or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Pendergast

  I don't know what your original point was; his words aren't damning. They could either mean that he knew the prices were going up, or that the prices simply would be the same (MFN clause), either higher or lower.
  You fixed it wrong.   Individually, a manufacturer has the right to set the price, and force the retailer to sell at that price.   Not illegal.   What can be illegal is collusion. The reason being is it can effectively create a monopolistic position, and cause just as much harm.   You are arguing semantics.   The WHOLE thing ALWAYS boils down to "restraint of trade", and is often caused by an abuse of market power. Individually, each publisher could not "restrain...
  The manufacturer's ability to set the price that the retailer sells it at (price fixing) is NOT illegal.   That's not the issue here, either.   It's all about collusion. Each individual publisher may not have a monopoly, but by colluding together they would have monopolistic power and could abuse the market. In that case, said price fixing could be considered an abuse, and therefore illegal.   Apple is being accused of facilitating the conspiracy, and thus also guilty.
  In the allegation, Apple is not the monopoly... it's the PUBLISHERS who, by colluding together, that form a monopoly, and then abused their market power. Allegedly.    In the DoJ's case, to put in simpler terms, Apple is being accused of at least being the bank robber's getaway car-driver, or even the mastermind. Not the actual robbers, but still a part of it.    As I've read it, that's the case they're basically trying to make.
    From a political standpoint, it sounds better for the DoJ to be targeting "big bad Apple" who raised prices with their "Apple tax", than to target Amazon's low prices. That sounds better, right? It's shortsighted, but sounds better. And that's politics for you.
  Yep.   Their main problem is lack of cash for content deals. 
LOL at Netflix's cash flow per account.   I wish Apple would by a stake of Netflix (basically buying blue sky and mind share, that's all the stock's trading on anyway) and bankroll it.    Netflix also needs a tiered pricing strategy, say charging $12.99 for PREMIUM access to their best shows, or something similar. It's way too cheap. And the regular account needs to be $9.99... you think the mental difference between $7.99 and $9.99 is that big? Maybe it would...
  Price fixing is not illegal.   Ugh.   Apple is not accused of price fixing, they're accused of price fixing AND collusion with the major publishers, thus causing a monopolistic position and an abuse of market power.
  Your entire post is untrue, manufacturers CAN set the prices their retailers sell at, as recently determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.    Also, that's what the agency model is: the publisher sets the price. Nothing illegal.   What would be illegal if all the big name publishers got together secretly and agreed to ALL raise their prices. Combined, they have monopolistic power, and raising prices as a collective would be an abuse of market power.   Apple is being accused...
  Price fixing isn't illegal, in and of itself.   The issue is whether the major publishers CONSPIRED TOGETHER to fix their prices (which they likely did, given they settled), and, if so, whether Apple was the instigator of said conspiracy.   For example:   Scenario #1: Apple approaches Publisher A, who has 20% market share, about the agency model. Publisher A agrees, and fixes the selling price at $12.99, and agrees not to allow it to be sold cheaper anywhere else under...
New Posts  All Forums: