7 ms·

Should a store be forced to stock a product that has “This product is significantly cheaper if you buy it directly from the manufacturer” printed on the front o

Should a store be forced to stock a product that has “This product is significantly cheaper if you buy it directly from the manufacturer” printed on the front of the package?

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
You do know many products have their Recommended Retail Price printed on the box?
madsbuch 3y ago
I better like the marketplace analogy: If I go into a marketplace, I can be told by merchants that we can make cheaper deals outside of the confines of a marketplace. If you want to stick to the "store" analogy, they Apple also needs to handle support, return cases and a lot more financial risk – A store stocks their own inventories and does not just facilitate transactions between two parties. The fact is that Apple store is not a store, it is a marketplace. And on a marketplace you can not censor people as easily.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  though it would be lovely to see apple buy 10.000 licenses to sell on their "shop"
- Aloisius 3y ago
  Apple does handle returns and I'm not sure what support the average brick and mortar store offers. Stores don't necessarily own all their inventories (stock consignment) and some products are extremely low risk (e.g. phone cards, gift cards, digital goods, etc.) Calling it a marketplace seems odd considering unlike in traditional marketplaces, there are no competing merchants selling the same goods. There are no other merchants at all.
rendall 3y ago
The issue as I understand it is that Apple uses its dominance in hardware to direct users to its own music streaming service at the expense of a competing service. Your analogy does not fit.
- EasyMark 3y ago
  They have a pretty competitive pricing range too. The combined TV, music, and a bit of encrypted disk space is fairly priced. I used to pay for Spotify separately, but when they raised prices a couple of times in a row. It made more sense to just get Apple TV and music for a decent price as I already was using the 50 GB iCloud package because google likely data mines Google Docs/drive. So don't assume everyone is just getting it because it's “there”.
  - rendall 3y ago
    The issue is Apple's using its dominance in one domain to restrict competitors in another domain, not whether they offer a better deal. In fact, one would expect that they can offer the best deal around.
Nextgrid 3y ago
If you’re the one of 2 stores in the country, yes.
- realusername 3y ago
  The reality is even worse than this analogy, you only have two stores but customers going to one store cannot even shop in the other one!
drooopy 3y ago
Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. In this case, Spotify can only "sell" their app to Apple customers exclusively via Apple's store and they are forced to pay a fixed 30% to Apple for every transaction done through the spotify app, while using a payment system created and supplied by the store owner. And at the same time apple provides a competing product pre-installed on all their devices, which would be the equivalent to placing your product on the eye-level, well-lit shelves while putting away your competitor's product at the bottom shelf. There's a lot more nuance in this case that doesn't fit in with your analogy.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > they are forced to pay a fixed 30% to Apple for every transaction done through the spotify app Spotify has never paid this. You signed up online and then logged into the app. To the degree Apple has behaved anti-competitively, Apple Music v Spotify is the clearest case. But it’s not because of payment processing, but that Apple can see Spotify’s data and strategy and then use it against them from a superior marketing position.
  - darklion 3y ago
    If you’re suggesting there’s some sort of data- or usage- mining of Spotify’s app and/or app integrations with the OS going on, you’re going to have to provide much more evidence than just the allegation of “Apple can see Spotify’s data”. The device might be able to see “Spotify’s data”, but the closest thing Apple-the-company has to “Spotify’s data [on iOS/macOS]” is likely to be device/customer profiles on who downloads the app from the App Store. And I’m sure the amount of data that Apple has on Spotify and their business and marketing strategies from non-device sources is both vastly superior and vastly more than what they would get from device-based information.
- paulmd 3y ago
  > Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. This is absolutely not true at all, exclusivity agreements are incredibly widespread in supply chains. https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-pieces/grocery/exclusivity%20in%20the%20food%20manufacturer%20grocer%20trade%20reasons%20behind%20the%20marketing-procurement%20practice%20june%202001.pdf https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-p... > Both retailers and manufacturers assert that over the past decade this practice has increased materially. In some retail outlets or corporations, the activity is now found in virtually every category. Based on reliable industry benchmarks from the late 1990's it is likely that as of 2001, at least half of major Canadian manufacturers are involved in some form of exclusivity arrangement with Canadian distributors. “With some exceptions” doing some heavy lifting I guess, considering we’re talking about basically whole industries and product sectors.
withinboredom 3y ago
It would be like if you went to best buy (or whatever electronics store is in your country) and bought a washing machine. This washing machine (in small print no less) has "in-home purchases" that let you change the modes to include color and whites instead of just a "do it all eco-mode." Best buy takes 30% of all these "in-home" purchases because they sold you the washing machine. They assert that you are their customer and you are not the owner of the washing machine. Oh, and you can't share this "in-home purchase" with anyone else that lives with you. If they want this feature, they have to pay for it separately. If that makes sense to you ... then I guess there isn't much to discuss here.
- prepend 3y ago
  This happens. Ever try to sell an app on a Samsung tv? Samsung takes their cut of every purchase.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    I'm relating this to physical/mechanical things to point out how ludicrous the entire model is, but yes, this is the same thing.
kelnos 3y ago
Yes, absolutely. Unless you're going to argue against the concept of transparency, anyway.

