Well if these companies did not break any laws then they have nothing to worry about. If they did, then it should not matter the impact, they broke the law and should pay. If Amazon has a true monopoly, the DOJ can then pursue Amazon and break it.
Just because some corrupt Congressmen pass laws at the behest of their special interest supporters does not mean the law is for the public good. Anti trust law needs to adopt to the realities of the market and not further entrench monopolistic positions. In this case Amazon.
Law is a byproduct of politics. Perhaps take off your rose colored glasses.
The only thing you'll pop is the veins in your neck.
Now I don't know if Neanderthals can read but the point is Apple ONLY sell digital downloads, they have zero percent of OTHER digital forms of music, your apparent lack of understanding of this fact seems to be matched only by your misunderstanding of what "monopoly" means, the word, not the Parker Brothers game.
The only thing you'll pop is the veins in your neck.
Now I don't know if Neanderthals can read but the point is Apple ONLY sell digital downloads, they have zero percent of OTHER digital forms of music, your apparent lack of understanding of this fact seems to be matched only by your misunderstanding of what "monopoly" means, the word, not the Parker Brothers game.
Then enlighten me and define monopoly.
Monopoly: 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
At almost 80% market share of digital music Apple has "a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices"
A threat of popping you in the mouth doesn't not make me a Neanderthal, many a distinguished intelligent gentleman partook in the art of fisticuffs.
Oh, so I picked the wrong, small and very specific part of the eBook market.
So will there be a special law put in place, only for this limited range of titles or will the laws governing how businesses price their goods be applied industry wide?
Will Apple also be forced to keep 65% of a booksellers money, like Amazon does outside this very limited category.
Will people still be able to sell their books and keep 70% as they do now under the agency model?
When will the legislation go into effect?
Will it pass through government?
Will this be an election issue, the Government reserves the right to force businesses to accept their way or the highway.
When the government enacts legislation banning the agency model, how will this affect other industries?
Once again you seem to be missing the point. The case is that these 5 publishers and Apple colluded to change the pricing method and it appears to have had a negative effect on the consumer. This case is about collusion, not about laws specific to a subsection of books released. As for pricing, all you had to do was click on an earlier link(posted by someone else) to see your wrong about the percentage of money amazon keeps, they have multiple publishing options. You ask questions when these changes will go in effect, well it was immediate for the publishers that already settled, which you saw an immediate drop in prices on amazon. It isn't legislation, this is a court case enforcing laws already on the books, I am beginning to think you are just being deliberately obtuse. The government has always forced business and individuals to follow laws, we live in a society based on "Rule of Law". They aren't banning the agency model, which is a perfectly legitimate model, they are simply saying that they believe these large companies got together and colluded to change their pricing structure, and there was a negative impact on consumers.
And to go back to your pricing issues, you do realize how wholesale works right? Publishers set there own prices still, they got paid x amount per book. Amazon just chose to sell those books at no profit or even a loss. This had no effect on what publishers got paid, and in fact they were making more money per book via the wholesale method(in most cases) and they could have just increased there prices if not. Big box retailers often sell certain products at a loss to get people in the door.
Once again you seem to be missing the point. The case is that these 5 publishers and Apple colluded to change the pricing method and it appears to have had a negative effect on the consumer. This case is about collusion, not about laws specific to a subsection of books released. As for pricing, all you had to do was click on an earlier link(posted by someone else) to see your wrong about the percentage of money amazon keeps, they have multiple publishing options. You ask questions when these changes will go in effect, well it was immediate for the publishers that already settled, which you saw an immediate drop in prices on amazon. It isn't legislation, this is a court case enforcing laws already on the books, I am beginning to think you are just being deliberately obtuse. The government has always forced business and individuals to follow laws, we live in a society based on "Rule of Law". They aren't banning the agency model, which is a perfectly legitimate model, they are simply saying that they believe these large companies got together and colluded to change their pricing structure, and there was a negative impact on consumers.
And to go back to your pricing issues, you do realize how wholesale works right? Publishers set there own prices still, they got paid x amount per book. Amazon just chose to sell those books at no profit or even a loss. This had no effect on what publishers got paid, and in fact they were making more money per book via the wholesale method(in most cases) and they could have just increased there prices if not. Big box retailers often sell certain products at a loss to get people in the door.
Apple did not "collude" with the publishers, the INDIVIDUAL agreements, reached INDEPENDENTLY, with each of them is testament to that.
The DoJ has NO case unless they can prove otherwise, what publishers may have done or not done had NOTHING to do with Apple and there is no evidence to suggest that Apple was involved in any alleged collusion.
The DoJ have not even demonstrate what the OVERALL effect of Apple's entry to the eBook market has been for consumers apart from a few VERY SPECIFIC cherry picked examples.
Amazon use financial penalties to force content providers into "fixing" the pricing Amazon wants wielding the big stick of a 65% "Amazon tax".
There is nothing illegal about the agency model, the only way to stop people using it is to enable legislation outlawing it in specific instances e.g. eBooks that fall into the following category "discounted New Releases".
Apple did not "collude" with the publishers, the INDIVIDUAL agreements, reached INDEPENDENTLY, with each of them is testament to that.
The DoJ has NO case unless they can prove otherwise, what publishers may have done or not done had NOTHING to do with Apple and there is no evidence to suggest that Apple was involved in any alleged collusion.
The DoJ have not even demonstrate what the OVERALL effect of Apple's entry to the eBook market has been for consumers apart from a few VERY SPECIFIC cherry picked examples.
