or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ dismisses pro-Apple arguments in defense of e-book settlement terms
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DoJ dismisses pro-Apple arguments in defense of e-book settlement terms - Page 2

post #41 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Ive come to the conclusion that the DOJ is run by bozo the clown and his clown car freinds.

That's F'n hilarious! I had no idea what you were talking about until I googled it. I can't believe that was really a show! Although I never catch much TV because everything is horrible. Then again, some people are afraid of clowns... So maybe some thought that was horrible.

I learn so much from you folks! Thanks!
post #42 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Lots of flaws here in your argument.  Amazon's current pricing  is 30% cut and 70% to the publisher, then they add fees for a lot of other things and pretty soon your down to about 60% to amazon and 40% to the publisher.  Then lets say that your book becomes popular and amazon wants to undercut everyone on the planet they then make your book free!  It drums them up sales hits they compensate for it with the other parts of there business and best of all you as an indie publisher GO BROKE  

selling your book for free!  What a bargin!   Meanwhile Amazon keeps it monopoly on the market at around 90% and strong arms publishers to sell there books on amazons store because there is really nowhere else that can compete that can sell them (the remaining 10%).

 

Contrast that with apples iBook store agency model  you publish your book at the price you want (after all you wrote the book)  Apple takes 30% and you get a legitimate 70% with no fees attached and your book will never be sold for any less than you want.  The thing that has people mad is that the publishers themselves not apple decided that if the book is on sale at apples ibook store they wont sell it anywhere else for less.  Apple had nothing to do with that decision. Amazon does not like this.  They want to be able to undercut whomever they want, so they cry foul.  Note that amazon can still sell the books that are for sale on the apple store but at the same price.  The people that own the books have a right to sell there books for the price they want.

 

By the way apple uses the agency model to sell music, movies, tv shows, and audio books, it is a fair way to sell things.  

 

The DOJ has there head so far up there ass on this one they will be lucky if they win.  Even Senator Chuck Shumer wrote a letter to the doj asking them to drop this ridiculous law suit.

And the flaw in your logic is that amazon no longer has 90% of the e-book market. Your scenario might have been true when it was a kindle only market but now iPad, Android Tablets and Nook all share the same marketplace. Logic says these retailers should be able to compete on the free market by offering these books at their lowest price and compete based on price. Now prices are artificially inflated because the agency agreements they have with apples say that they can't offer the books elsewhere for less. Normally I would agree that manufacturers should be able to price their goods as they see fit but we're talking about monopolistic pricing which is keeping prices artificially high. The proof, look at the price of physical books. Physical books are on average less expensive than their electronic counterparts. You can't call this supply and demand since there is no supply component per se to a virtual good. It costs as much to sell 1 as it does 100 electronic versions. 

 

Allowing retailers to price electronics to books the same way they do physical books is good for consumers and competition so I support the DOJ's actions here. 

post #43 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."  —Winston Churchill

Good quote. I've read and heard that before. The only problem is that, if this was your presumption anyway, we do not have a true democracy. If you were inferring to the United States of America. Pretty good try though...
post #44 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchessPDX View Post

. The proof, look at the price of physical books. Physical books are on average less expensive than their electronic counterparts. You can't call this supply and demand since there is no supply component per se to a virtual good. It costs as much to sell 1 as it does 100 electronic versions. 

Allowing retailers to price electronics to books the same way they do physical books is good for consumers and competition so I support the DOJ's actions here. 

O.k. I get your argument. Although you do realize you kind of contradticted yourself there right?

I'm someone who is trying to publish a book(s). I have sat with publishers and they have gone over (in quite vivid detail), how much it would cost to print, what their take would be, what the distribution cost 'could' be. Also they like to hit you with "If it doesn't sell, we'll be eating all this cost".

Then I go home and buy my favorite book on my iPad for $14.99. New release. No hard cover. No book signing... It kind of boggles the mind. There's no printing cost. In my young adult mind i cant reconcile the difference. Distribution costs (although I'm sure you guys would point out some) seem to be a one time charge. It just gets sold over and over and over.

