or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DOJ accuses Apple and publishers of conspiring again after e-book ruling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DOJ accuses Apple and publishers of conspiring again after e-book ruling - Page 3

post #81 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by travisgamedev View Post

The DOJ is turning into a Socialist regime, just faster than the other parts of government, because Holder is at the helm. This is what you get when you have a government that rules with an iron fist, like China, and won't look at the evidence, and pays off the judge with bonuses and paid leave. Hopefully 2014 and 2016 elections will give us better results and we can head back towards democracy.

 

Oh please… "socialist regime"?? Stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh. They are misinforming and misguiding you. That isn't "education".  Socialism is an Economic System.

 

Please go and get a proper education about the nature of "Socialism" before posting silly, ignorant, politically laced commentary here. It clearly isn't what you think it is. SImple definitions are a good start. You could even try Wikipedia for basics:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

 

 

That's it in a nutshell. See how NOT relevant that is?

 

post #82 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

WRONG. The Agency Agreement does not "forbid" content providers from selling for less elsewhere.

It does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore.


Finally, what you also don't seem to get is this: Apple doesn't set the prices at all. The publishers/content providers do.

That's why this entire case is so back-asswards. All that Apple really did was remove the artificially lower pricing imposed by Amazon's near-monopoly on the entire market (a monopoly in part gained, I might add, by unfairly leveraging its dominant position to kill competition by lowering prices to AT OR BELOW costs).

Basing "fair market pricing" on Amazon's artificially low prices is the DOJ's first major error. Their second was to base their premise that Apple unfairly "raised prices" in that it was also based on those artificially low prices AND the notion that Apple somehow controls pricing. They don't. The publishers do.

Ye, very weird indeed...

It's the MFN clause that forbids them from lowering the price without lowering it for Apple as well.
"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 #83 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Just not yet.

 

 

FUD FUD FUD… please...

post #84 of 152

I wonder how many DOJ staffers will end up with cushy executive jobs at Amazon, Google and Samsung in let's say 2-3 years from now.

post #85 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It's the MFN clause that forbids them from lowering the price without lowering it for Apple as well.

 

 

Mmmk… and how is that different from my second sentence? I quote:

"It does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."

 

Oh, I see… YOU reapplied the word "forbids"… because it's much more meaningful and overflowing with dark implication or… something...


Gotta get those imperious words in there, eh? 

 

Apple FORBIDS…. *snicker...

post #86 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Price drops are not necessarily good. In many areas, people spend far too much for, say, brand name items, that offer nothing but ostentatiousness. But, the idea that low prices are good is a mistake. Low prices are a race to the bottom for anyone who wants to make a real contribution -- you have to be a producer not merely a consumer. Low prices keep competition from entering the market -- low prices prevent productive investments and prevents risk taking at all levels. It prevents innovation. And, it just make a living, low prices demands a massive market for your product, and prevents development of local and necessarily small enterprises. 


What's scary is that the growing (& majority) entitlement mentality in the U.S. seems to be an obstacle to your logic.

...and that's sad.

 

Great point, just wish more people "get it".

post #87 of 152

Why would an innovative company like Apple want to enter the discount book business and get mired in individually pricing thousands upon thousands of publications? The agency model is the only one that makes sense for Apple, but the DOJ says that can't be allowed. WTF?


Edited by Cpsro - 8/9/13 at 12:46pm
post #88 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post


Mmmk… and how is that different from my second sentence? I quote:
"It does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."

Oh, I see… YOU reapplied the word "forbids"… because it's much more meaningful and overflowing with dark implication or… something...

It's different because I included the MFN clause not the agency model. Apple doesn't forbid them the agreement does.
"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 #89 of 152
The Department Of Justice is doing the right thing. I know because the Ministry Of Truth said so. I mean, it's not as if the DOJ was supposed to enforce behavior that was collectively deemed acceptable by the majority of people (hmmm... we could call them something like 'Rules'). That would be crazy.
post #90 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post


What's scary is that the growing (& majority) entitlement mentality in the U.S. seems to be an obstacle to your logic.
...and that's sad.

Great point, just wish more people "get it".

You can thank low wages for that. It's not a mindset it's a necessity.
"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 #91 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Forcing everyone to sell at the same price is just as anticompetitive.
No it's not its up to the seller. Apple does this on their HW products. If it cost too much people won't buy it.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #92 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

No it's not its up to the seller. Apple does this on their HW products. If it cost too much people won't buy it.

Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.
"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 #93 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You can thank low wages for that. It's not a mindset it's a necessity.


Don't blame alcohol for alcoholism.  It's a factor but not the cause.

 

Don't think that the entitlement mentality only exists in those with low wages.

 

To clarify... the consumer SHOULD desire the lowest possible price for the value they seek to obtain.  They just should NOT feel entitled to it.  And if they feel entitled, they need to see the whole picture (i.e. see it from the "producers" perspective).

post #94 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.

 

What??  "The fact remains you … could not compete with Apple on price". WHAT?? In what fantasy realm would that be remotely true?

 

OMG, you are flipping this from being a "can't compete with AMAZON's artificially low pricing" argument to "can't compete with APPLE on price"?

 

How could one not compete with iBooks pricing? How could one NOT compete with "Apple on price"?

 

You are completely wrongly and negatively distorting this entire discussion, and steering it back into your constant "Apple is the bad guy" frame...

 

Of course it matters who sets prices. It especially matters to YOUR argument which requires that Apple sets pricing in order to be valid. But… they don't. So, where does that leave your argument?

post #95 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'm a grown man so no I wasn't trying to be 'cute' I was being facetious, and thanks for your concern but it's none of your business if I want to embarrass myself.
A reasonable passive aggressive. Now I have seen it all. You mad? You lost your cool man. It's obvious your attempt to make a reasonable looking argument was flawed, this why people are calling you in it. You messed up.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #96 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It's different because I included the MFN clause not the agency model. Apple doesn't forbid them the agreement does.

 

OK I"ll rephrase then:

 

"The MFN does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."

 

Oh, perhaps I should use the word FORBID there? It isn't quite Darth Vader enough saying "must"?

 

No, what's different is your semantics. From "terms of agreement" to "forbidden acts"… one is in a spirit of cooperation. The other really isn't.

 

 

Listen, I've written a lot of B2B agreements. Contracts, Memos of understanding, statements of work, cobranded exercises, cooperative agreements, whatever you want to call them. Business agreements. Written understandings of what we want to do together as companies.

 

We pretty much don't go anywhere near the ideas of "forbid" and "demand" and "must" and "will"… we say in a very friendly and clear and unemotional way what the spirit of our agreement is. Sometimes in more "legally defined" terms for complicated agreements, and with the understanding that in many cases we are entering into binding agreements. Still, words like "forbidden" and "thou shalt not" rarely enter the lexicon.

 

Even non-disclose / non-compete agreements that contain a definition of consequences should one party or the other violate the terms of the agreement don't even apply terms like FORBID.

 

 

You're trying way too hard here to use semantics to make Apple look like the evil Imperial Empire...

post #97 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

What??  "The fact remains you … could not compete with Apple on price". WHAT?? In what fantasy realm would that be remotely true?

OMG, you are flipping this from being a "can't compete with AMAZON's artificially low pricing" argument to "can't compete with APPLE on price"?

How could one not compete with iBooks pricing? How could one NOT compete with "Apple on price"?

You are completely wrongly and negatively distorting this entire discussion, and steering it back into your constant "Apple is the bad guy" frame...

Of course it matters who sets prices. It especially matters to YOUR argument which requires that Apple sets pricing in order to be valid. But… they don't. So, where does that leave your argument?

It leaves it intact. Yes I should have included Amazon in there but that would be stating the obvious and oft repeated on here so I omitted it. Yes it is the publishers that set the price but it's Apple's iBookstore you'd be competing with and not the publishers.
"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 #98 of 152

Of COURSE if more than one person holds an opinion, there must be "collusion". 

 

It's too bad the Department of Jokes has their Jokes taken seriously, and their absurdity here shows just how far from justice we've gotten. 

post #99 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

OK I"ll rephrase then:

"The MFN does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."

Oh, perhaps I should use the word FORBID there? It isn't quite Darth Vader enough saying "must"?




No, what's different is your semantics. From "terms of agreement" to "forbidden acts"… one is in a spirit of cooperation. The other really isn't.


Listen, I've written a lot of B2B agreements. Contracts, Memos of understanding, statements of work, cobranded exercises, cooperative agreements, whatever you want to call them. Business agreements. Written understandings of what we want to do together as companies.

We pretty much don't go anywhere near the ideas of "forbid" and "demand" and "must" and "will"… we say in a very friendly and clear and unemotional way what the spirit of our agreement is. Sometimes in more "legally defined" terms for complicated agreements, and with the understanding that in many cases we are entering into binding agreements. Still, words like "forbidden" and "thou shalt not" rarely enter the lexicon.

Even non-disclose / non-compete agreements that contain a definition of consequences should one party or the other violate the terms of the agreement don't even apply terms like FORBID.


You're trying way too hard here to use semantics to make Apple look like the evil Imperial Empire...

I'm not a baker so I don't sugarcoat things. A demand is a demand regardless of how you word it.
"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 #100 of 152
How is it collusion when the publishers aren't selling the same books? Would it be collusion if a car manufacturer talked with a real estate broker before coming to an agreement with Apple about how to price cars and real estate in iTunes?
post #101 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.

You do realize when Apple came into the market, more ebook sellers popped up as well. Amazon's predatory pricing was a barrier to entry.
post #102 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It's the MFN clause that forbids them from lowering the price without lowering it for Apple as well.

Please explain how this policy equates with colluding to raise prices.
post #103 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

You do realize when Apple came into the market, more ebook sellers popped up as well. Amazon's predatory pricing was a barrier to entry.

It's alright, they'll die off slowly.
"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 #104 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

Please explain how this policy equates with colluding to raise prices.

http://tidbits.com/article/13912
"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 #105 of 152

Oh man... there's one guy that is thoroughly spamming and polluting this thread.

 

It has become unreadable.

 

I'm off....

post #106 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

How is it collusion when the publishers aren't selling the same books? Would it be collusion if a car manufacturer talked with a real estate broker before coming to an agreement with Apple about how to price cars and real estate in iTunes?

 

I think the DOJ is nuts here (the equivalent of Javert from Les Miserables), but the collusion is fairly easy to understand.

 

In the wholesale model (what most retailers use), a publisher would sell books to a retailer for say $15 (wholesale price). The retailer is than free to sell it to end consumers at the MSRP, like $25, or $20, or loss lead for $10. The price competition arises because a publisher would sell their books to multiple retailers: like Barnes & Nobles, B. Dalton's (defunct) or Borders/WaldenBooks (defunct). The publisher sells books at agreed upon wholesale price to each of the retailers. The retailers, stocked with piles of these books in their stores, then compete for customers by being able to change the prices on the same books. Customers can shop at different retailers for the cheapest price.

 

Apple's deals with the publishers for ebooks did a couple of things. It moved the control of ebook prices from the retailer to the publishers with the agency model. By being a powerful enough new entrant into the ebook market (iPad et al), Apple enabled the publishers to move other ebook retailers (Amazon, B&N, Kobo) to agency models by threatening not to sell ebooks to retailers. The MFN is a red herring, as it was just a vehicle by which Apple guaranteed that publishers wouldn't stab them in the back (sell an ebook cheaper in one ebook store over another). The key thing was Apple's entrance into the market and that they were big enough for publishers to use as the stick to get other ebook retailers to change to agency.

 

With the publishers wanting higher prices for ebooks, and they got them by wresting control of prices from retailers to themselves, the prices did indeed rise instantaneously, only to gradually fall to basically where they were when Amazon was controlling the prices. With everyone on agency, there's no price competition on individual ebooks. When the DOJ says "price competition", they are talking about "price competition between retailers". The DOJ and the court apparently didn't think that basic demand/price curves was enough to change prices, but they aren't economists after all, but I digress.

 

The DOJ obviously did not like this. The judge agreed. The DOJ's remedy is to prevent this from happening again. We'll see how the judge decides on the remedy soon, and I think the DOJ's remedy will sale through with flying colors, and we'll all revisit this again on appeals and probably the SCOTUS if the remedy of Apple's IAP cut being eliminated will be put into effect.

 

Obviously, I disagree with the DOJ and the courts as the mechanics and dynamics of business in a digital goods market is totally different than in physical goods, and the laws developed through the years based on physical book sales really don't apply. Just to read an ebook, you need invest in a tablet that can cost anywhere between $50 to $500. Then you needed a reader application that has to be supplied by and supported in perpetuity by the platform vendor to be able to read the ebook. Just batpoop insane for the DOJ and the court to think they should apply traditional anti-trust law to this.

 

If they wanted price competition, mandate a standard format for ebooks, and enforce compatibility. That's about all they need to do.

post #107 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh man... there's one guy that is thoroughly spamming and polluting this thread.

It has become unreadable.

I'm off....

Can't take the truth? It's ok most people can't.
"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 #108 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


http://tidbits.com/article/13912

Good read. Best explanation by far. Sadly ebook prices still increased overall.

post #109 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh man... there's one guy that is thoroughly spamming and polluting this thread.

 

It has become unreadable.

 

I'm off....

Self banned. Nice

post #110 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

I think the DOJ is nuts here (the equivalent of Javert from Les Miserables), but the collusion is fairly easy to understand.

In the wholesale model (what most retailers use), a publisher would sell books to a retailer for say $15 (wholesale price). The retailer is than free to sell it to end consumers at the MSRP, like $25, or $20, or loss lead for $10. The price competition arises because a publisher would sell their books to multiple retailers: like Barnes & Nobles, B. Dalton's (defunct) or Borders/WaldenBooks (defunct). The publisher sells books at agreed upon wholesale price to each of the retailers. The retailers, stocked with piles of these books in their stores, then compete for customers by being able to change the prices on the same books. Customers can shop at different retailers for the cheapest price.

Apple's deals with the publishers for ebooks did a couple of things. It moved the control of ebook prices from the retailer to the publishers with the agency model. By being a powerful enough new entrant into the ebook market (iPad et al), Apple enabled the publishers to move other ebook retailers (Amazon, B&N, Kobo) to agency models by threatening not to sell ebooks to retailers. The MFN is a red herring, as it was just a vehicle by which Apple guaranteed that publishers wouldn't stab them in the back (sell an ebook cheaper in one ebook store over another). The key thing was Apple's entrance into the market and that they were big enough for publishers to use as the stick to get other ebook retailers to change to agency.

With the publishers wanting higher prices for ebooks, and they got them by wresting control of prices from retailers to themselves, the prices did indeed rise instantaneously, only to gradually fall to basically where they were when Amazon was controlling the prices. With everyone on agency, there's no price competition on individual ebooks. When the DOJ says "price competition", they are talking about "price competition between retailers". The DOJ and the court apparently didn't think that basic demand/price curves was enough to change prices, but they aren't economists after all, but I digress.

The DOJ obviously did not like this. The judge agreed. The DOJ's remedy is to prevent this from happening again. We'll see how the judge decides on the remedy soon, and I think the DOJ's remedy will sale through with flying colors, and we'll all revisit this again on appeals and probably the SCOTUS if the remedy of Apple's IAP cut being eliminated will be put into effect.

Obviously, I disagree with the DOJ and the courts as the mechanics and dynamics of business in a digital goods market is totally different than in physical goods, and the laws developed through the years based on physical book sales really don't apply. Just to read an ebook, you need invest in a tablet that can cost anywhere between $50 to $500. Then you needed a reader application that has to be supplied by and supported in perpetuity by the platform vendor to be able to read the ebook. Just batpoop insane for the DOJ and the court to think they should apply traditional anti-trust law to this.

If they wanted price competition, mandate a standard format for ebooks, and enforce compatibility. That's about all they need to do.

Well written and I agree. The question I'd like the answer to is this, why did prices fall? Was it because Amazon had some ebooks overpriced or did sales die down enough to warrant a price drop?
"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 #111 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Can't take the truth? It's ok most people can't.

Does this apply to you also?   Ever admitted when have ever been wrong on this Forum? no remote chance of you ever being wrong.. right?  Because you are perfect.. and want respect.   I recall you try to portray being open minded, reasonable and fair guy.  However, when the going gets though you start throwing elbows and calling people dumb. Calling names like "Ivy League brain of yours", "The exiled moderator", and I am sure countless other things for which others have done a good job letting it pass.  Maybe because they hae been here alot longer than I have and know your real MO.  One I am just slowing learning about you now and putting the pieces together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I'm a grown man so no I wasn't trying to be 'cute' I was being facetious, and thanks for your concern but it's none of your business if I want to embarrass myself.

Finally, I point we can agree with you on.  You are a grown man and it is your right if you want to embarrass yourself by the way you are acting towards others.

No wonder people stop debating with you.  You are not a man, you are a child and a bully at that when the going get though because your debate is flawed.

so go embarrass yourself all you want... its your business.  Keep it up and you will have no-one to debate with, nor any respect.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #112 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

Oh please… "socialist regime"?? Stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh. They are misinforming and misguiding you. That isn't "education".  Socialism is an Economic System.

 

Please go and get a proper education about the nature of "Socialism" before posting silly, ignorant, politically laced commentary here. It clearly isn't what you think it is. SImple definitions are a good start. You could even try Wikipedia for basics:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

 

 

That's it in a nutshell. See how NOT relevant that is?

 

 

The Government is the people, the DoJ acting on behalf of the Government is attempting "co-operative management of the economy" by setting prices.

 

Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of the United States of America.

 

Hopefully the Supreme Court will reel these unconstitutional scumbags in.

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 #113 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Does this apply to you also?   Ever admitted when have ever been wrong on this Forum? no remote chance of you ever being wrong.. right?  I recall you try to portray being open minded, reasonable and fair guy.  When the going gets though to start throwing elbows. Calling names like "Ivy League brain of yours", "The exiled moderator", and I am sure countless other things.
Finally, I point we can agree with you on.  You are a grown man and it is your right if you want to embarrass yourself by the way you are acting towards others.
No wonder people stop debating with you.  You are not a man, you are a child and a bully at that when the going get though because your debate is flawed.
so go embarrass yourself all you want... its your business.  

I have been mistaken quite a few times and did indeed admit that I was wrong on this forum. Certain people on this forum are incapable of having a decent conversation. You either see things their way or there's no productive dialogue nor even a 'let's agree to disagree'. I am not the bully, I'm the one fighting back.
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/9/13 at 2:32pm
"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 #114 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It leaves it intact. Yes I should have included Amazon in there but that would be stating the obvious and oft repeated on here so I omitted it. Yes it is the publishers that set the price but it's Apple's iBookstore you'd be competing with and not the publishers.

 

By the same token, I omitted the mention of the MFN (leaving only the "Agency Agreement" mention within which the MFN exists and not the other way around), but that too would have been stating the obvious, no? But that was the detail in your sole reply, which also ignored the rest of my premise.
 
If the publishers set the prices across the market, and I know that my prices won't be any better or worse than iBooks due to MFN, how is that making it impossible for me to compete with iBooks? I can compete in many ways aside from price, especially if I know that prices won't be different enough to be the primary determining factor.
 
Alternatively, if my competition is pretty much ONLY Amazon, who before could set the prices themselves to a level I CANNOT COMPETE WITH (because they can sustain a prolonged below-cost 'loss leader' campaign, whereas I cannot), then the significance of this "obvious statement" is so overwhelming, that it could only be construed as manipulative to leave it out. Get that?
 
And once again you are ignoring and/or redirecting from the core premise or point of my response, and again moving the goalposts.
 
I'm done with this. Spam away in solitude if you like...

Edited by tribalogical - 8/9/13 at 2:53pm
post #115 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I have been mistaken quite a few times and did indeed admit that I was wrong on this forum.

prove it.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #116 of 152

I always try to be an optimist. I want to believe that justice is blind. But I'm really starting to think that Apple has pissed someone off in the current administration.

post #117 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Well written and I agree. The question I'd like the answer to is this, why did prices fall? Was it because Amazon had some ebooks overpriced or did sales die down enough to warrant a price drop?
Or
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Can't take the truth? It's ok most people can't.

Yes most people can take BS.
post #118 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjanders View Post

I always try to be an optimist. I want to believe that justice is blind. But I'm really starting to think that Apple has pissed someone off in the current administration.

you know they got singled out and thrown into a media dog and pony show with Congress the taxes fiasco .. right? 

 

it was Paul Ryan who pushed back to the rest of Congress and pointed out that they are on a witch hunt to single out Apple, while intended to do nothing about it. Instead of creating a simpler tax code for which Congress themselves have to blame for the existing loopholes they they put in place by lobbyists. This what this is all about  Apple not paying off Washington for them not looking the other way like they do with the other guys who use the same loop holes but pay up with political contributions and side deals. They dont intend to close the loopholes, they just want to get paid for looking the other way. 


Edited by snova - 8/9/13 at 2:47pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #119 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I'm not a baker so I don't sugarcoat things. A demand is a demand regardless of how you word it.

 

Unless… ready for it?

 

Unless it isn't a demand…  

 

Most agreements I enter into don't remotely enter the realm of "demands" at all. 

 

Why do you not get this?

 

 

Ah, I see, you're not a baker… you're also not a Scholar, and therefore…?

 

Oh never mind.


Edited by tribalogical - 8/9/13 at 2:44pm
post #120 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It's different because I included the MFN clause not the agency model. Apple doesn't forbid them the agreement does.

According to the MFN clause any party can sell at whatever price but for Apple they are entitled to the 30% profit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DOJ accuses Apple and publishers of conspiring again after e-book ruling