On 9/3/2011 8:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 17:08:56 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/2011 9:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:49:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, that isn't the issue. The issue what that, to use the "in-app"
>>>> purchase, Amazon would take a 30% cut, but then Apple would take
>>>> another 30%, since you where buying via *their* app store. So, in
>>>> actuality, you would be paying like 60% extra, not 30%.
>>>
>>> Except that, of course, you're not buying via *their* app store -
>>> because Kindle/Nook/etc do in-app purchases through *their* store.
>>> Apple isn't providing anything but the hardware the purchase is being
>>> made on.
>>>
>> No, Kindle/Nook use a web page that "looks" like an "in-app" store,
>> because Apple's patent is on using "in-app" purchasing, and thus they
>> would have had to go through "Apple" to sell to the customer. Its
>> basically the whole "Amazon patented being able to click on button, to
>> buy shit on the website", all over again.
>
> Yes, that's the way it is now.  Until Apple decided they wanted 30% of
> "in app content purchases", they had it implemented in the app itself
> rather than just going through a web connection.
>
> Jim
Yep. Perfect example of how frakking stupid the patent system has 
gotten. If we did someone like dropping minimum wage laws, and a few 
other things, to place us on the same "economic" status as the places we 
buy shit from, the next thing we would have to do is let all the drug 
dealers out of jail, so that we would put half the rest of the country 
in there, based on "patent infringement", as everyone tried to invent 
solutions to problems, instead of buying stuff they couldn't afford any 
more.

After all, you can hardly expect companies to make profits, if everyone 
can just create what ever they want, for cheap, instead of buying, 
without any money to do so, patented products, from corporations. lol

Sorry, mixing threads here, but this truly is a major pain in the ass. 
There is a reason why half the games on the market are made with other 
people's game engines. And its not because they are the "best" engines. 
Its because, even if you wanted to create one, you would have to slog 
through 900 patents, to make sure that you didn't step on anyone's toes, 
and then you would end up with total crap as a result, if you didn't pay 
royalties some place. The "tech industry" is this, multiplied by several 
orders. And stupid BS like, "We need more money, to let you use that!", 
is why.

Post a reply to this message