or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple requests removal of external antitrust compliance monitor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple requests removal of external antitrust compliance monitor - Page 2

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satorical View Post
 

Not how it works, Apple. You don't get to remove the monitor because you don't like what he's saying.

 

They are asking the judge to remove the monitor because they claim he is biased against the company, doing things that the judge told him not to do (e.g. interview people without attorneys present), acting as a prosecutor (i.e. advocate for the plaintiffs) instead of a judge (i.e. monitoring compliance with an existing court order), and charging fees that are neither reasonable nor customary.

 

The police don't install a breathalyzer car ignition lock if you get a ticket for driving 35mph in a 30mph zone. That's sort of like what the monitor is trying to do.

post #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.

Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.

Oh, he clearly is. Just peruse his posting history and tell me if you disagree.

 

Add: Heh, heh. Looks like he's been erased....

post #43 of 63
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
That is no longer the case, Amazon can't sell ebooks at a loss since the ruling.

 

That seems illegal.

 

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.

 

To be expected from ConradJoe.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.

Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.

He's not new and yes he is one of the biggest trolls on the site. His accounts include:

KoreaFighting
SuperJunior
TwoPM
hill6O
NUEST
oolong
AppleIII
neobiani
LGprada
OpticWhite
AppleWill
AppleWill2
AppleWins
SKFTW
OnlyApple
Ta11est Skil
sharklasers
TS Buster 1
Zombie Steve
Zombi Steve
B2ST
beloFreeFifty
belowFreeFifty
appleisbest
AllApple
exom
Lowest Skil
VIXX
TheOnion
guerilla
Sluffs
Hereticz
2NE1
NotASheep
AOA1
Adolf Muller

This is in the last year or two. I guess some people just have problems with rejection. There's another person does this too, it's quite a strange thing to do. I can understand doing it once or twice to get kicks out of annoying people but to do it so much is very odd. I'm not sure what their expected outcome is. It also makes it look like there's a lot more new nuisance posters than there are.
post #45 of 63
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
I guess some people just have problems with rejection.

 

This is a mental illness at this point. 

 

I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too. :lol:

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

He's not new and yes he is one of the biggest trolls on the site. His accounts include:

KoreaFighting
SuperJunior
TwoPM
hill6O
NUEST
oolong
AppleIII
neobiani
LGprada
OpticWhite
AppleWill
AppleWill2
AppleWins
SKFTW
OnlyApple
Ta11est Skil
sharklasers
TS Buster 1
Zombie Steve
Zombi Steve
B2ST
beloFreeFifty
belowFreeFifty
appleisbest
AllApple
exom
Lowest Skil
VIXX
TheOnion
guerilla
Sluffs
Hereticz
2NE1
NotASheep
AOA1
Adolf Muller

This is in the last year or two. I guess some people just have problems with rejection. There's another person does this too, it's quite a strange thing to do. I can understand doing it once or twice to get kicks out of annoying people but to do it so much is very odd. I'm not sure what their expected outcome is. It also makes it look like there's a lot more new nuisance posters than there are.

That's just sad and pitiful. I stand corrected.
"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 #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.

 

Where is  DalShabet's original post?

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #48 of 63
Originally Posted by mhikl View Post

Where is  DalShabet's original post?

 

Where it belongs: deleted.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

This is a mental illness at this point. 

I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too. lol.gif

I think that one's still available but either he or someone else has been signing up other variations:



There's also TallistDah and Tallist Huh. The above guy also has SuJu, SteffenJobs, exonn, SteveJobsIsDead, appleisshit.

They're Windows/Android users again. When it's both together, it's understandable that their user experience would be so infuriating that they'd just have to lash out at people who have it better.

It's like when you see that Salman Rushdie was married to Padma Lashki for 3 years and she sleeps naked:



Instead of congratulating them both, it's natural to be bitter about it and the reaction is more 'well, she probably doesn't look good naked anyway' or 'that would get boring after a while having her sleep naked beside you every night'.

Windows/Android users just hate that we have it so good so their reactions are 'well, Apple has to copy other people too', 'OS X probably gets viruses, you just don't hear about them', 'oh iOS has just as many security and fragmentation problems as Android if not more'. The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android is their users.
post #50 of 63

OK, so semi-back-on-topic...

 

A couple of weeks ago, I purchased "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" (2007 US edition) via iBooks for $2.99.  I couldn't resist looking it up on Amazon to compare.

 

The same US 2007 edition for Kindle is $11.99.  Why such a disparity?

Booga: "Elon Musk goes for the stars, [Ballmer] installs Windows on a basketball team's computers.  Sounds about right."
Reply
Booga: "Elon Musk goes for the stars, [Ballmer] installs Windows on a basketball team's computers.  Sounds about right."
Reply
post #51 of 63
The sole reason this guy needs to be dumped is the money he expects to be paid for what amounts to being a middle-micro-manager.

There should be cuts across the board for all upper level executives, too...
post #52 of 63
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
There's also TallistDah and Tallist Huh.

 

I KNEW IT. I knew those were knockoffs.

 
When it’s both together, it's understandable that their user experience would be so infuriating that they'd just have to lash out at people who have it better. The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android is their users.

 

I’m using that. :lol: 

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

The sole reason this guy needs to be dumped is the money he expects to be paid for what amounts to being a middle-micro-manager.

There should be cuts across the board for all upper level executives, too...

The part I find fascinating is he had to hire another law firm to actually provide the relevant legal expertise. For which he's billing Apple....

post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post

Amazon has always operated on the premise that they are willing to lose money because they have the latitude from the market to do so. They buy the e-books at wholesale like everyone else and then lose money on each transaction because they can. Most businesses don't have that freedom (smaller retailers) or aren't willing to lose money (Apple). Jeff Bezos has go so far as to say "The Internet is disrupting every media industry, Charlie, you know, people can complain about that, but complaining is not a strategy. And Amazon is not happening to book selling, the future is happening to book selling." Amazon popularized e-books and their kindle readers are great products but on the retail side of it, they don't care about what ramifications there are to anyone. Whether it is devaluing creative work or stomping on smaller retailers. They take the freedom that shareholders give them and undercut everyone in a way that most can't compete on. I deal with retail almost daily, including dealing with selling product into retail channels, and it's a tough business. When a competitor is willing to operate on razor thin margins or at a loss, it's hard, if not impossible, to compete. We haven't even talked about the numerous complaints about how they operate their warehouses.

Amazon is no saint and by the tone of your comments, they didn't do anything wrong. The prices went down because Amazon is back to their old tactics of losing money. Apple's gross margins dip a few percentage points and the market loses its damn mind. Amazon loses money in a quarter and their stock goes up. It is a weird dynamic that no matter how much I know about the world, it still doesn't make sense to me. With regards to this case, t
he publishers are inherently the ones to blame. The whole case still seems whacky to me. Beyond that, this compliance monitor over-stepped with his requests but due to well publicized ties to the judge, he felt he could do whatever he wanted. At one point the judge even backed down from certain requests because they started to gain unwanted scrutiny. The judge started distancing herself a bit from the monitor.


Do I think Apple always does right, no, but I also don't think that they were in the wrong.  Ultimately, I don't even think the monitoring should even start until the case has been put in front of the appellant court. We will see how this turns out but to think that this isn't on some level a bit shady is weird to me.

As a side note, I think Amazon does a lot of cool stuff, including AWS. I just think we have to try and look at things realistically.

Fully agree about the smaller traders losing out. In my local town in the uk we had an amazing bookstore where you could go in and browse, it even had a children's section where you could sit and read the books to your kids. They would order you any book that they didn't have in stock. The store even won the national book retailer of the year award two years running. The store has now disappeared because it lost most of its trade to Amazon who will continue to trade at a loss until they have a monopoly, much the same as Google is doing with android.
post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satorical View Post
 

Not how it works, Apple. You don't get to remove the monitor because you don't like what he's saying.

That isn't entirely accurate. There is a need for some manner of recourse if things are not being handled in an efficient manner or place undue stress on other parts of the business. It's not like any of us have enough information available to assess the entire situation anyway.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

This is a mental illness at this point. 

 

I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too. :lol:

 

I'm slightly jealous. I always wanted a doppelganger.

post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post

Fully agree about the smaller traders losing out. In my local town in the uk we had an amazing bookstore where you could go in and browse, it even had a children's section where you could sit and read the books to your kids. They would order you any book that they didn't have in stock. The store even won the national book retailer of the year award two years running. The store has now disappeared because it lost most of its trade to Amazon who will continue to trade at a loss until they have a monopoly, much the same as Google is doing with android.

Yeah kind of like all the cool music stores now gone because of Apple and 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 #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


The point that keeps getting missed is in what Steve said in your quote. It was not guaranteed that the prices would go up, only that Apple would get the same sell through price as the competitors. It could have driven prices down, but the publishers pushed them up and that is why they settled. The publishers had pricing control and raised the prices.

 

Exactly. Apple only secured the right for Publishers not to undercut Apple's prices elsewhere. Apple didn't care what the pricepoint of ebooks was. Steve knew that if the price was the same people would opt for customer experience they could outmanoeuvre Amazon with in-app purchasing. Amazon would have to swallow the in-app purchasing fee or make customers pay outside of their app to comply with App store rules.

 

Once the publishers had signed with Apple they knew that they would either have to:

a) Allow Amazon to continue to loss lead and risk a breach of their agreement with Apple

b) Decline supply to Amazon and lose book sales

c) Renegotiate their agreement with Amazon to allow publishers to set prices

 

Since option c was the only one without significant downside for publishers and they could assume that each of them were signing into similar contract terms with Apple (and at around the same time) that all of the other publishing houses would be choosing option c.

 

Note that none of this requires overt collusion to achieve a synchronous outcome; only independent bodies functioning separately under the same set of assumptions.

 

At any point in time under the no favoured nations agreements any of the publishers can increase their market share relative to the other publishers by adjusting their retail prices across the board. Market forces will sort this out and we've already seen some movement in ebook prices. It is not surprising that the average price of an ebook has increased however, since Amazon was loss leading at the expense of the publishers other sales. Don't forget that this is an unsustainable practice that is ultimately bad for book consumers. No profit means no publishers, which means no books. Amazon had an agenda to drive sales of ebook readers (disclosure: I own one), nudge paper publishing out of the market, then allow authors to publish directly.

 

Collusion between publishers over an agreed price point is an entirely different matter, and one Apple neither has a mechanism to control, nor any specific benefit to derive from such activity.

post #58 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

Exactly. Apple only secured the right for Publishers not to undercut Apple's prices elsewhere. Apple didn't care what the pricepoint of ebooks was. Steve knew that if the price was the same people would opt for customer experience they could outmanoeuvre Amazon with in-app purchasing. Amazon would have to swallow the in-app purchasing fee or make customers pay outside of their app to comply with App store rules.

Once the publishers had signed with Apple they knew that they would either have to:
a) Allow Amazon to continue to loss lead and risk a breach of their agreement with Apple
b) Decline supply to Amazon and lose book sales
c) Renegotiate their agreement with Amazon to allow publishers to set prices


Since option c was the only one without significant downside for publishers and they could assume that each of them were signing into similar contract terms with Apple (and at around the same time) that all of the other publishing houses would be choosing option c.

Note that none of this requires overt collusion to achieve a synchronous outcome; only independent bodies functioning separately under the same set of assumptions.

At any point in time under the no favoured nations agreements any of the publishers can increase their market share relative to the other publishers by adjusting their retail prices across the board. Market forces will sort this out and we've already seen some movement in ebook prices. It is not surprising that the average price of an ebook has increased however, since Amazon was loss leading at the expense of the publishers other sales. Don't forget that this is an unsustainable practice that is ultimately bad for book consumers. No profit means no publishers, which means no books. Amazon had an agenda to drive sales of ebook readers (disclosure: I own one), nudge paper publishing out of the market, then allow authors to publish directly.

Collusion between publishers over an agreed price point is an entirely different matter, and one Apple neither has a mechanism to control, nor any specific benefit to derive from such activity.


Did you not read the letter from Steve Jobs in which he wrote "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”?

While I never thought Apple was guilty of collusion I do believe that the publishers were. All of the publishers are in close proximity to each other, the CEOs know each other and it is known that they sat down together in public places to discuss their strategy to get Amazon to agree to new terms.
"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 #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Yeah kind of like all the cool music stores now gone because of Apple and iTunes.

Wrong again. Right now, digital downloads only account for about 50% of the music sold. Half the music sold is still in the form of CD's. Small record stores, even big ones like Tower Records, closed down because big retailers like Target, Best Buy and Walmart were selling CD's as a lost leader to get customers into their stores, hoping that they purchase other high margin products. Record only store weren't selling high margin products like toilet paper to make up any reduction of CD price, if they wanted to complete. If you actually did some research, you would find out that most of these small record stores closed down over 5 years ago, when CD's were still over  80% of the music purchased. And then there's Amazon selling CD's at a steep discount with free shipping and no tax. (At least it was no tax back when these store closed down.) These record stores didn't close down because people switched from CD's to digital downloads. These record stores closed down because people buying CD's found a cheaper and more convenient place to buy them, while they were buying toilet paper or at home online.   

post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Did you not read the letter from Steve Jobs in which he wrote "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”?

While I never thought Apple was guilty of collusion I do believe that the publishers were. All of the publishers are in close proximity to each other, the CEOs know each other and it is known that they sat down together in public places to discuss their strategy to get Amazon to agree to new terms.

The publishers colluding is a different matter. That Apple was charged and found guilty is a travesty.

In fact, in light of all the things that have come to light about the NSA, I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is on the NSAs payroll and doing their dirty work on site at Apple.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 1/8/14 at 8:57pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #61 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That is no longer the case, Amazon can't sell ebooks at a loss since the ruling.

 

Wouldn't mind seeing a link to back that up?

post #62 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Sorry but I don't buy that. Apple has made a lot of money on that 'assumption', at this point they know people will pay more for a better product. I believe that in this case the 'product' isn't of a much higher quality than the competitors, and since Apple didn't set the price this time around like they did with music their next best choice was to get the competition to the price they preferred.

Not sure what there is to buy into there. If there's no difference in price, then it [price] is a non-issue and the basis of a value analysis depends on whatever else remains. That's all I was saying.

 

You can question the quality of the experience if you like, but that's not the thrust of my comment. If you don't perceive the iBooks solution to be more valuable then you simply fall into the category of those who don't agree with the value proposition (value-added features included, like being part of the tightly the integrated iBooks/iTunes/iOS/Mac OS ecosystem).

 

If someone does not have any other reason to use iBooks (like having a AppleID associated with a payment method already set up for iTunes, or have an iPhone/iPad, etc), then they likely have no necessarily compelling reason to opt for iBooks content - it might even be considered a liability. However, if they do have any investment in that ecosystem (and there are <a lot> of people in that category out there), then there's already non-trivial incentive to do so. The converse is also true, if someone can be convinced to source content from iBooks, then that may be the hook to get them to invest more heavily in the larger ecosystem.

 

As for Apple getting the competition to the price they wanted, I think that's why there's so much confusion with this case - Apple didn't try to directly or indirectly set competitors prices - in fact, Apple didn't care at all what the actual price was set at for any particular book (there were suggestions from the bean-counters on what would be a realistically sustainable pricing strategy, but that was it). They just wanted to be able to match the competitors price so it became that non-issue in the buying decision (as was my point). They put themselves in a position (via the MFN clause in the contracts) where they were guaranteed to be able to match the competitions price without having to sacrifice their [percentage] margins, and present what they [Apple] consider to be a better value when the dollar figure is the same. It was brilliant, Apple offered a deal to all the players (major publishers) that was beneficial to them if they all followed the same pricing strategies - something that they'd all implicitly know. In a the small circles that were relevant, Apple didn't need to "collude" with anyone, just set the stage and let it play itself out. It was a virtually unavoidable conclusion - unless a publisher suddenly decided that they weren't interested in a sustainable and profitable business strategy :P.

 

Maybe I'm wrong though. :)

post #63 of 63
 
You know, the more I think about the whole case, the more I think it was a witch hunt that was politically motivated. Your post hits a key point. Apple ultimately didn't care what the prices were as long as they were competitive with the rest of the market. This gets missed in a lot of the coverage. Content isn't where Apple makes anywhere near the majority of their revenue so to think that they would jeopardize the company on e-books is crazy.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post
 

- snip

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple requests removal of external antitrust compliance monitor