Then Apple doesn't have a thing to worry about. You feel everything was legal and above board. The DoJ must have some other goal in mind by filing this lawsuit?
Of course they do.... Money! Huge penalties against the biggest company on Earth!
Sounds very much like the publishers and Apple wanted to form a "union" (which many of you here hate) and "collectively bargin" with Amazon. Amazon's business model is one Apple cannot compete with, and the worse part about it is that with the Kindle app one can buy a e-book from Amazon and read it on a idevice. Oooooo that really gets under Apple's skin. The e-book market existed before Apple and if they can't play by the current business model then they should play along or go home. It's a dog eat dog world.
How can this possibly be an anti-trust issue. Apple let the seller of the product set their own selling price!!!!! There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Meanwhile Amazon sells products at a loss and put major book sellers out of business - they took out competitors. Seems like that is the very definition of anti-competitive. Fight them tooth and nail Apple! Since when is buying products below cost a consumer right?
How many competitors did Apple put out of business with iTunes? How many major music selling chains are long gone? Did you scream bloody murder then or only now because its not Apple doing the eliminating?
With over 75% market share of the ebook business it can viewed as a monopoly.
Or at a minium, anti-competitive. So weird, that now that there's competition the creators of the product have regained control. Now if the publishers got in the same room and talked this out or Apple acted as a mediator and truly presided over the transition for all parties, I'm on the DoJ's side.
Just gonna wait to see how it plays out in the courts. The DoJ's complaint now has to be proven.
Perhaps we're all missing the real reason for the Department of Justice lawsuit. I remember reading that Apple has a lot of profit generated outside of the United States, cash sitting around in foreign banks. Maybe all Apple has to get rid of the lawsuit is to bring all those offshore profits back into the United States....where they can be taxed. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
Perhaps we're all missing the real reason for the Department of Justice lawsuit. I remember reading that Apple has a lot of profit generated outside of the United States, cash sitting around in foreign banks. Maybe all Apple has to get rid of the lawsuit is to bring all those offshore profits back into the United States....where they can be taxed. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
The BusinessInsider has the full complaint and supporting details:
But Apple's not selling at a loss. There were two parts to his sentence...
Was it written in invisible ink? I didn't see a second part. Apple couldn't possibly sell music at a loss because he never buys it in the first place. They set the price 99¢ for a song of which Apple gets 30% of, the music industry resisted but finally gave in to Apples model. So now its Amazon telling publishers what price they want to sell e-books at and because Apple can't make money with that business model it has joined with the publishers to create a business model that benefits Apple.
So now its Amazon telling publishers what price they want to sell e-books at and because Apple can't make money with that business model it has joined with the publishers to create a business model that benefits Apple.
What makes you think Apple makes substantial money from content? Apple makes its billions on hardware not ebooks.
Apple has nearly that market share in music, so by your logic they're a monopoly.
Not my logic. Logic of the law. Look it up.
... and, yes, Apple could be viewed as having a monopoly in the digital music industry. It's how you get there and how you use that position that usually gets you in trouble.
... and there were two parts to SolipsismX's comment (not mine)... the part about selling for a loss.
I see where youre going, but you missed my point, even though it was a half serious point. Apple has a lot of profits that the government would like to be able to tax but can't. Perhaps another additional motive for the lawsuit is to leverage Apple to bring those profits home where they can be taxed. You can bet if Apple moved those profits onshore, the case would be resolved in terms Apple could live with. Again, I'm not really serious, but I couldn't count out this impetus for the lawsuit either.
Was it written in invisible ink? I didn't see a second part. Apple couldn't possibly sell music at a loss because he never buys it in the first place. They set the price 99¢ for a song of which Apple gets 30% of, the music industry resisted but finally gave in to Apples model. So now its Amazon telling publishers what price they want to sell e-books at and because Apple can't make money with that business model it has joined with the publishers to create a business model that benefits Apple.
Sorry, it was from the quote you quoted:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX -- "This begs the question: Why isn't the DoJ interested in Amazon using it's monopoly position to sell at a loss to keep competitors out of the market?"
By your same logic that Apple never buys music, can it be said that amazon never buys ebooks?
To complete the previous comparison, if Apple paid studios their $.66 and sold the song for $.50 it would be similar to what amazon has been pulling off. There'd have to be a related product that Apple was using to make up the difference. Now Apple is applying the same model it uses for music to books. The only difference I see is they aren't selling you chapters out of the book like they sell tracks from CDs.
Frankly, with the number of tech books I used to buy, I'd much rather just buy the chapters that pertain to what I need to know. This is the reason I have an unlimited subscription service from safaribooksonline.com.
I don't see evidence (yet) where Apple colluded the publishers to restructure the deal with amazon. I don't see price fixing between publishers or tiered pricing that the DoJ says "could" happen. I think the conclusion that because average price went up there has to be price fixing and collusion isn't a sure thing. Apple entering the eBook segment did result in the publishing houses gained leverage against amazon and amazon has to react by innovating and differentiating.
I think the DoJ is conveniently not pointing out that amazon didn't have much competition in the ebook biz they pioneered because it's bad for their case. Amazon's pricing model was a deterrent to competitors because of the lack of an online market or a tablet with a substantial user base. Along comes Apple and the publishing houses welcomed a new distributor.
Comments
Then Apple doesn't have a thing to worry about. You feel everything was legal and above board. The DoJ must have some other goal in mind by filing this lawsuit?
Of course they do.... Money! Huge penalties against the biggest company on Earth!
Great link. The Verge has summarized the key parts here: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/29...le-an-analysis
The Verge has the best tech reporting on the web, other than ArsTechnica.
Great link. The Verge has summarized the key parts here: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/29...le-an-analysis
Sounds very much like the publishers and Apple wanted to form a "union" (which many of you here hate) and "collectively bargin" with Amazon. Amazon's business model is one Apple cannot compete with, and the worse part about it is that with the Kindle app one can buy a e-book from Amazon and read it on a idevice. Oooooo that really gets under Apple's skin. The e-book market existed before Apple and if they can't play by the current business model then they should play along or go home. It's a dog eat dog world.
Of course they do.... Money! Huge penalties against the biggest company on Earth!
So you're saying the government needs money.
LOL, Monopoly of what?
Agency model would simply means publisher finally gets to set the own god damn price!!!!
Instead of losing money because Amazon couldn't care less!
What money did the puiblisher lose for amazon taking a hit on price?
This begs the question: Why isn't the DoJ interested in Amazon using it's monopoly position to sell at a loss to keep competitors out of the market?
Because it isn't a monopoly.
Because it isn't a monopoly.
With over 75% market share of the ebook business it can viewed as a monopoly.
How can this possibly be an anti-trust issue. Apple let the seller of the product set their own selling price!!!!! There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Meanwhile Amazon sells products at a loss and put major book sellers out of business - they took out competitors. Seems like that is the very definition of anti-competitive. Fight them tooth and nail Apple! Since when is buying products below cost a consumer right?
How many competitors did Apple put out of business with iTunes? How many major music selling chains are long gone? Did you scream bloody murder then or only now because its not Apple doing the eliminating?
With over 75% market share of the ebook business it can viewed as a monopoly.
Apple has nearly that market share in music, so by your logic they're a monopoly.
With over 75% market share of the ebook business it can viewed as a monopoly.
Or at a minium, anti-competitive. So weird, that now that there's competition the creators of the product have regained control. Now if the publishers got in the same room and talked this out or Apple acted as a mediator and truly presided over the transition for all parties, I'm on the DoJ's side.
Just gonna wait to see how it plays out in the courts. The DoJ's complaint now has to be proven.
Apple has nearly that market share in music, so by your logic they're a monopoly.
But Apple's not selling at a loss. There were two parts to his sentence...
