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.
Amazon e-books were profitable for the publishers---Amazon's loss was not effecting their wholesale costs. They are more worried about protecting their legacy, hardcopy market, where they have lots of control through limited supply.
How can this possibly be an anti-trust issue. Apple let the seller of the product set their own selling price!!!!! There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Meanwhile Amazon sells products at a loss and put major book sellers out of business - they took out competitors. Seems like that is the very definition of anti-competitive. Fight them tooth and nail Apple! Since when is buying products below cost a consumer right?
This is the point most people do not realize what Amazon did to Boarders and now putting the squeeze on Barns and Noble, plus all the mom and pop book stores. So it okay for one company to to us VC money to give away product and almost wipe out ever competitor but god forbid a company comes along and changes the model so everyone can make money.
There has to more to this, since the government can not be saying it is illegal for a seller of a product to set the selling price they want. If it too high people will stop buying that is how the systems works.
I personally think the government does not like when one company has too much power, and trust me the government will win some how even if their originally reason is not valid they will do things to apple to force them to change. They did it Microsoft that is why M$ is a mess today, the government tied their hands.
I know many people here are Apple fans...but look at this objectively.
You are wrong. Many people here are not "only" Apple fans, they are Apple shareholders and the only thing that matters to them is that Apple stock goes higher and higher! They are not drive by objectivity but by pure GREED! It's just disgusting! Sometimes this site makes me NOT want to buy Apple products anymore.
And by the way, I will NEVER buy an ebook from Apple!
Monopoly abuse is using dominance in one market to gain an advantage in another. Apple is clearly guilty of that in forcing changes to Amazon's contracts with publishers.
The question of what is right is secondary.
In fact it isn't even a strong player. In any event the advantage here isn't to Apple but rather the publishers. It really is sink or swim time for the publishers and the reality is they won't survive if they have to sell wholesale to a retailer like Amazon that then sells books for a loss.
The problem is Amazons success here really pulled a lot of profit out of selling books. If anybody was using monopoly power here it was Amazon as they made it impossible for anybody else to successfully enter the business. If you don't think this is the case look at the number of book sellers that have gone under in the last few years, especially local sellers.
Apple snubs its nose at the DOJ just like Capone snubbed his nose at the IRS. Interesting to see where this goes. Once the government starts going down the rabbit hole, no one knows how deep it may go.
In fact it isn't even a strong player. In any event the advantage here isn't to Apple but rather the publishers. It really is sink or swim time for the publishers and the reality is they won't survive if they have to sell wholesale to a retailer like Amazon that then sells books for a loss.
The problem is Amazons success here really pulled a lot of profit out of selling books. If anybody was using monopoly power here it was Amazon as they made it impossible for anybody else to successfully enter the business. If you don't think this is the case look at the number of book sellers that have gone under in the last few years, especially local sellers.
Funny thing is this has nothing to do with Amazon right now, why bring it up? It may in the future, but this is about Apple and Apple's collusion with publishers.
Amazon e-books were profitable for the publishers---Amazon's loss was not effecting their wholesale costs. They are more worried about protecting their legacy, hardcopy market, where they have lots of control through limited supply.
Actually it was more to than that, Amazon disrupted the market, yeah the price the publishers sold to Amazon and probably other book sellers was the same. However when Amazon started giving it away the other books seller could not compete, and they all probably assume Amazon was getting better deals. They probably were in some cases since we know the publishing industry has a bad habit of over producing books since it cheaper to run larger production runs than smaller so when a publisher is sitting on books Amazon probably agree to take them all off their hands.
So if Amazon is giving books away and people stop going to the book store down the street, in turn they stop ordering books from the publisher since they're piss at the publisher for giving Amazon better deals which in turn make the publisher sit on even more books to sell them at even better pricing to Amazon.
Our government is probably pissed that Amazon will no long be able to sell books as lost leaders Which is also against trade laws, it is illegal to sell product below it cost to gain market share as well as it illegal to sell product to the government below costs, so why doesn't our government go after Amazon for this practice.
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.
The part that doesn't add up here is that the books are already being sold to Amazon at wholesale prices. I'm sure they give Amazon a better deal than a distributor who doesn't sell as many copies, but they are still selling the books to Amazon at a reasonable price for themselves. If their deal w/Amazon had them selling the books for less than they could afford, they did a bad job at the bargaining table. Once Amazon has the books, the publishers already have their money, so Amazon selling them cheaper changes nothing. They already got paid for those books.
I know many people here are Apple fans...but look at this objectively.
Since Apple's price fixing with publishers (and make no mistake, that's what the "minimum book price" is exactly), the cost of new novels for eBooks has gone up from $9.99 to nearly $20. It is literally cheaper for me to go to the local brick & mortar store and buy a brand new hardcover than to download an eBook.
There's nothing wrong with Apple's agency model. The problem is with them mandating a minimum (high) book price that no one can undercut. That, quite literally, eliminates competition.
If Google or Amazon did this, the lot of you would be screaming bloody murder. Time for some objectivity, no?
I agree. Let's have some objectivity. Please tell us what law you think Apple has broken. Furthermore, you keep claiming that Apple is price fixing. Explain how "sell it for any price you wish, just give us 30%" is price fixing. I'd also like to see your evidence of collusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
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.
As you've been told before, the courts have consistently upheld 'most favored nation' clauses in contracts. There's nothing illegal about it.
So, once again, please point out exactly which part of which law Apple has violated.
Actually it was more to than that, Amazon disrupted the market, yeah the price the publishers sold to Amazon and probably other book sellers was the same. However when Amazon started giving it away the other books seller could not compete, and they all probably assume Amazon was getting better deals. They probably were in some cases since we know the publishing industry has a bad habit of over producing books since it cheaper to run larger production runs than smaller so when a publisher is sitting on books Amazon probably agree to take them all off their hands.
So if Amazon is giving books away and people stop going to the book store down the street, in turn they stop ordering books from the publisher since they're piss at the publisher for giving Amazon better deals which in turn make the publisher sit on even more books to sell them at even better pricing to Amazon.
Our government is probably pissed that Amazon will no long be able to sell books as lost leaders Which is also against trade laws, it is illegal to sell product below it cost to gain market share as well as it illegal to sell product to the government below costs, so why doesn't our government go after Amazon for this practice.
Amazon e-books were profitable for the publishers---Amazon's loss was not effecting their wholesale costs. They are more worried about protecting their legacy, hardcopy market, where they have lots of control through limited supply.
In a way this is exactly the point, Amazon effectively whipped out most of the local and national book retailers. This took out of the equation profit sources for the publishers. I really have a hard time grasping why people don't see Amazon as the problem here. They spent years selling at a loss, to destroy business big and small, if that isn't monopoly power than I don't know what is.
Now granted the whole publishing industry is changing due to electronic media. This is a good thing no doubt, but here is the problem publishers are still a functional part of producing and promoting a book. Sure the industry has to change to reflect the reality of electronics, but there still has to be a resource for writers to work with. Thus there is a need for profits.
In the end the Apple model will be better for authors and readers. My daughter is finishing up her first book. Under a traditional publishing model she might get a 15% royalty for each copy sold. So to make $1.50 per book she would have to sell it for $10. A hardcover would net more bucks if sold for $20 plus but few authors get hardcover deals. Under the old Amazon ebook model going through a traditional publisher, or by herself via ebook or print on demand, she would still have to sell for $10 per book to make her $1.50. Under the Apple model and the system Amazon was forced to go to, to make the same $1.50 per book she could sell an ebook for $2.25. A new author is going to have trouble selling a lot of books, but I would more likely buy a book for $2 or $4 bucks if it had a at least some positive comments/reviews than spend $9.99. So the reader gets to read cheaper and the author get a higher profit for each book sold. Name brand authors going through major publishers are still going to make more money, at least with good contract negotiation, with slightly lower retail pricing. My daughter still has to invest her time in writing, plus pay for editing and cover art, etc. so in the end she may or may not make a profit, but the new pricing model does give her a better chance.
As far as Apple being in violation of some price fixing law or another. Who really knows, those laws are so convoluted and arcane, I could probably be convicted of it for just buying books. I expect the publishers that have already settled figured whatever penalties they owed or business practices they would have to change were less expensive than trying to fight the suit. Apple may also settle as they do not waste money, but on the other hand they do have enough cash for a very expensive defense that many publishers do not have.
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 not quite correct. This assumption is flawed: "All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less"
There is a very important distinction here. Apple did NOT ask the publishers to set a price for other stores nor did they make a demand that they never sell it for less, the ONLY thing they asked was permission to match any price that undercut the agreed upon agency price. This very clearly puts the responsibility on the publishers as to what terms and conditions they decide to offer other retailers. This is a clearcut case of the publishers being at fault, but Apple negotiating in good faith and within the law.
Nonsense. Apple said, "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too." Therefore they were saying they could sell lower too. NOT "no one can sell lower". The publishers saw that Amazon was actually ruining their business and that of their other customers by commoditizing their products and driving prices way down below cost to the detriment of the industry.
Not correct as I understand it. Of course Apple had the right to match Amazon's pricing or not before the agency model was put into effect. The change now is that Amazon cannot sell for less that Apple, which is being construed as price-fixing.
According to the DoJ, Apple conspired with the 5 largest publishers to make sure Amazon could not buy books from them unless Amazon agreed that Apple's prices were the minimum acceptable.
That's the issue, not that Apple wanted the right to match Amazon pricing. You have it backwards.
There is a very important distinction here. Apple did NOT ask the publishers to set a price for other stores nor did they make a demand that they never sell it for less, the ONLY thing they asked was permission to match any price that undercut the agreed upon agency price. This very clearly puts the responsibility on the publishers as to what terms and conditions they decide to offer other retailers. This is a clearcut case of the publishers being at fault, but Apple negotiating in good faith and within the law.
That's the way I see it.
I expect the result of this suit will be Apple getting control over eBook prices. How will ever they survive having more control than they have now?¡
Comments
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.
Amazon e-books were profitable for the publishers---Amazon's loss was not effecting their wholesale costs. They are more worried about protecting their legacy, hardcopy market, where they have lots of control through limited supply.
How can this possibly be an anti-trust issue. Apple let the seller of the product set their own selling price!!!!! There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Meanwhile Amazon sells products at a loss and put major book sellers out of business - they took out competitors. Seems like that is the very definition of anti-competitive. Fight them tooth and nail Apple! Since when is buying products below cost a consumer right?
This is the point most people do not realize what Amazon did to Boarders and now putting the squeeze on Barns and Noble, plus all the mom and pop book stores. So it okay for one company to to us VC money to give away product and almost wipe out ever competitor but god forbid a company comes along and changes the model so everyone can make money.
There has to more to this, since the government can not be saying it is illegal for a seller of a product to set the selling price they want. If it too high people will stop buying that is how the systems works.
I personally think the government does not like when one company has too much power, and trust me the government will win some how even if their originally reason is not valid they will do things to apple to force them to change. They did it Microsoft that is why M$ is a mess today, the government tied their hands.
I know many people here are Apple fans...but look at this objectively.
You are wrong. Many people here are not "only" Apple fans, they are Apple shareholders and the only thing that matters to them is that Apple stock goes higher and higher! They are not drive by objectivity but by pure GREED! It's just disgusting! Sometimes this site makes me NOT want to buy Apple products anymore.
And by the way, I will NEVER buy an ebook from Apple!
Monopoly abuse is using dominance in one market to gain an advantage in another. Apple is clearly guilty of that in forcing changes to Amazon's contracts with publishers.
The question of what is right is secondary.
In fact it isn't even a strong player. In any event the advantage here isn't to Apple but rather the publishers. It really is sink or swim time for the publishers and the reality is they won't survive if they have to sell wholesale to a retailer like Amazon that then sells books for a loss.
The problem is Amazons success here really pulled a lot of profit out of selling books. If anybody was using monopoly power here it was Amazon as they made it impossible for anybody else to successfully enter the business. If you don't think this is the case look at the number of book sellers that have gone under in the last few years, especially local sellers.
In fact it isn't even a strong player. In any event the advantage here isn't to Apple but rather the publishers. It really is sink or swim time for the publishers and the reality is they won't survive if they have to sell wholesale to a retailer like Amazon that then sells books for a loss.
The problem is Amazons success here really pulled a lot of profit out of selling books. If anybody was using monopoly power here it was Amazon as they made it impossible for anybody else to successfully enter the business. If you don't think this is the case look at the number of book sellers that have gone under in the last few years, especially local sellers.
Funny thing is this has nothing to do with Amazon right now, why bring it up? It may in the future, but this is about Apple and Apple's collusion with publishers.
Amazon e-books were profitable for the publishers---Amazon's loss was not effecting their wholesale costs. They are more worried about protecting their legacy, hardcopy market, where they have lots of control through limited supply.
Actually it was more to than that, Amazon disrupted the market, yeah the price the publishers sold to Amazon and probably other book sellers was the same. However when Amazon started giving it away the other books seller could not compete, and they all probably assume Amazon was getting better deals. They probably were in some cases since we know the publishing industry has a bad habit of over producing books since it cheaper to run larger production runs than smaller so when a publisher is sitting on books Amazon probably agree to take them all off their hands.
So if Amazon is giving books away and people stop going to the book store down the street, in turn they stop ordering books from the publisher since they're piss at the publisher for giving Amazon better deals which in turn make the publisher sit on even more books to sell them at even better pricing to Amazon.
Our government is probably pissed that Amazon will no long be able to sell books as lost leaders Which is also against trade laws, it is illegal to sell product below it cost to gain market share as well as it illegal to sell product to the government below costs, so why doesn't our government go after Amazon for this practice.
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.
The part that doesn't add up here is that the books are already being sold to Amazon at wholesale prices. I'm sure they give Amazon a better deal than a distributor who doesn't sell as many copies, but they are still selling the books to Amazon at a reasonable price for themselves. If their deal w/Amazon had them selling the books for less than they could afford, they did a bad job at the bargaining table. Once Amazon has the books, the publishers already have their money, so Amazon selling them cheaper changes nothing. They already got paid for those books.
I know many people here are Apple fans...but look at this objectively.
Since Apple's price fixing with publishers (and make no mistake, that's what the "minimum book price" is exactly), the cost of new novels for eBooks has gone up from $9.99 to nearly $20. It is literally cheaper for me to go to the local brick & mortar store and buy a brand new hardcover than to download an eBook.
There's nothing wrong with Apple's agency model. The problem is with them mandating a minimum (high) book price that no one can undercut. That, quite literally, eliminates competition.
If Google or Amazon did this, the lot of you would be screaming bloody murder. Time for some objectivity, no?
I agree. Let's have some objectivity. Please tell us what law you think Apple has broken. Furthermore, you keep claiming that Apple is price fixing. Explain how "sell it for any price you wish, just give us 30%" is price fixing. I'd also like to see your evidence of collusion.
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.
As you've been told before, the courts have consistently upheld 'most favored nation' clauses in contracts. There's nothing illegal about it.
So, once again, please point out exactly which part of which law Apple has violated.
And by the way, I will NEVER buy an ebook from Apple!
Awwwwww... Apple will miss you.
Actually it was more to than that, Amazon disrupted the market, yeah the price the publishers sold to Amazon and probably other book sellers was the same. However when Amazon started giving it away the other books seller could not compete, and they all probably assume Amazon was getting better deals. They probably were in some cases since we know the publishing industry has a bad habit of over producing books since it cheaper to run larger production runs than smaller so when a publisher is sitting on books Amazon probably agree to take them all off their hands.
So if Amazon is giving books away and people stop going to the book store down the street, in turn they stop ordering books from the publisher since they're piss at the publisher for giving Amazon better deals which in turn make the publisher sit on even more books to sell them at even better pricing to Amazon.
Our government is probably pissed that Amazon will no long be able to sell books as lost leaders Which is also against trade laws, it is illegal to sell product below it cost to gain market share as well as it illegal to sell product to the government below costs, so why doesn't our government go after Amazon for this practice.
Please read the quote I was replying to.
As you've been told before, the courts have consistently upheld 'most favored nation' clauses in contracts. There's nothing illegal about it.
So, once again, please point out exactly which part of which law Apple has violated.
You missed the part where he doesn't understand how the Agency Model works.
He/she actually believes that other retailers can't sell their stock for less than Apple.
[on edit: my mistake, the wholesaler actually does set the retail price]
Never mind that people can't parse satire without them.
The guy can't parse. Period.
This should be interesting. I'm not sure how this qualifies as antitrust against Apple since they weren't in the position of a monopoly at the time.
Then let it be a lesson to you.
Seemingly, there is no requirement that the offender be "in the position of a monopoly" for DOJ actions to "qualify as antitrust".
Antitrust is a big topic. Here's as good a place to start as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power
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.
I don't think your play on his analogy is equivalent -- try this;
WAR is a resource, because without it, lot's of war profiting companies and industries would go bankrupt.
Without the US continually making newer and more powerful weapons. all the countries we sold to might use them against us.
I might visualize a Hamster wheel for perpetual motion on this theory...
Amazon e-books were profitable for the publishers---Amazon's loss was not effecting their wholesale costs. They are more worried about protecting their legacy, hardcopy market, where they have lots of control through limited supply.
In a way this is exactly the point, Amazon effectively whipped out most of the local and national book retailers. This took out of the equation profit sources for the publishers. I really have a hard time grasping why people don't see Amazon as the problem here. They spent years selling at a loss, to destroy business big and small, if that isn't monopoly power than I don't know what is.
Now granted the whole publishing industry is changing due to electronic media. This is a good thing no doubt, but here is the problem publishers are still a functional part of producing and promoting a book. Sure the industry has to change to reflect the reality of electronics, but there still has to be a resource for writers to work with. Thus there is a need for profits.
As far as Apple being in violation of some price fixing law or another. Who really knows, those laws are so convoluted and arcane, I could probably be convicted of it for just buying books. I expect the publishers that have already settled figured whatever penalties they owed or business practices they would have to change were less expensive than trying to fight the suit. Apple may also settle as they do not waste money, but on the other hand they do have enough cash for a very expensive defense that many publishers do not have.
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 not quite correct. This assumption is flawed: "All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less"
There is a very important distinction here. Apple did NOT ask the publishers to set a price for other stores nor did they make a demand that they never sell it for less, the ONLY thing they asked was permission to match any price that undercut the agreed upon agency price. This very clearly puts the responsibility on the publishers as to what terms and conditions they decide to offer other retailers. This is a clearcut case of the publishers being at fault, but Apple negotiating in good faith and within the law.
Nonsense. Apple said, "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too." Therefore they were saying they could sell lower too. NOT "no one can sell lower". The publishers saw that Amazon was actually ruining their business and that of their other customers by commoditizing their products and driving prices way down below cost to the detriment of the industry.
Not correct as I understand it. Of course Apple had the right to match Amazon's pricing or not before the agency model was put into effect. The change now is that Amazon cannot sell for less that Apple, which is being construed as price-fixing.
According to the DoJ, Apple conspired with the 5 largest publishers to make sure Amazon could not buy books from them unless Amazon agreed that Apple's prices were the minimum acceptable.
That's the issue, not that Apple wanted the right to match Amazon pricing. You have it backwards.
There is a very important distinction here. Apple did NOT ask the publishers to set a price for other stores nor did they make a demand that they never sell it for less, the ONLY thing they asked was permission to match any price that undercut the agreed upon agency price. This very clearly puts the responsibility on the publishers as to what terms and conditions they decide to offer other retailers. This is a clearcut case of the publishers being at fault, but Apple negotiating in good faith and within the law.
That's the way I see it.
I expect the result of this suit will be Apple getting control over eBook prices. How will ever they survive having more control than they have now?¡