or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple calls DoJ e-book settlement proposal unlawful, says trial is needed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple calls DoJ e-book settlement proposal unlawful, says trial is needed - Page 3

post #81 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

I didn't include any opinion about whether it was legal or not. I'm just talking from a moral standpoint. Why do that to people? Why not just compete with Amazon and beat their pricing?

 

Then again, Apple is all about a premium experience. Keep the more expensive books and offer something on top that makes it worth the extra money and see if consumers are willing to pay more for the same book but with the Apple experience. 

 

Don't go forcing the publishers to make Amazon accept the agency model which will have them raise their prices. Let the consumer decide. 

 

Pay Apple more....or pay amazon less. Consumers regularly pay more for Apple products anyway, so you never know, charging more may have worked without having to force amazon into the same model. 

 

Apple didn't "force" anyone to do anything.

 

Publishers signed individual contracts.

 

When Amazon's agreements expired, publishers independently renegotiated their contracts with them.

 

No-one was "forced" to do anything.

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 #82 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Really? Then would you be so kind to give me an example as I have that what I'm proposing amounts to a system where the strongest can dictate a large advantage. Superficial? Really? I'd bet the bank that if you went to the Barnes & Noble near you and I the one near me we'd find totally different books on sale and that's the same retailer. Why can't the same happen in the ebook business?

 

I can't even see how what you wrote here relates to the post you are replying to, or even the issue being discussed in this thread.

post #83 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's the agency model. Curious that the objection has now morphed to how it hurts the publisher rather than the consumer, yet it was the publishers who agreed to it over the wholesale model and were then accused of price fixing.

Depends on how you look at it, price down hurts publishers, price up hurts consumers. The publishers would rather have a higher price of course, but babies cry when taken away from their mothers breast and the right people cried when their precious bestsellers went up in price.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #84 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I can't even see how what you wrote here relates to the post you are replying to, or even the issue being discussed in this thread.

Nor did I expect you to.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #85 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


The clauses arent that simple. They also generally include terms that if another seller is offering at a lower price the MFN seller can lower theirs without needing permission from the publisher. Amazon has the same deal themselves. It's how they offer the books that go into the Starbucks thing for free during that time.
That sort of thing is why the publishers wanted pricing control from Amazon or they would pull out. They didn't want Amazon cutting prices and screwing them in all markets.

 

I think Amazon has a penalty clause where if a book is sold lower somewhere else or if the ebook is priced above $10, THEIR USUAL 30% CUT, jumps to 70%, it's something like that.

 

Of course Apple's 30% cut is different to Amazon's 30% cut to some people simply because it's Apple.

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 #86 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt.

 

Why don't you go learn how the law works and also devote a bit of time boning up on certain inalienable rights guaranteed under the constitution of the United States of America, before making such a ludicrous statement.

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 #87 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.

 

Amazon renegotiated their contracts with publishers, they chose to agree to the agency model the publishers offered.

 

They take a 30% cut of the sale price.

 

They can also charge a penalty rate up to 70% if publishers sell their books for lower prices somewhere else.

 

If Amazon sells your book for $10, you get $7.

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 #88 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's the agency model. Curious that the objection has now morphed to how it hurts the publisher rather than the consumer, yet it was the publishers who agreed to it over the wholesale model and were then accused of price fixing.

Depends on how you look at it, price down hurts publishers, price up hurts consumers. The publishers would rather have a higher price of course, but babies cry when taken away from their mothers breast and the right people cried when their precious bestsellers went up in price.

Sure - but the objection that you raised was that the prices might go down and hurt the publishers. The standard complaint has been that it would drive prices up and hurt the consumer, which was supposedly what the DoJ was trying to prevent.
post #89 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Really? Then would you be so kind to give me an example as I have that what I'm proposing amounts to a system where the strongest can dictate a large advantage. Superficial? Really?

Obviously, my assessment was pretty accurate. You're not able to see beyond superficialities.

You really, honestly can't see how a monopolist would have the power to dictate an advantage over the competitors? Really?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #90 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Obviously, my assessment was pretty accurate. You're not able to see beyond superficialities.
You really, honestly can't see how a monopolist would have the power to dictate an advantage over the competitors? Really?

Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #91 of 111

So I wonder if Amazon getting cozy with the DoJ to manipulate the market had anything to do with this

 

The State Department cancelling a $16.5 million Kindle contract.

 

Of course there'd be no evidence of any link but the coincidence is interesting.

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 #92 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?

I don't know about your example, but the entire discussion was around the concept that if Amazon was allowed to build a monopoly position (which they were well on their way to doing), they could control and damage the market. You objected to that concept and then implied that even a monopoly couldn't harm the market.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?

I actually had a whole argument based on differences between physical book selling and digital book selling but realised there is simpler reply to dasanman69.

What supply and demand?  You're talking about an infinitely copiable digital good. As for demand, marketing!!!  Make your e-store more compelling to shop at etc. Don't stoop to the cheapest tactic possible by lowering the price of the product.  It's not like you have physical stock you have to clear because its taking up shelf space and you have actual money sunk into the product.

Apple's method actually levels the playing field.  You could even say that it favors the publishers more.