Mind you that now you have to submit it in digital format. Both PDF (which is huge), and on the format it was written in. ...and some still want it printed too. On top of the digital copies.

You hear over and over "make it look professional". So you literally did all the work, and then gave them the file in several different formats.

I'm rambling, but I agree with the first part of your post. But retailing an e-book for the same price just sounds so weird to me because I've been told, so many times, how much goes into printing and distributing. The e-book should cost less than even a paper back.

I would be happy with $1.00 for each book. But I've been told it would retail for 6.99 paperback, and I would get .37 per book sold.

Just my .02, or .37 depending on how you look at it.

Would love to see a post from a published author...
post #45 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post

Apple is arrogant and most Apple  people have no objectivity when it comes to criticism of Apple..some of them actually believe that Apple products are high quality..yeah right

 

 

1000

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Ive come to the conclusion that the DOJ is run by bozo the clown and his clown car friends.

 

I utterly disagree.

 

It's probably Pennywise:

 

 

1000

Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #46 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


It's probably Pennywise:



I have to admit I had seen that when I vas very young, on cable. Then, later on in life (read: college, just a couple years ago) I read IT. Maybe that's why some people don't like clowns..

Kind of freaky though isn't it?
post #47 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


Good quote. I've read and heard that before. The only problem is that, if this was your presumption anyway, we do not have a true democracy. If you were inferring to the United States of America. Pretty good try though...

 

It's Churchill's quote, not mine. I'm quite aware the US is a democratic republic.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #48 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's Churchill's quote, not mine.

I was well well aware of that. After all you did quote it. However, you posted it in response to a post about the U.S. government. That's the reason I posted.

Actually, I almost made another post apologizing once I saw your 'nic', so to speak. I've read a lot of you posts and you have great insite and views.

Thank you for responding!
post #49 of 73
America is bankrupt, Apple has billions, court cases raised to get Apples billions. Nothing to do with ebooks, they just want to impose a multi billion dollar fine.
Edited by irnchriz - 7/24/12 at 12:44am
post #50 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

The e-book should cost less than even a paper

Would love to see a post from a published author...

Actually, I'll quote myself before I get lambasted. When you ask a publisher "Can we just do an e-print?". You get an answer, which must be like Siri because no matter which publisher you're speaking with you get this response... "well, one form follows the other. If it does well in print, it should do well electronically. We can discuss those terms once it gets to that level."
post #51 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

America is bankrupt, Apple has billions, court cases raised to get Apples billions. Nothing to do with ebooks, they just want to impose a multi billion dollar fine.

No my friend, if the government actually wanted money, (and I'm not saying we're not bankrupt) they could give apple a small tax break to bring their money back to the states. Last I read it would be quite a bit more, even with a break, than they could ever get from this type of litigation.
post #52 of 73

Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.

post #53 of 73

ow is it price fixing to enter into an agreement not to sell your product somewhere else for less than you sell it to me? 

 

If they all got together and agreed on a specific price per word, or per page or per title even and then enforced that price everywhere maybe then there is a case.

 

and if what Apple is doing is price-fixing then I think the state government setting a minimum price on items such as beer and wine must also be price fixing - but since that is sanctioned by the government then it must be okay instead of illegal price fixing. 

 

weren't there anti-comptetitve rumblings on this subject as well? who is it anti-competitive to have every reseller get the same deal from the supplier? Price is not the only factor in a purchasing decision, or at least not every decision. 

post #54 of 73

If they all got together and agreed on a specific price per word, or per page or per title even and then enforced that price everywhere maybe then there is a case.

 

This is exactly what is alleged in the DoJ complaint, that the publishers and Apple got together and agreed upon specific prices for ebooks that were based solely on the hardcover version of the same books. These prices were the same regardless of whether consumers bought the books at Amazon, Sony, B&N, Apple, etc.

post #55 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine View Post

Have any one of you ever seen one of the pie charts that shows how much the Author gets from the sale of a book? It's always under a $1. The big publishers were looking for a way to save themselves from being forgotten about, because sites like Amazon make it to easy for an author to sell a book without a publisher, and Amazon only keeps something like 10%, giving a much greater sale.

 

And even if you choose not to agree with the above argument, common sense should tell you that a digital version of a book should always be MUCH cheaper than a paperback, not the same price or even more like it has been recently. Just think of all the costs that goes into printing a book, guessing how many copies you need, and distributing the books across the country. Meanwhile you can post a book on Amazon in under 5 minutes with a couple clicks.

 

And 3 of the 5 publishers have settled out of court.

 

This is a slam dunk for DoJ, and I am extremely proud that they are putting a stop to this price fixing.

 

Amazon takes 30% of the sale price of a book, three times your 10% lie, up to 70% if you price your book above a certain price, seven times your 10% lie.

 

Go look at Amazon's terms and conditions.

 

Common sense tells me that the rest of your post is just as invalid as your 10% lie.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #56 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

To paraphrase the typical "If you don't like it, don't buy it" response, if you don't like the U.S. Government, don't live in the U.S.

 

I don't.

 

So why should I be subject to your shitty laws?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #57 of 73

How is Amazon's alleged monopoly status supposed to cancel out Apple's alleged collusion? They're independent issues and should be dealt with independently.

post #58 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post


The only flaw to your ignorant filled statement is that Amazon pays for the books up front. If they choose to sell them for free, what does an indie author care, they are still paid. Amazon takes the loss. Keep making crap up, it is entertaining to read. The only party harmed here is the ancient business model the publishers are trying to hold on to. They refuse to except that they are no longer needed. Amazon will do all the work for the authors, promotion, distribution ect.... And instead of a measly 1% they used to get, now they get 30% and that scares the publishers.

Amazon used to pay up front, they use the Agency model now. How Amazon puts your book up for zero price depends on what you get. In some cases if Amazon sells the book for zero you get zero, and Apple etc. will price match and also sell your book for zero, so you get nothing from anybody. Most authors place their books with many services and occasionally one will sell the book at prices below what the author wants them too, then all the sellers sell the book for less. Amazon will sometimes pay the author the original fee and discount the book, so the author does not lose money from Amazon but they still take a hit on every other service their book is listed on. Under traditional sales models authors typically got around 10% of the list price, top authors did better. When ebooks first hit they may have got even less on ebooks, but some now are getting closer to 30%, but most less. The major publishers also have messed up accounting systems so that it the authors may not be getting what they should, but that is another issue. Amazon is itself now a publisher competing against the rest of the houses. At least Apple is just retailing books not competing with their own authors.

post #59 of 73

What does Apple price fixing have to do with an Amazon monopoly?

 

Apple price fixed, and should be punish it doesnt matter it amazon had 99.999% of the market. 

post #60 of 73

Correct, I was mistaken about Amazon only taking 10%, it is actually 30%. However, that's still a lot more than what the publishers give to the Author's. And Amazon was usually right in where they priced books, Amazon knew that more people would buy a book if it was priced at 9.99 rather that 12.99, that 9.99 would actually make them more money selling at 12.99. Its called economics, finding what price you can reach the most consumers.

 

And here's one of the articles on the THIRD publisher settling: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57436521-37/simon-schuster-settles-e-book-antitrust-suit-with-state-ags/ . That means that even though those three publishers would have been in a lawsuit with Apple, a company that has billions of dollars in its warchest to throw at a case like this, they STILL settled, obviously meaning that they must believe they did wrong doing.

 

And the DoJ has proof of the price fixing from Steve Jobs as well http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57434195-37/new-details-reveal-steve-jobs-involved-in-e-book-lawsuit/

 

The case is a slam dunk, please stop embarrassing yourselves and come to accept that.

post #61 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine View Post
…they STILL settled, obviously meaning that they must believe they did wrong doing.

 

Wow, that's some flawed thinking.

post #62 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

When Apple launched its iBookstore in April of 2010, virtually overnight the retail prices of many bestselling and newly released e-books published in this country jumped 30 to50 percent—affecting millions of consumers.


That's funny - their own data doesn't support their allegation. AT WORST (even assuming that their numbers are correct), the price jumped by 10-15%. Why would anyone believe the DOJ who can't even accurately report their own data?

But since other reports say that the price dropped after Apple got involved, even that conclusion is questionable.

 

Clearly, at a minimum, the data shows that prices, which were on a downward trajectory rose and afterwards oscillated between higher and the same price. However the agreements clearly changed the price direction for the worst.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I suspect that if the DOJ forces Apple and the publishers to switch back to a wholesale model, Apple will still charge the same markup over the wholesale price as they are now (i.e., 30% of the sticker price goes to apple). The only difference is that Amazon will be liberated to sell books at a lower profit margin, or even at a loss. 

 

If this had happened back in 2010 it might have seriously hurt iBooks. But now I'm not so sure. There's no "most favored nation" clause (that I know of) in Apple's agreements with recording labels. Indeed, you can often buy mp3s from Amazon for less money that AACs from iTunes. Yet iTunes is doing very well, in large part because it's the default option on iDevices. Being the default option is tremendously valuable, especially on a monster platform like the iPad (or the iPod before it). 

 

Even if this does hurt iBooks, I doubt that it will hurt iPad sales since most of the value of the iPad comes from apps, not ebooks. 

 

Finally, if the DOJ wins this, then the DOJ is on the hook to make sure that Amazon doesn't become a monopolist. If Amazon becomes a monopolist, it's the DOJ's fault, and it will be up to the DOJ to rectify the situation. 

 

There is another scenario and that is that the DOJ could look into Apple and how they support a lack of competition within their own ecosystem by granting themselves rights that competitors are not granted. This is what got Microsoft into a consent decree related to inability to set other browsers as default and use of hidden system API's to gain benefits for their own apps.

 

As you note, Amazon and others cannot become the default option. People presume it is Amazon pushing this inquiry. I suspect it is simply the fact that collusion occurred but beyond that, I suspect this grand group looking for relief from competing will come after Apple next. If they don't want to compete against Amazon on price what makes someone think they want to compete against Apple?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

By the way apple uses the agency model to sell music, movies, tv shows, and audio books, it is a fair way to sell things.  

 

The DOJ has there head so far up there ass on this one they will be lucky if they win.  Even Senator Chuck Shumer wrote a letter to the doj asking them to drop this ridiculous law suit.

 

Apple does not use the agency model to sell other services and they certainly do not have a most favored nation clause forbidding price competition.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Do you own a Mac or an iPod? Aren't those items priced considerably higher than similar competing items? So why is Apple all of a sudden worried about the price of a competitor? Is it because they're late to the game? Or because this is a rare instance that they cannot offer a better product?

 

Apple hasn't offered a better product. iBooks is inferior to solutions both from BN and Amazon. They are also late to the game. Apple really hasn't seemed to do well with new software or even continuing software development lately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by festerfeet View Post

So the DOJ decided to cherry-pick less than 10% of the public comments which suited their argument and dismissed the rest as self-serving.

 

Does anybody else sense a note of irony here?

 

Most of the time, determining whether someone has broken the law is not a popularity contest.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchessPDX View Post

And the flaw in your logic is that amazon no longer has 90% of the e-book market. Your scenario might have been true when it was a kindle only market but now iPad, Android Tablets and Nook all share the same marketplace. Logic says these retailers should be able to compete on the free market by offering these books at their lowest price and compete based on price. Now prices are artificially inflated because the agency agreements they have with apples say that they can't offer the books elsewhere for less. Normally I would agree that manufacturers should be able to price their goods as they see fit but we're talking about monopolistic pricing which is keeping prices artificially high. The proof, look at the price of physical books. Physical books are on average less expensive than their electronic counterparts. You can't call this supply and demand since there is no supply component per se to a virtual good. It costs as much to sell 1 as it does 100 electronic versions. 

 

Allowing retailers to price electronics to books the same way they do physical books is good for consumers and competition so I support the DOJ's actions here. 

 

The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorris View Post

Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.

 

You've hit it on the head. Most people on here who have followed my political discussions have to know I would be the last person on earth who would desire to defend the Obama administration's DOJ. However they are correct in what they are doing here. It is very clear cut collusion and they have all manner of evidence to back it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine View Post

Correct, I was mistaken about Amazon only taking 10%, it is actually 30%. However, that's still a lot more than what the publishers give to the Author's. And Amazon was usually right in where they priced books, Amazon knew that more people would buy a book if it was priced at 9.99 rather that 12.99, that 9.99 would actually make them more money selling at 12.99. Its called economics, finding what price you can reach the most consumers.

 

And here's one of the articles on the THIRD publisher settling: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57436521-37/simon-schuster-settles-e-book-antitrust-suit-with-state-ags/ . That means that even though those three publishers would have been in a lawsuit with Apple, a company that has billions of dollars in its warchest to throw at a case like this, they STILL settled, obviously meaning that they must believe they did wrong doing.

 

And the DoJ has proof of the price fixing from Steve Jobs as well http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57434195-37/new-details-reveal-steve-jobs-involved-in-e-book-lawsuit/

 

The case is a slam dunk, please stop embarrassing yourselves and come to accept that.

 

I've really been mystified by the acceptance of these actions on here and the defense of Apple at any and all costs. Apple now isn't the same Apple many of us signed on the help back in the day. There was a time where a half billion dollar Microsoft investment and pledge to continue Office basically kept the company alive. Now Apple has $100 billion in cash reserves and is among the largest cap companies on earth. They can have their big boy britches on and compete against everyone else on equal terms.


Edited by trumptman - 7/24/12 at 11:00am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


I was well well aware of that. After all you did quote it. However, you posted it in response to a post about the U.S. government. That's the reason I posted.
Actually, I almost made another post apologizing once I saw your 'nic', so to speak. I've read a lot of you posts and you have great insite and views.
Thank you for responding!

 

No need to apologize. You are far too generous.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #64 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorris View Post

Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.

 

Because the DOJ says it is so, does not make it so.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #65 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Because the DOJ says it is so, does not make it so.

True enough, but this isn't a case of the DoJ simply saying it is so. According to the complaint: There are emails between the publishers and Apple outlining specific ebook pricing tiers. There are emails between the publishers making sure the others were on board with the plan before they signed the agreement with Apple. There are emails to employees directing them to "double delete" certain emails so there would be no paper trail. Surely the feds know they will have to produce this information at trial, so I tend to doubt they're just making it all up.

post #66 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.

 

 

 

I never suggested that Amazon did anything but acquire their market share legally, if not mostly because they were first to the market. In the current pricing arrangement Amazon has no choice but to offer ebooks at a set price because the publishers now require them to sell at a fixed price because of their arrangements with apple. This is why amazon isn't named as a party of the DOJ anti-trust suit. It's because the publishers have colluded with apple to raise the price so that apple could make a fixed profit also ensuring that the value of an e-book wasn't diluted in the marketplace and consumers wouldn't get used to cheap e-book prices therefore ensuring future revenue streams for the publishing houses. If a pricing war occurred the publishers would be encouraged to reduce prices by retailers like amazon and apple in order to sell their books. All this puts downward pressure on the price. I completely agree that apple has behaved in a monopolistic manner and I also think that the publishers were in it too because they benefited from the arrangement. 

post #67 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchessPDX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.

