Apple Bans Online Sales In Japan

siddesu writes "Large retail stores in Japan were ordered a week ago to stop selling Apple products online (Google translation; Japanese original). The comments in the Japanese business newspapers suggest that Apple believes online shopping confers an aura of 'cheapness' on its products; but surely killing the Apple store's competition must have entered into the calculation. As of today, most of the largest retailers have notices on their Apple catalog pages asking you to visit the shop if you want to acquire a piece of magic. It seems that for the moment the campaign is aimed at the big fish, as smaller shops still seem to be selling Apple products."

Comments

What next?

[Fluffeh]

If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does. My part of the business deal has concluded.

Seriously Apple. Get real.

Re:What next?

[e4g4]

You have to sign a lot of papers to sell new Apple products at retail.

Re:What next?

[node 3]

If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does. My part of the business deal has concluded.

Seriously Apple. Get real.

If the company you sold it to does something you don't want them to, you can choose to no longer sell to them. This is very common in the game console business as well as many others, including the conputer business. That's why consoles always cost the same everywhere, and why online stores sometimes make you add an item to your cart before it will show you the price.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does. My part of the business deal has concluded.

Get real and read the fine print on the contract for sale simpleton!

Re:What next?

[dark_requiem]

It's called the First Sale Doctrine

Re:What next?

[tagno25]

and why online stores sometimes make you add an item to your cart before it will show you the price.

and then you remove the item from your cart because it is almost twice the price of a competitor with a similar product and quality.

Re:What next?

[MikeFM]

Obviously you aren't in retail/e-commerce. This is unfortunately pretty common behavior from manufacturers. They just don't really want to sell their product. One of the manufacturers I deal with went bankrupt while sending me cease and desist letters for selling to many of their products. Doh.

Re:What next?

[Stan Vassilev]

If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does. My part of the business deal has concluded. Seriously Apple. Get real.

Are you suggesting Apple did that only in their imagination? It seems pretty real to me. If you own a store, and Apple sent you a kind message "please don't sell online, or you we won't sell you any more goods"... what would you do?

Re:What next?

[lxs]

I forgot. Is Japan the 53d or 52nd state of the US? Or doesn't US law apply in Japan?

Re:What next?

[txoof]

If the company you sold it to does something you don't want them to, you can choose to no longer sell to them. This is very common in the game console business as well as many others, including the conputer business. That's why consoles always cost the same everywhere, and why online stores sometimes make you add an item to your cart before it will show you the price.

Isn't that called price fixing? As I recall, Nintendo has gotten in to hot water for this at least once. I think a manufacturer can set an MSRP, but the seller can sell your item for whatever they want. Can a company choose to not fill orders for businesses that don't play by their rules, or is that some form of discrimination?

Re:What next?

[psiclops]

yep, i dunno how it is with other telco's, but i work for Telstra and by apple mandate only employess that have gone through "iPhone training" training are allowed to sell iPhones, so if someone rang up to upgrade their plan to something involving an iPhone, they'd have to be transferred to the iPhone department.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

and why online stores sometimes make you add an item to your cart before it will show you the price.

Good thing that's illegal here (Germany, maybe even Europe as a whole). Always makes US shops look shady in my opinion.

Re:What next?

[BasilBrush]

Sure, under first sale doctrine Apple can't insist that those other companies must stop their mail order sales of any stock they are already in possession of. But Apple can decline to sell them any further stock.

Brand name manufacturers having conditions on how their distributors sell their products is not unusual.

Re:What next?

[michaelhood]

Isn't that called price fixing? As I recall, Nintendo has gotten in to hot water for this at least once. I think a manufacturer can set an MSRP, but the seller can sell your item for whatever they want. Can a company choose to not fill orders for businesses that don't play by their rules, or is that some form of discrimination?

this has nothing to do with price fixing - price fixing is an antitrust offense. Like if Dell, HP, and Sony got together in a secret lair and said, "We won't sell any laptops for less than $600. muhaha!" That would be price fixing.

As for your question, yes- there are tons of companies that won't sell product to you on your terms. From Apple only selling 2 iPads per person, to Canon not providing product to unfavored camera stores.

Re:What next?

[tehcyder]

If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does. My part of the business deal has concluded.

That is simply not true. A lot of luxury, expensive goods are very restricted by their manufacturers. Apple is trying to position itself alongside Ferraris and Rolexes.

Re:What next?

[tehcyder]

First Sale Doctrine is a US legal concept, TFA is about Japan.

Re:What next?

[obarthelemy]

Actually, both are price fixing, and illegal in my country (France). When a manufacturer advertises prices, the small type reads "price generally seen in most stores" or some much, because manufacturers can't enforce pricing through resellers, and thus can't assume their "recommended" prices will stick. Actually, "recommending" a price is frowned upon. IIRC, Apple has a clever way to enforce uniform pricing anyway.

In the same way, several competitors can't get together to agree on prices indeed.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way, several competitors can't get together to agree on prices indeed.

Yeah, that's because that *is* price fixing. GP is correct, you're a stupid frog.

Re:What next?

[sydneyfong]

The First Sale doctrine only applies to Copyrights. It has nothing to do with the issue here, which basically is Apple trying to muscle retailers into selling their products in a certain way.

Re:What next?

[c]

> If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I
> don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does.

You do, however, have the ability to control whether than company gets any future products from you. That's quite a bit of leverage if your products are in sufficiently high demand.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Apple has contracts with retailers covering that sort of thing, along with stuff like not shipping before an actual release date and whatnot,

c.

Re:What next?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If the company you sold it to does something you don't want them to, you can choose to no longer sell to them

That may be legal elsewhere like Japan, but in the US it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's called collusion and forming a cartel, and the Record Companies were sued by several U.S. States and the US DOJ circa 2000 for violating it. The record companies told discount stores, including Walmart, that selling CDs for less than $12 was unacceptable, and they should either raise prices or be cut off from resupply.

This process continued throughout the 1990s, until the class-action lawsuit came to the forefront. The record companies knew they were guilty of the crime, so they settled the issue out of court (mailed-out $25 checks to all purchasers of CDs that requested a rebate). The DOJ accepted the resolution.

If Apple tries this stuff in the US, they will face a similar fate. It may take ten years like the record company case, but eventually they will be caught and stopped.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is of dubious legality in the EU. (Or at least in the UK)

Not that this ever seems to concern Apple since it quite happily refused to unlock iPhones from being carrier specific despite it being in blatant breach of the law, so something that's only of *dubious* legality doesn't seem likely to be a cause for worry.

Re:What next?

[commodore64_love]

Well after the oil crisis hits circa 2020 (over $300 a barrel), and the U.S. "anschlusses" Canada's oilrich provinces as states 51-60* that would technically make Japan state number 61. On the other hand Japan doesn't have any resources so it's doubtful the US would even bother.

(I am kidding...)

*
* You can keep French Quebec. We don't want it.

Re:What next?

[Lord Pillage]

I think you guys tried that before and it ended with us burning down the white house.

Re:What next?

[commodore64_love]

The British burned down the white house, not the Canadians. And of course things have changed a little bit since 1814..... we're no longer a backwards, agrarian nation fighting with pitchforks and muskets. :-)

Re:What next?

[sourcerror]

Well if not, you can still threaten them with excluding from WTO. It worked with Pirate Bay.

Re:What next?

[Heian-794]

If Japan *were* to somehow amalgamate with the US, the 47 prefectures, each of which has a population of roughly one-third to one-half of the typical US state, would become the 51st to 97th states.

Why is it that when people want to point out that Country X is an independent nation and not part of the USA, they always make an entire country equal to one single US state? Is it just because they can't be bothered to find out how many states/provinces/prefectures Country X actually has?

If Japan *did* become the 51st state, the State of Japan would get more than twice as many electoral votes as California, and would thus quickly come to dominate all presidential elections, as well as the House of Representatives. Demagogues like Tokyo mayor Shintaro Ishihara and incompetents like Prime Ministers Yukio Hatoyama and Yoshiro Mori would become major US political figures. If you thought Bush and Obama were trouble, wait until you meet these guys...

At least we Mac users in Japan would get to buy our stuff from various retailers, though. And we could pay cheap domestic shipping!

Re:What next?

[Thansal]

Apple has 2 things going for them:
1) They probably have contracts saying "we can dictate when/where you can sell our products".

2) They can ALWAYS say "well, we will stop selling you our products if you don't stop selling online".

Apple gets to negotiate from a position of strength here. They are a large enough company that they can take the hit from a single store no longer selling their products. If you want an i you want an i not an MP3 player, a tablet, or what ever, so if your preferred store doesn't sell them, you will simply go to another.

Yes, all of the retailers COULD band together and say "nope, sorry, if you impose this we will stop carrying your goods", and it probably would work. However, not all of the retailers are willing to take that hit, and they know that if they are one of the few retailers with i they will be the store everyone goes to.

Re:What next?

[jedidiah]

Well then tell us about Japan then or STFU.

Re:What next?

[jedidiah]

> That is simply not true. A lot of luxury, expensive goods are very restricted by their manufacturers. Apple is trying to position itself alongside Ferraris and Rolexes.

If they end up with similar levels of market penetration, I'm all for that.

Re:What next?

[MBGMorden]

Why is it that when people want to point out that Country X is an independent nation and not part of the USA, they always make an entire country equal to one single US state? Is it just because they can't be bothered to find out how many states/provinces/prefectures Country X actually has?

Most likely because that's the way the US was originally setup (with the states essentially being independent countries with a loose Federal government). Sure we've lost track of that original ideal (that's effectively what the US Civil War was about), but it was the original intent. Back then (and now, outside of the context of the US) "state" was synonamous with "country".

Pair that with the fact that geographically most US states are the size of countries from many other places (Japan may be densley populated for example but the state of Texas is nearly twice as large - Alaska is nearly 5 times as large), and it makes sense to look at adding a Nation-state as, well, a state.

I don't think there's any worry though. The US doesn't seem to WANT anymore states. We should have granted statehood to Puerto Rico LONG ago if we did.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that called price fixing? As I recall, Nintendo has gotten in to hot water for this at least once. I think a manufacturer can set an MSRP, but the seller can sell your item for whatever they want. Can a company choose to not fill orders for businesses that don't play by their rules, or is that some form of discrimination?

this has nothing to do with price fixing - price fixing is an antitrust offense. Like if Dell, HP, and Sony got together in a secret lair and said, "We won't sell any laptops for less than $600. muhaha!" That would be price fixing.

As for your question, yes- there are tons of companies that won't sell product to you on your terms. From Apple only selling 2 iPads per person, to Canon not providing product to unfavored camera stores.

It is price fixing. It is vertical price-fixing, which is legal in the USA. Price fixing between competitors is illegal. This price fixing is between a manufacturer and its retailers.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're a backwards nation with nukes and Sarah Palin. Scary.

Re:What next?

[Nilatir]

I agree. I actually held off on buying a backpack recently because the "add to cart" price seemed *too* good. Turns out the manufacturer had started enforcing the Minimum Advertised Price forcing smaller webshops to hide the price, this was also the reason that eBags.com had suddenly increased their price beyond the MSRP. This way eBags perpetual 20% off coupons don't run afoul of the MAP.

Thanks US Supreme Court... :(

Re:What next?

[Mr. Slippery]

I think you guys tried that before and it ended with us burning down the white house.

No one wanted to annex Canada in 1812. The Brits were kidnapping American sailors, supporting the Native Americans we were fighting (on the right side, there, though for their own geopolitical benefit rather than wanting to aid the oppressed "noble savages"), and attacking our ships; Canadian territory was just something they had that we could take and use as a bargaining chip to get them to stop.