Perhaps we're all missing the real reason for the Department of Justice lawsuit. I remember reading that Apple has a lot of profit generated outside of the United States, cash sitting around in foreign banks. Maybe all Apple has to get rid of the lawsuit is to bring all those offshore profits back into the United States....where they can be taxed. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
The BusinessInsider has the full complaint and supporting details:
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-l...ks-2012-4?op=1
But Apple's not selling at a loss. There were two parts to his sentence...
Was it written in invisible ink? I didn't see a second part. Apple couldn't possibly sell music at a loss because he never buys it in the first place. They set the price 99¢ for a song of which Apple gets 30% of, the music industry resisted but finally gave in to Apples model. So now its Amazon telling publishers what price they want to sell e-books at and because Apple can't make money with that business model it has joined with the publishers to create a business model that benefits Apple.
So now its Amazon telling publishers what price they want to sell e-books at and because Apple can't make money with that business model it has joined with the publishers to create a business model that benefits Apple.
What makes you think Apple makes substantial money from content? Apple makes its billions on hardware not ebooks.
Apple has nearly that market share in music, so by your logic they're a monopoly.
Not my logic. Logic of the law. Look it up.
... and, yes, Apple could be viewed as having a monopoly in the digital music industry. It's how you get there and how you use that position that usually gets you in trouble.
... and there were two parts to SolipsismX's comment (not mine)... the part about selling for a loss.
The BusinessInsider has the full complaint and supporting details:
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-l...ks-2012-4?op=1
I see where youre going, but you missed my point, even though it was a half serious point. Apple has a lot of profits that the government would like to be able to tax but can't. Perhaps another additional motive for the lawsuit is to leverage Apple to bring those profits home where they can be taxed. You can bet if Apple moved those profits onshore, the case would be resolved in terms Apple could live with. Again, I'm not really serious, but I couldn't count out this impetus for the lawsuit either.
What makes you think Apple makes substantial money from content? Apple makes its billions on hardware not ebooks.
It has nothing to do with how much money is at stake, they can't stand that the current business model was not created by them.
Was it written in invisible ink? I didn't see a second part. Apple couldn't possibly sell music at a loss because he never buys it in the first place. They set the price 99¢ for a song of which Apple gets 30% of, the music industry resisted but finally gave in to Apples model. So now its Amazon telling publishers what price they want to sell e-books at and because Apple can't make money with that business model it has joined with the publishers to create a business model that benefits Apple.
Sorry, it was from the quote you quoted:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX -- "This begs the question: Why isn't the DoJ interested in Amazon using it's monopoly position to sell at a loss to keep competitors out of the market?"
By your same logic that Apple never buys music, can it be said that amazon never buys ebooks?
To complete the previous comparison, if Apple paid studios their $.66 and sold the song for $.50 it would be similar to what amazon has been pulling off. There'd have to be a related product that Apple was using to make up the difference. Now Apple is applying the same model it uses for music to books. The only difference I see is they aren't selling you chapters out of the book like they sell tracks from CDs.
Frankly, with the number of tech books I used to buy, I'd much rather just buy the chapters that pertain to what I need to know. This is the reason I have an unlimited subscription service from safaribooksonline.com.
I don't see evidence (yet) where Apple colluded the publishers to restructure the deal with amazon. I don't see price fixing between publishers or tiered pricing that the DoJ says "could" happen. I think the conclusion that because average price went up there has to be price fixing and collusion isn't a sure thing. Apple entering the eBook segment did result in the publishing houses gained leverage against amazon and amazon has to react by innovating and differentiating.
I think the DoJ is conveniently not pointing out that amazon didn't have much competition in the ebook biz they pioneered because it's bad for their case. Amazon's pricing model was a deterrent to competitors because of the lack of an online market or a tablet with a substantial user base. Along comes Apple and the publishing houses welcomed a new distributor.
It has nothing to do with how much money is at stake, they can't stand that the current business model was not created by them.
And neither was the agency model.