I should have said, "If Apple brought them together to work out a plan to discuss the agency model AND a way to bring Amazon in line in an anti-competitive manner, then you have collusion."
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Apple brought them together to offer them better deal. Last time I checked negotiating by itself is not a crime. Apple gains nothing by increasing eBook pricing. In fact, when Apple announced iBookstore everyone thought it will fail because the prices are higher than what Amazon.
This lawsuit and DoJ investigation is going nowhere. It seems all what Apple is guilty of is offering publishers an alternative.
Apple, if it considered the Kindle a threat to the iPad, whether in the Kindle's earlier form or a potential later model, did have something to gain by making ebook prices uniform (and thus higher). A reason the Kindle was attractive was because the prices of Amazon-sold ebooks were lower. Without that advantage, the Kindle looks less attractive.
As for saying the investigation going nowhere, lucky for us, we'll find out if you're right rather soon. The DOJ wants settlements by the end of April. That's when the current head of the antitrust division plans to retire.
We would like to ask for the prosecution to open. The prosecution says the following. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQIwEZlOzp4 . Ok and the defense any opening statements? No your honor the defense rests.
I should have said, "If Apple brought them together to work out a plan to discuss the agency model AND a way to bring Amazon in line in an anti-competitive manner, then you have collusion."
Apple, if it considered the Kindle a threat to the iPad, whether in the Kindle's earlier form or a potential later model, did have something to gain by making ebook prices uniform (and thus higher). A reason the Kindle was attractive was because the prices of Amazon-sold ebooks were lower. Without that advantage, the Kindle looks less attractive.
The Kindle and the iPads were in a different class all together.
Quote:
As for saying the investigation going nowhere, lucky for us, we'll find out if you're right rather soon. The DOJ wants settlements by the end of April. That's when the current head of the antitrust division plans to retire.
Do you have a source for that April deadline? What I meant by going no where was with respect to Apple. Publishers might end up settling for something but I don't believe the agency model is going away. I honestly don't know what is expected in the settlement. Paying fines will not solve anything and lowering prices will not be effective.
Apple, if it considered the Kindle a threat to the iPad, whether in the Kindle's earlier form or a potential later model, did have something to gain by making ebook prices uniform (and thus higher).
just how an e-book reader is a threat to iPad? Anyone who enjoys their Kindle book can read it on iPad.
The Kindle and the iPads were in a different class all together.
You have to remember that this collusion allegedly took place before the iPad was released. Apple is not stupid; it was thinking long term. Most people saw the Kindle Fire coming a mile away. It was just a matter of time.
Quote:
Do you have a source for that April deadline? What I meant by going no where was with respect to Apple. Publishers might end up settling for something but I don't believe the agency model is going away. I honestly don't know what is expected in the settlement. Paying fines will not solve anything and lowering prices will not be effective.
Ms. Pozen is scheduled to leave the Justice Department at the end of April. One person close to the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to discuss the case, said that the department was hoping to reach a decision before Ms. Pozen departed on whether to file a lawsuit against five publishers if a settlement had not been not reached by then. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the department had warned Apple and the publishers that it could soon take them to court on collusion charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
just how an e-book reader is a threat to iPad? Anyone who enjoys their Kindle book can read it on iPad.
The basic Kindle is not much of a threat to iPad. The generational line of Kindle, however, is. And like I said above, this alleged collusion took place before the release of the iPad. No one knew for certain the iPad would explode like it has. Consumers might have simply considered it a glorified ebook reader with a pretty screen.
SJ did not admit on price fixing. His statement was no where near admission of price fixing. He basically said Apple don't care how much your charge as long as we get our 30%. How is that price fixing? :roll eyes:
Exactly. SJ agreed to the agency model with the publishers. If the agency model is illegal, then they're all in deep, but I'm pretty sure it's ok. The publishers then went to Amazon and told them to accept our terms or else we will only sell through Apple. That was the publisher's decision. Nowhere in Steve Jobs bio does it say Apple and the publishers decided to put the squeeze on Amazon.
SJ did not admit on price fixing. His statement was no where near admission of price fixing. He basically said Apple don't care how much your charge as long as we get our 30%. How is that price fixing?
Absolutely. Predatory pricing. But that's also one of the hardest antitrust claims to support.
It's hard to sustain. It's also one of the easiest anti-competitive practices to combat (if it is unilateral, which in Amazon's case, it was).
In this case, though, it wouldn't be that hard to prove. Publisher documents show that Amazon is paying $15 for a book and Amazon is selling it for $10. It's one thing when that's a special sale, but when it is standard practice, it's another thing entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm
I wonder why the publishers simply didn't purchase the titles Amazon sold at a loss. They were digital formats, so the publishers could have bought them from now until the end of eternity, turning Amazon's loss into their profit.
Great point. Set up a subsidiary with 10,000 employees who spend their time ordering books on Amazon. Amazon pays $15 for the book and then you pay $10 to buy it back. Even with overhead, that could be a reasonably profitable business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm
Antitrust regulations are neither limited to monopolies nor based upon marketshare. Antitrust covers anti-competitive practices, collusion being one such facet. Monopolization of a market falls under antitrust, not vice versa.
That's true. Yet I'm still waiting for anyone to show anything Apple did that violates the Sherman or Clayton acts. All we see are wild accusations with no evidence to back them up.
That's true. Yet I'm still waiting for anyone to show anything Apple did that violates the Sherman or Clayton acts. All we see are wild accusations with no evidence to back them up.
That is important - no charges whatsoever have been filed at all. The DOJ might think something is going on, but that's no different than the cops following a car that they suspect is stolen or is involved in illegal activities. That an investigation is going on does not mean that anyone is guilty. Heck, nobody can say that a crime has occurred. This could be nothing more than the DOJ saying "we are keeping an eye you here..."
Apple has not changed. Anything for a buck was and is their MO.
Er, I think you are thinking of "we will monitize that soon" Steve Ballmer. Apple has always been for making a great product. Yes you do have to make a profit to survive. Many young people who live with mother do not seem to understand that the real world costs.
If Apple was "anything for a buck" they would not be spending money on the worlds best and most expensive displays, milled cases vs plastic and glue, top of the line UI and design.
Sorry, just a thought, but "cheap is as cheap does."
Comments
Apple brought them together to offer them better deal. Last time I checked negotiating by itself is not a crime. Apple gains nothing by increasing eBook pricing. In fact, when Apple announced iBookstore everyone thought it will fail because the prices are higher than what Amazon.
This lawsuit and DoJ investigation is going nowhere. It seems all what Apple is guilty of is offering publishers an alternative.
Apple, if it considered the Kindle a threat to the iPad, whether in the Kindle's earlier form or a potential later model, did have something to gain by making ebook prices uniform (and thus higher). A reason the Kindle was attractive was because the prices of Amazon-sold ebooks were lower. Without that advantage, the Kindle looks less attractive.
As for saying the investigation going nowhere, lucky for us, we'll find out if you're right rather soon. The DOJ wants settlements by the end of April. That's when the current head of the antitrust division plans to retire.
It's great that realitycheck got booted for trolling but I see a couple others that do nothing but try to stir up trouble.
Damn......and I missed it???!!
I should have said, "If Apple brought them together to work out a plan to discuss the agency model AND a way to bring Amazon in line in an anti-competitive manner, then you have collusion."
Apple, if it considered the Kindle a threat to the iPad, whether in the Kindle's earlier form or a potential later model, did have something to gain by making ebook prices uniform (and thus higher). A reason the Kindle was attractive was because the prices of Amazon-sold ebooks were lower. Without that advantage, the Kindle looks less attractive.
The Kindle and the iPads were in a different class all together.
As for saying the investigation going nowhere, lucky for us, we'll find out if you're right rather soon. The DOJ wants settlements by the end of April. That's when the current head of the antitrust division plans to retire.
Do you have a source for that April deadline? What I meant by going no where was with respect to Apple. Publishers might end up settling for something but I don't believe the agency model is going away. I honestly don't know what is expected in the settlement. Paying fines will not solve anything and lowering prices will not be effective.
Apple, if it considered the Kindle a threat to the iPad, whether in the Kindle's earlier form or a potential later model, did have something to gain by making ebook prices uniform (and thus higher).
just how an e-book reader is a threat to iPad? Anyone who enjoys their Kindle book can read it on iPad.
The Kindle and the iPads were in a different class all together.
You have to remember that this collusion allegedly took place before the iPad was released. Apple is not stupid; it was thinking long term. Most people saw the Kindle Fire coming a mile away. It was just a matter of time.
Do you have a source for that April deadline? What I meant by going no where was with respect to Apple. Publishers might end up settling for something but I don't believe the agency model is going away. I honestly don't know what is expected in the settlement. Paying fines will not solve anything and lowering prices will not be effective.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...cy-on-e-books/
Ms. Pozen is scheduled to leave the Justice Department at the end of April. One person close to the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to discuss the case, said that the department was hoping to reach a decision before Ms. Pozen departed on whether to file a lawsuit against five publishers if a settlement had not been not reached by then. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the department had warned Apple and the publishers that it could soon take them to court on collusion charges.
just how an e-book reader is a threat to iPad? Anyone who enjoys their Kindle book can read it on iPad.
The basic Kindle is not much of a threat to iPad. The generational line of Kindle, however, is. And like I said above, this alleged collusion took place before the release of the iPad. No one knew for certain the iPad would explode like it has. Consumers might have simply considered it a glorified ebook reader with a pretty screen.
SJ did not admit on price fixing. His statement was no where near admission of price fixing. He basically said Apple don't care how much your charge as long as we get our 30%. How is that price fixing? :roll eyes:
Exactly. SJ agreed to the agency model with the publishers. If the agency model is illegal, then they're all in deep, but I'm pretty sure it's ok. The publishers then went to Amazon and told them to accept our terms or else we will only sell through Apple. That was the publisher's decision. Nowhere in Steve Jobs bio does it say Apple and the publishers decided to put the squeeze on Amazon.
SJ did not admit on price fixing. His statement was no where near admission of price fixing. He basically said Apple don't care how much your charge as long as we get our 30%. How is that price fixing?
That's revenue share fixing¡
Absolutely. Predatory pricing. But that's also one of the hardest antitrust claims to support.
It's hard to sustain. It's also one of the easiest anti-competitive practices to combat (if it is unilateral, which in Amazon's case, it was).
In this case, though, it wouldn't be that hard to prove. Publisher documents show that Amazon is paying $15 for a book and Amazon is selling it for $10. It's one thing when that's a special sale, but when it is standard practice, it's another thing entirely.
I wonder why the publishers simply didn't purchase the titles Amazon sold at a loss. They were digital formats, so the publishers could have bought them from now until the end of eternity, turning Amazon's loss into their profit.
Great point. Set up a subsidiary with 10,000 employees who spend their time ordering books on Amazon. Amazon pays $15 for the book and then you pay $10 to buy it back. Even with overhead, that could be a reasonably profitable business.
Antitrust regulations are neither limited to monopolies nor based upon marketshare. Antitrust covers anti-competitive practices, collusion being one such facet. Monopolization of a market falls under antitrust, not vice versa.
That's true. Yet I'm still waiting for anyone to show anything Apple did that violates the Sherman or Clayton acts. All we see are wild accusations with no evidence to back them up.
That's true. Yet I'm still waiting for anyone to show anything Apple did that violates the Sherman or Clayton acts. All we see are wild accusations with no evidence to back them up.
You'll probably have to wait on the DoJ for that.
You'll probably have to wait on the DoJ for that.
That is important - no charges whatsoever have been filed at all. The DOJ might think something is going on, but that's no different than the cops following a car that they suspect is stolen or is involved in illegal activities. That an investigation is going on does not mean that anyone is guilty. Heck, nobody can say that a crime has occurred. This could be nothing more than the DOJ saying "we are keeping an eye you here..."
Apple is becoming the very company it despised some 30 years ago.
Spoken like a true Android fan. LOL I have no idea what you mean by that. Apple still focuses on creating and selling the best products it can make.
Period.
Just a thought,
en
Apple has not changed. Anything for a buck was and is their MO.
Er, I think you are thinking of "we will monitize that soon" Steve Ballmer. Apple has always been for making a great product. Yes you do have to make a profit to survive. Many young people who live with mother do not seem to understand that the real world costs.
If Apple was "anything for a buck" they would not be spending money on the worlds best and most expensive displays, milled cases vs plastic and glue, top of the line UI and design.
Sorry, just a thought, but "cheap is as cheap does."
en