AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US government files antitrust suit against Apple over e-book pricing [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US government files antitrust suit against Apple over e-book pricing [u] - Page 4

post #121 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrStylz View Post

We can disagree on that point. I believe each major vendor will be just fine in 3 years. Amazon is by no means the monopoly nor single choice in ebooks. I believe that when there is competition, the consumers will be the ultimate winners.

Amazon was halted in its tracks by the Agency model and yet still maintains an 80% share of the ebook market (figures vary but every one that I have seen puts Amazon above the 75% level that courts view as a monopoly).

If publishers are forced back to the Wholesale model, Amazon will be re-energized and I can see it viciously regaining any ground that it has lost.

I'll copy your comment for future use.
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
post #122 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

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.

That's not exactly true. According to Steve Jobs the terms were that if the publishers sold their content for less to others, then Apple retained the right to also sell the book for the same price.

Your wording makes it seem like Apple was controlling the price, when in fact they weren't at all. They were making sure that their fairly large affluent user base wouldn't be unfairly gouged by the publishers. (And by affluent, I mean, willing to spend money.)

Apple's commerce model has ALWAYS been 30% (unless the content is free, then it's 0%), they don't care about price. What they do care about more than any other company, are their users and making sure they aren't being abused and taken advantage of.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #123 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:25am
A partial update on the governments assertions so far, courtesy of the WSJ:

"The suit alleges that the publishers' chief executives met starting in September 2008 or earlier "in private dining rooms of upscale Manhattan restaurants" and "no legal counsel was present at any of these meetings."

It also describes how Apple executives worked with the publishers in late 2009 and early 2010, as the iPad launch approached, to fine-tune the new pricing model. In January 2010, each of the five publishers "entered into a functionally identical agency contract with Apple that would go into effect simultaneously in April 2010," the Justice Department said.

The government said publishers "regularly communicated" to "exchange sensitive information and assurances of solidarity." They "took steps to conceal their communications with one another, including instructions to 'double delete' e-mail and taking other measures to avoid leaving a paper trail," the government said."

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #124 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Apple has no right to control what prices a supplier provides to other customers. If they want a supplier to be exclusive, fine. However, Apple should not be able to interfere with other supplier contracts.

Apple isn't interfering with other supplier contracts.

This is how it works:

- Publisher sells book to Apple for sale on iBooks.
- Publisher sets retail price at $16.99
- Apple sells the book for $16.99
- Publisher also sells book to Amazon for sale as an eBook.
- Publisher sets retail price at $16.99
- Amazon sells the book for $9.99
- Apple's contract with the publisher allows Apple to also sell the book at $9.99 if they choose to.

The question is, is it illegal for Apple to match the price Amazon is selling the same book for.

I don't see anything at all wrong with this set up.

Another scenario:

- Publisher sells book to Apple for sale on iBooks.
- Publisher sets retail price at $16.99
- Apple sells the book for $16.99
- Publisher also sells book to Amazon for sale as an eBook.
- Publisher sets retail price at $9.99
- Amazon sells the book for $9.99
- Apple's contract with the publisher allows Apple to also sell the book at $9.99 if they choose to

The question here is, is it legal for Apple to go ignore the agreed price of $16.99 and match Amazon's price.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with this set up.

In both scenarios no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Publisher decides price and seller has option to sell at a loss if they so choose. What's the problem?
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:28am
I honestly don't get this at all. Book prices should be fixed by the publisher, just like software prices. If you charge less then the publisher should be able to pull your distributor license. It serves a publisher no good to have distributors fighting each other over price (just devalues their IP as companies try to undercut each other.)

What exactly is the government accusing apple of? Apple came up with a better model then Amazon, publishers agreed, and now publishers want Amazon to do the same thing. How is that Apple's fault? On the other hand, if publishers didn't like the apple method and preferred amazon's, then why did they sign the agreement they did with apple?

Seems to me publishers are the ones at fault for not making up their minds.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

That's not exactly true. According to Steve Jobs the terms were that if the publishers sold their content for less to others, then Apple retained the right to also sell the book for the same price.

Your wording makes it seem like Apple was controlling the price, when in fact they weren't at all. They were making sure that their fairly large affluent user base wouldn't be unfairly gouged by the publishers. (And by affluent, I mean, willing to spend money.)

Apple's commerce model has ALWAYS been 30% (unless the content is free, then it's 0%), they don't care about price. What they do care about more than any other company, are their users and making sure they aren't being abused and taken advantage of.

sure...

The problem is that, in this agency model, Apple has no intrinsic control of the prices on the iTunes store, however the public doesn't understand this. The clause is to protect Apple and the iTunes store so that it doesn't look bad when wholesale retailers, who do control their prices, lower them. It's purely about PR and the ultimate success of the store, and is basically necessary for the agency model to coexist with other retailers employing a wholesale model.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

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

Yes and no. Apple should fight if they are told they must use wholesale not agency pricing. They should have the right to set such terms for their deals

But anything about restricting pricing on deals with other stores like favored nation terms or saying a publisher has to use Apples terms outside of Apple should be a big hell no. THAT is antitrust type behavior. If the publishers demand agency from Amazon or set the same price everywhere on their own it's not
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

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

Apple challenging the DoJ is actually going to allow the DoJ to investigate Amazon during its facts of finding. This allows the DoJ to verify both positions and later determined if it wants to withdraw or not.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A partial update on the governments assertions so far, courtesy of the WSJ:

"The suit alleges that the publishers' chief executives met starting in September 2008 or earlier "in private dining rooms of upscale Manhattan restaurants" and "no legal counsel was present at any of these meetings."

It also describes how Apple executives worked with the publishers in late 2009 and early 2010, as the iPad launch approached, to fine-tune the new pricing model. In January 2010, each of the five publishers "entered into a functionally identical agency contract with Apple that would go into effect simultaneously in April 2010," the Justice Department said.

The government said publishers "regularly communicated" to "exchange sensitive information and assurances of solidarity." They "took steps to conceal their communications with one another, including instructions to 'double delete' e-mail and taking other measures to avoid leaving a paper trail," the government said."

In short, this case is actually a case against the Publishers ``colluding'' with one another and they need to investigate Apple to find this out.
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post

Apple isn't interfering with other supplier contracts.

This is how it works:

- Publisher sells book to Apple for sale on iBooks.
- Publisher sets retail price at $16.99
- Apple sells the book for $16.99
- Publisher also sells book to Amazon for sale as an eBook.
- Publisher sets retail price at $16.99
- Amazon sells the book for $9.99
- Apple's contract with the publisher allows Apple to also sell the book at $9.99 if they choose to.

The question is, is it illegal for Apple to match the price Amazon is selling the same book for.

I don't see anything at all wrong with this set up.

Another scenario:

- Publisher sells book to Apple for sale on iBooks.
- Publisher sets retail price at $16.99
- Apple sells the book for $16.99
- Publisher also sells book to Amazon for sale as an eBook.
- Publisher sets retail price at $9.99
- Amazon sells the book for $9.99
- Apple's contract with the publisher allows Apple to also sell the book at $9.99 if they choose to

The question here is, is it legal for Apple to go ignore the agreed price of $16.99 and match Amazon's price.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with this set up.

In both scenarios no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Publisher decides price and seller has option to sell at a loss if they so choose. What's the problem?

How about this scenario.

-Publisher sells book to Apple for $11.90
-Publisher has retail price set at $16.99
-Apple sells book at $16.99
-Publisher sells book to Amazon for $11.90
-Publisher has retail price set at $16.99
-Amazon wishes to sell said book for $15.99
-Per the publisher they aren't allowed to undercut the price. Apple's price is as low as permitted.

In other words your first scenario could not happen under the agency pricing model. If Apple is selling books at the publisher's minimum retail price, it's Amazon and every other competitor who are restricted from undercutting Apple's price which is also the publisher's price.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #131 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:42am
The DOJ complaint is awesome, and should be required reading before posting. My favorite passage so far

Quote:
6. Apple facilitated the Publisher Defendants' collective effort to end retail price competition by coordinating their transition to an agency model across all retailers. Apple clearly understood that its participation in this scheme would result in higher prices to consumers. As Apple CEO Steve Jobs described his company's strategy for negotiating with the Publisher Defendants, "We'll go to [an] agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway." Apple was perfectly willing to help the Publisher Defendants obtain their objective of higher prices for consumers by ending Amazon's "$9.99" price program aslong as Apple was guaranteed its 30 percent margin and could avoid retail price competition from Amazon.

I love my Apple products, but if this stuff pans out...
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

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 could be right, but I didn't get that sense. I got, "Hey, if Amazon sells a book for $7.99 that we have for $9.99? You will lower our price to $7.99"
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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

So, if I owe a million dollars, I'm in trouble .... But if I owe a billion dollars, the bank is in trouble ........ And this is right, how? "Interesting" financial system you have there. \

Newbee says:  Using a Mac "inspires" you, using all others just ... tires you.  

Reply

Newbee says:  Using a Mac "inspires" you, using all others just ... tires you.  

Reply
post #134 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How about this scenario.

-Publisher sells book to Apple for $11.90
-Publisher has retail price set at $16.99
-Apple sells book at $16.99
-Publisher sells book to Amazon for $11.90
-Publisher has retail price set at $16.99
-Amazon wishes to sell said book for $15.99
-Per the publisher they aren't allowed to undercut the price. Apple's price is as low as permitted.

In other words your first scenario could not happen under the agency pricing model. If Apple is selling books at the publisher's minimum retail price, it's Amazon and every other competitor who are restricted from undercutting Apple's price which is also the publisher's price.

The Agency model doesn't fix prices. It's a perfectly legal and accepted way of determining a price. The question is the qualifier "... 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."

Apple isn't setting a base price. They are asking for ability to match the pricing of other sellers.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

The DOJ complaint is awesome, and should be required reading before posting.
I love my Apple products, but if this stuff pans out...

Where was Apple's BoD during all of this? Apple legal? Tim Cook?

Steve was all about bending/stretching the rules but I just can't believe that others in Apple weren't questioning this.
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
post #136 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Where was Apple's BoD during all of this? Apple legal? Tim Cook?

Steve was all about bending/stretching the rules but I just can't believe that others in Apple weren't questioning this.

I have no idea. Of course, the complaint is totally one-sided and needs to be read in that light, but man....
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:57am
Sue the government for gasoline price fixing instead.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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.

What world are you in?

The issue is with Apple and 5 publishers, not Amazon. The DoJ isn't anti-Apple.

Focus on reality, less on theatrics.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 252
4/11/12 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

The DOJ complaint is awesome, and should be required reading before posting. My favorite passage so far

I love my Apple products, but if this stuff pans out...

Now the agency model is illegal?

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #140 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

What world are you in?

The issue is with Apple and 5 publishers, not Amazon. The DoJ isn't anti-Apple.

Focus on reality, less on theatrics.

This begs the question: Why isn't the DoJ interested in Amazon using it's monopoly position to sell at a loss to keep competitors out of the market?

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #141 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post

The Agency model doesn't fix prices. It's a perfectly legal and accepted way of determining a price. The question is the qualifier "... 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."

Apple isn't setting a base price. They are asking for ability to match the pricing of other sellers.

No Apple did not set the base price. That was the publishers. The guarantee that Apple reportedly worked out with those 5 publishers spelled out that Amazon couldn't set their own prices either. If Apple sold their books at the publisher's retail price, assuring a 30% profit rather than getting even greedier and selling above retail, they were guaranteed not to have a worry that Amazon might sell at a lower price.

It wasn't that Apple wanted the ability to match Amazon's low prices. They wanted a guarantee that they didn't have to compete with Amazon on prices...

according to reports.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #142 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Thanks for that. That's the distinction that I didn't quite understand.

It is a purely academic distinction.

The combination of the agency model and that clause ensures all stores sell for the same price. In other words, the price is fixed.

The publishers set the price, and Apple "has the right to match the price" as anyone else. The publishers then set one price, one that Apple has now guaranteed can never undercut the one given to them.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How about this scenario.

-Publisher sells book to Apple for $11.90
-Publisher has retail price set at $16.99
-Apple sells book at $16.99
-Publisher sells book to Amazon for $11.90
-Publisher has retail price set at $16.99
-Amazon wishes to sell said book for $15.99
-Per the publisher they aren't allowed to undercut the price. Apple's price is as low as permitted.

In other words your first scenario could not happen under the agency pricing model. If Apple is selling books at the publisher's minimum retail price, it's Amazon and every other competitor who are restricted from undercutting Apple's price which is also the publisher's price.


I pointed this out before, Apple does it all the time when they sell their products, no one who carries apple products are allow to sell below what apple said is the price of their products without apple agreeing to the pricing. Bose also does the exact same thing, as far as I know companies are allow to set their selling price and tell their channels what price they can sell at.

In the case of Amazon, they sell books at whatever price they like even below the cost they pay, which is illegal it is called predatory pricing. Apple never told the publisher what pricing they need to sell at, only that apple would be guaranty 30% profits on the sale and their selling price would not be any higher than any other competitor.

All this does is not allow lost leader pricing, since we know not all Amazon books are below cost, they just put a few out there at low pricing and hope users will buy the other things at the higher pricing.

In the end, Amazon like the Cell phone companies devalued the product, people now thing a cell phone is free and book only cost $7.99 when they really cost $16.99.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It wasn't that Apple wanted the ability to match Amazon's low prices. They wanted a guarantee that they didn't have to compete with Amazon on prices...

Now you're saying Apple was making it so Amazon couldn't compete even by selling a title at the same price. Bullshit!

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #145 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Now the agency model is illegal?

No. Collusion is illegal. The agency model is simply the mechanism they used to fix prices, given the underlying collusion. Read the complaint, it's not hard to understand.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

No. Collusion is illegal. The agency model is simply the mechanism they used to fix prices, given the underlying collusion. Read the complaint, it's not hard to understand.

I've read the complaint. As stated, it's bullshit!

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #147 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I've read the complaint. As stated, it's bullshit!

One can't argue with such a vigorous argument.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I've read the complaint. As stated, it's bullshit!

Ahh, solopsism != SolipsismX... sneaky that. Can I use a regex in my ignore list?
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This begs the question: Why isn't the DoJ interested in Amazon using it's monopoly position to sell at a loss to keep competitors out of the market?

because our stupid government appear only interested in seeing pricing going down, so what if competitor are taken out. The government did not care when apple began selling music for $0.99 and whipping out the old school industry, (which need to happen anyway) but in their little minds that is okay since pricing was going down. It okay for gas pricing to go up and your taxes increasing but your consumer stuff must go down, why, so you can pay more for taxes and gas. Gee if people spent more on their books and electronic that means you have less to spend on gas and taxes.

that government logic for you
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

No. Collusion is illegal. The agency model is simply the mechanism they used to fix prices, given the underlying collusion. Read the complaint, it's not hard to understand.


Collusion only work if all companies are selling the same product like gas or memory chips, where the consumer can interchange product as they like. I point these two example out since they have been fine in the past for collusion and agreeing to fix prices so no matter who you bough from you paid the same price. Does not work the same in books, only one publisher produces a book, you can not buy Steve Jobs book from more than one book publisher so they can set the price how ever they like. Now it would be collusion if more than one publisher made the book and they all agree not to sell it below $x price. That is not happen in this case.
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Collusion only work if all companies are selling the same product like gas or memory chips, where the consumer can interchange product as they like. I point these two example out since they have been fine in the past for collusion and agreeing to fix prices so no matter who you bough from you paid the same price. Does not work the same in books, only one publisher produces a book, you can not buy Steve Jobs book from more than one book publisher so they can set the price how ever they like. Now it would be collusion if more than one publisher made the book and they all agree not to sell it below $x price. That is not happen in this case.

Not the OED, but generally trustworthy, a definition of Collusion.

I think the DoJ probably has a better idea what its legal definitions are than anyone with enough time to post here (i.e., me, you, etc).
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

The DOJ complaint is awesome, and should be required reading before posting. My favorite passage so far



I love my Apple products, but if this stuff pans out...

Folks, if you read this the government is treating all books the same, and since Amazon set the market price at $9.99 the government feels pricing should not be allow to increase above this amount. They will have to show that all books are exactly the same and pricing differences are not allowed since in their mind it like a true commodity with no difference in value. They also seem to know that Amazon was setting pricing well below market value, which again is usually frown upon by our government but in this case it is okay.

The fact that apple and a few of the publishers are not backing down tell me that feel the government may not have a case especially when there are plenty of example which company set pricing and will not allow anyone to sell below those prices. Milk is one of them and the government is involved in the price fixing as well as with electricity.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No Apple did not set the base price. That was the publishers. The guarantee that Apple reportedly worked out with those 5 publishers spelled out that Amazon couldn't set their own prices either. If Apple sold their books at the publisher's retail price, assuring a 30% profit rather than getting even greedier and selling above retail, they were guaranteed not to have a worry that Amazon might sell at a lower price.

It wasn't that Apple wanted the ability to match Amazon's low prices. They wanted a guarantee that they didn't have to compete with Amazon on prices...

according to reports.

So you're saying Apple's contract stipulated that whatever price they sold the book at had to be the same for every seller? I haven't seen that supported by any contractual language that has been published. Can you link to a source that has such language?

