So in what market did Apple use their dominance to gain advantage in the ebook business? Apple came to the tablet business with the iPad with zero market share at the same time they announce their entry into the ebook business.
I think we've got a NEW CONCEPT HERE: Preemptive Monopoly Busting!
Kind of strange since our justice department is mostly useless as far as protecting us from oil spills, tax cheat who pay less than 2% in taxes, bankster embezzling and malfeasance, mercenaries and for profit wars, sham privatized utility companies that fix prices and only compete with different letterhead, bogus competition in access to the internet, and of course, Microsoft Windows holding back progress for over a decade with market collusion and "embrace and extend" as they stole the IP of company after company.
Of COURSE Apple is going to own this market. But obviously, Amazon has more friends in higher places and their lobbying efforts have paid off. Why use the courts when you can use a pet Senator, after all?
Why ask someone their name, when you can just get nervous and preemptively shoot them IN CASE they were planning to do something wrong?
I checked and the two books are not published by the ones listed in the suit. Had I found the price the same, the higher one, I would have not made the purchase and bought used paperbacks. I think maybe this is more relevant to the NYT bestseller list books, that are hot off the presses and being heavily marketed. I see that as a small subset of the published material avaliable. I rarely buy what they are trying to spoon feed to me. I guess this whole issue is more relevant to the sheep of the world.
True- the big house publishers to the masses are the ones guilty.
The eSheep are the ones suffering in their billfolds.
You're right, there was no competitive market for eBooks because Amazon had a monopoly which could be argued was illegally had and maintained as a direct result from dumping.
You could certainly argue this.
That doesn't seem to be the concern with dumping though. The concern is that once a company obtains the monopoly they will increase prices. Amazon wasn't doing this. If e-books are considered to be the same class as hardcopy books, then they might have been doing this, however it still seems that their goal was to reduce wholesale costs and not increase prices, just like Wallmart does.
Lets see. I bought two books this past week. I went to iBooks and saw that they were more expensive there, than Amazon. So I bought them in Kindle format from Amazon. What is the problem here?
I'm guessing the problem is not if you could get cheaper e-books from Amazon. The problem is that the price of e-books is set by Apple. iBooks is not the biggest e-books seller but it gets the biggest or the same discount. For Amazon to be cheaper, it has to reduce its margins but will never be able to get volume discount because Apple said so.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Show me where Apple said that content owners couldn't use other digital stores to sell their music or wouldn't allow them to sell their music at a lower price or DRM free outside of the iTMS/iTS without fear of being dropped by Apple?
Bottom line: Apple never forced the content owners to use it or else.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
I don't see the equivalence: in BOTH CASES, it's everyone else complaining about Apple.
With Music they were too low -- now everyone has benefitted from standardized contracts (or at least MORE standardized) and Amazon sells things cheaper. Apple CREATED the market that was nothing but illegal MP3 swapping before they arrived to provide an electronic service that internet users would actually pay for.
With Books, they entered the market LATE -- now everyone is complaining they charge MORE? Regardless of how everyone here went Ballistic -- it's once again, the industry trying to force a pricing model on Apple, and in this case, they aren't even the big dog.
Let's at least wait for them to have over 50% of the market before we bust the "collusion and monopoly" of their eBook market.
I want cheaper books -- and I don't plan on buying ANY books at these prices from Apple.
It's too bad these eBooks aren't made/written in a FoxConn factory so everyone could have a shit-fit about how the books should cost more to pay the workers/writers. Everyone would pay more to support a poor worker in a work situation they know nothing about. >sarcasm< (in case you didn't get it already)
it's once again, the industry trying to force a pricing model on Apple, and in this case, they aren't even the big dog.
Unfortunately they are in mindshare so that means asshats around the world start getting excited to see Apple fail at something regardless of how this helped the publishing industry and therefore consumers or how it allows Amazon to create longterm damage on the publishing world... so long as Apple gets knocked down a peg.
