or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DOJ claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DOJ claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon - Page 4

post #121 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by winchester View Post

While I've never been particularly fond of apple requiring developers to adopt their agency model for in-app purchases, it is Their prerogative. There's No misuse or unlawful activity involved with this action. -Despite apple's intentions! It doesn't even matter if apple Designed these terms specifically to raise the prices offered in a third-party app. When developers chooses to build an app for a platform, they must comply with that platform's terms of use. If they disagree or have a problem with those terms, it's Their prerogative to abstain from developing for it. I'm flabbergasted that the DOJ was able to convince the judge to consider this as evidence in the Completely separate ebook price-fixing suit. It says to me that the judge is obviously incapable of differentiating law from aggressive competition practices. Apple need to file a motion a new one asap.

Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.
post #122 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.

 

The apps may be the "same" but they have a bunch of different code. It's not the same app.
post #123 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post

Correct. The publishers have dropped Apple's model, though it really seemed the fairest model since it would allow entrants into the market. Where the DOJ gets the story completely wrong is that Apple's model would have allow competitors, meaning competitive prices. Amazon's model is to sell at a loss, which effectively prevents any competition, no ebook store can loose money on every book & remain in business for long. So now DOJ has to sue Amazon for being a monopoly.

Cheers !

 

Don't you mean Barnes & Noble's model?

 

Which they were negotiating over with the publishers BEFORE Apple even came on the scene.

 

This was part of the testimony favouring Apple which the moronic judge completely dismissed.

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 #124 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Perhaps you meant to say "IF Amazon was selling all best-sellers at well below their purchase price"? I missed your evidence that all best-seller books are sold below cost at Amazon.

An easy way to question your claim of Amazon selling "way below cost" on every best-seller...

 

You realise that what you are saying is that the DoJ and their moronic, sidekick judge are completely wrong in their assertions, that there was no "increase" at all in the cost of eBooks.

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 #125 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That is part of what shows Apple is uncompetitive and also how they are failing to innovate...

 

Self-publishing has been helped along tremendously by Amazon. Anyone without fanboy goggles on can see that Amazon has been the innovator in the epub space. Apple has been a laggard that has hoped to cash in not by being the best or offering the best experience, 

 

Apple won't make it because they are no longer an innovator...

 

...because they believe they are above the fray of having to innovate and compete...

 

 

The article is a good read and the reasoning here shows how Amazon is innovating and Apple is just sitting on their hands...

 

 

Colour and interactive content going far beyond the drabness of portraying a poor copy of a black and white piece of paper.

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 #126 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


The suggested remedy for Apple's "antitrust violations" 1hmm.gif would preclude that.

 

So the DoJ's contention that this whole case is about "fair pricing" for consumers is the usual crock of horsesh*t which is usually the case when using a moronic judge for a political hatchet job.

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 #127 of 161
The DOJ assertion is totally off basis. The reason the TOS was changed was due to Apple now allowing in app purchases. Prior to this you could either provide a free app or a paid app. In app purchases allowed you to put both in 1 program. A free version or a try it version, which you could unlock for a full version or additional levels etc. they also then later added in app subscriptions. While the Kimdle app was free and allowed you to buy additional content from within the app (I believe) via Amazon, Apple had to change the TOS due to the in app purchasing ability, which affected the Kimdle App, B&N App and others. There was really no choice. Otherwise, this would lead to every developer making a free App and then allowing them to allow you to buy an upgraded version from within the app itself and bypassing the AppStore. Thus, this would dumb down apps, make you personal info less secure etc. Apples other choice could have been to reject the Kindle app due to core functionality, which IMHO would have looked more like they were punishing Amazon or other book e-tailers directly.
post #128 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

The apps may be the "same" but they have a bunch of different code. It's not the same app.

And aren't ebooks formatted differently? So using your logic it's not the same ebook.
post #129 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post

Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.

I don't believe so. Which is precisely why this issue should Never be permitted as evidence. Apple has chosen to establish its iOS platform as a retailer. Any developer can choose to take advantage of idevices as a business strategy, but the terms ensure that Apple will also benefit from a portion of the profits ultimately made possible by the services they've created.

Speaking of business strategies, I personally believe that urging publishers to switch to a wide-scale agency model was just about the smartest move Apple could have made (from a financial perspective). But the e-mails exchanged specifically between Jobs and the publishers cast considerable doubt on the motivations behind Apple's actions. Without those e-mails, I think we'd have seen a very different outcome in this case.
post #130 of 161

Hmmm.  I certainly don't have the apparent knowledge of many people on this forum, but I do have some overall thoughts.

1.  Amazon is clearly a huge force in a variety of markets.  Shouldn't we say "well done" - it's the capitalist MO at its best isn't it?
2.  If the DOJ doesn't like what's going on in the book industry, it will be interesting to see what they say when Amazon really does do nation-wide same-day-grocery delivery - and wait for Big Food's response and the fall-out from that.
3.  I have no idea when a monopoly becomes a monopoly, I guess there is some definition in US law somewhere.  This is just the first of many conflicts going on and the DOJ clearly hasn't caught up yet - they are living in a previous century.
4.  I don't think it's necessarily "price-fixing" to say - "let's price it higher and offer a superior service at the same time".  If Apple executives had such talks with book-sellers, I don't see collusion, it seems like good business practice, and nimble, on-the-balls-of-your-feet - typical Steve Jobs business-savvy.
 

post #131 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post

Apple raised the prices


So that protected Amazon from Apple.

What is the problem with that, Apple isn't undercutting Amazon?

post #132 of 161

Additional edit:

 

BTW: don't disrespect the physical book format.  When the grid goes down and your batteries fail, you'll still be able to learn & enjoy if you can read on the couch, in the bath, at the lake . . .  Ray Bradbury's novel "Fahrenheit 451" said all we need to know about the loss of hard-copy.
 

post #133 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Don't you mean Barnes & Noble's model?

 

Which they were negotiating over with the publishers BEFORE Apple even came on the scene.

 

This was part of the testimony favouring Apple which the moronic judge completely dismissed.

 

It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That is part of what shows Apple is uncompetitive and also how they are failing to innovate...

 

Self-publishing has been helped along tremendously by Amazon. Anyone without fanboy goggles on can see that Amazon has been the innovator in the epub space. Apple has been a laggard that has hoped to cash in not by being the best or offering the best experience, 

 

Apple won't make it because they are no longer an innovator...

 

...because they believe they are above the fray of having to innovate and compete...

 

 

The article is a good read and the reasoning here shows how Amazon is innovating and Apple is just sitting on their hands...

 

 

Colour and interactive content going far beyond the drabness of portraying a poor copy of a black and white piece of paper.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000729511

 

It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.

"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 #134 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.

 

 

A ho-hum copy of Apple's innovation one year and nine months after the iPad launch

 

It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.

 

Apple were NOT the "leaders' of this "conspiracy", Barnes and Noble testified as such.

 

The only "innovation" Amazon did was adding DRM to Adobe pdf.

 

iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.

 

Amazon responded with their sunglasses ads, touting the "superiority" of the Kindles black and white, low refresh rate screen.

 


Edited by hill60 - 8/25/13 at 5:04am
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 #135 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.

Apple could of very easily said "the ebooks in the iBookstore will cost a little more but you're getting much more in return compared to the ebooks Amazon sells"

I think Philip put way too much stock in people switching to Android because they could read their ebooks from Amazon on a Android just as on a iOS device. While it's convenient I don't believe it's a major selling point.
"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 #136 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumergo View Post

Hmmm.  I certainly don't have the apparent knowledge of many people on this forum, but I do have some overall thoughts.


1.  Amazon is clearly a huge force in a variety of markets.  Shouldn't we say "well done" - it's the capitalist MO at its best isn't it?

2.  If the DOJ doesn't like what's going on in the book industry, it will be interesting to see what they say when Amazon really does do nation-wide same-day-grocery delivery - and wait for Big Food's response and the fall-out from that.

3.  I have no idea when a monopoly becomes a monopoly, I guess there is some definition in US law somewhere.  This is just the first of many conflicts going on and the DOJ clearly hasn't caught up yet - they are living in a previous century.

4.  I don't think it's necessarily "price-fixing" to say - "let's price it higher and offer a superior service at the same time".  If Apple executives had such talks with book-sellers, I don't see collusion, it seems like good business practice, and nimble, on-the-balls-of-your-feet - typical Steve Jobs business-savvy.

 

1. No, using the government to strong arm the competition and maintain a monopoly is the exact opposite of capitalism.
post #137 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.

 

 

A ho-hum copy of Apple's innovation one year and nine months after the iPad launch

 

It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.

 

Apple were NOT the "leaders' of this "conspiracy", Barnes and Noble testified as such.

 

The only "innovation" Amazon did was adding DRM to Adobe pdf.

 

iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.

 

Amazon responded with their sunglasses ads, touting the "superiority" of the Kindles black and white, low refresh rate screen.

 

 

Incorrect. What Barnes and Noble testimony did was helped establish motive. BN testimony actually showed why Apple was the leader. Book publishers were not losing money. Barnes and Noble was losing money trying to gain marketshare against Amazon since they couldn't compete on price. Apple also knew they couldn't compete on price and thus the only solution, the solution both of them sought, was a conspiracy with book publishers to raise prices and limit competition in the ebook space. The solution they should have endorsed wasn't a conspiracy lead by one or the other but innovation in the space. Apple to this day is a laggard in the ebook space. iBooks is an inferior experience to using the Kindle app on iPhone and iPad. The fact that it can't even run on Mac, the cloud, etc all make it worse.

 

Kindle's have certainly been able to show photos for quite a while. Beginning in 2009 with the Kindle 2, they were even able to display PDF's. The Amazon ad you showed is appropriate. I do prefer my Kindle Touch for reading in many scenarios and the month long battery life doesn't hurt either. Better still I can use my iPhone and iPad Mini to read whenever I want and have where I left off synced to my Kindle Touch when I'm outside enjoying the sun.

"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 #138 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Incorrect. What Barnes and Noble testimony did was helped establish motive. BN testimony actually showed why Apple was the leader.

Unfortunately, the court testimony doesn't support your claim:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/19/apple-ebooks-barnes-noble/
"But according to Horner's testimony, Barnes & Noble was already planning internally to switch the Big Six to agency before Apple arrived, and that she was under instructions to put those plans into "overdrive" before Barnes & Noble lost even more money."

http://appledailyreport.com/2013/06/19/barnes-noble-vp-testimony-damages-dojs-ebook-case-against-apple/
"Theresa Horner, B&N’s vice president of Digital Content, told the court her company was already negotiating agency pricing deals with publishers before Apple was on the scene in hopes of killing the profit losses it was suffering at the hands of Amazon.com, the article adds."

So if B&N was already working on Agency before Apple even got involved and B&N was losing money because of Amazon, how do you conclude that Apple was actually the leader?
"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 #139 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So if B&N was already working on Agency before Apple even got involved and B&N was losing money because of Amazon, how do you conclude that Apple was actually the leader?

Not being first doesn't automatically exclude anyone from being the leader. Apple has proven that time and time again.
"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 #140 of 161
Here's commercial Philip was referring 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 #141 of 161

It's utterly laughable how those on here actually want to pay more for a book solely because Apple would be selling it to them.

Unbelievable!

 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
 
(So Y is the new X?   Zzzzzzzzzz......)
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
 
(So Y is the new X?   Zzzzzzzzzz......)
Reply
post #142 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Incorrect. What Barnes and Noble testimony did was helped establish motive. BN testimony actually showed why Apple was the leader. Book publishers were not losing money. Barnes and Noble was losing money trying to gain marketshare against Amazon since they couldn't compete on price. Apple also knew they couldn't compete on price and thus the only solution, the solution both of them sought, was a conspiracy with book publishers to raise prices and limit competition in the ebook space. The solution they should have endorsed wasn't a conspiracy lead by one or the other but innovation in the space. Apple to this day is a laggard in the ebook space. iBooks is an inferior experience to using the Kindle app on iPhone and iPad. The fact that it can't even run on Mac, the cloud, etc all make it worse.

 

Kindle's have certainly been able to show photos for quite a while. Beginning in 2009 with the Kindle 2, they were even able to display PDF's. The Amazon ad you showed is appropriate. I do prefer my Kindle Touch for reading in many scenarios and the month long battery life doesn't hurt either. Better still I can use my iPhone and iPad Mini to read whenever I want and have where I left off synced to my Kindle Touch when I'm outside enjoying the sun.

The best thing with a Kindle is I can order a newspaper or book on the beach and not have to have pay a cent to the carriers- ever. Amazon pays it all. 

 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
 
(So Y is the new X?   Zzzzzzzzzz......)
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
 
(So Y is the new X?   Zzzzzzzzzz......)
Reply
post #143 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

It's utterly laughable how those on here actually want to pay more for a book solely because Apple would be selling it to them.
Unbelievable!

It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.

The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
post #144 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.

The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?

Like when iTunes songs jumped from 99 cents to $1.29? Oh that was solely the greedy record labels- I forgot. 

 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
 
(So Y is the new X?   Zzzzzzzzzz......)
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
 
(So Y is the new X?   Zzzzzzzzzz......)
Reply
post #145 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Like when iTunes songs jumped from 99 cents to $1.29? Oh that was solely the greedy record labels- I forgot. 

It was also partly due to Amazon. Please do a little research before making comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/technology/17amazon.html?_r=0
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/26/13 at 8:34am
"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 #146 of 161
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post
Like when iTunes songs jumped from 99 cents to $1.29? Oh that was solely the greedy record labels- I forgot. 

 

Unless you have proof otherwise, you'd better darn well not claim otherwise.

post #147 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Incorrect. What Barnes and Noble testimony did was helped establish motive. BN testimony actually showed why Apple was the leader.

Unfortunately, the court testimony doesn't support your claim:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/19/apple-ebooks-barnes-noble/
"But according to Horner's testimony, Barnes & Noble was already planning internally to switch the Big Six to agency before Apple arrived, and that she was under instructions to put those plans into "overdrive" before Barnes & Noble lost even more money."

http://appledailyreport.com/2013/06/19/barnes-noble-vp-testimony-damages-dojs-ebook-case-against-apple/
"Theresa Horner, B&N’s vice president of Digital Content, told the court her company was already negotiating agency pricing deals with publishers before Apple was on the scene in hopes of killing the profit losses it was suffering at the hands of Amazon.com, the article adds."

So if B&N was already working on Agency before Apple even got involved and B&N was losing money because of Amazon, how do you conclude that Apple was actually the leader?

 

Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

It's utterly laughable how those on here actually want to pay more for a book solely because Apple would be selling it to them.
Unbelievable!

It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.

The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?

 

You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.

"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 #148 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.


You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.

Amazon did invent the market but the govt shouldn't allow them to maintain a monopoly with its predatory pricing. That is a barrier to entry. When Apple got involved, more competitors sprang up as well. Long term, the prices would have normalized. Who says $10 is fair market value? Only amazon.
post #149 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.

The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?

Question is were you concerned when nobody could compete with $.99 songs, and $9.99 albums on iTunes?
"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 #150 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.


You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.

Amazon did invent the market but the govt shouldn't allow them to maintain a monopoly with its predatory pricing. That is a barrier to entry. When Apple got involved, more competitors sprang up as well. Long term, the prices would have normalized. Who says $10 is fair market value? Only amazon.

 

There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.

"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 #151 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Question is were you concerned when nobody could compete with $.99 songs, and $9.99 albums on iTunes?

iTunes was competing against piracy. I guess the DOJ should have investigated Apple then because Apple raised the price of music from free to $.99. Oh and Amazon sells songs for .25 and .69.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.

The DOJ should have investigated Amazon and not collect bribes.
post #152 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

iTunes was competing against piracy. I guess the DOJ should have investigated Apple then because Apple raised the price of music from free to $.99. Oh and Amazon sells songs for .25 and .69.

That's not what I asked you. Nice try at redirection though.
"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 #153 of 161
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
That's not what I asked you.

 

Your question was based on a false premise in the first place; you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore what you say.

post #154 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Question is were you concerned when nobody could compete with $.99 songs, and $9.99 albums on iTunes?

No one could compete? Then maybe you can explain why just about everyone else matched (or beat) the price right away.
"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 #155 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No one could compete? Then maybe you can explain why just about everyone else matched (or beat) the price right away.

Having the same price does not equate competing.
"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 #156 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Having the same price does not equate competing.

That makes no sense. Competing involves competitors in the same market. It makes no mention on price.
post #157 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

That makes no sense. Competing involves competitors in the same market. It makes no mention on price.

I was answering jragosta's question on price. Yes there are competitors with the same or lower price than Apple but what's their market share?
"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 #158 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I was answering jragosta's question on price. Yes there are competitors with the same or lower price than Apple but what's their market share?

Probably a lot higher than Amazon's competitors when Amazon was undercutting everyone.
post #159 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Probably a lot higher than Amazon's competitors when Amazon was undercutting everyone.

Yes but even you said yourself that the ebook market is yet young. All the players have yet to get going. Again having the lowest price doesn't mean others cannot compete.
"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 #160 of 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.

The DOJ should have investigated Amazon and not collect bribes.

 

Someone bribed a whole lot of people then because Apple was investigated in the EU as well.

"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 claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon