or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › States want Apple to pay at least $280M in e-books antitrust case, push for $840M
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

States want Apple to pay at least $280M in e-books antitrust case, push for $840M - Page 2

post #41 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

To be fair, I believe that your assessment here is qualitatively correct, i.e. that the music and publishing industries were unhappy seeing their products devalued in the eyes (and wallets) of the consumer, and both Amazon and Apple had their motives for negotiating their deals in the respective industries.  I am not concerned about those motives, and I have no problem with either... even Amazon's.  So to answer your question: no, I don't favor either industry.  You may have a problem with those motives, but I do not.

The problem I have with Amazon's approach is that they purposely operated at a loss.  They paid the publishers more per title than they charged the consumers.  This artificially low price prevented any possibility of competition in the eBooks market, and that is illegal.  In order for Apple to get into the game and not also operate at a loss, they modified their strategy in a way that broke Amazon's strategy.  Thus Amazon was forced to stop its predatory pricing, and it got the competition it deserved.  Note that this enabled not just Apple, but several other - albeit smaller - competitors to try their hand as well.  Fair outcome, in my opinion.  If there is an analogous situation in the music industry, whereby competition for iTunes was deterred by the price point, then I would be forced to argue the same against Apple.  But the analogy simply isn't there.

Such is my perspective:  I don't care about the low prices in and of themselves.  I care about the deliberate stunting of a market place through predatory pricing.

Thompson

Thompson - Apple could have simply offered the books at a even lower price and competed as Amazon does and most other companies do. And if what you say is fact and it was illegal then why didn't any publisher ever sue Amazon?
P
post #42 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The state attorneys general suing Apple for price fixing are seeking $280 million in damages and will ask that the court order the award tripled to $840 million in advance of an upcoming damages trial, a new report says.

Summation
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court


The demands were made in a memorandum filed Friday with Judge Denise Cote, the federal judge presiding over the case, according to Bloomberg. The plaintiffs argue that Apple should be subjected to treble damages thanks to the company's "conclusively proven" role as the scheme's leader.

"The three cases pending before this court allege the same conspiracy, by the same conspirators, with the same goals, methods, and effects," the memo reportedly read. The document was sealed upon submission.

Apple was found guilty last July of joining with five major publishers in a conspiracy to fix the price of e-books. As a result of the verdict --?which is still under appeal --?the company was forced to alter its agreements with publishers and was assigned an external antitrust compliance monitor, a penalty which Apple is also fighting.

A new trial to determine damages in the case is set for May of this year.
post #43 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

Steve Jobs would have argued that without Apple's involvement, publishers would not have a legitimate alternative to Amazon, the eBooks would not have taken off they way it did, and the ripple effect could have caused millions of jobs in the publishing industry and beyond. 

To focus the argument solely on consumer price and not pricing model or the actual contracts between Apple and publishers, is not only shortsighted but also clearly misunderstood how free market works.

The free market allows whomever is clever enough and sells the most wins- Apple w eMusic, Amazon w eBooks. It also allows allows the consumer to be free to make a choice and not be elbowed into paying for something at 50% more than it previously had. Again if it was illegal why didn't anyone take Amazon to court including Apple rather than collude?
post #44 of 132
What precise damage was done and to whom? Merely asking for a huge legal settlement may appear to be de- regular in America, however, proven damages do or should, be demonstrated. If a customer has harmed then a rebate should be in order, but this is not per consumer a great deal of money. I think that they see a moneybags company and they want an easy piece of the cash. This shows the decline of America in that it is that one sues for money rather than working for it. China is going to wipe our clocks one day and we'll be asking the reason for our predicament.
post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post


Thompson - Apple could have simply offered the books at a even lower price and competed as Amazon does and most other companies do. And if what you say is fact and it was illegal then why didn't any publisher ever sue Amazon?
P

It wasn't something the publishers could sue over.  It was something the Justice Department should have sued over and didn't.  Instead of taking on the illegal monopolist the brilliant Mr. Holder sued the company trying to break the monopoly in a way that will soon be judged legal by the appeals court.  

post #46 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post


The free market allows whomever is clever enough and sells the most wins- Apple w eMusic, Amazon w eBooks. It also allows allows the consumer to be free to make a choice and not be elbowed into paying for something at 50% more than it previously had. Again if it was illegal why didn't anyone take Amazon to court including Apple rather than collude?

Please try to learn something about the legal system before asking silly accusative (against Apple) questions like that.  Only the Justice Department could sue for predatory pricing. 

post #47 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post


Thompson - Apple could have simply offered the books at a even lower price and competed as Amazon does and most other companies do. And if what you say is fact and it was illegal then why didn't any publisher ever sue Amazon?
P

Most merchants do not attempt to resell items below cost, with the exception of temporary promotions or sales to drive foot traffic (or in the case of online "eye traffic").  Keyword there is temporary, like Cyber-Monday-temporary.  At Amazon, eBooks were on a perpetual Cyber Monday sale. Most companies would go out of business doing that as standard practice.  Although Apple is certainly big enough to, since it makes so much profit elsewhere, it does not play that game, nor should it.  If you have a monopoly in a market, such as eBooks, and your standard pricing is so low that you are losing money just to keep competition away, that is illegal.  Go look it up if you must.

 

Why didn't the publishers sue Amazon?  Well they did complain about Amazon's pricing policies.  But as much as they feared Amazon's power in the eBooks market, they were also dependent on it.  Amazon sells a hell of a lot of books - including physical ones.  So the publishers could grumble, but they were somewhat helpless.

 

Thompson

post #48 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

The average e-book price went down if you follow the facts.

So please explain how's that possible if Amazon was selling ebooks at a loss? Or does it mean that Amazon was selling most ebooks at a more than healthy profit?
"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 #49 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Thompson - Apple could have simply offered the books at a even lower price and competed as Amazon does and most other companies do. And if what you say is fact and it was illegal then why didn't any publisher ever sue Amazon?
P

Because Amazon operates at a loss? You could sue them and never collect.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #50 of 132
I hate this commenting system. It's a mess on an iPhone.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #51 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


So please explain how's that possible if Amazon was selling ebooks at a loss? Or does it mean that Amazon was selling most ebooks at a more than healthy profit?

 

Amazon was selling many best sellers at a loss, that's what was bothering publishers so much and preventing new entrants into the market.  People won't give your store a second look if they can only find Moby Dick and Tale of Two Cities cheaper than at Amazon.  I never claimed that the average best seller price went down, just the average of all ebooks and it's a documented fact.

post #52 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post
 

 

Amazon was selling many best sellers at a loss, that's what was bothering publishers so much and preventing new entrants into the market.  People won't give your store a second look if they can only find Moby Dick and Tale of Two Cities cheaper than at Amazon.  I never claimed that the average best seller price went down, just the average of all ebooks and it's a documented fact

 

Irrelevant fact when it doesn't apply to to accused publishers

post #53 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

I have two questions.
First, what is the difference of the agency model in iBook store with the App Store?
Two, what has changed in the iBook agency model?

One it isn't different. Since one can only buy apps from Apple's App Store you'll never see a difference in price. Amazon basically started the ebook market and went with the wholesale model in which they control the price, the publishers have little to no say in the final selling price, they get a agreed upon price from Amazon for every ebook sold.

With the agency model the publishers set the price and Apple gets a 30% cut, so in order for them to get the same amount from Apple as they do from Amazon they had to raise the price.

Two, after the ruling Apple had to tear up the contracts with the publishers and negotiate new ones with the condition that it negotiate with the publishers one at a time instead of collectively.
"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 #54 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post


The free market allows whomever is clever enough and sells the most wins- Apple w eMusic, Amazon w eBooks. It also allows allows the consumer to be free to make a choice and not be elbowed into paying for something at 50% more than it previously had. Again if it was illegal why didn't anyone take Amazon to court including Apple rather than collude?

Some would argue that if there is only one large player in a market and if it employs predatory pricing to keep it that way, then that is not an example of a "free market".  Free market theory is based upon the concept of entities (aka companies) who are trying to profit from their operations but are willing to seek out efficiencies and price advantages to gain an upper hand... but always with the goal of ending up with a profit.  In the eBooks market, Amazon was not doing that.  They haven't made nearly enough from Kindles (which is also priced with little to no margin) to use that as an argument.