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
You're right about one thing, many people seem not to comprehend the issue, and you're one of the ones who doesn't. (Actually, you do, you're just pretending not to.)
The issue is that Amazon is leveraging its dominance in online retailing generally, and traditional book selling particularly, to completely control the e-book market, drive other e-book, and traditional, booksellers out of business, and establish complete control of the publishing industry. In other words, to create a market where Amazon is the only place you can buy or sell books, eventually allowing Amazon to dictate price at both ends.
Amazon's primary goal is to use e-book dumping as a means to drive other booksellers out of business. Their secondary goal is to establish hegemony over publishers that will allow them to control what they have to pay publishers for books, and even to control what books get published at all. (If Amazon doesn't want to sell it, once they are the only game in town, there won't be any reason for the publisher to "print" it.)
It's particularly hypocritical of posters like Asherian, who have come here time after time disparaging Apple's "walled garden" on, among other pretexts, that Apple effectively engages in censorship, and lauding Google's (pretended) "openness" as the key to our salvation, to come here and argue that Apple is in the wrong for taking a course that promotes free and open markets in publishing and that Amazon is an innocent lamb when clearly their intent is to establish de facto control of an entire industry.
It's inconsistencies like this that show who's here for honest discussion and who's here with an agenda that doesn't depend on honesty.
...Apple's alleged role in convincing e-book publishers to switch to an "agency model" for sales, rather than the "wholesale model" that Amazon had implemented with its own Kindle store.
Can someone explain to me the difference between these two, since AI did not? I see differing things in these threads that seem confusing.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Many musicians and record labels were against iTunes selling single songs at $0.99.
They wanted a minimum of $1.29
And from an artistic effort, one song did not an album make; the whole album was the 'picture'.
But a bigger problem was the ease of coping & downloading songs for free.
In the end, the record companies & artists caved because .99 was better than nothing!
But in the iBook case, it's not the same...not even close.
It's very clear that Apple needed an edge to quash Amazon's business model.
But unlike the iTunes model, Apple & the Publishers win at the expense of the customer...and Amazon. And that's really what this all about: beat Amazon at the expense of the customer.
Apple should fight the US Justice department in court on this, they have more money than the USA anyways, just stretch it out for years and years and the US govt will just go bankrupt. lol
So in reality they need to stretch the suit out two more years until reasonable people are in power in Washington. Really I see this as nothing more than the policies of irrational liberalism at work. What the suit basically is saying is that a company has no right to set the price of a product, which is assinine. You have to wonder if these government lawyers really expect the publishers to go under due to Amazon selling at a loss.
I know this goes against the common liberal belief but companies must make money to stay in business. You can't do that if one of you business partners has the power to sell your product at a complete loss siphoning sales from all profitable channels.
It doesn't matter who or where the loss is the above equation is true.
A service or product cannot continue longer term at a loss.
This is definitely not true.
A retailer cannot continue long term at a loss on the macroscopic level. Any particular product or service can continue to be sold at a loss indefinitely. For instance a gas station that has a large number of customers buying stuff like candy inside the store can sell gas at a loss forever, as long as that internal foot traffic continues. Or an insurance company can sell homeowners insurance at a loss in order to get people in the door to talk to them about larger financial planning services where they make the large profits.
Comments
So in what market did Apple use their dominance to gain advantage in the ebook business? Apple came to the tablet business with the iPad with zero market share at the same time they announce their entry into the ebook business.
I think we've got a NEW CONCEPT HERE: Preemptive Monopoly Busting!
Kind of strange since our justice department is mostly useless as far as protecting us from oil spills, tax cheat who pay less than 2% in taxes, bankster embezzling and malfeasance, mercenaries and for profit wars, sham privatized utility companies that fix prices and only compete with different letterhead, bogus competition in access to the internet, and of course, Microsoft Windows holding back progress for over a decade with market collusion and "embrace and extend" as they stole the IP of company after company.