 

 

 

I never suggested that Amazon did anything but acquire their market share legally, if not mostly because they were first to the market. In the current pricing arrangement Amazon has no choice but to offer ebooks at a set price because the publishers now require them to sell at a fixed price because of their arrangements with apple. This is why amazon isn't named as a party of the DOJ anti-trust suit. It's because the publishers have colluded with apple to raise the price so that apple could make a fixed profit also ensuring that the value of an e-book wasn't diluted in the marketplace and consumers wouldn't get used to cheap e-book prices therefore ensuring future revenue streams for the publishing houses. If a pricing war occurred the publishers would be encouraged to reduce prices by retailers like amazon and apple in order to sell their books. All this puts downward pressure on the price. I completely agree that apple has behaved in a monopolistic manner and I also think that the publishers were in it too because they benefited from the arrangement. 

 

I didn't mean to imply the flaw was yours but was an additional one to point out to the one flaw you mentioned.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Wow, that's some flawed thinking.

They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled. Sure, maybe if only one of them settled it just might have had their own reasons to get out and move on. But when the majority settles? They know they are guilty and want to avoid what could be a deadly anti trust case. (Deadly in that they lose all the revenue from all books sold during that time period, or some thing of the like)

 

The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing. I agree with Trumptman the most, in that I will never vote for Obama and am against almost everything he does, but this DoJ case is a rare exception. Cmorris was right, the DoJ case doesn't just depend on any one piece of evidence, they have loads of emails and the very nice graph provided by B&N as well.

post #69 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine View Post
They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled.

 

And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.

 

Quote:

The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing.

 

I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.

post #70 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.

 

 

I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.

Your trolling, I gave you two links, one about Steve Jobs admitting that they price fixed, and one about the third Publisher settling. Your the one without any proof, or any counter argument. You just choose to ignore my facts.

post #71 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.

 

Even more embarrassing is that Random House is apparently the only publishing company whose lawyers had enough sense to wave a hand and say, "Yanno, maybe this isn't such a good idea."

post #72 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorris View Post

Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.


So true. Nobody bothers to seek out the truth. They are accustomed to being spoon fed apple's marketing hype.

 

The DOJ's mission is to promote economic competition through enforcing and providing guidance on antitrust laws and principles. Antitrust Laws The goal of the antitrust laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free and fair competition in the marketplace. Competition in a free market benefits American consumers through lower prices, better quality and greater choice. Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by anti-competitive restraints. Competition also tests and hardens American companies at home, the better to succeed abroad.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/about/mission.html

 

DOJ's response to the numerous public comments:

"Many critics of the settlements view the consequences of the conspiracy—higher prices—as serving their own self-interests, and they prefer that unfettered competition be replaced by industry collusion that places the welfare of certain firms over that of the public. That position is wholly at odds with the purposes of the federal antitrust laws—which were enacted to protect competition, not competitors."

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f285300/285315.pdf

 

 

Apple and publishers colluded to raise prices. They are guilty of violating antitrust laws, period.

Amazon being a monopoly? That's a whole different case.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
post #73 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine View Post
They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled.

 

And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.

 

Quote:

The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing.

 

I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.

 

It means that having the resources to fight the complain wasn't a concern. Given Apple's penchant for litigation and lawyers, it is the exact opposite. The publishers that settled know full well that Apple goes to the mat on all legal matters. They settled because they were wrong. The DOJ has plenty to be embarassed about especially with regard to Voter ID, Fast and Furious, etc. On this matter they have done what needed to be done though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.

 

 

I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.

Your trolling, I gave you two links, one about Steve Jobs admitting that they price fixed, and one about the third Publisher settling. Your the one without any proof, or any counter argument. You just choose to ignore my facts.

 

I agree. TS, you are a moderator and should know better than to just ignore what has been presented across multiple threads by multiple people all in support of their contentions. You haven't even engaged that information.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ dismisses pro-Apple arguments in defense of e-book settlement terms