2.2 to be too clunky and too much like an unfinished product, which is a shame because it does some things better than IOS.  Basically I will use whatever product suits in the particular circumstances, sometimes IOS is better than windows, sometimes vice versa.  

To get back to the conversation, even though I like Apple products and will continue to use them, I dislike the way the corporation is behaving these days.  In his last couple of years Jobs seems to have lost the plot in regards to ethics, and Apple have continued down that road after his death.  I cringe every time I hear another story about Apples recent behaviour!

BUT Microsoft are not exactly innocent of inethical practise either, their anti competitive practices are infamous amongst those of us who have been around computers for long enough.  Small companies were swallowed up to remove competition, deliberate OS tweaks were made to make competitors software unreliable and many other underhand tricks were used to undermine the competition.  And Microsoft have not become less corrupt over time, they have just got better at PR spin and concealing what they do.

Google are being exposed as being just as dishonest now too, what with specially designed software to circumvent the no-cookie settings of the Safari browser, and the scandal of Google street view cars stealing data from home networks, then not deleting the data after being ordered to do so (and all the time claiming these were accidental 'mistakes')  I find myself growing more nervous about the amount of my personal Data that Google holds in their databases, and less trusting of them with that data.

And Facebook are probably one of the most disliked and distrusted companies of all at the moment, a recent survey found that distrust of facebook is higher than for any other IT based company out there!

If I limited myself to only using 'ethical' IT products I would never get anything done, because I'd be stuck with Linux, which is more of a hassle to use, doesn't work with my specialised Giclee Printer, and doesn't have the professional software I need for my work (and does anyone know of a Linux phone?) 

I'm not disagreeing with the point that Apple are wrong here, I'm just trying to put this into the perspective of the IT industry as a whole, in which there are very few players that haven't become corrupt as they get bigger and more powerful.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jul 31, 2012)

> The scandal of Google street view cars stealing data from home networks,  then not deleting the data after being ordered to do so (and all the  time claiming these were accidental 'mistakes')  I find myself growing  more nervous about the amount of my personal Data that Google holds in  their databases, and less trusting of them with that data.



O_O

That it about all I can say to that right now. 

Excuse me while I pack up my things, cancel the broadband and move to an isolate cabin in the Shetlands.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Jul 31, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> O_O
> 
> That it about all I can say to that right now.
> 
> Excuse me while I pack up my things, cancel the broadband and move to an isolate cabin in the Shetlands.



lol its getting that way isn't it  

Its like anything else in life - you can either be a martyr to your principles or take the pragmatic view that you take out of the mess whatever you can.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jul 31, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> Google are being exposed as being just as dishonest now too, what with specially designed software to circumvent the no-cookie settings of the Safari browser, and the scandal of Google street view cars stealing data from home networks, then not deleting the data after being ordered to do so (and all the time claiming these were accidental 'mistakes')  I find myself growing more nervous about the amount of my personal Data that Google holds in their databases, and less trusting of them with that data.



I don't mean to be combative, but it is simply not rational to think that Google is a hundredth as bad as Microsoft has ever been. Yes, they've done some dumb stuff; it's inevitable in an organization that large. But the pattern of their behavior over the years is to own up to their mistakes, try to make things as transparent as possible, and give people plenty of options for taking their data elsewhere. (And it's fairly obvious that there are factions inside Google that favor greater or lesser levels of transparency; certain Google products are a lot more open than others.) This doesn't mean they don't strive for competitive advantage in the marketplace, or that we shouldn't be keeping our eye on them, lest they _do_ start seriously misbehaving.

The wifi thing was bad, but everything I read about it (and I read a lot) leads me to believe that it was a combination of dumb mistakes rather than any kind of intentional malice. They had configured their cars to sniff and log open wifi APs as they were driving along. _Open_ wifi APs, that is, networks with no authentication on them. Networks that someone configured with the intent of letting _anyone at all_ connect to them. Google wasn't downloading everything on those networks (it wouldn't even be possible to do that in the time a Street View car would be within range of the average wifi access point, not to mention the fact that having an open AP doesn't necessarily mean you're sharing any data through it), it was just collecting data about the existence of those access points.

