or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ: Apple considered 'illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DoJ: Apple considered 'illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon' - Page 2

post #41 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, but not by as much as you might imagine. A local high school put up at $20 M stadium about 5 years ago. A competing district asked the voters to approve a $75 M (!!!!) bond issue for a competing stadium. Fortunately, it was shot down.



Who says that price is the only way to compete? Amazon has Kindle Books which gives them a great advantage - their books are cross-platform and can be played on any device that the customer wishes to buy. They also have the advantage of being the #1 online bookseller in the world. Jumping immediately to "price is the only way we can compete" is a logical fallacy.

What the publisher's and Apple did was take away an avenue for competition by fixing the price of e-books. Which again, is illegal. This has nothing to do with "price is the only way we can compete". This has everything to do with 7 companies getting together to FIX the price of e-books, which is illegal according to U.S. and E.U. laws.
post #42 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dennis View Post

I don't understand what's wrong here. The Agency Model is just how Apple does business. The iTunes store works the same whether it's an app or a book or a piece of music being sold. You set the price, they take 30% and the product is sold by them.

Now, if the publishers are trying to force Amazon to take the agency model or they don't want to sell them the books, that's a potential antitrust case. But I don't see where Apple is involved. Surely it should be allowed to sell books on the terms it offers and publishers accept? (I think this is why Apple is staying in the suit and the publishers are settling.)

Amazon's prices are often significantly lower for books. If the books are available on both iBooks and Amazon at roughly the same price, I will go with iBooks because the presentation is superior. Also, if you are an author, Amazon's terms are much less generous than Apple's. Apple pays you only 1/3 of sales in many cases. It will pay you 70% (which is what Apple pays) if you sign special agreements, but it charges you for bandwidth and has other fees. Apple's fees are a straight-up 30% and you will always get 70% (subject of course to minimum payments and other standard terms).

So if you want to support authors who self-publish, Apple is offering a significantly better deal and you should buy your books through the iBookstore instead of Kindle.

D

You are confused because this site did not offer a complete article with all the meat. Please refer to the website below. It should answer all your questions and clear up confusion.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...taxonomyId=144
post #43 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.



Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?


Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.

Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by themu.

So Apple and the publishers should just be required to take a lOSS just because Amazon likes to take a loss?

Okay.......


I guess when the publishers close shop, Amazon will have to find other stuff to sell other than books and e-readers.
post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Nice try - but no I am not. I'm not blaming anyone for anything that pushed the price down in my favor. Apple in this case supposedly colluded with publishers to stangle eBook market share from Amazon by forced raising up of their price to match Apple's and at the same time getting more money for the greedy publishers hence driving my buying price up. Some else blamed Amazon for that which you've just mentioned. I blame neither- it's simple digital evolution. Same for Kodak film. But in your world nothing lasts forever- except Apple- right?

Without commenting on most of this, I'd just say that 'greedy publishers' seems overdone. Do they want to make more? Sure. Do most people want to earn more? Probably.

Is what they did illegal? Maybe - guess we'll see if there's a trial. Of course, given that most settlements never even include admission of wrongdoing, maybe we'll never have a solid answer. But if the goal was to keep more retailers in the game to keep prices higher, I'm sure the worry was that if they didn't break Amazon's stranglehold they would - at least long term - be at Amazon's mercy for pricing, so it may not be a crazy move in any case.
post #45 of 96
"A total of 16 states have also joined the fray against Apple and book publishers by filing their own lawsuits. They claim that the agreements made with Apple have cost consumers $100 million"

Another few hundred million and they will catch up to the banks.
post #46 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

So Apple and the publishers should just be required to take a lOSS just because Amazon likes to take a loss?

Okay.......


I guess when the publishers close shop, Amazon will have to find other stuff to sell other than books and e-readers.

You do understand that the publishers do not take a loss?

The publishers (just like everyone else) sells their goods to stores wholesale - lets say 9.99 a unit - the stores set a price depending at the profit they want to make - it can be 12.50 or 9.99 and not make any money (or give it away and take a loss) The publisher is not the one giving it away.

if you get a free can of soda with 2 slices of pizza at your local shop - that is not coca-cola giving you that can, it is the guy that owns that place - Coca-cola got their money at the warehouse.
post #47 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

Without commenting on most of this, I'd just say that 'greedy publishers' seems overdone. Do they want to make more? Sure. Do most people want to earn more? Probably.

Or. . . .

Damn, those consumers are greedy for wanting to pay less.
post #48 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.



Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?


Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.

Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.

Do you work for a company, or even for yourself. You know your company or your customer pay your bills, so it is in your best interest that your company be successful and they should be allow to charge as much as the market will bare.

How would you like it if competitor was so big they used their market powers to drive pricing down such that your company could no longer survive thus putting you out on the street. At that point you no longer have to worry how much these things cost since you could no longer afford them.

I am all about lower pricing, but not to the point where it causes companies to go out of business (and I am not talking about poor management) This is the race to the bottom and everyone loose in these cases.

Also, look at this why, if apple and book industry can actually make what they product are really valued at then more people work and the company stock goes up and investors make money so I who invest in these company like to see their stocks raise since I make more money to buy more products.
post #49 of 96
If I "considered" robbing a bank, is that a crime?

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #50 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

What the publisher's and Apple did was take away an avenue for competition by fixing the price of e-books. Which again, is illegal. This has nothing to do with "price is the only way we can compete". This has everything to do with 7 companies getting together to FIX the price of e-books, which is illegal according to U.S. and E.U. laws.

Totally in agreement. Funny how a few on here are so appalled by this concept.
post #51 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

If I "considered" robbing a bank, is that a crime?

It depends on the details of the applicable conspiracy laws. Often it is a crime. Sometimes conspiracy is a worse crime than the underlying offense.
post #52 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

if i "considered" robbing a bank, is that a crime?

✓+
...
post #53 of 96
There's a bunch of things wrong here.

#1. The publishers shouldn't take a loss because Amazon takes a loss. The publisher should be paid the price he sets (wholesale price).

#2. Publishers shouldn't be colluding on the price of e-books. It's illegal in most countries I'm sure. If Apple was in on this, they shouldn't have been. I know it's illegal in Canada, because it always comes up as a topic when gas prices are mentioned.
post #54 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Apple convinced e-book publishers to switch to an "agency model" for sales, allowing them to set prices. Previously, Amazon used a "wholesale model" in which it would set its own prices, sometimes even at a loss, and upset publishers.

Which is it? Did Apple have to convince publishers to switch away from the agency model to a model Apple wanted, or were the publishers themselves upset by the agency model?

Apple offered them an agency model where publishers would set the price instead of Amazon's model of Amazon setting the price. The publishers then demanded the same terms from Amazon or they would pull their titles

As for the headline, who cares what they considered, they didnt do it. Perhaps because the lawyers suggested there could be legal issues.
post #55 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajr View Post

What you described is competition and it's perfectly legal. What Apple and the publishers are alleged to have done is collude to limit competition, which is illegal.

.

But did Apple. What I mean is did they do anything to force the publishers to demand the same terms from Amazon, nook etc. is there a smoking gun email from Apple saying they would use agency terms only if every service was forced to. I doubt it.

The most favored nation clause that basically says no one can be cheaper than Apple on the other hand I do agree should be out.
post #56 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajr View Post

What you described is competition and it's perfectly legal. What Apple and the publishers are alleged to have done is collude to limit competition, which is illegal.

To use your example, if Coke, Pepsi and all other major soda makers agreed, among themselves, that neither would charge less than $5 per bottle of soda, then the restaurant would be forced to pay $5, even if it was possible for an established seller to sell at $3 per bottle. That's anti-competitive price fixing, and it's illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

Do you see the difference between what Apple did and your example? In your example Pepsi could offer you that lower price and compete. No one forced Pepsi to set that price. Now if Pepsi and coke got together and said that they would only offer one price, then that would be collusion and it's illegal.

So the restaurant (Apple) is as guilty as the soda makers (publishers)?
post #57 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

But did Apple. What I mean is did they do anything to force the publishers to demand the same terms from Amazon, nook etc. is there a smoking gun email from Apple saying they would use agency terms only if every service was forced to. I doubt it.

The most favored nation clause that basically says no one can be cheaper than Apple on the other hand I do agree should be out.

Read this article. Apparently the government has a lot more evidence on this that most here realize. Very unlikely that Apple has entirely clean hands.
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-l...ks-2012-4?op=1
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

So the restaurant (Apple) is as guilty as the soda makers (publishers)?

No. The restaurant in the example is Amazon.
post #59 of 96
I doubt Apple needed to say anything.

Premium price is simply an Apple standard so how can they be to blame for continuing same?
post #60 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.



Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?


Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.

Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.

So how come a perusal of iBooks shows titles ranging from free upwards?

There are plenty of books at $9.99 or under, just like any free market system the price settles to what the market decides any given book is worth.

No-one has shown what the AVERAGE price of iBooks is before and after Apple came along.

The new Soviet Socialist United States of America's presumption of guilt before innocence is a very dangerous thing.

Good luck comrades.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #61 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So if Amazon simply matches Apple's pricing model, they'd be making MORE money, not less. So why can't Amazon compete?

Higher cost = less sales = more impact on other segments of Amazons business that have higher input costs = lower overall margins.

Amazon was eating a loss on books, not the publishers, in order to drive the portfolio growth towards ebooks and kindles. Not trying to drive consumers back to paperbacks with free shipping.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #62 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajr View Post

No. The restaurant in the example is Amazon.

And Apple is Coke then? Or just another restaurant?
post #63 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

Let me just drop this right here:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/top-us...20120209-01506


$25 billion settlement...I would say they have done something against the banks.

How much of that $25 billion is a clawback of the bailout the government gave these guys?

F*%k governments are dumb, almost as dumb as the people who swallow this s#@t.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #64 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

And Apple is Coke then? Or just another restaurant?

No, Apple is Dr Pepper, and Amazon plays the part of Canada Dry. No wait, Apple is Pepsi and Amazon is Royal Crown. That can't be right... One is Cadbury Schweppes, oh fuggedaboutit.

Maybe both should go for a cold Bud instead.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 96
I've read and read and read stories about this, but I still don't get what's going on. Maybe I'm just not made to understand the intricacies of anti-trust law. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I believed happened. Publishers were selling "rights" for Amazon to distribute ebooks through their store on a cost-per-unit basis. Amazon was then selling consumers the "rights" to read those books for the wholesale price or lower. At this point, the Kindle was the dominant ebook reader on the market.

Apple creates the iPad and in an attempt to compete in the ebook space with Amazon, develops iBooks and the iBookstore. The publishers are mad at Amazon for selling ebooks at or below wholesale. (Why they care, I have no idea ... maybe they see it as devaluation of their product?) The publishers then approach Apple looking for a better deal. Apple explains that they get a 30% cut on whatever they sell through their online distribution channels. In order to make the same profit that they were getting from Amazon, they have to raise their price to cover Apple's cut. (If they were selling to Amazon for $10, now they have to sell it at ~$14.28 to clear that same $10) On the iBookstore, a book previously selling for $10 on Amazon is now selling for $14.28. This would cover Apple's 30% cut and the publishers wholesale cost. The higher price on the iBookstore obviously hurts Apple against a competing platform (on a price competition basis ONLY), and thus an agreement is made between the publishers and Apple that the books will not be offered elsewhere under this wholesale+30% price point?

Is this correct? Am I even in the ballpark of understanding what the hell is going on?

If that's the case, is Amazon now required by the publishers to sell an ebook for at LEAST the wholesale+30% cost?
MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB HDD
iPod 5th Generation, 30GB
iPhone 4, 32GB
Reply
MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB HDD
iPod 5th Generation, 30GB
iPhone 4, 32GB
Reply
post #66 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dennis View Post

Amazon's prices are often significantly lower for books.

Do you have any figures to back that statement up?

A comparison of the average price of books sold by Apple vs average price of books sold by Amazon would be a good place to start.

In the meantime the presumption of guilt seems to be strong in this case.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

What the publisher's and Apple did was take away an avenue for competition by fixing the price of e-books. Which again, is illegal. This has nothing to do with "price is the only way we can compete". This has everything to do with 7 companies getting together to FIX the price of e-books, which is illegal according to U.S. and E.U. laws.

What?

"Fixed the price", so how come a two second perusal of iBooks shows they are not at SET prices.

The presumption of innocence is a major part of a free and fair democracy.

Welome to the Soviet Socialist United States of America.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #68 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

What?

"Fixed the price", so how come a two second perusal of iBooks shows they are not at SET prices.