Should a store be forced to stock a product that has “This product is significantly cheaper if you buy it directly from the manufacturer” printed on the front of the package?

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

You do know many products have their Recommended Retail Price printed on the box?

madsbuch 3y ago

I better like the marketplace analogy: If I go into a marketplace, I can be told by merchants that we can make cheaper deals outside of the confines of a marketplace. If you want to stick to the "store" analogy, they Apple also needs to handle support, return cases and a lot more financial risk – A store stocks their own inventories and does not just facilitate transactions between two parties. The fact is that Apple store is not a store, it is a marketplace. And on a marketplace you can not censor people as easily.

madsbuch 3y ago
though it would be lovely to see apple buy 10.000 licenses to sell on their "shop"
Aloisius 3y ago
Apple does handle returns and I'm not sure what support the average brick and mortar store offers. Stores don't necessarily own all their inventories (stock consignment) and some products are extremely low risk (e.g. phone cards, gift cards, digital goods, etc.) Calling it a marketplace seems odd considering unlike in traditional marketplaces, there are no competing merchants selling the same goods. There are no other merchants at all.

rendall 3y ago

The issue as I understand it is that Apple uses its dominance in hardware to direct users to its own music streaming service at the expense of a competing service. Your analogy does not fit.

EasyMark 3y ago
They have a pretty competitive pricing range too. The combined TV, music, and a bit of encrypted disk space is fairly priced. I used to pay for Spotify separately, but when they raised prices a couple of times in a row. It made more sense to just get Apple TV and music for a decent price as I already was using the 50 GB iCloud package because google likely data mines Google Docs/drive. So don't assume everyone is just getting it because it's “there”.
- rendall 3y ago
  The issue is Apple's using its dominance in one domain to restrict competitors in another domain, not whether they offer a better deal. In fact, one would expect that they can offer the best deal around.

Nextgrid 3y ago

If you’re the one of 2 stores in the country, yes.

realusername 3y ago
The reality is even worse than this analogy, you only have two stores but customers going to one store cannot even shop in the other one!

drooopy 3y ago

Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. In this case, Spotify can only "sell" their app to Apple customers exclusively via Apple's store and they are forced to pay a fixed 30% to Apple for every transaction done through the spotify app, while using a payment system created and supplied by the store owner. And at the same time apple provides a competing product pre-installed on all their devices, which would be the equivalent to placing your product on the eye-level, well-lit shelves while putting away your competitor's product at the bottom shelf. There's a lot more nuance in this case that doesn't fit in with your analogy.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> they are forced to pay a fixed 30% to Apple for every transaction done through the spotify app Spotify has never paid this. You signed up online and then logged into the app. To the degree Apple has behaved anti-competitively, Apple Music v Spotify is the clearest case. But it’s not because of payment processing, but that Apple can see Spotify’s data and strategy and then use it against them from a superior marketing position.
- darklion 3y ago
  If you’re suggesting there’s some sort of data- or usage- mining of Spotify’s app and/or app integrations with the OS going on, you’re going to have to provide much more evidence than just the allegation of “Apple can see Spotify’s data”. The device might be able to see “Spotify’s data”, but the closest thing Apple-the-company has to “Spotify’s data [on iOS/macOS]” is likely to be device/customer profiles on who downloads the app from the App Store. And I’m sure the amount of data that Apple has on Spotify and their business and marketing strategies from non-device sources is both vastly superior and vastly more than what they would get from device-based information.
paulmd 3y ago
> Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. This is absolutely not true at all, exclusivity agreements are incredibly widespread in supply chains. https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-pieces/grocery/exclusivity%20in%20the%20food%20manufacturer%20grocer%20trade%20reasons%20behind%20the%20marketing-procurement%20practice%20june%202001.pdf https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-p... > Both retailers and manufacturers assert that over the past decade this practice has increased materially. In some retail outlets or corporations, the activity is now found in virtually every category. Based on reliable industry benchmarks from the late 1990's it is likely that as of 2001, at least half of major Canadian manufacturers are involved in some form of exclusivity arrangement with Canadian distributors. “With some exceptions” doing some heavy lifting I guess, considering we’re talking about basically whole industries and product sectors.

withinboredom 3y ago

It would be like if you went to best buy (or whatever electronics store is in your country) and bought a washing machine. This washing machine (in small print no less) has "in-home purchases" that let you change the modes to include color and whites instead of just a "do it all eco-mode." Best buy takes 30% of all these "in-home" purchases because they sold you the washing machine. They assert that you are their customer and you are not the owner of the washing machine. Oh, and you can't share this "in-home purchase" with anyone else that lives with you. If they want this feature, they have to pay for it separately. If that makes sense to you ... then I guess there isn't much to discuss here.

prepend 3y ago
This happens. Ever try to sell an app on a Samsung tv? Samsung takes their cut of every purchase.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  I'm relating this to physical/mechanical things to point out how ludicrous the entire model is, but yes, this is the same thing.

kelnos 3y ago

Yes, absolutely. Unless you're going to argue against the concept of transparency, anyway.