DoJ: Apple considered 'illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon'

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 95
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Just as MS was right by the customer by bundling IE for free so we wouldn't have to pay those greedy Netscape people.



    Isn't safari free as well? So what's the problem?
  • Reply 82 of 95
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdamC View Post


    Let's try to get some perspective, lining the pocket of the companies lead the companies staying in business, authors have more time to write books, keeping the mum and pop bookstores alive. Yes more people keep their jobs thus pump back more money into the economy.



    With better profits more bookstores will open thus leading to higher employment.



    Now since you want to pay less and it only benefit Amazon because they are the cheapest, you only keep them in business and their predatory pricing kill off the mum and pop bookstores in the mean time leading to higher employment.



    The choice is yours to make I have made mine. I pay for my stuffs to keep the people who matter in business.



    One more thing pay 2 bucks more is not going to impoverish me if it has so many benefits.



    Where were you when iTunes was killing all the music stores? That was alright because it was Apple benefitting? Wasn't it the cry by the consumers for the $9.99 album vs the $12.99 album?
  • Reply 83 of 95
    frugalityfrugality Posts: 410member
    I work for a company that has an ethics policy. As part of that policy, we have to do yearly training, and one of the big topics is illegal anti-competitive practices.



    It is illegal for 2 companies to get together and agree to split territory -- "I take this market and you stay out of my market, and you take that market and I'll stay out of your market." It's basically an agreement to create 2 monopolies, rather than compete fairly against each other. Even 2 VP's getting together over coffee and discussing this topic AT ALL is ground for a lawsuit. There doesn't have to be a business plan or official proposal or anything. A discussion with a verbal agreement is all the DOJ needs. So if some folks think that the charges are baseless or 'theatrical'.....realize that it doesn't take much evidence at all. Even an over-the-phone agreement is guilt.



    Price-fixing is also illegal -- where 2 companies get together to set prices artificially high, subverting the free-market system.



    A number of folks here should actually KNOW something about this topic before posting. From watching the news blurbs here, it is not at all surprising that Apple could be called into court for something like this.



    I didn't like Apple's stranglehold with iTunes, and have also been very suspicious of the deals being made with publishers over book/magazine content. It really sounds like price-fixing.
  • Reply 84 of 95
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Where were you when iTunes was killing all the music stores? That was alright because it was Apple benefitting? Wasn't it the cry by the consumers for the $9.99 album vs the $12.99 album?



    iTunes albums cost more than CDs. You were probably one of the people complaining about the high cost, DRM, and lower bit rate.
  • Reply 85 of 95
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    iTunes albums cost more than CDs. You were probably one of the people complaining about the high cost, DRM, and lower bit rate.



    No I'm a vinyl type of guy, no bit rate can ever sound as good.
  • Reply 86 of 95
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    No I'm a vinyl type of guy, no bit rate can ever sound as good.



    That's axiomatically wrong.
  • Reply 87 of 95
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That's axiomatically wrong.



    But you know what I mean. You can sample that analog signal all you want but one cannot capture the full experience.
  • Reply 88 of 95
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    ...other than evidence from press reports and the DoJ complaint, which apparently makes me more qualified to comment than those who haven't bothered to read the claims and continue to spread misunderstandings or outright fibs. You wouldn't be one of those that hasn't read the DoJ complaint would you, yet feels knowledgeable enough about it to comment?



    Fifty Shades of Grey, current number one on the NYT best sellers list.



    http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/fift...09857961?mt=11



    iBooks price $9.99.



    So what was that about Apple's price being higher than Amazon's $9.99 price for best sellers?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frugality View Post


    I didn't like Apple's stranglehold with iTunes, and have also been very suspicious of the deals being made with publishers over book/magazine content. It really sounds like price-fixing.



    So is Amazon also involved in this $9.99 "price fixing"?



    (see above)
  • Reply 89 of 95
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,296member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Fifty Shades of Grey, current number one on the NYT best sellers list.



    http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/fift...09857961?mt=11



    iBooks price $9.99.



    So what was that about Apple's price being higher than Amazon's $9.99 price for best sellers?



    Who's the publisher? Not one of those accused by the DoJ of participating in price collusion via their agency agreement. That one is self-published and so the price isn't controlled. I'm not sure you understand what the claims are.



    Let me know when you find one less than $12.99 that's both a best seller and published by Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, or Penguin.



    Since the first three agreed to a settlement today it won't be very long before you find bestsellers from those under $12.99.
  • Reply 90 of 95
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Who's the publisher? Not one of those accused by the DoJ of participating in price collusion via their agency agreement. That one is self-published and so the price isn't controlled. I'm not sure you understand what the claims are.



    Let me know when you find one less than $12.99 that's both a best seller and published by Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, or Penguin.



    Since the first three agreed to a settlement today it won't be very long before you find bestsellers from those under $12.99.



    It looks more like publishers are free to sell at whatever price they want in Apple's store.



    Apple is not involved in setting prices.
  • Reply 91 of 95
    vspvsp Posts: 32member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post


    What you failed to grasp about the Amazon situation is this:



    When Apple and the publisher's colluded to set e-book prices, the big publishers told Amazon to restructure their contract to match it or lose their business. So if Amazon did no agree to change their model, they would LOSE their e-book titles. Not much of a choice and at the same time no company can offer lower prices to compete.



    Do you see the difference between what Apple did and your example? In your example Pepsi could offer you that lower price and compete. No one forced Pepsi to set that price. Now if Pepsi and coke got together and said that they would only offer one price, then that would be collusion and it's illegal.



    I hate to cite Wikipedia but they had the most information available on one site:



    "Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights....It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production..."



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion



    Therefore the problem is not the fact that Apple entered these clauses with the publishers, its that they set prices and then forced every other business to accept those prices. Which is collusion and illegal.



    ---------------

    Amazon forced publishers to forgo 70% of their earnings while Apple reduced the offer to 30%. Apple did not forced the publishers; instead the publishers gladly embraced the offer. Amazon lost in the competition and have to bribe the DoJ to fight for it.



    DoJ has been known to be asleep while the banking and oil industries collude with the government to rape the country and cause irreparable harm to the economy. Apple is not known to have used its money to buy the bureaucrats to turn a blind eye. This is why the government is trying to take a bite of the apple,
  • Reply 92 of 95
    isheldonisheldon Posts: 570member
    Nothing more than digital evolution.

    I love how all the shareholders on here keep berating others who want lower prices for eBooks and keep the cash in their pockets rather than line Apple's. It's callled a free market- Amazon and anybody else should be able to sell at whatever prcie they want to. Exactly as Apple pushed for the $0.99 song model. Remember Apple was supposedly selling music at almost a loss to sell iPods. This argument of "saving" the music industry be "inventing iTunes" is pure and utter hogwash- iTunes was created to sell iPods; Amazon's eBook store is basically just selling Kindles. Same thing.

    Can you imagine is Sony and BMG had forced Apple to raise their prices in year 3 of iPod sales? The hypocricy, oh the horror!
  • Reply 93 of 95
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post


    And this 52 million will obviously go back to the consumers and not the government.







    No they'll get their .28 cents back in restitution, the other 40% will go to the law firm.
  • Reply 94 of 95
    davidwdavidw Posts: 977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Where were you when iTunes was killing all the music stores? That was alright because it was Apple benefitting? Wasn't it the cry by the consumers for the $9.99 album vs the $12.99 album?





    iTunes didn't kill off those specialty music stores. When those music stores died, over 90% of music sold was still in the form of physical CD's. Who killed off those music stores were the big retailers that sold CD's at a lost to drive customers into their stores. Walmart, Target and Best Buy could afford to sell CD's as a lost leader because they sold other high profit items that customers purchased when they came in to buy the CD. Amazon with their tax free and free shipping on CD's, along with their low price also played a major role in killing off those speciality record stores. It's only been very recently that downloaded music over took physical CD's sales.
  • Reply 95 of 95
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    I have considered illegally strangling my brother on countless occasions but have never done so. Should I be sued for my unclean thoughts?



    Thompson
Sign In or Register to comment.