The presumption of innocence is a major part of a free and fair democracy.

Welome to the Soviet Socialist United States of America.

Are any of the publisher's listed in this complaint offering new release books at less than $12 in iBooks
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Are any of the publisher's listed in this complaint offering new release books at less than $12 in iBooks

Why don't you go take a look?
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #70 of 96
This is not specifically a lawsuit against apple.

This is a lawsuit against a group of publishers, and apple happened to be in the mix as the leverage they required to achieve their goal.

The publishers had the desire to increase the consumder value of the ebooks. They were paid full wholesale prices, and Amazon would onsell these at cost or below-cost, as a loss leader to more profitable arms of their business. The publishers fear was that evne though they achieved the same income per sale as a paperback, the price of the ebook would make these more popular, and create a situation that writers would forgo the low margin world of the large publisher, and move to digital publishing houses, that provided larger margin to the writer.

A threat to their overall buiness.

So the publishers had been working together, colluding, to raise hte value of ebooks, and prevent any price competition.

In comes Apple, with the great big leverage they needed to force this price fixing into Amazon, and to the consumer.

Apple said 'yeah, we dont care as long as we get our 30% and Amazon cannot undercut us'

Apple has Agency contracts with pricing teirs setup, virtually identical across the publishers, and then siad publishers enter into the same pricing teirs.

The model itself is perfectly legal. The way they worked together to change models was not.

Fun, games and collusion.

Should be a fun ol' law case.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #71 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Why don't you go take a look?

You can't sort for new releases or best sellers? I've never bothered looking at Apple's bookstore before.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.



Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?


Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.

Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.

It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #73 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You can't sort for new releases or best sellers? I've never bothered looking at Apple's bookstore before.

Yet you feel qualified to make statements regarding iBook pricing, based on no evidence at all.

Maybe you should apply for a job at the DoJ, kangaroo court division.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #74 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.

Don't confuse Amazon selling ebooks at a loss as "doing what's best for the customer." Trust me, they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't somehow beneficial to them.
post #75 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.

I think you'll find that Amazon is doing what's best for Amazon, product dumping in an attempt to gain a monopoly included.

There are plenty of iBooks available for less than $9.99.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #76 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.

Just as MS was right by the customer by bundling IE for free so we wouldn't have to pay those greedy Netscape people.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #77 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yet you feel qualified to make statements regarding iBook pricing, based on no evidence at all.

Maybe you should apply for a job at the DoJ, kangaroo court division.

I asked about iBook pricing that you found. I didn't tell you what you were going to find.
So I guess your non-answer is that you can't sort by best sellers or new releases?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yet you feel qualified to make statements regarding iBook pricing, based on no evidence at all.

...other than evidence from press reports and the DoJ complaint, which apparently makes me more qualified to comment than those who haven't bothered to read the claims and continue to spread misunderstandings or outright fibs. You wouldn't be one of those that hasn't read the DoJ complaint would you, yet feels knowledgeable enough about it to comment?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #79 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

DoJ hasn't batted an eye at the banking institutions that conspired to destroyed the US economy through fraud, but it sees a case in publishers selling ebooks on the open market for $13 rather than $10.

WTF.

What an incompetent bunch of morons. Or perhaps just tools of the system. It's getting hard to take America seriously anymore.

Maybe the $52 million can be invested into the domestic army seeking to invade citizens' homes looking for marijuana. It would probably buy two paramilitary tanks or a set of flack jackets and rocket launchers for the ATF to pursue its policy of prohibition via domestic terrorism.

Next up: investigate the Facebook conspiracy to sell virtual farmland for nonsense points. Then take down the tech cabal offering free email accounts in an effort to bankrupt the US Postal Service.

Maybe rig the election for Romney and send the US from quasi-fascist republic to a full on military theocracy where you get thrown in prison unless you tithe the mormons.

Keep the knee jerk reactions in check. Research and read the briefs when they are actually filed. Otherwise, you'll give yourself an unnecessary ulcer.

By the way, their are hundreds of cases pending against Wall Street.
post #80 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

So Apple and the publishers should just be required to take a lOSS just because Amazon likes to take a loss?

Okay.......


I guess when the publishers close shop, Amazon will have to find other stuff to sell other than books and e-readers.

Ummm hello, news flash-they already do.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ: Apple considered 'illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon'