Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines

I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.

You really should refrain from using the letters "l-a-w" near each other in any of your posts. It is pretty clear you have little to no understanding how the law works.

And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

Exactly.

If Target doesn't want to sell JIF peanut butter then they don't have to sell JIF peanut butter. You can't sue Target to make them carry certain products.

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

Again that stupid anti-trust B.S.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, there's a weird effect that occurs here whenever a story involving the law crops up. Those posters who are predominantly anti-Apple (though they will assure you they use lots of Apple products as if that counters their anti-Apple propaganda) will assume immediately that Apple is in legal trouble. Even if it makes no sense.

Apple fans, of course, assume immediately that Apple should use the law against its competitors.

Typically neither side has a clue about the actual laws in question.

Apple is not bound to to host any app on their own App Store. Besides, this isn't about kicking anyone out, it's about letting everyone know that they need to bring themselves into compliance with a particular rule. It appears Apple is trying to help folks do that.

you can make that your argument all you want but tell me how the hell do you expect Amazon to turn a profit with the kindle App on iOS with Apple demanding 30% gross considering Amazon that would mean everything sold threw the kindle app would be sold at a loss since Amazon only gets 30% of the gross to cover all its cost plus make profit.

Apple changed the rules all of a sudden.
I would agree with your argument in some sense if Apple would allow 3rd party App stores or side loading Apps. Both of which Apple does not do. Only way to get on iOS is to go threw Apple. This is a lot like MS anti trust case back in the day as something that is like it.

Amazons business model has nothing to do with the app stores right to 100% determine what products they sell in their store. There is no law out there that relates to this topic at all. Feel free to cite US,EU,Zimbabwe or any other law that requires a retailer to not only carry and sell a product they may not want to sell but also do it with terms and conditions they don't accept. Instead of just dancing around and
pretending like there is legal relevance actually cite a single relevant example. Here is a hint anything to do with
Microsoft is not a relevant example. Unless you have some legal ruling
that allows apple to sell macs and Mac os in microsoft stores.

It is like Charlie browns reacher saying "wan wan legal wan wan law wan wan wan anti trust"

Actually say something pertinent and relevant about these perceived legal issues for once.