I consider myself pretty good at identifying malicious actors in the network space (a lot of my day job involves dealing with information security), and to me, Google just does not qualify. Like I said, this doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our eyes on them; the more power an entity has, the more everyone else needs to watch that entity like a hawk.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 31, 2012)

Benjamin - I think you're right; Google isn't in the same ballpark as Apple and Microsoft when it comes to being bad actors, and these days I think Apple eclipses Microsoft, though if given the chance maybe Microsoft would go back down that road (they need to dump Ballmer, but that's another story).


----------



## Zophos (Aug 1, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> ...Like I said, this doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our eyes on them; the more power an entity has, the more everyone else needs to watch that entity like a hawk.



I suddenly have the urge to rewrite Thomas Paine's Common Sense replacing government with big business.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 1, 2012)

Zophos said:


> I suddenly have the urge to rewrite Thomas Paine's Common Sense replacing government with big business.



It is true that corporate/business power these days rises to a level that Paine wouldn't have contemplated at the time. Let's not forget, however, that there are still fundamental differences between State and private action, whether on the part of businesses or otherwise. The State still has the power to compel you, through police, military, and the judicial process, to comply with laws of its own making. A private entity can't do these things. Nevertheless, the imbalance of negotiating power between a citizen and a large private entity is great.


----------



## Devor (Aug 1, 2012)

Zophos said:


> I suddenly have the urge to rewrite Thomas Paine's Common Sense replacing government with big business.



I've never heard of a company waging war or putting people in prison.

When a bank seizes property, they do so because you've breached a contract that you signed and they have a government official standing watch.  When a government seizes your home, they do so just because they want your home, not because of anything you've done.  They give you what they choose to give you.  They take what they choose to take.  They can do so for whatever reason they choose to.

We're really going to yell at Apple for not wanting to carry a book that praises their competitors?  I don't know what Apple _should_ do or what the government should do about it.  But that inclination doesn't make Apple corrupt or unethical.  If you scaled down the size of these companies and put yourself in Apple's shoes, you would probably say it was a natural response.

Again, for the moment I'm not concerned with _should_ or what's best for the market as a whole.  I'm not prepared with a analysis on the proper enforcement of anti-trust laws.  But I mean, really, Microsoft offered IE for _free_, and we've called them _corrupt_ for it.  I think that's an attitude that needs perspective.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Aug 1, 2012)

Actually the software that was data mining was deliberately written to do so.  it wasn't dredging for everything on a hard drive, it was looking for specific data that would be useful to google on a commercial basis.  

Google at the moment are trying to put the blame on a 'rogue engineer'.  But as a lot of people have pointed out it would be very difficult for any engineer to be so partisan without his superiors knowing about it!  In fact it has been reported that the engineer told several people in his department what he was up to.

Its also worth noting that Google didn't 'own up' until the hard drives had been seized by a german official, and realized they had been caught red handed.  Playing the we are the good guy card may be great marketing spin, but we only have their word for it that they are telling the truth about being honest LOL.

I'm not saying that Google are as bad as Apple or Microsoft, but neither are they innocent of underhand practices.  If not brought under control the way Microsoft had to be (and Apple needs to be), then Google could very well end up as bad as the rest of them as they become too big and powerful.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Aug 1, 2012)

Devor said:


> But I mean, really, Microsoft offered IE for _free_, and we've called them _corrupt_ for it.  I think that's an attitude that needs perspective.



I think its all the other practices that have labelled Microsoft as corrupt.  Offering IE for free was just an agressive marketing ploy.


----------



## Devor (Aug 1, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> I think its all the other practices that have labelled Microsoft as corrupt.  Offering IE for free was just an agressive marketing ploy.



Maybe there's a reasonable case if you add up everything over their history.  I haven't heard anything in particular that strikes me as over a corruption line in my mind (again, not a comment about whether the government should take anti-trust action).  But there's just so much worse than anything I've heard come out of the IT industry.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 1, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> Its also worth noting that Google didn't 'own up' until the hard drives had been seized by a german official, and realized they had been caught red handed.  Playing the we are the good guy card may be great marketing spin, but we only have their word for it that they are telling the truth about being honest LOL.



Are you sure? I recall hearing that Google basically started it by saying, "Er, turns out we were mining info we shouldn't have been..." and _then_ the Germans went berzerk.


----------



## Reaver (Aug 2, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> and _then_ the Germans went berzerk.



Surely not ze Germans!


----------