Everything I've seen has pointed out that Apple wanted to match pricing not dictate pricing for other sellers. Again, the quote from Steve Jobs, "... 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."
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:38am
So we have a conspiracy to raise (nearly double) e-books price and people here are happy and condoning it... Great. Moreover the AI OP "bizarrely" leave aside most of the case info...
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Now you're saying Apple was making it so Amazon couldn't compete even by selling a title at the same price. Bullshit!

No, bull-hockey to your re-imagined argument. Find where I said Amazon couldn't sell at the same price. I said they could not sell at a lower price than Apple if the publishers' price was used.

Geesh, it must be create your own argument day and no one told me.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #156 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

Not the OED, but generally trustworthy, a definition of Collusion.

I think the DoJ probably has a better idea what its legal definitions are than anyone with enough time to post here (i.e., me, you, etc).


I do not disagree with you, but the publishers did not all agree to set a price or limit supply of book there buy driving up demand, they just agree to a pricing model, publisher are still free to see pricing at any price they like for their books, they may even choose to sell at $9.99 depending on the books. I personally think the government will have a up hill battle proving that all ebook are only worth $9.99 and a publisher is not allow to tell their retail partners what price they can sell at. If i was Apple legal defense I would just show all the examples that exist today where this exact thing happens and the DoJ has never taken action on. That is a problem with are laws, unless the government enforces the law equally in all cases they run in to problem they using selective enforcement.

As nicely pointed out, just my opinion at this point, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I do also know even if the government is wrong they will still find away to get their point across.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post

So you're saying Apple's contract stipulated that whatever price they sold the book at had to be the same for every seller? I haven't seen that supported by any contractual language that has been published. Can you link to a source that has such language?

Everything I've seen has pointed out that Apple wanted to match pricing not dictate pricing for other sellers. Again, the quote from Steve Jobs, "... 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."

What does it matter what Steve Jobs supposedly asked for in a quote from his biography? The plan actually put in place does not allow Amazon to set their own pricing. The minimum retail price is set by the publisher so that Apple would not have to concern themselves with any price competition. Amazon is not permitted to sell at a lower price than the publishers price used by Apple.

It's not really as hard to understand as you're making it.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #158 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Definitely not surprised. Apple seems to have this market locked down tight.

True. Apple = Book monopoly

Even though the government's case is based on alleged price fixing, all Apple is supposed to be guilty of is agreeing to allow publishers set their own prices, which is what they do today for physical books. I'd like to see how they explain how that limits competition.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #159 of 252
4/11/12 at 11:53am
I don't think people realize here, or some do, but many don't, but apple's arrangement was clearly illegal. Not because they had a monopoly, or anything to do with a monopoly. They engaged in price fixing plain and simple.

Apple told the publishers (and they agreed) that books should be sold to apple for a set fee, and then the actual price would be that fee plus 30%.... That alone is fine, however they took it a step further.

They said that all retailers (not just apple) MUST sell the books at the same price. For all you people who claim itunes needs the 30% cut to pay their overhead, this means that any company that could handle this more efficiently (say taking a 15% cut, and giving a discount to the consumer) is not allowed to do this.

There would be no competition amongst the companies, and who would win... The owners of the default store on tablet and ereader devices. Who would buy from store X when the default installed store has the exact same price for everything.

This was the illegal action, apple and the publishers said they could set the prices on everyone, this is not allowed. Whether or not the law is right is a different story, but it is the law, and a major corporation cannot flaunt it and act like they're above it.

Phil
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 252
4/11/12 at 12:04pm
I am torn on the issue. You are correct the price has gone up for consumers on eBooks for the reasons you state. This is on the publishers though, not Apple. Under the old model, Amazon was being abusive to publishers, which caused smaller publishers to lose money. Some small publishers closed or sold out to big publishers.

When Amazon set the prices it would tell small publishers it wasn't going to sell regular books if they didn't practically give away the eBooks. A publisher has to be on Amazon, so they would cut their wrists and slash the eBook prices. This would effect the sale of hardcover books.

Publishers need hardcover books to sell for two reasons, 1) most people learn about good reading materials from hardcover books (e.g. even if they don't buy them they look at them in a book store), and 2) the publishers couldn't sustain a profitable business selling eBooks unless sales dramatically increased, which wasn't the case. A significant amount of people, myself included, will not read an eBook. It just isn't as enjoyable.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

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?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US government files antitrust suit against Apple over e-book pricing [u]