Of COURSE Apple is going to own this market. But obviously, Amazon has more friends in higher places and their lobbying efforts have paid off. Why use the courts when you can use a pet Senator, after all?
Why ask someone their name, when you can just get nervous and preemptively shoot them IN CASE they were planning to do something wrong?
Pre-emptive everything is the NEW justice!
I checked and the two books are not published by the ones listed in the suit. Had I found the price the same, the higher one, I would have not made the purchase and bought used paperbacks. I think maybe this is more relevant to the NYT bestseller list books, that are hot off the presses and being heavily marketed. I see that as a small subset of the published material avaliable. I rarely buy what they are trying to spoon feed to me. I guess this whole issue is more relevant to the sheep of the world.
True- the big house publishers to the masses are the ones guilty.
The eSheep are the ones suffering in their billfolds.
You're right, there was no competitive market for eBooks because Amazon had a monopoly which could be argued was illegally had and maintained as a direct result from dumping.
You could certainly argue this.
That doesn't seem to be the concern with dumping though. The concern is that once a company obtains the monopoly they will increase prices. Amazon wasn't doing this. If e-books are considered to be the same class as hardcopy books, then they might have been doing this, however it still seems that their goal was to reduce wholesale costs and not increase prices, just like Wallmart does.
Definitely an interesting case.
Lets see. I bought two books this past week. I went to iBooks and saw that they were more expensive there, than Amazon. So I bought them in Kindle format from Amazon. What is the problem here?
I'm guessing the problem is not if you could get cheaper e-books from Amazon. The problem is that the price of e-books is set by Apple. iBooks is not the biggest e-books seller but it gets the biggest or the same discount. For Amazon to be cheaper, it has to reduce its margins but will never be able to get volume discount because Apple said so.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Show me where Apple said that content owners couldn't use other digital stores to sell their music or wouldn't allow them to sell their music at a lower price or DRM free outside of the iTMS/iTS without fear of being dropped by Apple?
Bottom line: Apple never forced the content owners to use it or else.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
I don't see the equivalence: in BOTH CASES, it's everyone else complaining about Apple.
With Music they were too low -- now everyone has benefitted from standardized contracts (or at least MORE standardized) and Amazon sells things cheaper. Apple CREATED the market that was nothing but illegal MP3 swapping before they arrived to provide an electronic service that internet users would actually pay for.
With Books, they entered the market LATE -- now everyone is complaining they charge MORE? Regardless of how everyone here went Ballistic -- it's once again, the industry trying to force a pricing model on Apple, and in this case, they aren't even the big dog.
Let's at least wait for them to have over 50% of the market before we bust the "collusion and monopoly" of their eBook market.
I want cheaper books -- and I don't plan on buying ANY books at these prices from Apple.
it's once again, the industry trying to force a pricing model on Apple, and in this case, they aren't even the big dog.
Unfortunately they are in mindshare so that means asshats around the world start getting excited to see Apple fail at something regardless of how this helped the publishing industry and therefore consumers or how it allows Amazon to create longterm damage on the publishing world... so long as Apple gets knocked down a peg.
Debt is a resource because if we default on ours, the world economy collapses.
You can say the same for oil. Hence, debt is a resource.
What a great method of defining words!
Love makes the world go around.
You can say the same thing about angular momentum. Hence, Love is a physical property of the universe.
You can say the same thing about electric charge. Hence, Love has voltage and current.
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
You're right about one thing, many people seem not to comprehend the issue, and you're one of the ones who doesn't. (Actually, you do, you're just pretending not to.)
The issue is that Amazon is leveraging its dominance in online retailing generally, and traditional book selling particularly, to completely control the e-book market, drive other e-book, and traditional, booksellers out of business, and establish complete control of the publishing industry. In other words, to create a market where Amazon is the only place you can buy or sell books, eventually allowing Amazon to dictate price at both ends.
Amazon's primary goal is to use e-book dumping as a means to drive other booksellers out of business. Their secondary goal is to establish hegemony over publishers that will allow them to control what they have to pay publishers for books, and even to control what books get published at all. (If Amazon doesn't want to sell it, once they are the only game in town, there won't be any reason for the publisher to "print" it.)
It's particularly hypocritical of posters like Asherian, who have come here time after time disparaging Apple's "walled garden" on, among other pretexts, that Apple effectively engages in censorship, and lauding Google's (pretended) "openness" as the key to our salvation, to come here and argue that Apple is in the wrong for taking a course that promotes free and open markets in publishing and that Amazon is an innocent lamb when clearly their intent is to establish de facto control of an entire industry.
It's inconsistencies like this that show who's here for honest discussion and who's here with an agenda that doesn't depend on honesty.
Agency model would simply means publisher finally gets to set the own god damn price!!!!
Instead of losing money because Amazon couldn't care less!
...Apple's alleged role in convincing e-book publishers to switch to an "agency model" for sales, rather than the "wholesale model" that Amazon had implemented with its own Kindle store.
Can someone explain to me the difference between these two, since AI did not? I see differing things in these threads that seem confusing.
What a great method of defining words!
Love makes the world go around.
You can say the same thing about angular momentum. Hence, Love is a physical property of the universe.
You can say the same thing about electric charge. Hence, Love has voltage and current.
Yes, let's get rid of the site's emoticons. They're distracting and detract from the message in the post.
Never mind that people can't parse satire without them.
LOL, Monopoly of what?
Agency model would simply means publisher finally gets to set the own god damn price!!!!
Instead of losing money because Amazon couldn't care less!
Publishers weren't losing money. Amazon was losing money.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Many musicians and record labels were against iTunes selling single songs at $0.99.
They wanted a minimum of $1.29
And from an artistic effort, one song did not an album make; the whole album was the 'picture'.
But a bigger problem was the ease of coping & downloading songs for free.
In the end, the record companies & artists caved because .99 was better than nothing!
But in the iBook case, it's not the same...not even close.
It's very clear that Apple needed an edge to quash Amazon's business model.
But unlike the iTunes model, Apple & the Publishers win at the expense of the customer...and Amazon. And that's really what this all about: beat Amazon at the expense of the customer.
losing money = bad business model
It doesn't matter who or where the loss is the above equation is true.
A service or product cannot continue longer term at a loss.
Apple should fight the US Justice department in court on this, they have more money than the USA anyways, just stretch it out for years and years and the US govt will just go bankrupt. lol
So in reality they need to stretch the suit out two more years until reasonable people are in power in Washington. Really I see this as nothing more than the policies of irrational liberalism at work. What the suit basically is saying is that a company has no right to set the price of a product, which is assinine. You have to wonder if these government lawyers really expect the publishers to go under due to Amazon selling at a loss.
I know this goes against the common liberal belief but companies must make money to stay in business. You can't do that if one of you business partners has the power to sell your product at a complete loss siphoning sales from all profitable channels.
Debt is a resource because if we default on ours, the world economy collapses.
You can say the same for oil. Hence, debt is a resource.
A LITTLE debt isn't. Like we can grow rice in the US. But it's not prevalent enough to really be considered a staple. But elsewhere in the world?
Credit is the resource, and debt is evidence of its use. To use your oil example, credit:oil as debt:CO2
If debt was the resource, then we could become richer at no cost by just printing more money/debt. Doesn't work.
Very simple.
losing money = bad business model
It doesn't matter who or where the loss is the above equation is true.
A service or product cannot continue longer term at a loss.
This is definitely not true.
A retailer cannot continue long term at a loss on the macroscopic level. Any particular product or service can continue to be sold at a loss indefinitely. For instance a gas station that has a large number of customers buying stuff like candy inside the store can sell gas at a loss forever, as long as that internal foot traffic continues. Or an insurance company can sell homeowners insurance at a loss in order to get people in the door to talk to them about larger financial planning services where they make the large profits.
This happens all the time, everywhere.