or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by freckledbruh

I work for the largest cable provider in the US in the advertising division (we sell the air time to different companies large and small) and you are correct.  We are not allowed to share subscriber user data to anyone and there is NO way Google can just "add Android" to the boxes.   As for viewer tracking and advertising, we use Nielsen, Scarborough and Simmons (all third party data collectors who use diaries, surveys and their own separate boxes).  We don't use Rentrack...
I responded to this post initially where it seemed to me that you were stating that the ceiling was the floor as a fact with the intent being the only thing in question.
Where did you get this from?
As you have just stated, that is a CLAIM not a FACT and nothing quoted in the brief from the defendants supports that claim. If the DoJ presents evidence from the discovery phase that does, then and only then can you state that the ceiling is also the floor. Here is a scenario where that would not be the case even with the argued agreements. A publisher has a new Stephen King book and sets the price at $14.99 (which is the ceiling). Said publisher also has signed a new...
You are misreading it. Those price points were discussed as MAXIMUM prices. Nowhere in that link does it state that those prices would be the lowest price point and going through the Amazon and Apple's respective stores proves that. The issue (IMO) is that the publishers came up with that ceiling ($14.99) together and strong armed BOTH Apple and Amazon to accept those terms. Each publisher could have come up with its own ceiling separately but chose not to.
Then you should have said that the DoJ asserts this as opposed to saying it as fact. Also, I wouldn't assume that the DoJ has the evidence at hand as much as the DoJ is making the assertion and will try to find hard evidence of that fact after the discovery phase. ETA: The "one thing to note" section in your link only asserts that Apple agreed for the CEILING to be $14.99 instead of $12.99.
Gator, based on your link THAT IS NOT TRUE. Apple said that it would like to sell the publishers' ebooks as long as the price is BELOW $12.99. If the publishers sold them at 0.99, Apple wouldn't care and would do it. If you are going to make that assertion then at least say that the PUBLISHERS made it the floor (which is STILL untrue because you can find plenty of ebooks for less than that).
True and you have been consistent in that position.
1) Thanks! So basically the settled publishers must nullify ALL contracts and start anew with wholesale model. Well, if the pricing results in the way you propose, I will change my mind when iPad sales drop (which I doubt). 2) You said store and not iBookstore. Apple had a store for music looong before the Kindle and selling ebooks is simply a natural extension of the music and app store. 3) Losses on content would be MUCH less than losses on hardware so I don't see...
Yes. I actually would like a link. It makes no sense to dissolve Apple's contract and not Amazon's contract. And if BOTH contracts were dissolved, the prior contract with Amazon doesn't automatically go into place AFAIK.Errr, Apple had a store loooong before the Kindle. Also, Apple would not need to compete on content price since: 1) it already did in music (and lost!) but still sold more, 2) ebooks wasn't/isn't a big selling factor for the iPad (again, if you or...
New Posts  All Forums: