or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices - Page 4

post #121 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

This is the entire case in a nutshell:

"Apple led the charge in convincing publishers to switch to a so-called "agency" pricing model. That prevented content owners from being able to sell the same titles at a lower price elsewhere, without offering the same price on Apple's iBooks platform.

In contrast, the e-book industry prior to the launch of the first iPad was under the "wholesale model" preferred by market leader Amazon. In that model, resellers such as Amazon had the power to set prices, selling titles at or below cost if they chose to do so."


For me, the question that matters here (and that was apparently overlooked by the court) is the one that comes from that last part regarding Amazon's 'powers': Did Apple's actions PREVENT Amazon from setting their own RETAIL prices at or below cost if they chose to do so? Apple didn't remove the "wholesale model" from Amazon, did they? They simply said to publishers, "if you sell to Amazon (or others) for a lower price, you have to give us that price too. And to the publishers they said, on OUR store YOU set the prices, not us.

Where is there "price fixing" or "conspiring" to raise prices? I just don't see it%u2026

 

 

That is NOT the entire case in a nut shell.

 

With the help of Apple, publishers collectively(conspired) forced Amazon to adopt the Agency model and simultaneously raising prices(price fixing) for consumers.

 

Antitrust laws were created to protect consumers, not businesses.

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

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

Reply
post #122 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post


That is NOT the entire case in a nut shell.

With the help of Apple, publishers collectively(conspired) forced Amazon to adopt the Agency model and simultaneously raising prices(price fixing) for consumers.

Antitrust laws were created to protect consumers, not businesses.

It is hard to believe Amazon didn't have more influence than Apple.

In addition then why did the government go after Microsoft for IE? IE was free. Free is good for consumers. Fact is competition is required. Amazon had a near monopoly and was undercutting others so they could not make a buck.
post #123 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


It is hard to believe Amazon didn't have more influence than Apple.

In addition then why did the government go after Microsoft for IE? IE was free. Free is good for consumers. Fact is competition is required. Amazon had a near monopoly and was undercutting others so they could not make a buck.

 

As I stated in a previous post, the issue with MS and IE was that MS used their monopoly position in one industry (operating systems) to force their way into another (web browsers). This prevented others from being able to compete with IE, not because IE was good, and not even because it was free. They couldn't compete because MS used their OS position to force PC vendors to include IE (and later IE was integrated into the OS) and to forbid them from including other web browsers on the PCs they sold.
post #124 of 131
Something good of all this mess may at least be that more people are aware of the vast artibtrary power of the government to interfere in all manner of private life. Reasonable people seem to understand that going after Apple in this way (not to mention the publishers and, by extension, authors) is unjust. Perhaps this will help erode the perversion of antitrust laws and lead the so called Department of Justice to review its practices.

Here's a nice parallel video from 1979 or 1980:

Who Protects the Consumer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_4vanP04I
From the Milton Friedman series Free to Choose
Running time is approximately 58 minutes
Includes a moderated discussion between Friedman and statist representatives at the end.

Quite interesting. It reminds me of the the government strong-arming used to force Chrysler's recall of safe vehicles:
http://www.startribune.com/business/212017211.html

What a wonderful world.
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
post #125 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by winchester View Post

I'm not siding with Apple for the sake of siding with Apple. But if what they did was in violation of an antitrust law, I just think it's a stupid law! It's only logical for a retailer to bargain with suppliers for the lowest possible price.

To my knowledge, the only stipulations made by apple were that publishers offer them the lowest available price for their ebooks and that apple collect a 30% retailers fee. How is this illegal? Regardless of emails Steve Jobs may or may not have sent- these terms were not dictated in the deals that were signed by the publishing companies. They were just thoughts being communicated. How long does the arm of the government extend? Has it become illegal for corporate leaders to casually share ideas with each other leading up to a business partnership? This, to me sounds ridiculous! If this is the law, it needs to be changed.

 

The issue wasn't that Apple would buy the product for the lowest possible price, but that Apple would guarantee through collusion that their selling price would be the lowest.  It wasn't Apple's adoption of an agency model that was illegal, but rather that they convinced the publishers to strong-arm Amazon into an agency model that ensured Apple's prices would be lower than Amazons, preventing Amazon from selling books in a retail model (ie. Amazon buys at the price the publisher sets, then re-sells book at whatever price they want).  

 

This is pretty much the prototypical anti-trust scenario...  

post #126 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

The issue wasn't that Apple would buy the product for the lowest possible price, but that Apple would guarantee through collusion that their selling price would be the lowest.  It wasn't Apple's adoption of an agency model that was illegal, but rather that they convinced the publishers to strong-arm Amazon into an agency model that ensured Apple's prices would be lower than Amazons, preventing Amazon from selling books in a retail model (ie. Amazon buys at the price the publisher sets, then re-sells book at whatever price they want).  

This is pretty much the prototypical anti-trust scenario...  

Here's a good article.

http://tidbits.com/article/13912
post #127 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton View Post

But you are missing the point here. The price you pay for an eBook has at least 2 components: the cost that is paid to the author/publisher, and the cost that is 'siphoned off' by the distributor. The price matching you are talking about is all about price competition among distributors who are competing for your business, not price competition driven by authors or even the publishers. The distributors add no value to the product itself other than providing authors with access to buyers. And in the case of electronic products, like eBooks and software, Apple's stores offer by far the most efficient way of distributing electronic products to a global market. B&N and Amazon just can't compete with the distribution model created by Apple. Their outdated business model, involving price competition on distribution only, should not be protected by the DoJ.

Why would publishers need to compete on price? One publisher doesn't offer the same exact books as another only distributors do that so they're the ones that need to compete on price. Amazon's way did indeed present roadblocks for competitors but Apple's way does too. All we're going to eventually have is a duopoly with high prices instead of a near monopoly with low prices.
"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 #128 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIJG View Post

It reminds me of the the government strong-arming used to force Chrysler's recall of safe vehicles:
http://www.startribune.com/business/212017211.html

What a wonderful world.

Because we should just take a big corporation's word for it that their products are safe.

We should also let the financial sector regulate itself.

While we're at it, I have some shoreline property to sell you in Florida.
post #129 of 131
I love Apple products but the iBookstore really, really boggles my mind.

I'm not saying Apple did/did not do wrong here; I am saying that Apple's hands clearly got dirty by shaking the wrong hands.

Apple's iBookstore pricing is something to behold--on average, nearly all the books I look for are either the same price or higher than Kindle. However, Kindle has more books, and more access to them (i.e. Macs, iOS, PC, Web, Android, etc.)--I am not saying Amazon is some grandiose savior of the book-buying public but charges less money for the same item, and with better access for its customers to view their content.
post #130 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanGuapo View Post

I love Apple products but...

Quote:
I'm not saying Apple did/did not do wrong here; I am saying that Apple's hands clearly got dirty by shaking the wrong hands.

I'm not saying you've read absolutely nothing about what's going on here, but...

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #131 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I'm not saying you've read absolutely nothing about what's going on here, but...

it sure seems that way.
"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 › US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices