or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple continues fight to have antitrust monitor reined in, judges appear skeptical
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple continues fight to have antitrust monitor reined in, judges appear skeptical - Page 3

post #81 of 89
The judgement against Apple wasn't a judgement against the agency model, but the way in which it was negotiated (collusion), along with the most-favoured nation clause. (anti-competitive).

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

The correct quote to use from me is "involved in orchestrating". Apple certainly was and there's direct testimony that they "expected" publishers to raise their prices. Regardless of the publishers' previous behaviour Apple did indeed facilitate this conspiracy with them. Yes the publishers were also at fault and they settled with the court. Apple chose to defend itself.
 

I believe I've asked you or others before for a citation on this and I can't remember one being provided. The judgement makes it clear that they need only be disparate economic entities rather than horizontal competitors.

 

The thread you're posting in is about Apple in a different court. The misogynistic insults don't help your case.

 

This bitch is the one who has pointedly ignored ALL of Apple's testimony in her witchhunt to find fault where there is nothing apart from HEARSAY and CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

 

She has been antagonistic toward Apple at every turn, she appointed one of her friends as the monitor in a possible conspiracy with the DoJ AND she is judging a related case brought by state's attorneys general in which she will decide damages.

 

Apple is entitled to a FAIR hearing.

 

Apple is entitled to justice.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #83 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

It's the government's business to act against restraints of trade that increase prices and hurt consumers.

 

eBook prices fell overall, consumers had more choice.

 

Apart from a limited range of cherry picked examples.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

This bitch is the one who has pointedly ignored ALL of Apple's testimony in her witchhunt to find fault where there is nothing apart from HEARSAY and CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

She has been antagonistic toward Apple at every turn, she appointed one of her friends as the monitor in a possible conspiracy with the DoJ AND she is judging a related case brought by state's attorneys general in which she will decide damages.

Apple is entitled to a FAIR hearing.

Apple is entitled to justice.
And a federal judge is entitled to do her job without misogynistic slurs, even if she's wrong.

Don't call her a bitch, her gender is irrelevant.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #85 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


And a federal judge is entitled to do her job without misogynistic slurs, even if she's wrong.

Don't call her a bitch, her gender is irrelevant.

 

A son of a bitch then.

 

Gender specific words are irrelevant in my style of writing.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #86 of 89

Your style of writing could use some work.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #87 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

This bitch is the one who has pointedly ignored ALL of Apple's testimony in her witchhunt to find fault where there is nothing apart from HEARSAY and CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

 

She has been antagonistic toward Apple at every turn, she appointed one of her friends as the monitor in a possible conspiracy with the DoJ AND she is judging a related case brought by state's attorneys general in which she will decide damages.

 

Apple is entitled to a FAIR hearing.

 

Apple is entitled to justice.

 

You act as if you have been personally hurt by this judgement. Perhaps you shouldn't invest so much of your own personal worth in a third party company. Apple is entitled to justice, but so are consumers.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

eBook prices fell overall, consumers had more choice.

 

Apart from a limited range of cherry picked examples.

Those examples being the publishers who conspired to raise prices. You can't claim that's cherry picking.

post #88 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

It's the government's business to act against restraints of trade that increase prices and hurt consumers.

Who says 9.99 is the fair market value of an ebook? When has a govt acted so early in a emerging marketplace?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

This bitch is the one...

Take it down a notch.
post #89 of 89

On the subject of Amazon's ebook profitability or loss leading, I think you guys are a little sideways on it. Amazon sold the ebooks yes, but they also sold the Kindle hardware. They really can't be separated as it's quite likely the $10 per Kindle ebook was used as a loss leader to sell Kindle hardware. I've been pondering what is the razor and what is the blade in Amazon's Kindle reader and Kindle book relationship. Was the ereader the blade or the ebook the blade? (With the notion that the DOJ says Amazon's Kindle ebook business was profitable).

 

In 2010, ebook sales were ~$450m according the AAP (about 10% of paper book sales). If the Amazon marketshare figures were correct, they had 90% marketshare. So Amazon had about $400m in ebook sales in 2010. At $10 ASP per ebook, that's 40m Kindle ebooks sold in 2010.

 

The big question is, how many eInk Kindles did Amazon sell in 2010? In 2010, Amazon generally sold the Kindle 2 International version (ignoring the DX) for about $250 in the 1H 10, and generally sold the Kindle Keyboard for about $180 in 2H 10. I've seen estimates that Amazon sold 8m Kindles in 2008. I'll use half that instead, 4m units. For the ASP of the Kindle, I'll use $180 (probably $200 since Kindle 2 was ~$250). So simple math, 4m x $180 = $720m in Kindle hardware sales in 2010.

 

So, hmmm…, this would translate to about 10 ebooks at $10 ASP per Kindle reader sold, or $100. I imagine the sales of these ebooks resulted in at best single digit profit, so 5%. For those 10 ebooks with revenue of $100, they got $5 in profit. Hardware-wise, using a 10% profit margin on the hardware results in $18 of profit.

 

It's kind of sounding to me that Amazon was selling bestselling books at a loss or break-even (whatever their pricing algorithm would be doing day to day) so they can sell Kindle hardware, which has more profit. (Driving brick and mortar book stores out of business was just a nice side effect). 

 

If you sell hardware, it's hard for me to imagine the content for hardware driving the profits, unless the cost of the content is 5x to 10x more. Game consoles are sold at break-even somewheres between $200 to $400, but games are $50. Just not going to work if the content is <$10 while the hardware is >$200. With eInk Kindles, did people really shop on them for other content as an additional value source for Amazon? Really? If Amazon sold 6m Kindles in 2010, they made $1b on the hardware. It just gets better and better the more hardware units sold. Apple made ~$9b on iPad 1 sales in 2010 alone. That's basically 2x more than the sales of books be it physical or digital in 2010 if that $450m ebook sales number is right.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple continues fight to have antitrust monitor reined in, judges appear skeptical