 

Why no smaller company ever sued Amazon is a question I can't answer.  And I already answered earlier why the publishers didn't sue:  Amazon was one of their biggest resellers, including both electronic and physical books.  Best not to bite the hand that feeds you.  But I know why Apple wasn't going to come right out and sue:  they needed iBooks to come bundled with their soon-to-be-announced iPad, and they came up with a solution that would save them an extended court case and simultaneously keep their projects a secret until time for their big reveal.  An understandably Apple-like thing to do.

 

Thompson


Edited by thompr - 2/3/14 at 12:42pm
post #55 of 132
Just the facts please...

How many e-books that these states purchased were supposedly "price fixed"?

What was the cost increase of each e-book due to this alleged price fixing?

Will the states be able to stick with their original publishers under the new plan, or will they be forced to go to a new publisher? And how much more will they pay?
post #56 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

If memory serves Steve Jobs arm twisted and would not let you into the iTunes Store unless you agreed to sell your songs individually at 99cents which is why many artists at the time balked.

Sure that is what happened, but Apple didn't have an established position in the music industry at the time. Amazon controls online book sales, and used that power to force concessions in the eBook market. Different animal entirely.
post #57 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Why no smaller company ever sued Amazon is a question I can't answer.

No smaller company would be ever get the right to sell best sellers, and whatever ebooks that did sell was probably priced similarly at Amazon.
"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 #58 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I hate this commenting system. It's a mess on an iPhone.

It's a mess. Period.

post #59 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Sure that is what happened, but Apple didn't have an established position in the music industry at the time. Amazon controls online book sales, and used that power to force concessions in the eBook market. Different animal entirely.

Apple was selling millions of iPods at the time so it had a already made plethora of potential customers. There was also rampant piracy which put Apple in a position of power over the industry. Apple was able to set the market and set the price, but in this instance they were late comers.
"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 #60 of 132

When Amazon is finally sued for monopolistic behavior and loses, revealing the government witch hunt here, I demand that every single government website hold a link apologizing to Apple for their behavior.

Originally Posted by asdasd

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #61 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

Amazon was selling many best sellers at a loss, that's what was bothering publishers so much and preventing new entrants into the market.  People won't give your store a second look if they can only find Moby Dick and Tale of Two Cities cheaper than at Amazon.  I never claimed that the average best seller price went down, just the average of all ebooks and it's a documented fact.

Good point, but next time don't use books that were bestsellers in the 1850s as examples. lol.gif
"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 #62 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I have also found e-book reading a bit of a chore (and this from a voracious reader). I have heard good things about the Paperwhite Kindle, so I'd at least like to compare.

Even Gruber admitted that he does his reading on a eInk Kindle because it's much easier on the eyes.
"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 #63 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

I "ignore" the facts simply because more people listen to music than read books. Besides how would you have read an eBook back then- flipping pages on your laptop? MP3 players were long out before the iPod. What devices were our there before the Kindle to portably read an eBook? Amazon gave authors a wider audience with the pricing of books at $9.99.

Sony's eReader (Sept 2006) was available 14 months before Amazon released the Kindle (Nov 2007).
"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 #64 of 132

Greed

post #65 of 132
Just a few incontestable facts. I have an iPad. Two free apps, iBook and Kindle, are installed (I have several others but leave it there for now). Many ebooks are available for both ebook reading apps from Apple and Amazon. How can there even be a basis for anyone but a moron to claim Apple has an opportunity for fixing prices?

If an ebook costs less through Amazon and I want to save money I buy it from Amazon (using the Safari web browser for the technically challenged) and voila, I can read it on my iPad with the Kindle app.

As others have observed Apple's entry into the ebook market has done nothing but expand options for ebook customers. Besides Apple's publishing efforts there is now a platform for reading ePub formatted books (from other publishers) that is far superior to similar apps that came before it. Also Apple has been trying to innovate on the ePub format to deliver more dynamic content (meh, I just want to have all my books easily available on a lightweight, portable, responsive device).

The fact that this judge has decided she should punish Apple seems like a perfect illustration of the maxim: No good deed goes unpunished. The only explanation that seems remotely plausible is corruption or massive stupidity. I suppose it could be both.
post #66 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post
 

 How do you know more people listen to music than read books? 

I assume he knows that because everyone knows that. 

You start listening to music before you learn to read. You listen to music while watch a movie, when you drive, while you are in a queue, as you are shopping. A book on the other hand is a lot of work for a bunch of lazy human beings.

post #67 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

It's a mess. Period.

 

It's a perception issue. I assume you want a nested, unfolding view when replying to others and a subthread is formed?

post #68 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post




Apple was selling millions of iPods at the time so it had a already made plethora of potential customers. There was also rampant piracy which put Apple in a position of power over the industry. Apple was able to set the market and set the price, but in this instance they were late comers.

 

Sure, but Apple did this through negotiating. It convinced the music publishers that letting it sell singles for 99 cents was good business. The publishers could have said no, and maybe tried to do something with somebody else. People like Bill Gates thought it was amazing that Apple convinced the publishers to allow them to sell the music. Apple did not pressure the publishers by threatening the in some way like Amazon did with ebooks

post #69 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
 

Most merchants do not attempt to resell items below cost, with the exception of temporary promotions or sales to drive foot traffic (or in the case of online "eye traffic").  Keyword there is temporary, like Cyber-Monday-temporary.  At Amazon, eBooks were on a perpetual Cyber Monday sale. Most companies would go out of business doing that as standard practice.  Although Apple is certainly big enough to, since it makes so much profit elsewhere, it does not play that game, nor should it.  If you have a monopoly in a market, such as eBooks, and your standard pricing is so low that you are losing money just to keep competition away, that is illegal.  Go look it up if you must.

 

Why didn't the publishers sue Amazon?  Well they did complain about Amazon's pricing policies.  But as much as they feared Amazon's power in the eBooks market, they were also dependent on it.  Amazon sells a hell of a lot of books - including physical ones.  So the publishers could grumble, but they were somewhat helpless.

 

Thompson

 

Your last sentence kind of sums it up. Publishers could not quit Amazon as a means to sell traditional books anymore than hardware manufactures could have dumped Windows as an operating system when Microsoft insisted they dump Netscape in favor of Explorer. Amazon did the same thing Microsoft was found guilty of. Namely, using its power in one market (traditional online book sales) to gain dominance in another market (the ebook market). 

post #70 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple did not pressure the publishers by threatening the in some way like Amazon did with ebooks. 

Sure they did, the music industry was not fond of the $9.99 price for albums, and the only way that they could sell individual songs on iTunes was if they agreed to sell albums for $9.99.
"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 #71 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Your last sentence kind of sums it up. Publishers could not quit Amazon as a means to sell traditional books anymore than hardware manufactures could have dumped Windows as an operating system when Microsoft insisted they dump Netscape in favor of Explorer. Amazon did the same thing Microsoft was found guilty of. Namely, using its power in one market (traditional online book sales) to gain dominance in another market (the ebook market). 

The big difference being that Amazon isn't the only place one can get traditional books from.
"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 #72 of 132

The question of why Amazon isn't sued for predatory pricing and practices is interesting.

 

In the Apple v DOJ eBooks trial, the DOJ said they evaluated Amazon's eBooks business and said that Amazon operated it at a profit. When asked to reveal this this information, Judge Denise Cote refused to let these findings out and said to go to the DOJ, the DOJ refused to let these findings out, and both said Amazon is not on trial. On the other hand, Judge Cote believed that Apple VP Eddie Cue and various publisher CEOs and representatives were not credible in their sworn-in, under oath testimony. Huh.

 

There's no proof whatsoever that Amazon makes any net income on eBooks. Considering the size of Amazon's online retail, ebooks is probably sitting in the 3rd significant digit (hundreds of millions) or maybe 4 significant digit (tens of millions) and easily covered by a rounding of an online retail number. Maybe they really do make a profit, who knows, but the chance to know is basically gone. 