We let them burn DC, sure, just a bit of urban renewal. But when they tried to wipe out the shipyards in Baltimore that were building the ships that were embarrassing the mightiest navy on the planet, we Baltimoreans -- though outnumbered -- delivered an ass-kicking that has been celebrated in song ever since.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>If the company you sold it to does something you don't want them to, you can choose to no longer sell to them

That may be legal elsewhere like Japan, but in the US it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's called collusion and forming a cartel, and the Record Companies were sued by several U.S. States and the US DOJ circa 2000 for violating it. The record companies told discount stores, including Walmart, that selling CDs for less than $12 was unacceptable, and they should either raise prices or be cut off from resupply.

This process continued throughout the 1990s, until the class-action lawsuit came to the forefront. The record companies knew they were guilty of the crime, so they settled the issue out of court (mailed-out $25 checks to all purchasers of CDs that requested a rebate). The DOJ accepted the resolution.

If Apple tries this stuff in the US, they will face a similar fate. It may take ten years like the record company case, but eventually they will be caught and stopped.

FAIL. Cartels require more than one entity to be involved. You cannot have a cartel of one.

The record companies got in trouble because they are theoretically supposed to be competing with each other. If, say, Apple, Dell, and HP got together and did this, then that would be a cartel.

Re:What next?

[Mr. Slippery]

the way the US was originally setup (with the states essentially being independent countries with a loose Federal government). Sure we've lost track of that original ideal (that's effectively what the US Civil War was about)

No. That "original setup" might be said to apply to the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, but those were an abject failure. So we came up with the Constitution, under which the individual states are nothing at all like independent countries: they cannot enter into treaties, issue money, lay import or export duties, keep troops in peacetime, or make compacts between themselves.

The romantic notions of some living in the southern U.S. notwithstanding, the U.S. Civil War was about a bunch of slave-owners who tried to get their way through terrorism.

Re:What next?

[Altus]

After the shitty way that retailers like comp usa treated apple products for so long, I really cant blame apple for being hardassed about retailers and requiring training.

It wasn't that long ago, I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers it.

Part of the reason there is an apple store is because of the poor treatment Apple got from traditional retailers and for a company that is all about customer experience that is simply unacceptable to them.

Re:What next?

[jayme0227]

This is far from something that only Apple participates in. I work for an internet/catalog retail company and we often have to deal with vendors (especially our high-end apparel vendors) placing these sorts of restrictions. Several vendors have very strict requirements on how their products must be displayed in order to be allowed to sell their merchandise online.

One company would only allow us to sell their products in our catalog for several years before finally "loosening" their standards. Now we, along with the vendor and only one other company, can sell that vendor's product online.

Sure, we could violate their rules and they would have little legal recourse, but then we would no longer be doing business with them.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is a joke and should be treated as one. Stop being a pendantic shit head. Nobody cares.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that how they teach it in Canada? No wonder you guys are so backwards.

Re:What next?

[bc0001]

I think a lot of people don't get this... Apple doesn't sell things. They sell an experience... not a product. HP sells a product. Once they sell it, they don't care what type of user experience you have - it doesn't matter if you can't understand tech support. Or Best Buy techs get to take it apart... Apple sells an experience. They want your user interface to be simple, easy to use; your tech support experience to be excellent - all the way through the interaction with Apple, they want the experience to be excellent. I wholeheartedly support their desire to control apps on iPhone or iPad - because they are controlling the entire experience. Not the product. It's a great business model. In spite of the recession, Apple stock has done great, and their market segment has grown. Perhaps other companies need to "get real" and control more of their entire distribution and experience - instead of dropping a crap bomb on the consumer, and saying "out of our control... "

Re:What next?

[jnork]

The evil laughter is necessary, too. Without that it's mere boyish high spirits.

Re:What next?

[Rasperin]

Not Fail, collusion with the retailers, the retailers would the be part of this for following an unlawful contract.

Re:What next?

[mog007]

Why would each prefecture become a single state?

Japan currently has a republican form of government, and that's all that the Constitution requires for entry into the Union. There are no population caps. China and Sealand are both viable, when they become republics and the citizens in those countries decide they want to join. Then Congress has to approve too.

Re:What next?

[Rasperin]

Tell me, are you one of those who believes in giving up a little freedom is justified for security? What you are saying here is essentially that, and that is an absolutely frightening prospect.

Re:What next?

[mog007]

The first sale doctrine equates copyrights TO physical goods. All physical goods have a first sale-like doctrine, because when a retailer buys a good it becomes theirs to do with as they please. Apple has no business telling them what to do with stuff they own.

Re:What next?

[MBGMorden]

they cannot enter into treaties, issue money, lay import or export duties, keep troops in peacetime, or make compacts between themselves.

All of which pertain to the (original) sole purpose of the Federal government: to facilitate interstate commerce and provide a common defense force. That's it. Aside from those two items, the Federal government originally had absolutely no say within the borders of each state. They were effectively self-governing entities. In today's society that entire ideal has been twisted around to the situation where Federal law is becoming the only law and State legislatures are being relegated to position where they have no power at all. The Constitution did NOT original set the country up this way.

Re:What next?

[sydneyfong]

"All physical goods have a first sale-like doctrine"

"like"? Yeah, just like how all people have human-*like*-rights. But seriously, if you've read the other posts, it's obvious that in many jurisdictions there simply isn't such a thing for physical goods. Retailers can be limited by their suppliers in various ways.

More specifically, the first sale doctrine is an exception to copyrights, or at least a defense against copyright infringement lawsuits. Like you said, it allows the use copyright protected material to pass on to the buyer just like normal property. But this does not necessarily mean that normal property can be freely retailed.

There is this thing called contracts. Suppliers make retailers sign contracts restricting how they can deal with the products. How else do you think the publishers for Harry Potter make book stores behave and not leak out the books before the official release date?

Honestly, don't think that because you know a few legal terms you're somehow a legal expert -- too many people think that they can "twist" the law to their favor by putting up some half-assed arguments.

Re:What next?

[billybacs]

I don't think he's saying anything like that, though. Ben Franklin's quote was in reference to the government, and to begin with, GP is talking about a company who SHOULD be able to control their experiences, as customers do have many other options to purchase from ([stable] countries only have one government).

He is willing, however, to give up some freedom for a better user experience, which if you wanted to equate to government would be the fact that you're giving a bit of freedom to enjoy the experience of living a social life, consisting of certain social expectations.

If you don't like those expectations, you can leave (to a new community, city, state, country, jail cell, etc.) as you see fit. I'm just not seeing the parallel between "freedom for security" and "freedom for a sterilized, approved experience"

Re:What next?

[The_mad_linguist]

The civil war was never about anything other than slavery.

The idea that "states rights were the cause of the civil war" was pretty much entirely made up by revisionist Southern historians trying to restore dignity to the south. Take a look at the difference between the confederacy and union constitutions.

Re:What next?

[teknomage1]

If Japan *did* become the 51st state, the State of Japan would get more than twice as many electoral votes as California, and would thus quickly come to dominate all presidential elections, as well as the House of Representatives. Demagogues like Tokyo mayor Shintaro Ishihara and incompetents like Prime Ministers Yukio Hatoyama and Yoshiro Mori would become major US political figures.

Right, but if they become 47 states, they will dominate the senate by adding 94 new senators. I don't think that solves the problem.

Re:What next?

[david_thornley]

Ah, so you're one of those who thinks freedom is doing things your way. I have the freedom to buy an iPhone or a Droid, depending on what I want out of a phone. I may accept some restrictions on what I can do with it in order to get a smoother experience, or I may prefer to get a less locked-down device for whatever reasons I think important. I may make the tradeoffs differently depending on what I'm buying. For example, I'm happy with my iPhone, but think an iPad an entirely insufficient replacement for my Ubuntu laptop. You may want to make different choices, and that's fine. Similarly, I'm happy with my decision to accept certain restrictions on my sexual activity in order to be a full-time partner with a certain woman. Same principal.

The Ben Franklin quote applies to governments, not vendors. I can't live here and choose a less restrictive government. I can't choose to fly an airline that's less paranoid about security measures. That's where the danger is.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that when people want to point out that Country X is an independent nation and not part of the USA, they always make an entire country equal to one single US state? Is it just because they can't be bothered to find out how many states/provinces/prefectures Country X actually has?

Um, because they are making a joke rather than seriously proposing formal amalgamation?

Re:What next?

[Mr. Slippery]

Aside from those two items, the Federal government originally had absolutely no say within the borders of each state.

President Washington showed just how much say the federal government had within the borders of Pennsylvania under the (then new) Constitution when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

In today's society that entire ideal has been twisted around to the situation where Federal law is becoming the only law and State legislatures are being relegated to position where they have no power at all.

Nonsense. Almost all criminal law still resides at the state level. Punch someone in the nose or steal their car or write them a fraudulent check, and you'll end up in a state court.

There's certainly a legitimate debate to be had about the balance of power in our federalist system, but simple-minded ideas about the states almost being sovereign nations under the Constitution, or about states having "no power at all" today, are not helpful to the discussion

The Constitution did NOT original set the country up this way.

The Framers envisioned an agrarian nation where only white male landowners had the vote, slaves counted as 3/5th of a person, and citizens had no protection against oppression by state governments.

If we don't live in the nation envisioned by slave-rapist Thomas Jefferson, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because states are not subdivided at all. Oh wait, yes they are. It's called "counties".

Re:What next?

[PrimaryConsult]

Actually when the oil crisis hits Japan's embracing of alternate fuel sources would give them a leg up on military technology... when the US has to choose between fueling a tank and fueling trains and trucks to transport food to our sprawled out society, Japan will be using their 65% electrified rail system running on wind, solar and nuclear power to get its goods around while solar charged automated hovercraft protect their borders...

Re:What next?

[mr_matticus]

If Japan *were* to somehow amalgamate with the US, the 47 prefectures, each of which has a population of roughly one-third to one-half of the typical US state, would become the 51st to 97th states.

No. Japan would become the 51st state. It would be the most populous state by far, but it would remain exactly one state. Japan is a unitary government--its prefectures would not be granted independent statehood because the prefectures lack any form of sovereignty. The prefectures are wholly subordinate subdivisions and analogous to US counties.

Why is it that when people want to point out that Country X is an independent nation and not part of the USA, they always make an entire country equal to one single US state?

Because legally, it is. The US is a federal republic. The word 'state' implies sovereignty. A governmental entity lacking any sovereignty is ineligible to become a US state. A sovereign entity seeking membership would join as a single entity, regardless of its internal structure.

Likewise, if Japan were to join the EU, it would join as a single state, not as 47 prefectures.

Even if Japan were a federal system, it would still join as a single state if Japan entered the union. If, say, Wakayama seceded from Japan and asked to join the US, it would do so as a single state. Germany, itself a federal republic, exists as a single state within the EU; it divides its own national sovereignty internally, but it's Germany that joined the EU, not its 16 states individually.

Re:What next?

[amero22]

Actually, both are price fixing, and illegal in my country (France). When a manufacturer advertises prices, the small type reads "price generally seen in most stores" or some much, because manufacturers can't enforce pricing through resellers, and thus can't assume their "recommended" prices will stick. Actually, "recommending" a price is frowned upon. IIRC, Apple has a clever way to enforce uniform pricing anyway.

In the same way, several competitors can't get together to agree on prices indeed.

C'mon. Price fixing is rampant in France. Check the price of any electronics item at FNAC, Darty, Apple Store, BHV -- anywhere. Why are they always the same, exactly? The notion of a B&H Photo in France is unthinkable -- probably because any kind of discounting is considered "unfair" and therefore illegal. By the way, I live in Paris.

Re:What next?

[Heian-794]

Certainly, but only if all the formerly-Japanese prefectures voted as a bloc (block?).

In the presidential election, all of the State of Japan's 100 electoral votes (or thereabouts) would go to one candidate. With the candidate who wins Japan, even by a slim margin, instantly getting 30% of all the electoral votes, it would be very hard indeed for the other candidate(s) to overcome it, giving undue influence to this massive new state. Voting theory, Banzhaf power index, etc. So I'd be on the side of admitting 47 new states.