 

Question - has anyone ever saw an ebook that is more expensive than its physical counterpart at launch?

 

PS - the DoJ will drop this case if it ever seems like it'll go to trial. This is because Apple will drag Amazon kicking and screaming into the trial and then all those NDA'ed trade agreements and terms with publishers pre-Agency model will come to light.


Edited by OuterAppleniverse - 8/16/12 at 9:34pm
post #94 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I don't know about your example, but the entire discussion was around the concept that if Amazon was allowed to build a monopoly position (which they were well on their way to doing), they could control and damage the market. You objected to that concept and then implied that even a monopoly couldn't harm the market.

Then show me where I said that? All I said is that one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly . As I said before I am for you and I as consumers, I want what's best for us, more choices, and better prices.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #95 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuterAppleniverse View Post

I actually had a whole argument based on differences between physical book selling and digital book selling but realised there is simpler reply to dasanman69.
What supply and demand?  You're talking about an infinitely copiable digital good. As for demand, marketing!!!  Make your e-store more compelling to shop at etc. Don't stoop to the cheapest tactic possible by lowering the price of the product.  It's not like you have physical stock you have to clear because its taking up shelf space and you have actual money sunk into the product.
Apple's method actually levels the playing field.  You could even say that it favors the publishers more.

Question - has anyone ever saw an ebook that is more expensive than its physical counterpart at launch?

PS - the DoJ will drop this case if it ever seems like it'll go to trial. This is because Apple will drag Amazon kicking and screaming into the trial and then all those NDA'ed trade agreements and terms with publishers pre-Agency model will come to light.

You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #96 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.

 

Rubbish.

 

It gives the publisher the tools to react to market forces as they set the price for the work they have paid for.

 

Independent publishers are on equal footing apart from not having the marketing budgets the majors have for promoting author's works.

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 #97 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Then show me where I said that? All I said is that one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly . As I said before I am for you and I as consumers, I want what's best for us, more choices, and better prices.

 

Maybe you just don't understand understanding, but, one cannot state anything at all with absolute certainty, so, while a demand for absolute certainty is a common refuge for those backed into corners by untenable positions, it's not a rational criteria. However, given that a government sanctioned monopoly would inevitably lead to Amazon having end-to-end control of the entire publishing industry -- i.e., everything from publishing to bookselling -- and given what we know of how monopolies operate, and human nature, the only rational conclusion that can be reached is that an Amazon monopoly of the publishing industry will result in higher prices, less consumer choice and, most importantly, restricted speech as Amazon controls what actually gets published.

 

Now, you can ridiculously keep repeating that, 'one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly,' but, if you determine to base all your decisions on absolute certainty, you'll never decide anything, never take any action, never come to any conclusion.

 

In the rational world, however, people base decisions on the preponderance of evidence. In the rational world, the only reasonable expectation in this instance is that if the DoJ succeeds in this folly, we'll be paying more for all books, digital and physical, in a few years, and we'll have fewer options of what to read. Now, if you disagree with that analysis, present an argument based on facts shows a rational reason why that won't be the case. If all you've got is the schoolyard taunt that we can't be "absolutely certain", your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to transmit it.

post #98 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Maybe you just don't understand understanding, but, one cannot state anything at all with absolute certainty, so, while a demand for absolute certainty is a common refuge for those backed into corners by untenable positions, it's not a rational criteria. However, given that a government sanctioned monopoly would inevitably lead to Amazon having end-to-end control of the entire publishing industry -- i.e., everything from publishing to bookselling -- and given what we know of how monopolies operate, and human nature, the only rational conclusion that can be reached is that an Amazon monopoly of the publishing industry will result in higher prices, less consumer choice and, most importantly, restricted speech as Amazon controls what actually gets published.

Now, you can ridiculously keep repeating that, 'one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly,' but, if you determine to base all your decisions on absolute certainty, you'll never decide anything, never take any action, never come to any conclusion.

In the rational world, however, people base decisions on the preponderance of evidence. In the rational world, the only reasonable expectation in this instance is that if the DoJ succeeds in this folly, we'll be paying more for all books, digital and physical, in a few years, and we'll have fewer options of what to read. Now, if you disagree with that analysis, present an argument based on facts shows a rational reason why that won't be the case. If all you've got is the schoolyard taunt that we can't be "absolutely certain", your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to transmit it.

I can say that we're all going to die with absolute certainty, and the past is a poor indicator of the future, no one would accomplish anything if they relied so heavily in the past and persevered where others have failed. Having said that, yes past practice would indicate that if allowed to monopoly in all likely hood Amazon would raise prices. I have never denied that fact but the funny thing is that many posters here would readily accept if the monopolist was Apple.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #99 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I can say that we're all going to die with absolute certainty, and the past is a poor indicator of the future, no one would accomplish anything if they relied so heavily in the past and persevered where others have failed. ...

 

The funny thing is, the only reason you think you know with "absolute certainty" that we're all going to die (you don't, btw) is that you actually believe that the past is a perfect indicator of the future. Everyone to date that has lived that we know about has died, thus, you reason, we are all going to die.

 

Quote:
... Having said that, yes past practice would indicate that if allowed to monopoly in all likely hood Amazon would raise prices. ...

 

So, finally, you admit that that is the only rational conclusion. Now, it's just one short, rational step to recognizing that the DoJ has been played by Amazon and screwed up big time. You can do it.

 

Quote:
... I have never denied that fact ...

 

We'll give you a pass on that, seeing that you've come so far.

 

Quote:
... but the funny thing is that many posters here would readily accept if the monopolist was Apple.

 

Damn, now you are back to the baseless conjectures. I had hope... but alas...

post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The funny thing is, the only reason you think you know with "absolute certainty" that we're all going to die (you don't, btw) is that you actually believe that the past is a perfect indicator of the future. Everyone to date that has lived that we know about has died, thus, you reason, we are all going to die.


So, finally, you admit that that is the only rational conclusion. Now, it's just one short, rational step to recognizing that the DoJ has been played by Amazon and screwed up big time. You can do it.


We'll give you a pass on that, seeing that you've come so far.


Damn, now you are back to the baseless conjectures. I had hope... but alas...

Btw saying "nothing can be said with a absolute certainty" is exactly that. How's that for understanding?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #101 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Btw saying "nothing can be said with a absolute certainty" is exactly that. How's that for understanding?

 

Seems like regression on your part. You know, trying to play your way out with word games? Oh, well, you almost adopted reason as a principle.

post #102 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Seems like regression on your part. You know, trying to play your way out with word games? Oh, well, you almost adopted reason as a principle.

Weak argument from a weak mind. Your argument was contradictory onto itself, you ended up proving my point better than I could.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #103 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I would amend your last two-word sentence to: Consumer first AND last.

 

In the case of Amazon, with monopolistic power, under the old model had the ability to sell e-books below cost (while making profits on other items) UNTIL they have run out of business all the other outlet competitors. THEN as the only source for the e-books Amazon can raise prices to whatever they wish to the consumer. 

 

So, the consumer, AT FIRST, can see lower prices, but in the END will pay higher prices.

 

 

 

Amazon's basically run  every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.

 

The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.

 

Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.

 

If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?

 

Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?

post #104 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Amazon's basically run  every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.

The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.

Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.

If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?

Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?

I believe you're mistaken. Apple was not I believe an active participant in any alleged collusion. The publishing houses in question are all old, big, and in close proximity of each other. I'm sure all the CEOs know each other quite well and gather often to discuss the industry. They saw Apple as the crowbar they could use to break the chain that was their agreements with Amazon. Apple will be cleared of any wrongdoing but I don't think the publishers will not fare as well. I also fear any ruling that will benefit Amazon when it should be for our best interest and I don't have enough business knowledge to know what that would be.
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/17/12 at 11:49am
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #105 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

... Apple and certain publishers were allegedly, according to the DoJ who got played by Amazon, colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.

 

If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?

 

Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?

 

There, I fixed that for you. I know you wouldn't want to assert things as true that so far are simply unsubstantiated allegations.

 

And, try to lay off the bad analogies. An analogy in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to make one is like a loaded gun in the hands of a toddler.

post #106 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

 

Amazon's basically run  every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.

 

The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.

 

Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.

 

If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?

 

Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?

 

First of all the ONLY difference between Amazon's wholesale model and Apple's Agency model is that publishers get to set the selling price under the agency model.  That 'Most Favored Nations' clause is a red herring. Phrased another way its Apple's 'You must be fair to us' clause. Apple is essentially saying to the publishers" Look, we know you don't like how Amazon is devaluing your IP so here, you set prices. But don't screw us over by favoring other ebookstores through lower listed prices.  If someone else gets a lower price we should get the same."

 

BTW - have you never wondered why physical books usually have the same MSRP when released? Price collusion, you betcha, since wayyyyyy back when. Yet only now the DoJ steps in.

post #107 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.

Sorry but I have a hard time wrapping my head around your 'internet' market forces. I well understand your argument if it was physical world economics where you have a physical location with a fixed physical target market. On the internet, the world is your oyster.  Does the iBookstore T&C forbid publishers from letting other ebookstores offer discount coupons for orders? Loyalty points that can redeem cash value/prizes?  There is so many other things one can do to drive sales other than slashing prices. Plus the onus is on the bookstores themselves, not publishers.

post #108 of 111

Over Apple's vehement objections, Judge Cote has approved the proposed DOJ settlement with three of the 5 booksellers accused of price-fixing. 

 

"Among other things, the agreement requires the publishers -- Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster -- to abandon the pricing system that they had conceived with Apple before it released its iPad tablet in 2010. The change is supposed to come within the next week."

 

http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21485146/over-apples-objections-judge-oks-settlement-e-book

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 111

"We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 percent,'" Jobs told Isaacson. "And, yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."

 

Guilty.

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 #110 of 111
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

Guilty.

 

Of what, creating competition?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #111 of 111

Interesting that Apple and publishers facing a nearly identical lawsuit in the EU have recently decided to settle without a trial.  Why did they do that?

What is materially different in the EU case compared to DOJs?

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple calls DoJ e-book settlement proposal unlawful, says trial is needed