PureBasic Forums - English

Kind of odd, yes.

But I try to stay away from conspiracy theories like that.. It wouldn't surprise me if some Apple fannatic did something like that, however.

Research In Motion issued a statement the other day, said it had something to do with equipment failure, and then the backup equipment also failed.

Zach wrote:But everything about this Agent model is clearly an attempt by Apple to make it impossible for anyone but Apple to actually make money selling eBooks. At the very least, it is extremely anti-competitive behavior on the level of Microsoft.

If Apple is also doing this to Amazon because of their Kindle app for iOS, at least Amazon has it's other Kindle platforms that Apple can't touch. If I were Amazon I'd just drop all the iOS Kindle apps rather than put up with Apple's BS.

Microsoft was never this anti-competitive, a lot of people said that they were being anti-competitive when they included IE with Windows but they never tried to actively prevent other browsers from being used on Windows nor did they demand a piece of every browser sale back when Netscape and Opera weren't free.

If Apple keeps this kind of crap up, developers will eventually get fed up and start looking at developing for other mobile platforms rather than put up with Apple's attempts to take away their ability to make a profit.

netmaestro wrote:Does anyone besides me think it's a really remarkable coincidence that five days before the latest iPhone was released to the public Blackberry users suffered worldwide unexplained outages in service?

Zach wrote:Research In Motion issued a statement the other day, said it had something to do with equipment failure, and then the backup equipment also failed.

It does seem a bit too coincidental that a primary and a backup system would fail at the same time and at a time that would be so favorable for Apple. Especially when you consider that for the most part RIM's systems have been pretty solid and reliable.

But without any proof one way or the other, it's just an entertaining conspiracy theory.

Zach wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if some Apple fannatic did something like that, however.

Or somebody at Apple....

Zach wrote:Them making an e-reader app is irrelevant in this case, because the same rules apply to *anyone* who wants to sell ebooks. It's the same idea in which you walk into Barnes & Nobles, or Borders, who are not really publisher but book stores, except they sell digital books. Its the same as any e-commerce. They can only make 30% off the sale of the book. They can't charge a few dollars less to make up the cost with stimulating more sales because Apple says everyone MUST sell for the same price.

So no matter who is selling the ebook, whatever the price, they get 30% of the money. Then Apple comes knocking and says "Ahem, we are entitled to 30% of the selling price of the book for the privilege of you being able to sell to our customers".


Where did the profit go??? There is none. Apple essentially takes your entire commission on the sale of the book.

You are leaving out a key point, this ONLY applies if you are selling via Apple's app store, LOL. Distribute your ereader via the app store, sell the ebooks via your website only. Apple gets 0% percentage of your ebook sales.

Of course by doing this, then when your product/services fail to attract customers, you have to accept responsibility for your failure because you can no longer blame your shortcomings on Apple.

GWarner wrote: If Apple keeps this kind of crap up, developers will eventually get fed up and start looking at developing for other mobile platforms rather than put up with Apple's attempts to take away their ability to make a profit

While this has been repeatedly said from day one by some persons, the majority of people actually developing for Apple tend to say something else:

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 17&t=47873

Apple knows what it does, a lot better then the ones talking about it from the outside.

We can just read the threads on this forum about what a disgrace the iphone was, how the ipad was a big iphone doomed to failure (http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 67&start=0), all the predictions made there (by some) and then compare that to that marvelous thing called reality.

Anyone can have his personal valuation about a product or a company, but if he starts to make predictions based on that it will have a very low success rate.

luis wrote:While this has been repeatedly said from day one by some persons, the majority of people actually developing for Apple tend to say something else:

Apple (OS X & iOS) is one of the few profitable markets for small and indie developers. Apple is one of the few publishers who is not only developer-friendly, but doesn't try and rip off developers. A publisher who only takes 30% of the sale was unheard of until Apple came along. Usually, 30% is closer to what the developer gets to keep. Yet, Apple is making record money and has proven that a publisher does not have to rip off developers to be successful.

Again I cry falsity on the notion that because you want to sell books, that somehow means you have to / want to be a publisher.

Zach wrote:Well, isn't that lovely

This is the Apple everyone is grieving for.

Here's a couple more examples of who/what Apple really is:

Apple sues a school for using an apple in it's logo.

Apple sends a cease and desist letter to a small German restaurant to stop them from using an apple in their logo.

Burn in Hell Apple!

It's evident Apple isn't interested in what any entity using an apple in their logo is doing, they simply want to keep a strong, almost unequivocal association of any apple (drawn or spoken about) with Apple.

It's a ridiculous proposition, I know, but it's the law permitting this that should be refined and applied with intelligence, Apple as a corporation interested in making money and in limit every possible force in competing with them is exhibiting a behavior I find totally understandable. They can, so they are doing it.

luis wrote:It's evident Apple isn't interested in what any entity using an apple in their logo is doing, they simply want to keep a strong, almost unequivocal association of any apple (drawn or spoken about) with Apple.

Yeah, before long Apple will be suing farmers for growing and selling apples.

Zach wrote:But I try to stay away from conspiracy theories like that.. It wouldn't surprise me if some Apple fannatic did something like that, however.
Research In Motion issued a statement the other day, said it had something to do with equipment failure, and then the backup equipment also failed.

My first thought was that it was Anonymous who'd taken them down, they had threatened to attack RIM for agreeing to provide the Metropolitan Police with details of communications that took place on the BlackBerry messenger service at the time of the London riots.

GWarner wrote:

Zach wrote:Well, isn't that lovely

This is the Apple everyone is grieving for.

Here's a couple more examples of who/what Apple really is:

Apple sues a school for using an apple in it's logo.

Apple sends a cease and desist letter to a small German restaurant to stop them from using an apple in their logo.

Burn in Hell Apple!

So you are saying that Apple should be above federal laws and that federal laws should not apply to Apple?

GWarner wrote:Apple sues a school for using an apple in it's logo.

This one, I agree with Apple. It's a tech school using an apple that looks 99% the same as Apple's one. Too similar for a too similar industry.

I think both cases are stupid.

I wouldn't have drawn the connection if I did not see both company logos side by side, for the school case. One commentor summed it up best. Apples have been associated with schools for a long time, and the Apple is pretty much THE symbol of the student / teacher relationship.


And for the bake shop... give me a break

Zach wrote:give me a break

I'm sorry, sir. Break's are not on the menu, but we do have the chef's special today: one hell of a mean slice of applepie...

Apple is at it again, this time with frivilous patents...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/25 ... ck_patent/