 

As long as Amazon keeps its financials inside a blackbox, it's probably impossible to figure out how well its businesses are doing and whether this or that part of Amazon makes money? Nobody knows how many Kindles have been sold. Do we even know how many ebooks Amazon have been sold? Not an estimate, but an actual reported number? Then, do we even know what those books cost Amazon?

 

The law (DOJ) and the courts will be fumbling around for awhile figuring out what all what the digital economy is about. As it stands now, they are applying laws based on physical goods to digital goods which is crazy imo. A lot things technology companies do that they think is perfectly normal may not be right in the physical goods world, but that's what the law is entirely based on.

post #73 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


One it isn't different. Since one can only buy apps from Apple's App Store you'll never see a difference in price. Amazon basically started the ebook market and went with the wholesale model in which they control the price, the publishers have little to no say in the final selling price, they get a agreed upon price from Amazon for every ebook sold.

With the agency model the publishers set the price and Apple gets a 30% cut, so in order for them to get the same amount from Apple as they do from Amazon they had to raise the price.

Two, after the ruling Apple had to tear up the contracts with the publishers and negotiate new ones with the condition that it negotiate with the publishers one at a time instead of collectively.


First, then Apple can be sued for the App Store too. 

Second, does Amazon negotiate with the publishers one at a time?  Why is this needed?  For most goods the manufacturers sell to the retailers at a discount to MSRP.  The retailers then set a price to sell.  Apple's model is fundamentally the same as this.  Only that Apple decided to mark up at 30%.  So Apple is not legal.  The DOJ and the judge is all screwed up in their brain.

post #74 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
 

 

The problem I have with Amazon's approach is that they purposely operated at a loss.  They paid the publishers more per title than they charged the consumers.  This artificially low price prevented any possibility of competition in the eBooks market, and that is illegal.  In order for Apple to get into the game and not also operate at a loss, they modified their strategy in a way that broke Amazon's strategy.  Thus Amazon was forced to stop its predatory pricing, and it got the competition it deserved.

 

The court addresses both of these in the case. They state that Amazon has consistently run its ebook department at a profit and cheap ebooks were loss leaders. It also clearly states that the appropriate remedy for Apple was not to break the law, and so that excuse can hold no weight whatsoever.

post #75 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


First, then Apple can be sued for the App Store too. 

Second, does Amazon negotiate with the publishers one at a time?  Why is this needed?  For most goods the manufacturers sell to the retailers at a discount to MSRP.  The retailers then set a price to sell.  Apple's model is fundamentally the same as this.  Only that Apple decided to mark up at 30%.  So Apple is not legal.  The DOJ and the judge is all screwed up in their brain.


Apple's model was completely the opposite of this. It explicitly wasn't wholesale pricing.

post #76 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post


The free market allows whomever is clever enough and sells the most wins- Apple w eMusic, Amazon w eBooks. It also allows allows the consumer to be free to make a choice and not be elbowed into paying for something at 50% more than it previously had. Again if it was illegal why didn't anyone take Amazon to court including Apple rather than collude?

 

Because what Amazon was doing was not illegal.  What Amazon was doing was hurting and discouraging publishers to publish eBooks.  Without an agency model, nobody is willing to enter the eBooks market with new hardware (maybe except Sony).  Even MFN is not illegal.

post #77 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


Apple's model was completely the opposite of this. It explicitly wasn't wholesale pricing.


Yes, it is. 

post #78 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

 

It's a perception issue. I assume you want a nested, unfolding view when replying to others and a subthread is formed?

 

How about just having it stop saving previous posts and quotations, so when the next time one posts both the old and new text doesn't appear?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #79 of 132

States, looking for money, think they have found some. They hope it can be tripled too. With a side of fries.

post #80 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

It's a perception issue. I assume you want a nested, unfolding view when replying to others and a subthread is formed?

Yeah, the regular, recurrent crashes -- on the iPad, iPhone, and OSX -- must all be just a perception issue.....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › States want Apple to pay at least $280M in e-books antitrust case, push for $840M