(Yes, I know, this is a silly exercise as Japan is not joining the USA in any capacity, and it started with a pedantic correction of a figure of speech. It's still fun to hash out the hypothetical details.)

official apple store?

[Anonymous Coward]

omg frist!
I wonder if they stop selling via the apple store too!

News of the day

[MemoryDragon]

Apple is screwing others over... nothing to see here move along.

Is it just me or has Apples attitude have gone down the gutters since Steve Jobs has returned from his sick leave.
It is not like they did not pull evil stunts before, but it has become way worse.

Re:News of the day

[node 3]

Oh, please do explain how this is "evil".

Re:News of the day

[imjustmatthew]

Apple has been on a monopolistic roll lately. I wonder how many sharks at the DOJ are sharpening their teeth? An antitrust case against Apple would really be fun to watch - all those fanboys squirming.

Re:News of the day

[KDR_11k]

What, banning online sales to force people to buy at retail (and likely from Apple Stores)? It's at least an anti-consumer move.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the only thing Apple has a monopoly on is Apple products, which isn't a monopoly so there is no anti-trust case. Feel free to purchase other branded computers, phones and portable music players.

Re:News of the day

[node 3]

What, banning online sales to force people to buy at retail (and likely from Apple Stores)? It's at least an anti-consumer move.

I seem to have missed the part where you explain how this is evil.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's one of most responsible things Apple has done. It ensures that they'll be peddling less of their crap to less people and perhaps they'll just go crawl in some corner and finally die like every technically competent person has wanted them to do for decades.

Re:News of the day

[Cassius Corodes]

IANAL - but you can make the same argument for Microsoft or Google - for antitrust cases its seems to be mostly about market share. Once/if apple gets enough market-share then they will get visits from the DOJ too.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the only thing Apple has a monopoly on is Apple products, which isn't a monopoly so there is no anti-trust case. Feel free to purchase other branded computers, phones and portable music players.

me too

Re:News of the day

[Antiocheian]

You were not meant to. Understanding his point requires ability to freely criticize Apple.

Re:News of the day

[node 3]

Understanding my point requires the ability to read this thread.

Re:News of the day

[JackieBrown]

IANAL - but you can make the same argument for Microsoft or Google - for antitrust cases its seems to be mostly about market share. Once/if apple gets enough market-share then they will get visits from the DOJ too.

That is the point that Anonymous was making

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

You had a point?

Re:News of the day

[Nirvelli]

He's been claimed by the Smoke Monster.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the donor pancreas. It's secreting ... evil.

Re:News of the day

[piquadratCH]

An antitrust case against Apple would really be fun to watch - all those fanboys squirming.

Fanboys wouldn't be the only ones squirming. Imagine how the inflated stock price of AAPL would collapse if an antitrust case with chances of success would be made against Apple.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

That image you linked...
"Description: Clydesdales. The horse in the background looks jealous that hes not in front."
WTF?!

Although, I suppose I'd be "jealous", too, if I had to pull a $VEHICLE all day and had nothing to see but a horse's arse. By jealous, I mean seriously pissed off. Next time it was my turn in front, I'd eat a couple bowls of Mom's awesome chili. >:)

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

die like every technically competent person has wanted them to do for decades

Why? I know there's a lot of people that think that the Mac OS is for noobs, but those people know nothing about mac's. Let me count the many things my grandma doesn't care about:

• A unix core
• Bash
• Ruby, perl and python (and other utilities like apache, ssh, etc)
• Automator and services (services are new for 10.6 but they existed in a not that great way before)
• Folder Actions
• Applescript (and many apps both from apple and 3rd party with applescript support for scripting)

Those are just on top of my head, I think I'm missing some. On top of that, there are some things that my grandma and some geeks might like like timemachine, spotlight, etc, etc.

Re:News of the day

[BasilBrush]

Kindly try to explain how this is an antitrust issue. Hint: it's not.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Yada, yada.. So, they ripped of FreeBSD and Linux..

Re:News of the day

[michaelhood]

IANAL - but you can make the same argument for Microsoft or Google - for antitrust cases its seems to be mostly about market share. Once/if apple gets enough market-share then they will get visits from the DOJ too.

lol.. Steve may come to regret this little brag, in that case: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/04/iphone-os-4-0096-rm-eng.jpg

Re:News of the day

[tehcyder]

What, banning online sales to force people to buy at retail (and likely from Apple Stores)? It's at least an anti-consumer move.

I seem to have missed the part where you explain how this is evil.

Of course, if this was Microsoft, then no such explanation would be necessary.

Re:News of the day

[mjwx]

Is it just me or has Apples attitude have gone down the gutters since Steve Jobs has returned from his sick leave.

No, they were always like this.

They're just trying figure out how much you'll will take.

Re:News of the day

[chrisG23]

Yada, yada.. So, they ripped of FreeBSD and Linux..

...Which were totally original creations and didn't borrow and extend from anything that existed prior...

Re:News of the day

[pantherace]

Just like Apple designs

Re:News of the day

[Richard_at_work]

Its easier to upsell when you have a human being selling the product rather than a web page.

Re:News of the day

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Understanding my point requires the ability to read this thread.

Not to mention some subtlety and the ability to rise over groupthink.

Not to "accuse" you of being an Apple apologist, but these days, I find them to be some of the more refreshingly alternative thinkers here on slashdot. The "Rahr, rahr, rahr, corporations are evil, politicians are corrupt, lawyers are the source of the world's problems" train of thought is wearing very thin. You can only bolster conventional wisdom so far with baseless accusations.

Re:News of the day

[wish bot]

What, sore because you took a short position?

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

raiding a member of the press' house and seizing all his equipment in relation to a $500 phone, that is evil

Re:News of the day

[PhilHibbs]

Market share does not make a monopoly. As long as there are viable choices, there is no monopoly. Once iPhone becomes the only practical choice due to homogeneous lock-in, then the DOJ or EU can step in and apply remedies.

Re:News of the day

[DJRumpy]

Rule #1 - Any positive comments about Apple will get you modded troll it seems. Slashdot has turned from rational thinking and actual intelligent discourse in regards to Apple to simply "they are anti-geek or anti-hacker and therefore evil".

It doesn't matter what the context or the content of the post is. Any 'fuck apple' will get an immediate 5 Insightful. Look to the top of this entire thread for a prime example.

Apple gives plenty to the community:

Clang, Blocks (in llvm), libdispatch (Grand Central Dispatch services), OpenCL, WebKit (including a whole new JavaScript VM), CUPS, Darwin, blocks, Bonjour, Calendar and Contacts Server, Darwin Streaming Server, launchd and XQuartz, MacRuby. Many of those not insignificant, and something which could have generated a lot of revenue in patents. I'm sure there are more, but those are just off the top of my head.

They are a far more responsible corporation than some, but they ARE a company, and given who they are competing with, they have to protect their profits. Apparently they are supposed to simply allow anyone to use their patents and copyrights, and defending those patents will immediately make you even more evil, even if it's justified (something that has yet to be determined by the courts, but has already been decided here). They are also not allowed to control their product sales, terms of service, or anything else that is accepted in thousands of other products around the world, all because they have 'insulted' the geek crowd.

I don't even know why I'm posting this. It will be modded into obscurity shortly anyway (see Rule #1).

Re:News of the day

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Rule #1 - Any positive comments about Apple will get you modded troll it seems. Slashdot has turned from rational thinking and actual intelligent discourse in regards to Apple to simply "they are anti-geek or anti-hacker and therefore evil".
...
I don't even know why I'm posting this. It will be modded into obscurity shortly anyway (see Rule #1).

As unfair as it is to be classified as anti-geek for rational thinking, it is not unfair to be classified anti-geek for carelessly tossing in a GOTO 10 line into your comment. :-D

Re:News of the day

[DJRumpy]

Unless your INTO endless iterations ;)

Yuk Yuk..I'm here all night folks..

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Person A:

"Apple is a poser company for poser consumers, having a shiny store to sell them is not enough! People must come to the store to buy our iPhones. It must be like a religious pilgrimage and a pilgrimage requires sacrifice! Without its high prices and even higher attitude Apple is nothing!"

Person B:

"Stupid hater! You are just jealous that Apple has an actual marketshare unlike you leenax losers! You'd see how obviously superior Apple products are if you hadn't decided to hate them beforehand!"

Person A:

"What do you mean? I'm Steve Jobs."

Person B:

"What? No! I meant... I meant... meant meant meant meant meant meant meant" *Kernel Panic*

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of linking to that image was to cleverly refer to that "you have blinders on" expression ;)

Re:News of the day

[mzs]

They can keep launchd, have you ever had to look at it? It's a bunch of special cases and spaghetti code! I think the real reason launchd was created was because they did not want a shell on future products.

Re:News of the day

[Antiocheian]

I don't even know why I'm posting this.

Spoken like a true Apple fan. Doesn't matter to you if your point is right...

It will be modded into obscurity shortly anyway

...only publicity, especially to the groups of casual readers who ignore comments based on the opinions of other people, does.

Re:News of the day

[Eil]

Prior to his illness, he thought he was immortal.

Now he knows he is.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody gives a shit about your grandma. she is a part of an old, ignorant generation and she will be dead soon enough anyways.

Re:News of the day

[vadim_t]

Rule #1 - Any positive comments about Apple will get you modded troll it seems. Slashdot has turned from rational thinking and actual intelligent discourse in regards to Apple to simply "they are anti-geek or anti-hacker and therefore evil".

Slashdot is "news for nerds". Many things that Apple does goes straight against things nerds want to do. So I find it entirely unsurprising that are considered evil by many people.

And for me at least it is indeed that simple: They are anti-geek or anti-hacker and therefore unworthy of my support. Supporting them would be going squarely against my interests.

It doesn't matter what the context or the content of the post is. Any 'fuck apple' will get an immediate 5 Insightful. Look to the top of this entire thread for a prime example.
Apple gives plenty to the community:
Clang, Blocks (in llvm), libdispatch (Grand Central Dispatch services), OpenCL, WebKit (including a whole new JavaScript VM), CUPS, Darwin, blocks, Bonjour, Calendar and Contacts Server, Darwin Streaming Server, launchd and XQuartz, MacRuby. Many of those not insignificant, and something which could have generated a lot of revenue in patents. I'm sure there are more, but those are just off the top of my head.

That is irrelevant. Doing good doesn't erase your evil deeds. The court might be a bit more lenient if you're generally upstanding character and did nothing too heinous, but I've never heard of anybody get declared innocent due to a good deed cancelling out some wrongdoing. Al Capone ran soup kitchens, but that didn't help, which is precisely the way things should work.

I have no problem with recognizing that they did some good work there, but don't see why that suddenly absolve them of anything.

They are a far more responsible corporation than some,

What any other company does or doesn't do doesn't enter into it. My neighbour stealing a lot doesn't justify me stealing a bit.

[...] but they ARE a company, and given who they are competing with, they have to protect their profits. Apparently they are supposed to simply allow anyone to use their patents and copyrights, and defending those patents will immediately make you even more evil, even if it's justified (something that has yet to be determined by the courts, but has already been decided here).

I do think patents should be greatly reduced, and software ones shouldn't exist at all. That said, there are plenty companies that manage to exist perfectly fine while being a lot less heavy handed, so improvement must be possible.

They are also not allowed to control their product sales, terms of service, or anything else that is accepted in thousands of other products around the world, all because they have 'insulted' the geek crowd.

It's not specifically about Apple. Personally I believe that there should be as much freedom as possible for the individual, but that companies should be much more limited in what they can do. Again, that somebody else does it isn't an excuse. Right of first sale should be absolute, for all companies, not just Apple. I have just as much of a problem with game companies wanting to end second hand sales, but their fanboys seem to be less numerous, so pointing out I don't agree with it seems to be a lot less controversial.

Re:News of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those things are completely trivial. It's a joke that you'd even mention them like they were notable contributions. Darwin doesn't even deserve a listing as a separate contribution since it's just a rebadged BSD.

The two things that are notable, OpenCL and Webkit aren't Apple creations either. OpenCL was made in collaboration with Nvidia, AMD and Intel. Webkit was lifted from KHTML.

Re:News of the day

[KingKaneOfNod]

Slashdot has turned from rational thinking and actual intelligent discourse...

You must be new here!

Re:News of the day

[michaelhood]

Market share does not make a monopoly. As long as there are viable choices, there is no monopoly. Once iPhone becomes the only practical choice due to homogeneous lock-in, then the DOJ or EU can step in and apply remedies.

I don't disagree, but the DOJ didn't feel that way about Windows.

Re:News of the day

[PhilHibbs]

Didn't feel what way? Didn't feel that there was a monopoly, or didn't feel that they should step in and apply remedies? I know the EU did think there was an abusive monopoly, not sure about the DOJ. In any case a monopoly isnt illegal, an abusive monopoly is.

Re:News of the day

[PhilHibbs]

There's nothing illegal about a monopoly. It's how you use or abuse that monopoly that determines whether you get a knock on the door.

Yet Amazon sells them in the US

[Animats]

You buy iPads through Amazon. What's Apple's problem in Japan?

Re:Yet Amazon sells them in the US

[AHuxley]

Its like region coding for dvds. Some regions get DTS, tins and other fun stuff.
Some parts of the world got a 16:9 movie and .. nothing.
Apple wants to milk different parts of the world in different ways.
From Japan to the Australian price bump on some products, if the herd pays, Apple will farm you.

Re:Yet Amazon sells them in the US

[jonwil]

And in the US, movie studios continue to release 4:3 versions of 16:9 films for no good reason.

Re:Yet Amazon sells them in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

They do it because a lot of people have 20" or smaller standard def CRT TVs and don't want to watch a movie in a stripe across their TV.

Re:Yet Amazon sells them in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, once you hear enough old fogies complain that their tv has funny lines on it and the picture is broken...

You want 4:3 versions out there.

Re:Yet Amazon sells them in the US

[jonwil]

I have an old 4:3 51cm CRT and I PREFER to watch my movies in Widescreen (the way the filmmakers usually intended it to be seen), black bars and all.

Cheapness?

[Freaky Spook]

newspapers suggest that Apple believes online shopping confers an aura of 'cheapness' on their products

That certainly explains Apples App store.

Re:Cheapness?

[Trepidity]

also, store.apple.com

Re:Cheapness?

[MikeFM]

So far they've just taken my money and haven't actually shipped anything. Doesn't count as a sell yet. Possibly they'll send me a seemingly empty box with a letter explaining they've made my iPad invisible for my own protection.

Re:Cheapness?

[zalas]

What is the source for that, anyway? It's not mentioned in the linked article. Since Apple products are still on sale on Amazon Japan, people have speculated that retailers like Yodobashi did not like some new online sales agreement pushed down from Apple. What's amusing is that according to the linked article, you can still order from Yodobashi's website and simply pick up the items in person at the store.

Translation

[Wildclaw]

The comments in the Japanese business newspapers suggest that Apple believes online shopping confers an aura of 'cheapness' on their products;

Translation:

We want consumers to continue overestimating the actual usage value of our products. It is not good for our bottom line if potential buyers make objective and informed decisions.

Not that I blame Apple. It is just the ordinary day to day deceptive business practices of any successful corporation. Well informed participants in the market is not good, because it is difficult to make big profits in an actually functioning free market. In fact, in a perfectly functioning free market it would be mostly impossible to make money beyond that to pay ordinary wages and initial investments, as any business area where more money could be made would be quickly swamped with competitors.

Re:Translation

[MikeFM]

The amazing thing is the number of people willing to sell for less than a product costs. And not the obvious situation of retailers who sell enough to get a discounted purchase price. No wonder you can get such good deals online.

Re:Translation

[tehcyder]

In fact, in a perfectly functioning free market it would be mostly impossible to make money beyond that to pay ordinary wages and initial investments, as any business area where more money could be made would be quickly swamped with competitors.

A perfect free market is a fantasy dreamed up by economically-illiterate clowns in order to justify their opposition to society's sensible attempts to restrain naked capitalism.

Re:Translation

[Bing Tsher E]

You'd have to explain what you mean by 'naked capitalism' and how it could be seen as a bad thing.

Then you'd have to explain how 'society' would be sensible to 'retrain' it.

It sort of sounds like you have a bondage thing going there, with your restraining naked something or other.

Re:Translation

[gtall]

I think there is something a bit odd by calling computers a free market. It is similar to the car market. There's not a lot of difference between Ford and GM, but there is between Ford and Mercedes. Ford and Mercedes both sell cars, but they are not interchangeable. I don't see a lot of difference between HP computers and Dell computers, both run the same software and they appear interchangeable, the free market more or less works if we forget about the nutlock MS has on them. There is a big difference between HP and Apple, their computers are not interchangeable. So one couldn't really call it a free market, but it doesn't have anything to with lack of competition. Some markets are balkanized in way that breaks one of the assumptions for a free market.

As others have noted, Apple isn't doing anything other manufacturers don't do. A business reason Apple might want to restrict their sales outlets is that they wish to sell computers in Japan. However, if retailers in Japan, which is known for backroom mutually recursive backscratching, decide to lower the prices they charge for Apple's products to drive Apple's stores out of business, then Apple would naturally see this as threat.

Maybe you could apply to Apple and let them know you have a new secret for them to be successful in their own markets. I'm sure they'd listen to you.

Re:Translation

[pizzach]

People scoff at image, but I do believe the company shapes the image as much as the image shapes them and their product. Apple had developers and users who were fanatical about the user interface and it showed. The Wii is now seriously starting to get a cheap image from software, which begs more cheap software as game snobs ignore the good software that is actually released for it. (Big fat cycle.) If Linux loses the hacker image, you won't see so many tinkerers come to it.

It's all image.

Re:Translation

[ProppaT]

Apple is like Sony, they're willing to do anything to maintain the mystique of being "high end" even if they're pumping out products with problems. The main difference is that Apple isn't as massive in scale and size as Sony, so they haven't totally lost touch of the consumer base.

Either way, I think Apple is confusing the word "cheapness" with "affordability." If someone is selling an Apple product on a website and I can use a coupon code or something, that makes the product more affordable. Also, if I can choose which merchant I do business with, this doesn't cheapen anything, it gives me "freedom of choice," even if the retailer has signed a contract with Apple that bans them from selling the product less than MSRP. If anything, doing this makes Apple look greedy and doesn't reflect on whether I find their products cheap or not. "Apple, we keep our prices high because we want our products to maintain a luxurious mystique, not because we're greedy."

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is more with the economically-illiterate clowns who think they can change what the rest of society wants by passing laws to restrict the free market. "Useless. Ill-advised." It doesn't work, and the harder you try, the worse the side-effects.

Re:Translation

[hodet]

I think the system works fine. Far left and far right each have their extreme viewpoints and the give and take tug of war results in a free market where laws are passed to prevent horrific abuses but works well for the majority of people who use their freedoms wisely. The trouble really begins when one side lets their guard down and lets the other run amok.

Re:Translation

[Eil]

It is just the ordinary day to day deceptive business practices of any successful corporation. Well informed participants in the market is not good, because it is difficult to make big profits in an actually functioning free market. In fact, in a perfectly functioning free market it would be mostly impossible to make money beyond that to pay ordinary wages and initial investments, as any business area where more money could be made would be quickly swamped with competitors.

Incorrect. A business does not have to be deceptive, shady, or anticompetitive to be successful.

I worked for a web hosting business that set itself apart from the others by providing great customer service. When you call the toll-free number for help, a human in the U.S. answers in less than a minute. Technicians are required to stay with a ticket until its completely resolved to the customer's satisfaction, no matter what it takes. Their business strategy was not to control the marketplace, screw over customers, or undercut competitors. They made and continue to make oodles of money by playing fair and treating customers like people.

I currently work for a financial services company that took no TARP money, unlike most of our competitors. The recession was great for us, because we essentially gained all of the business that our competitors lost simply because we provided superior products and services. The annual marketing budget for over a decade has been exactly $0.00 and we exceed the standards for all federal and state regulations. (And I can tell you first hand they compensate their employees very well.)

I've been a customer to many companies that operate fairly and competitively and are doing great. I would be happy to list those for you too.

Re:Translation

[Archangel Michael]

The problem with "society's sensible attempts" is one man's sensibility is another man's tyranny.

Here's the opposite of what you said, lets see if you agree with this statement ...

"A perfect socialistic economy is a fantasy dreamed up by economically-illiterate clowns in order to justify their idea of what is fairness should be."

Here is one fact, there is NO perfect system, because we humans are not perfect. Fairness, equality, and justice are just ideals, ideals that cannot ever be reached. Life is not fair, not equal, and justice is fleeting at best.

The moment one makes extraordinary efforts to make things "fair" to all, the system itself becomes necessarily unfair to some.

I'm not denying that there is evil, I'm explicitly saying there is. The question isn't where things are clear, it is the muddled gray in the middle. And that requires judgment and judgments are often wrong. Humans make mistakes, it is inevitable. We can't legislate perfection, it doesn't work.

Re:Translation

[GlassHeart]

You'd have to explain what you mean by 'naked capitalism' and how it could be seen as a bad thing.

Sure. The health care system is an excellent example. For-profit health care, by definition, means that they don't provide services to people who can't pay. It may also mean that they prioritize services to those who can pay more, even if it means leaving you bleeding on the floor while they take care of a richer guy's fungal infection. It may mean that doctors prescribe the kind of care that will make them the most money, rather than the one that actually cures you (or lets you die in peace.) This is "naked capitalism."

In reality, we require hospitals to treat all victims of emergencies. We require doctors to take an oath to put their patient's welfare first (and take away licenses if they don't). This is society restraining the market so that we have something humane.

How much were the online sellers discounting?

[Shag]

Apple has long discouraged domestic resellers from discounting its products, which is why you'll rarely see anyone selling them at more than a 5% discount within the US. (You will, though, see other deal-sweeteners, such as expanded RAM or a free printer thrown in.) Some early articles I read on today's news indicated that the online shops in Japan may have been marking things down too much for Apple's tastes - if that was the case, this wouldn't surprise me at all; it'd just be Apple applying the same sort of policy it applies domestically to overseas resellers.

Interestingly, there's a "Your Rights Online" story active on Slashdot right now about a Supreme Court case involving "the ability of resellers to offer legitimate, non-pirated versions of copyrighted goods, manufactured in foreign nations, to US consumers at prices that undercut those charged by the copyright holders."

Shoe on the other foot?

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[TedRiot]

This is pretty usual in some fields with some highend brands. For example Polar (heart rate monitors) does not allow retailers to advertise discounts on their products, though they are allowed to sell with a discount. Same applies for many other brands that consider themselves 'not cheap'.

And if you don't sell by their rules, you are not allowed to sell them at all.

I myself don't (and I'm not implying that parent did either) consider this evil. If a manufacturer wants to limit their distribution channels, I think they are welcome to make their products hard for the consumer to acquire.

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[Kenja]

Way it used to be (not seeing anything to indicate that this has changed) resellers of Apple products where not allowed (as per the terms of their contract with Apple) to change the price. So they couldn't offer any discounts. What they could do was offer add ins such as free printers, more memory etc.

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[mjwx]

Interestingly, there's a "Your Rights Online" story active on Slashdot right now about a Supreme Court case involving "the ability of resellers to offer legitimate, non-pirated versions of copyrighted goods, manufactured in foreign nations, to US consumers at prices that undercut those charged by the copyright holders."

This is called Parallel importing and is quite legal here in Australia. This has been a great boon to those of us who like games at half price and don't mind waiting two weeks for them to be delivered. Parallel importing is tax free up until A$1000, then the govt simply asks for it's cut.

There was a legal case where a store was selling legitimate branded clothing at a reduced price, the company sued the store but because the imports were above board (not counterfeit, taxes paid) the court ruled in the stores favour. Reference - Polo\Loren vs Ziliani Holdings Pty Ltd.

This is also the easiest way to fight price discrimination, which as I pointed out happens with video games, from Play-Asia.com I can get US, Euro or even Australian versions of games for A$40-45. From local Australian retailers the exact same products go for at least A$80.

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[Anonymous Coward]

About a year ago I purchased a Fender American Stratocaster. The music store had a 30% discount off all Fenders month.

When I showed up a few days before the sale ended, they said they had to reduce the discount (ie increase the price slightly) because Fender reps had heard about the sale, come around, and complained that the Fenders were too cheap now. I'm sure this happens frequently in many industries.

The price of an item is one factor (often a key one) in determining how much value a consumer places on an item. When items are sold "too cheap", the item loses value or prestige.

If BMW's were sold for $5000 each, would they still be classified as a luxury car? No. Ironically, the increased price is the biggest selling point of the BMW. When you buy a BMW, you are buying status and prestige as much as you are buying a car. If you could buy them for cheap so that everyone could have them, nobody would really care that much about them, hence the brand loses status. No status, no reason to buy a beamer.

So if you find yourself selling trinkets or other items which are very hard to objectively value and you aren't making many sales, just raise the price. The price will be the overwhelming determinant of value in the eyes of consumers in this case. I am serious.

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[nausicaa]

I think it depends on your perspective.. Personally, as a consumer I absolutely loathe any attempt to control what I can buy, and from where, regardles of whether it's a game, CD, DVD, BD, etc, or digital downloads of those.. Or the hardware, for that matter. They should just STFU and sell. They exist because we want their products, regardless of how we came to want them. When I buy a movie, I don't give a damn which version they want to sell in my country; I buy the version that has what I want, with price being semi-important factor..

From movies with differing aspect ratios, audio tracks, and extras, via which music I can buy, to what games I get to play, it's all pissing me off enough to make me want to bash some heads :P

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your feed store is too close to another feed store then you may not be able to sell some brands. Land o Lakes won't even do business with you if you're too close to another store. Purina might have its own policies too...who knows!?

"If a manufacturer wants to limit their distribution channels, I think they are welcome to make their products hard for the consumer to acquire."

Exactly! More companies should make it harder.

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[exomondo]

If BMW's were sold for $5000 each, would they still be classified as a luxury car? No. Ironically, the increased price is the biggest selling point of the BMW. When you buy a BMW, you are buying status and prestige as much as you are buying a car. If you could buy them for cheap so that everyone could have them, nobody would really care that much about them, hence the brand loses status. No status, no reason to buy a beamer.

But that is how it goes in the UK, the Ford Mondeo was the most popular midsize average car, it is now outsold by the BMW 3-series. BMW certainly maintains it's prestige and luxury car status though.

Re:How much were the online sellers discounting?

[exomondo]

I agree! Im in australia too and i get all my snow gear from the US using a mail forwarding service since brands like Burton, K2, etc... don't allow their US retailers to ship internationally so they can discriminate on price, im not paying a 300% markup for no good reason!

Guess it's bye bye then

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to get a new Mac eventually, but since they're such dicks, I'll just get a badass PC and use EmpireEFI to install OSX on it.

Israel bans iPad, take that Apple!

[BountyX]

Israel saw this coming and preemtively banned the iPad.

Re:Israel bans iPad, take that Apple!

[MikeFM]

Sorry, they repealed that.

No online sales?

[Thanshin]

No online sales?

Hmm, yes, yes, there's another way...

Hmmmm... I did read about it...

Oh! I remember! It's in the village main street. In exchange for a goat, right?

Re:No online sales?

[antifoidulus]

But if you use your goat to buy an iMac, how will you pay your doctor? But then again, I guess since Japan is among those countries that actually makes sure everyone has cheap health insurance(though it's not single payer like the Canadian system), they might not have to worry about it as much as that other country that unfortunately thinks "Republicans" are a good idea.

So tell me,

[Cryacin]

When, oh when, will we all wake up and give Jobs the title he so sorely deserves?

Der Führer!

Re:So tell me,

[aussie_a]

Its actually standard. Book publishers want to give you a product early with the understanding you don't break the street date so that EVERYONE can start selling the product on the official release date.

Adding additional qualifiers is only the next logical step.

Re:So tell me,

[commodore64_love]

I was thinking more along the lines of "Bill Gates"

Newsline - "Today Apple CEO Steve "Gates" Jobs denied responsibility for iPods that randomly start smoking and burning."

Re:So tell me,

[Sir_Lewk]

Its actually standard. Governments have censuses so that they can know who people are, and the demographics of their country.

Acting on the data acquired and sending people off to concentra^W summer camps is only the next logical step.

You see, it's that "next logical step" that is the evil part.

(With appologies to Godwin, but this thread was already godwin'd so what the hell...)

Re:So tell me,

[The Wooden Badger]

I think that is a really big leap in logic. Publishers don't want a book being out early. It might hurt their major distribution channels. Apple doesn't want competition and to make their product look less shiny and special. It seems the message is that you have to be converted by a paid Apple zealot in the store.

Re:So tell me,

[raymondpl]

well said

Who cares?

[jack2000]

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I care because it's actually rather good for the competition. By pulling it's products off certain markets, Apple allows other manufacturers to take over this segment.

As somebody who judges devices by features and price and not by hype and brand, I thoroughly welcome this step.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

When comments like this get modded up, you know Slashdot is getting worthless.

Apple has been alienating it's core base

[antifoidulus]

Apple doesn't really seem to care about a lot of it's "core" customers anymore. Look how long it took to update the macbook pros and they are selling mac pros that came out 14 months ago for the same price that they sold them for when they came out. Somebody better tell Apple that in the tech business, 14 months is looooooooong time.... Furthermore they are letting a lot of the pro apps waste away and supposedly the "world's most advanced operating system" doesn't even have support for shit like TRIM despite the fact that 3/7 of the computers Apple ships have options for SSD cards(macbook air(another neglected machine), macbook pro, and xserve). They also don't offer SSD options for the iMacs, and people have gone to great lengths to install them in their iMacs(most people take out the now almost useless optical drive, but Apple makes even doing that as painful as possible)

Now they are striking at customers who buy Apple stuff online(more than likely to be the pros, you ever try to lug a mac pro on the train? I cannot imagine it would be fun....) All so they can hype some overpriced consumer toys just a little bit more.
I used to be a huge Apple fanboy, but unfortunately Apple is proving the trolls that say "Apple is only an image company"

Apple, you are alienating people that have stood by you for a long time and are the most likely to remember how you snubbed them. Your gadget customers have no problem leaving Apple at the drop of a hat, and next time the latest and greatest shiny comes out from one of your competitors you won't have your pro base to fall back on anymore.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[wintermute000]

*claps*
I'm not much of a 'pro' user in that I don't run photoshop or aperture or logic pro etc. but as a techie I knew a great OS stack when I see one. Loved my macbooks even though at heart I am a CLI tweaker and gamer. (yes v unfortunate combination).

You can most def see the shift away from their traditional base (i.e. OSX users who love OSX!) towards mass consumer gadget / media consumption overlord. Don't forget removing firewire from baseline macbooks, thousands of music production / pro audio geeks went windows in an instant. Its been getting harder and harder to defend their practices.

Now that Win7 is no longer a POS it has actually become feasible in my mind to buy a non apple laptop... in the vista days before the latest half a dozen Jobsian 1984 stunts that would have been unthinkable to me.

Fortunately or unfortunately, my hatred of itunes and existence of viable alternatives (i.e. android) has kept me from the iphone / itunes lockin so far, but it would have been easier to roll over and submit had they not kept ignoring their core fanbase and pulling even more evil empire stunts.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[BasilBrush]

Apple doesn't really seem to care about a lot of it's "core" customers anymore. Look how long it took to update the macbook pros and they are selling mac pros that came out 14 months ago for the same price that they sold them for when they came out. Somebody better tell Apple that in the tech business, 14 months is looooooooong time....

Apple's Mac sales consistently increase above the PC market in general. For example the last quarter was up 33% over the year ago quarter. They don't need anyone to tell them how run their Mac lines - they are doing rather well themselves.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[Weezul]

Apple's value was always how they really thought about what average users require. Two awesome examples are Time Machine and System Preferences, especially Networking. Two horrible disasters are Address Book and iCal, although I confess they got me off text files. ;)

We should consider how Apple's two biggest recent advancements translate over into the Linux world :

Leopard : Time Machine has several advantages over other backup solutions like rsync scripts : (1) simplicity by eliminating configuration options, (2) intuitive 3d effects, (3) speed via integration with metadata, (4) space efficiency via directory hard links, and (5) integration with applications. (1) and (2) are the biggies that get people using Time Machine. (3) would most likely be sacrificed on Linux, and (4) would require ZFS for the backup volume. (5) is actually the feature that makes Time Machine most useful day-to-day, but implementation appears daunting for Linux.

Snow Leopard : The low-level virtual machine sounds quite promising, but who knows if C blocks and C++ lambdas will actually translate into dramatically faster code. I'd hope that Linux adopts these features if they pan out.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[BasilBrush]

You can most def see the shift away from their traditional base (i.e. OSX users who love OSX!) towards mass consumer gadget / media consumption overlord.

Their overwhelming brand slogans over many years have been: "The computer for the rest of us", and "Think Different". THAT's the traditional base. People who value a well designed, easy to use tool. Not geeks. And the iPad shows that they are continuing to innovate to serve that base.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the current Apple strategy is "pump and dump"? The writing is on the wall and they know it?

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[Anonymous Coward]

For a Time Machine-like implementation, I really like OpenSolaris's Time Slider. Keep in mind that it's not backup (It's more like undelete. Uses ZFS auto-snapshots) but it uses a similar, just-as-intuitive interface where you drag a point on a timeline as the folder changes its contents. Running that on a ZFS mirror gives me both stylish undelete and real backup (the mirror) in a single solution. It's obviously inspired by Time Machine, but it shows how Apple-invented tech can be reimplemented into an open source system and play to that system's strengths. For Linux, you'd probably want a backup function like Mac OSX's instead of an undelete like OpenSolaris's due to the filesystem differences.

It looks like there shouldn't be significant challenges bringing LLVM to other *nix systems. Seems like it's already friendly to GCC.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[fish waffle]

Greed eventually kills all companies. It's the same old story:

1. Look, we could make much more money by locking customers into our product!
2. Uh oh, profits are not increasing for some reason. Increase prices! More lock-in!
3. Damn, we've driven away all our customers. No more profit.

And if the company somehow manages to linger on:

4. Surely that was not our fault. Buy more legislators! Find someone to sue!

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[Steauengeglase]

Apple's Mac sales consistently increase above the PC market in general. For example the last quarter was up 33% over the year ago quarter. They don't need anyone to tell them how run their Mac lines - they are doing rather well themselves.

Said the stock holder to the purchaser.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[jedidiah]

"The computer for the rest of us" should be able to "play anything" and easily assimilate any content you happen to have.

All the iPad does is put up artificial restrictions on a platform that was already working well enough already.

This is why many of us have declared that Apple has abandoned it's old users.

Apple wasn't kept alive all those years by people interested in glorified VCRs.

In the new Apple, wanting to use top 10 Mac downloads suddenly makes you a "geek".

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[sootman]

I feel your pain, but seriously, this whole "Apple is ignoring their core/pro consumers!" meme needs to DIE. Yes, "pro" consumers were once upon a time Apple's bread and butter but that is no longer the case. I know how you feel but Apple doesn't really "owe" you anything for keeping them going. The fact is, the company is changing. Look at this chart, it's right there in black and white. (And blue, purple, red, orange, yellow, and green.) Apple makes the bulk of its money from the iPhone--a product that has only been available for less than three years. Next up is the ENTIRE Mac line, a fraction of which are "pro" machines. Next on the revenue hit parade comes the iPod--a 100% non-computer device that again only existed for the last few years. Followed by iTunes--TV shows, movies, and apps; I'll let you guess which of those is the smallest--and finally software (everything from iLife to Final Cut Pro) and peripherals (mainly mice and keyboards) at the end.

Apple still makes computers, and pro computers, but computers in general and pro gear in particular are NOT their bread and butter anymore. Their "core" market is now the HUGE consumer market. If Apple quit making computers tomorrow and ONLY did iPod, iPhone, and the iTunes store, they'd STILL be making more money than they were a few years ago for EVERYTHING.

* which now includes the slightly computer-y iPod touch.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[BasilBrush]

"The computer for the rest of us" should be able to "play anything" and easily assimilate any content you happen to have.

No computer "plays anything". Games consoles certainly fit the bill of "for the rest of us", and are far more restricted in content and programmes than the iP* family.

In fact the closed model HELPS it be "a computer for the rest of us". A one stop shop for apps reduces consumer confusion. And the exclusion of malware too.

It's geeks that have the problem with the notion of closed systems, not "the rest of us."

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Apple doesn't really seem to care about a lot of it's "core" customers anymore. Look how long it took to update the macbook pros and they are selling mac pros that came out 14 months ago for the same price that they sold them for when they came out.

Apple is a bit slow updating its line of laptops and this counts as alienating its core customers? If that was people who must have the latest and greatest computer, you might have a point.

Furthermore they are letting a lot of the pro apps waste away

How do you come to that conclusion? I just got Aperture 3 and think it was a great upgrade, if a bit late. From what I've heard, the others are doing pretty well, too.

doesn't even have support for shit like TRIM despite the fact that 3/7 of the computers Apple ships have options for SSD cards(macbook air(another neglected machine), macbook pro, and xserve).

I'm sure once SSDs come down to a more reasonable price and is included into more of their range, Apple will have better support for it. It's not the kind of thing you want to rush.

They also don't offer SSD options for the iMacs

The iMac is Apple's middle-range desktop. It also has 3.5" HDD. There's probably much less demand for SSD for iMacs at the moment. I'm sure they'll offer an option once the price comes down, the capacity goes up, and the OS offers better support. And as you have said, if you really need SSD for your iMac, it is possible to do it yourself.

most people take out the now almost useless optical drive

Almost useless? I use it several times a week. Blu-ray would be nice, but it's not essential for me since most of the stuff I watch is still only available on DVD.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Apple has been alienating it's core base

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

What do you hate so much about iTunes?

The "experience"

[erroneus]

Apple wants all Apple customers/consumers to experience the Apple experience. I get that. And they should be able to determine the method of sale to consumers by not providing products to offending sellers. I believe it should be their right. (On the surface that might seem to fly in the face of first-sale doctrine, but just follow with me here) If these sellers currently have stock to sell and Apple wishes to stop the sellers from selling their current stock in any way they see fit, I see a big problem with that. If Apple wishes to pursue that line, they should compensate these stores with an offer to buy their products back at full retail price plus shipping, handling and local taxes.

In short:

Apple don't supply to offending sellers = OK
Apple buys back supply from offending sellers at full retail price = OK
Apple seeks to enjoin the sale of something they don't own = NOT OK

I accept that companies like Apple and Ikea seek to create a consumer experience. I completely reject their experience and their products. (So please, no quick responses saying "So what are you complaining about? Don't buy from them!" I already don't. Now I am telling people WHY.) I can't stand being in either of their two stores. They deny me the convenience of expeditiously finding what I want, picking it up and simply buying it and leaving the way I can with any other consumer experience offered by any other seller of product. I think what I hate most about it is this feeling that I have stepped into an alternate reality. I am okay with this at "theme restaurants" and "renaissance fairs" and the like. It's the experience that people are actively seeking. I get that and it can be fun. But when this experience is a required "rite of passage" in order to own any of their "trophies" (err, I mean "products") I feel a surge of rejection that seems to originate in the vicinity of my stomach.

How is this related to the original story? Simple. If it seems that Apple is attempting to extend or require their apple experience as a requirement of ownership of their products, it just comes across as quite wrong and very objectionable.

Re:The "experience"

[paimin]

Thank goodness for Apple -- if it wasn't for them where would you direct your daily hate and smugness?

Re:The "experience"

[AresTheImpaler]

I dont think this decision has anything to do with the experience. It has a lot to do with prices. A lot of companies dictate the prices their products should be sold for. Apple doesn't want the online stores to be placing their prices too low. The same happens to ps3, xbox, wii, DS, other computers, televisions, etc. I'm not sure why companies do this, but they do it a lot. It also seems like those Japanese stores were lowering their mac prices too low and Apple had to stop them... What I find very weird from your post is the following:

They deny me the convenience of expeditiously finding what I want, picking it up and simply buying it and leaving the way I can with any other consumer experience offered by any other seller of product

That's very weird, because I've found that it's actually quite the opposite. At an Apple store, you are usually greeted by an employee. You can tell them what you want and he/she will get it for you and even charge you right there on the spot. Most stores (if not all) do not have computers right there for you to pick up and then leave, they have to get them from the "back." Best Buy sometimes has some of the cheaper laptops for you to pick up, but it not that common. So all in all, I think the Apple store is the fastest if not one of the fastest. And of course the best part is that if you didnt want the employee's help, you just tell them that you are looking and they will leave you alone. Also, most of the time they say something like "Hi, welcome to the apple store, if you need help we are here to help." They dont even get in your way if you dont want to.

I think what I hate most about it is this feeling that I have stepped into an alternate reality. I am okay with this at "theme restaurants" and "renaissance fairs" and the like. It's the experience that people are actively seeking. I get that and it can be fun. But when this experience is a required "rite of passage" in order to own any of their "trophies" (err, I mean "products") I feel a surge of rejection that seems to originate in the vicinity of my stomach.

What are you talking about? Do you feel in an alternate reality when you enter Walmart? Target? Banana Republic? JC Penny? Every store has its own look and feel. The Apple store mimics their own minimalistic designs. In fact, I think this helps them a lot. The only things that pop up in their store are their own products, which is what they are selling after all.

Re:The "experience"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Apple just wants their products feel like status items and not mere commodity.

Ordering discount products from cheapo dealers with neon colored flashing websites doesn't suit Apple style.

Re:The "experience"

[Hognoxious]

Apple buys back supply from offending sellers at full retail price = OK

Why should they buy it back at a higher price than they sold it at?

Re:The "experience"

[erroneus]

YES. They are interested in halting the types of sale of Apple branded products by people who already own them. If they were to simply reclaim them at reseller's prices, they would deny the retailers their profits from those items. Those profits are also worthy of compensation. And how would these retailers escape their tax liability for such a sale? Perhaps the sale might be considered a transaction reversal, but perhaps not -- I don't know the rules and laws about sales tax in Japan. (I do know that sales tax is not a burden on the customer there -- you see a price tag amount and that's what you pay. There is no extra crap added to the receipt when you go pay. That practice in the U.S. confuses a lot of Japanese people when they travel here the first time.)

No one expects Apple to behave fairly. But if they were to behave fairly, they should offer to buy back all of the inventory of these offending online resellers at full retail price to compensate them for any losses they would suffer otherwise.

Re:The "experience"

[Hognoxious]

YES.

NO. Phear my awesome debatink skillz!

They are interested in halting the types of sale of Apple branded products by people who already own them.

No they aren't, because there's no way they could. What they can do is strip their authorized/approved status and refuse to supply them in future if they don't comply.

If they were to simply reclaim them at reseller's prices, they would deny the retailers their profits from those items. Those profits are also worthy of compensation.

Until the goods are sold on and the payment received, the profit doesn't exist. Prudence principle.

And how would these retailers escape their tax liability for such a sale?

In all jurisdictions I'm aware of (and it's quite a few) a return isn't a sale. But whatever the rules are in Japan, returns are a fact of business life, so any decent accounting system will handle it properly.

I don't know the rules and laws about sales tax in Japan. (I do know that sales tax is not a burden on the customer there -- you see a price tag amount and that's what you pay

In the UK (and most of the EU) prices already include VAT too - but it most definitely is a burden on the consumer. If you think otherwise then who pays it?

Now if this was Apple changing the rules you might have a point for the retailers claiming something for reasonable admin costs. But if - as is highly likely, given what control freaks Apple are - they signed a contract saying they won't do discounting then they haven't got a leg to stand on.

Re:The "experience"

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft, Adobe, the US Government, Sony, China, Patent Trolls, Anonyomous Cowards, Nintendo, the Pharmaceutical industry as a whole, RIAA, MPAA, Senators, Google, Activision, EA, banks, ... you know, it's not like people have a limited supply to choose from here.

Re:The "experience"

[Alrescha]

"But when this experience is a required "rite of passage" in order to own any of their "trophies" (err, I mean "products") I feel a surge of rejection that seems to originate in the vicinity of my stomach."

I'm sorry, but WTF?

The last time I was in an Apple Store (two weeks ago), I was in and out within five minutes, and I didn't even get a "do you want fries with that?" question. It's just a store. In my experience, a store with exceptionally polite staff.

A.

Re:The "experience"

[Anonymous Coward]

In order... yes, no, yes, sometimes.

Re:The "experience"

[radish]

Leaving aside Apple - what's wrong with buying things from Ikea? Compared to the typical approach to buying furniture it's easy, quick and customer friendly. Ikea lets me browse the store, choose what I want and actually _physically_ pick it up and take it home. Most furniture stores don't even carry stock and make you wait weeks to have the item you've already paid for delivered. I'm utterly baffled by your complaint!

Re:The "experience"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call anything I've bought at Ikea a trophy. More like junk to hold me over until I can actually buy something nice. The place serves its purpose, and is more pleasant to be in than a Wal-Mart. Ikea is definitely the domain of the cost-conscious young married couple. If you aren't in that group, or don't want to feel like you are or should be, then stay away.

Resale Contract

[Anonymous Coward]

The major pressess aren't mentioning it, but former Apple VP Naohisa Fukuda is suspecting it is more about resale contract with the retailers(sorry Japanese link).

Apple has different resale contract for online and offline.
  http://solutionprofessionals.apple.com/catalog/

In Japan, the offline resellers has also been able to sell offline without additional contract, but Apple seems to have change that policy.

Another problem is that Apple Japan doesn't seem to have registration form for Japanese resellers, so they might have to contract with Apple Inc.(US) directly.

Also note, that Amazon still sells Apple products in Japan.

2nd sale?

[Itninja]

So why can't the 'online retailers' just buy the Apple products at authorized b&m retailers like everyone else, and then sell them at a premium online? I imagine a lot of folks would be willing to pay significantly more to get a product shipped to their home.

Re:2nd sale?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably lose warranty.

Re:2nd sale?

[tehcyder]

So why can't the 'online retailers' just buy the Apple products at authorized b&m retailers like everyone else, and then sell them at a premium online? I imagine a lot of folks would be willing to pay significantly more to get a product shipped to their home.

Er, isn't the main advantage of online shopping that it is cheaper, not more expensive than visiting a bricks and mortar retail store?

Re:2nd sale?

[antifoidulus]

It is in the US because a lot of states have sales tax that doesn't get charged when you buy online, however in places like Europe and Japan that have a national sales tax a lot of the advantage disappears.

18% Cheaper on-line

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheapest iMac (MB950J) found via kakaku.com
Lowest price: 96,580
Apple.com/jp : 118,800 yen
That is 18% less than Apple's price

Even when I came to Japan 6 years ago, I was surprised that non-Apple stores discounts were much better than comparable stores in the US. (In fact, at my university in the US, the educational discount was about the best you could do. At my university in Japan, the accounting office complained when I bought my Mac from the campus bookstore -- online companies would have been cheaper.)

Kakaku.com is a widely used price comparison website in Japan:
http://kakaku.com/item/K0000064881/pricehistory/
(red is lowest price, blue is average)

In the UK too please!

[pklong]

Oh please Applie extend this to the UK too.

My other half desperately wants a new expensive Macbook and I'd rather spend the money on beer. Do this and it would make it impossible for us to get one as there isn't an Apple store near here.

Bottoms Up!

Philip

Re:In the UK too please!

[Caetel]

Obviously you just need to spend the money on beer before she gets the chance to buy the Macbook.

Re:In the UK too please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can still just buy from the Apple store... Which makes alot more sense than buying elsewhere anyway.

Re:In the UK too please!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one in High Wycombe (South Bucks) called 'Cube' or something daft.

Anyway, they're about, and if your wife wants to spend silly money on a Mac she'd probably be willing to travel a little for it as well. It's not like it's a big country - you can reach pretty much anything in two or three hours.

its not the real Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

the aliens landed and took him away and have replaced him wiht there new nazi style version that obeys hollywood and Obama-ites

Re:Here's you're explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

"I fucking hate chinks and slants" Steve Jobs, 2007.

I know you lot see him as some kind of messiah, but when he can get away with saying this kind of shit in public with barely a comment, I'd say the word "Fuhrer" might be more appropriate.

And no I'm not going to fucking cite it for you, you can find it easily enough yourselves. If Safari doesn't crash on you first.

mod parent "troll".

Wait a sec

[Anonymous Coward]

Yodoyabashi camera seems to be selling Apple stuff online.

Re:Wait a sec

[Anonymous Coward]

From your link (translation from Japanesich):

About Apple purchases. This product is, by request of Apple Inc. removed from the online catalog of Yodobashi dot com. You can pick your apple product after pre-ordering it here in the yodobashi shops. We are sorry to inform you that we cannot sell it to customers who cannot visit our shop. We are sorry for the inconvenience. If you have a question, please call the following phone.

Re:Here's you're explanation

[BasilBrush]

Troll.

amazon.co.jp , for example, begs to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/search/?rh=i:electronics,k:%E3%82%A2%E3%83%83%E3%83%97%E3%83%AB

It seems that Apple is signing exclusive contracts with specific online retailers, which is a completely different thing from the sensational headline.

Commodity vs unique product.

[Charcharodon]

Alot of industries do this. Especially so when their product is edging closer to becoming a commodity, ie something that can be supplied from just about any source and it will satisfy a need. It is a marketing strategy to maintain the "quality and uniqueness of their product. (AKA Bullshit)

Apple fan boys a side, you, me, and just about anyone else these days can pretty much go out and buy a computer or hand held based purely on specs from just about any manufacturer and end up with a fairly satisfying device. This scares the pants of manufactures since the premium markup (100-1000%) they've enjoyed for years tanks and end up looking like grocery store mark ups on milk. (Less than 10%)

In another 5-10 years when you can have an entire computer on a single chip, the transition to a commodity will be complete and companies like Apple, Dell, Asus, ATI, Nvidia etc that don't come up with some sort of niche service will die out and get swallowed up by the likes of Wal-Mart, Tesco, Coscos.

Re:Commodity vs unique product.

[Whuffo]

We're already much of the way towards this end. It was just a few short years ago that any competent notebook would cost $3000 or more. Now you can get competent notebooks for $600 and the prices continue to slide; it's another race to the bottom. When laptops get there, they'll be in the province of Wal-Mart and KMart.

Re:Commodity vs unique product.

[raymondpl]

yes,it is a marketing strategy

Yea this is why

[arcite]

Apple just had its best quarter in their history, their stock is at record highs, they have mountains of cash, and have the world media at their fingertips. Apple doesn't need your love.

Re:Yea this is why

[Bing Tsher E]

Apple needs some huggy love from Bubba the Big Goverment Bear.

Re:Yea this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

yet.

Re:Yea this is why

[Archangel Michael]

Socialist 1: "I don't like how Apple Prices everything too high"

Socialist 2: "Yeah, I agree, there ought to be a law!"

Socialist 1: "I can call my buddy Pelosi and she can open an inquiry"

Socialist 2: "You should! It is totally unfair what Apple charges for their products"

Free Market Person over hearing the conversation: "Mind your own business, and don't buy Apple's stuff"

Socialists 1 and 2: "Nazi!"

Re:Yea this is why

[magus_melchior]

I'm not sure if this was your point, but: Apple cares about no one but its shareholders. User experience is really ancillary; it's a hook to get people to buy massive amounts of their shiny things so that their shareholders make a mint on their stock.

Apple feels strong and is showing its true colors

[FreeUser]

Apple is screwing others over... nothing to see here move along.

Is it just me or has Apples attitude have gone down the gutters since Steve Jobs has returned from his sick leave.
It is not like they did not pull evil stunts before, but it has become way worse.

I said this years ago (it is probably archived in more than one slashdot comment somewhere), but it bears repeating:

Steve Jobs is a Bill Gates wannabe. His illness (and his return) has changed nothing. What has changed is that he has the confidence of his market position, and is now showing his true colors.

What I said (back in the early naughties IIRC): Apple's behavior historically has been that of a company aspiring to monopoly status, and only their (back then) weakness in the market holds that in check. I predicted that, once Apple has achieved enough of a market share to feel secure, they would revert to their old ways and their behavior would make Microsoft and Bill Gates look like good corporate citizens in comparison (and that takes real effort given their long and well documented history of anti-competative practices).

We are now there (and have been for some months, arguably a year or more), and as night follows day, Apple is behaving exactly as expected.

I recommended Apple to my wife a number of years ago, as at the time Microsoft was far worse, and Linux wasn't quite ready for what she needed to do (and she was unwilling to climb the learning curve). I now regret that...as bad as Microsoft is in terms of trampling its users' freedoms and invading its users' privacy, Apple has become significantly worse (and far, far sooner than I expected). Alas, my wife is used to a simple computer that works, and while Linux works perfectly and would now do all she needs, I doubt she'll be willing to take on the effort required to learn a new, slightly different interface

I'm afraid we will all have to keep learning these lessons time and time again: if you want digital freedom, you absolutely cannot cede your basic infrastructure to monopolists or monopolist-wannabes. Indeed, Richard Stallman will probably turn out to have been right all along: if you want freedom, you cannot build your digital world on top of a proprietary platform, no matter how beneign your master may appear today. Apple 2005 vs. Apple 2010 is a strong case in point (and I'm as guilty as anyone for being seduced by the former).

Eventually we'll all have to learn Linux, FreeBSD, or some other free alternative, or face similar attempts at vertical digital monopolies and gatekeepers. It may sound trite, it may sound radical, and it is certainly inviting contempt on this forum to cite RMS on this point, but in my 20+ years in the field I've had my pragmatic feet knocked out from under me at least 4 times by proprietary vendors such as Apple and Microsoft (and others), usually with very negative results. In every case, Stallman's argument against basing a product, business, or day-to-day operating environment on proprietary infrastructure has been vindicated, in spades. Now it's time for the happy shiny Apple-ites to experience this lesson first hand.

"Want digital freedom in the 21st century? There's an App for that ... too bad it's been banned from the iPhone App Store."

Re:Here's you're explanation

[gtall]

Reference please? Else you are lying.

in other news, Apple closing App Store and iTunes

[Blaskowicz]

App vendors and music producers are urged by Apple to stop selling products online. The comments in the Japanese business newspapers suggest that Apple believes online shopping confers an aura of 'cheapness' on their products. But surely killing the Apple stores must have entered into the calculation. As of today, most of the largest retailers have notices on their Apple catalog pages asking you kindly not to visit the online shop if you want to acquire a piece of magic. It seems that for the moment the campaign is aimed at the big fish, as smaller artists and programmers still seem to be selling Apple products.

Why do you buy Apple Stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you buy Apple Stuff if you don't agree with their behavior? Why?

That's like giving an ice cream to a child for lying. Sure the child likes it and is easier to handle for 10 minutes, but you aren't teaching her how polite society works.

Last big achievement?

[theolein]

No, it's not just you. I also get the feeling that SJ's behaviour has become far worse since he had his brush with death. My thinking is that he probably realised his mortality and then decided that he absolutely had to achieve his life goals before he died and that he might not have a lot of time. This has resulted in his recent paranoid and highly intolerant behaviour, even more so than before.

At the moment, Apple is the public's darling and end-users don't care as long as their toy works, but as soon as that changes, Apple is in for a world of hurt. They've burnt a lot of bridges lately and that might come back to hurt them badly when they lose favour with the public. All the Linux geeks and Flash creators might not be willing to give them a go next time round.

I buy most of my Apple products from Amazon

[Tangential]

They don't seem cheapened by that. I wonder why it cheapens them in Japan?

Almost complete translation of linked article

[schnipschnap]

Title: Sale of apple products ends across the board -- Apple Inc.'s intentions and Yodobashi Camera

Yodobashi Camera announced that it will stop selling Apple products on their internet site yodobashi.com and their telephone shopping service "moshi moshi Yodobashi". (TL note: moshi moshi is a Japanese word that is used when answering the phone.) Furthermore, sales in (physical, I presume) stores continue.

According to Yodobashi Camera, "it has come to the state of affairs that we have to stop selling all Apple products, including iPods, MacBooks, iMacs, and related accessories", and furthermore this is "a thing resulting from Apple Inc.'s intentions".

The service that you can pick up products ordered on yodobashi.com from one of their physical stores and their "check if product is available in store" feature are going to be continued for a long time.

Furthermore, Yodobashi will not comment on matters not publicized on the internets.

Besides Yodobashi Camera, Bikku Camera, Yamada appliances, and many other major volume sellers alike are stopping the sale of Apple products on the internets. Bikku Camera states that they can't comment on details either, but they display strong posture by saying "because you can also buy over the counter, it's not something that will have that much influence."

Besides major volume sellers, the Apple-specialized Rakuten stores "Akihabara Mac Collection," "kitcut," and others have stopped selling Apple products. (However, at the time of this writing (April 26), kitcut is still selling Apple products on their own site.) Apart from these stores, you can see many other Rakuten stores either state "not in stock" or that they have stopped selling Apple products. It is a matter of life and death for all internet shops that don't have a physical store.

And naturally, while internet stores across the board have stopped selling Apple products, Apple's own online store continues to sell products. Apart from the Apple Store, the foreign company Amazon.com still sells just like before.

Furthermore, Apple hasn't - as of April 26 - released any official statements regarding this matter, [didn't get this part of the last sentence - help is appreciated].

Re:Almost complete translation of linked article

[ufpdom]

god dam google translator.. Its BIC Camera not bikku.. cuz since they phoeneticize their language itll come up that way in translate McDonalds = macDonarudos if it was bikku camera the website would be bikku.com but alas its http://www.biccamera.com/

Re:Almost complete translation of linked article

[raymondpl]

not bad

Apple is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Choose One

[_] Arrogant
[_] Stupid
[_] Both

Canon aquires Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The next step for Apple is to have Canon distribute their products.
Anyone who 'knows' will surely laugh at my wit.

lol

Slashdot Comprehension Fail

[SteeldrivingJon]

Hm. Amazon.co.jp is still selling Apple products online.

Clearly, there is no "ban on online sales". Slashdot really shouldn't post stories based on Google translation.

Whatever is going on is more nuanced than the submitted story has been able to grasp.

It might be about online shops selling for below MSRP, but I can't see any reason why street retail shops couldn't do the same.

Re:Apple feels strong and is showing its true colo

[Steauengeglase]

I think I can boil that down for you. You can have all the taste and all the money in the world, but neither will buy you class.

Aura of cheapness...

[Joce640k]

Surely the best way to deal with an 'aura of cheapness' is to raise the price of the product.

Their slogan could be: "Apple, reassuringly expensive".

Quick translation of article

[zalas]

On April 23, Yodobashi Camera announced through their online sales site "Yodobashi.Com" and their telephone sales service "Moshi Moshi Yodobashi" that they are discontinuing sales of Apple products. Sales at their retail stores will still continue.

According to Yodobashi Camera, "it has become the case that [they] can no longer sell any Apple products, including iPods, MacBooks, iMacs and related accessories." Furthermore, they say that it was "according to the wishes of Apple."

Customers can continue to use the "store pick-up" service where they order an item online at Yodobashi.Com and pick up the item in person at a store. They can also continue to determine whether a product is in stock through their "in stock inquiry service."

"We have no comments beyond what has been said online" is the statement from Yodobashi Camera.

With regards to online sales of Apple products, many other high volume retailers such as Bic Camera and Yamada Denki have similarly stopped. Bic Camera also stated that they cannot comment on what led to this, but vehemently state that "since you can pick up ordered items at the store, we don't believe it should be that big of an issue."

In addition to high volume retailers, Mac-specific small-time shops "Akihabara Mac Collection" and "kitcut" that were selling Apple products through Rakuten [an online market place in Japan] have also stopped sales. (However, kitcut as of this writing, April 26, still continues selling products on their own site.) Furthermore, upon seeing many Rakuten shops having marked [Apple items] as "out of stock" or "no longer available", one might be able to say that this issue is a life and death situation for online shops who do not have physical storefronts.

With so many retailers stopping online sales of Apple products, Apple's very own "Apple Store" still continues to sell them, unsurprisingly. Furthermore, the foreign-owned Amazon continues to do so as well.

As of April 26, Apple has not made an official announcement and refuses to comment on the situation.

Back in the 90s...

[metamatic]

You probably don't know this, but back in the early 90s that's exactly how it was in the UK. The only way to buy a Mac was to go to an Apple approved store. You would then place an order for the Mac you wanted... and leave. When the Mac arrived, you'd go back and collect it.

Prices were typically 100% higher than in the USA. People would literally fly to New York to buy a Mac and bring it home, because it was cheaper than buying one in the UK.

As for software prices, don't get me started...

So it sounds like Apple Japan is just working the way it always has, and hasn't opened up yet.

pure greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is still getting their cut of the wholesale profits. But that's not enough. They are after retail level profits as well from their physical stores. If people buy online at a discount, Apple can't maintain their Apple stores' retail mark-up.

Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally biased opinion here: I don't think the japanese will like this strategy. Generally they're psyched about capabilities and doing stuff in an efficient manner. Going to a store the analog way will seem strange and different.

They're sort of like nerds and jocks in America, only switched around population-wise.

I just don't understand

[BlueBoxSW.com]

For a company you say you folks hate so much, why does Apple get so much air time?

Re:I just don't understand

[sowth]

Much of slashdot is bashing things we hate. ;-)

Re:I just don't understand

[BlueBoxSW.com]

That's a stupid waste of time.

Re:Apple feels strong and is showing its true colo

[mzs]

The problem was that I could not go to a store and buy a program for Linux or FreeBSD. That is why I bought an eMac 8 years ago. Things have changed, there is little reason to buy software anymore, there is so much great open source stuff available now-a-days. In fact if the whole google docs style approach takes-off we have even less reason to buy software ever again (for better or worse). Now I cannot buy software for that aging eMac anymore, my wife and kids are smart, they can pick-up some other GUI again. It may finally be time, I only need to find a replacement to iMovie at this point;editing xml files in vim and running dvdauthor and mkisofs really isn't going to cut it :)

Re:Apple feels strong and is showing its true colo

[Princeofcups]

Steve Jobs is a Bill Gates wannabe. His illness (and his return) has changed nothing. What has changed is that he has the confidence of his market position, and is now showing his true colors.

When Steve starts buying up companies to stop innovation and gain a monopoly on a software segment, when he starts embracing open standards only to extend and subvert, when he denies that there is any future in any product except his own, then you can maybe start making some comparisons between Jobs and Gates. Until then, this please keep your Apple hate/jealousy to yourself.

Re:Apple feels strong and is showing its true colo

[Steauengeglase]

For either, the point isn't stopping innovation, that is just a side effect. The goal is moving the market in whatever direction you want and Apple has been doing to a greater or lesser degree of success for about as long as MS has. They both buy out mindshare and patent portfolios to get either a leg up or on the throat of their competition. Apple's saving grace is that they have done a much better job of dealing with others in their industry.

When Apple was getting into the desktop publishing business they knew that they couldn't just buy Adobe out, so they played ball. Had MS lumbered off into this before standards were set, they would have tried and failed at creating everything from scratch.

Honestly, I don't get why people are so defensive for Apple. They may be the "little guy", but they have enough IP in enough industries to live in one form or another indefinitely.

STILL not evil ?

[unity100]

for 2 times in the discussions in articles describing of apple ill will, im asking this question to apple fans. in turn, they are modding me down like madmen, and then proceeding to defend the wrongdoing, ill will of apple for days.

a particular one has been trying to justify a private corporation sending private people (not even p.i.s) to a citizen's door and asking the citizen permission to search his/her home. imagine you wake up a morning, some people in front of your door, neither police, nor private investigators, asking you permission to search your home and go through your belongings. the guy has been trying to justify that.

so im asking again - how much ill intent will it take on apple's side for you to realize that this going is no good ?

Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Amazon/Amazon.jp?

Aura of cheapness?

[tpg0007]

Damn right, I know I feel cheapened when buying a $.99 app online. As a human being I deserve to be treated with respect, and should only deal with other human beings, not mere soulless machines! I demand Apple cease hawking cheap-ass apps in their abominable online store and convert it all to major retail locations across the country.

Re:1st post

[Meski]

Apple have come a long way as far as this goes, I'd say they've caught up with Microsoft. I can see them overtaking them, even.

Re:Apple feels strong and is showing its true colo

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...as bad as Microsoft is in terms of trampling its users' freedoms and invading its users' privacy, Apple has become significantly worse ...

Are you sure you're not just trying to blow smoke up our collective skirt here??

Example of Microsoft invading on its users' privacy: WGA. Equivalent in Apple? That's right, NONE. (Nope, desktops vis-a-vis iPhones/iPads is an apples-to-oranges, so let's keep the discussion on point).

Example of Microsoft actually *having* monopolistic power in a market? Desktop OS; office apps. Equivalent in Apple? Yup, again NONE! Nope, it wasn't Apple who forced a proprietary, ill-defined spec down the throat of an international standards body, it was "that other company"!

Example of Microsoft *using* its monopolistic power to push inferior products? Any instance of "embrace and extend", which has left us with such a wonderful legacy as, among others, DirectX, WINS, SMB, Exchange, ASP, VBScript, IExplorer --all of which either duplicate functionality of previously existing standards and/or purposely introduce incompatibilities intended to achieve vendor lock-in. Equivalent in Apple? Bonjour! Wait, no, that's actually open sourced. AAC! Mmnnope, not quite, that's actually an ISO standard. MPEG-4, H264, HTML5? Standard, standard, standard. Flash? C'mon!

"But-but-but ... The iPhone is a walled garden!" And, before the iPhone, exactly what did you have to do to develop an app for a cell phone? Compared to the tight grip and extortiv ... err, "pricing structure" of the cell phone carriers, the iPhone's "walled garden" is as permisive as a nudist beach! (Except for actual nudity, of course! ;-) And if you think things were better, easier or freer at Windows CE or Palm, you're delusional!

(Android? Yup, that's right, even Android owes its origin to the iPhone and the active COMPETITION in the market --yup, competition is the contrary to monopoly!)

'iPad ... Flash ... Pr0n ..." Sure, why don't you try other combinations as well, say "Nintendo ... Pr0n", or "Kindle ... Flash" ... I know, that d*mn Mario is a monopolistic wanna-be, and as for the b*stards of Amazon and their insufferable monopoly on e-ink readers able to connect wirelessly to the Amazon store, don't get me started!!

You're right, I hadn't realized how bad Apple is and how little alternatives I have, this iPad thing that no one is trying to copy is obviously totally worthless and is indeed going to be the end of my digital freedom because, of course, Apple forced Disney to lobby for an extension in perpetuity to the protection of Mickey Mouse, just like they forced the RIAA to add DRM to music sold through iTunes, and to package 1-son-and-10-worthless-demos in a $16 bundle, despite the fact that the RIAA was desperately trying to push DRM-free music down Apple's throat and wanted to sell individual songs at $0.99, to which Apple opposed with all its might! Ah, if only the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers sued Apple to make illegal for its users to read scanned books in electronic format, just like they sued Google to stop them from scanning entire libraries in order to protect my right to pay for books no longer in print, and if only the MPAA tried just a little bit harder to make transcoding illegal so that I couldn't watch my legally-bought media in my iPhone/iPad, hah! THAT would teach Apple not to mess with MY freedoms!!

Now, online retailer is undercutting by 16%

[Anonymous Coward]

For the math and reading challenged, let me be more precise:

The price of the iMac MB950J (as a representative Apple product), at the Japanese Apple on-line store is still 118,800 yen. Follow this link to verify:

http://store.apple.com/jp/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTAyNTQzNjA

At a small on-line retailer, the cheapest price found by kakaku.com at this moment is now 99,468 yen. So now some on-line retailer is undercutting Apple by only 16%. Follow this link to verify:

http://kakaku.com/item/K0000064881/pricehistory/

I computed 16% the following way:

echo "100*(118800-99468)/118800" | bc

Bzzt! Thank you for playing.

[FreeUser]

Example of Microsoft actually *having* monopolistic power in a market? Desktop OS; office apps. Equivalent in Apple? Yup, again NONE! Nope, it wasn't Apple who forced a proprietary, ill-defined spec down the throat of an international standards body, it was "that other company"!

"But-but-but ... The iPhone is a walled garden!" And, before the iPhone, exactly what did you have to do to develop an app for a cell phone?

You are probably a troll (I doubt anyone actually modded this tripe up, so your +1 mod probably comes from having a user account and cowardly chosing to post anonymously instead), but on the off chance some poor unsuspecting reader might take any of this nonsense seriously I guess I'd better reply.

At the very least, you are confusing vertical and horizontal monopolies. No one has suggested Apple has a horizontal monopoly, such as the one Microsoft carved out for itself on the PC desktop. Apple is, however, working very hard to create a vertical monopoly for itself, where it controls outright (even if it doesn't own) every layer of the digital stack a customer can access, from interface to application to data to communication link, to hardware, to storage, to data. These efforts are most obvious on the iPhone, but also present on the iPad and creeping onto their more general computing platforms such as the iMac.

The App Store and iPhone are a quintessential example of a vertical monopoly, with Apple as absolute gatekeeper and final authority in what the user may do with the overpriced iPhone they purchased, which which venders are permitted to sell their wares to said user for the moment. And woe unto any vendor whose product Apple happens to like enough to clone and then ban from the site, and any user who has come to rely on said product. That is a vertical monopoly, and that is the future Apple is trying to corral all of us into.

But thank you for playing. Next time, you might want to get a couple of more neurons to rub together before trying again. There might be an App for that, but don't try finding it in the Apple App Store. It's already been banned.