Amazon use financial penalties to force content providers into "fixing" the pricing Amazon wants wielding the big stick of a 65% "Amazon tax".
There is nothing illegal about the agency model, the only way to stop people using it is to enable legislation outlawing it in specific instances e.g. eBooks that fall into the following category "discounted New Releases".
Look, I am not saying apple is guilty, I am saying that it was what this case is about. The presence of individual agreements doesn't preclude the possibility of collusion. Obviously the DOJ thinks they have a strong case, and the fact that a few of the publishers have already settled should probably be a concern for apple. You keep talking Amazon tax, but once again this tax didn't even exist under the wholesale model, it came with the switch to agency agreements. And funny enough, these "taxes" seem to favor the consumer. I clearly stated that the agency model is a legitimate sales model, however 5 large publishers all switching to this model at the same time apple announces ibooks and the ipad is suspicious. That in and of itself is not proof of collusion, but you would have to be burying your head in the sand to not think it was at least a little suspicious
This story's sort of old, but I just came across an answer to the question everyone has been asking:
http://www.macnewsworld.com/rsstory/75686.html "Overall e-book pricing declined, too, the senator maintained, to an average price of US$7 from $9." plus: "Amazon's market share dropped to 60 percent and the company was forced to expand its catalog, invest in innovation and reduce the price of its Kindle electronic readers."
So if eBook pricing is lower now than before, competition has entered the market, and the monopoly player has been forced to expand its catalog and invest in innovation, who's being hurt? No one but Amazon - who is probably behind the entire lawsuit.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Well if these companies did not break any laws then they have nothing to worry about. If they did, then it should not matter the impact, they broke the law and should pay. If Amazon has a true monopoly, the DOJ can then pursue Amazon and break it.
Just because some corrupt Congressmen pass laws at the behest of their special interest supporters does not mean the law is for the public good. Anti trust law needs to adopt to the realities of the market and not further entrench monopolistic positions. In this case Amazon.
Law is a byproduct of politics. Perhaps take off your rose colored glasses.
Then enlighten me and define monopoly.
Then enlighten me and define monopoly.
Monopoly: 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
At almost 80% market share of digital music Apple has "a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices"
A threat of popping you in the mouth doesn't not make me a Neanderthal, many a distinguished intelligent gentleman partook in the art of fisticuffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Oh, so I picked the wrong, small and very specific part of the eBook market.
So will there be a special law put in place, only for this limited range of titles or will the laws governing how businesses price their goods be applied industry wide?
Will Apple also be forced to keep 65% of a booksellers money, like Amazon does outside this very limited category.
Will people still be able to sell their books and keep 70% as they do now under the agency model?
When will the legislation go into effect?
Will it pass through government?
Will this be an election issue, the Government reserves the right to force businesses to accept their way or the highway.
When the government enacts legislation banning the agency model, how will this affect other industries?
Once again you seem to be missing the point. The case is that these 5 publishers and Apple colluded to change the pricing method and it appears to have had a negative effect on the consumer. This case is about collusion, not about laws specific to a subsection of books released. As for pricing, all you had to do was click on an earlier link(posted by someone else) to see your wrong about the percentage of money amazon keeps, they have multiple publishing options. You ask questions when these changes will go in effect, well it was immediate for the publishers that already settled, which you saw an immediate drop in prices on amazon. It isn't legislation, this is a court case enforcing laws already on the books, I am beginning to think you are just being deliberately obtuse. The government has always forced business and individuals to follow laws, we live in a society based on "Rule of Law". They aren't banning the agency model, which is a perfectly legitimate model, they are simply saying that they believe these large companies got together and colluded to change their pricing structure, and there was a negative impact on consumers.
And to go back to your pricing issues, you do realize how wholesale works right? Publishers set there own prices still, they got paid x amount per book. Amazon just chose to sell those books at no profit or even a loss. This had no effect on what publishers got paid, and in fact they were making more money per book via the wholesale method(in most cases) and they could have just increased there prices if not. Big box retailers often sell certain products at a loss to get people in the door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Then enlighten me and define monopoly.
Not an outright lie used for the purpose of obfuscation, such as "Apple controls 80% of the music industry, so they are in a monopoly position".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baka-Dubbs
Once again you seem to be missing the point. The case is that these 5 publishers and Apple colluded to change the pricing method and it appears to have had a negative effect on the consumer. This case is about collusion, not about laws specific to a subsection of books released. As for pricing, all you had to do was click on an earlier link(posted by someone else) to see your wrong about the percentage of money amazon keeps, they have multiple publishing options. You ask questions when these changes will go in effect, well it was immediate for the publishers that already settled, which you saw an immediate drop in prices on amazon. It isn't legislation, this is a court case enforcing laws already on the books, I am beginning to think you are just being deliberately obtuse. The government has always forced business and individuals to follow laws, we live in a society based on "Rule of Law". They aren't banning the agency model, which is a perfectly legitimate model, they are simply saying that they believe these large companies got together and colluded to change their pricing structure, and there was a negative impact on consumers.
And to go back to your pricing issues, you do realize how wholesale works right? Publishers set there own prices still, they got paid x amount per book. Amazon just chose to sell those books at no profit or even a loss. This had no effect on what publishers got paid, and in fact they were making more money per book via the wholesale method(in most cases) and they could have just increased there prices if not. Big box retailers often sell certain products at a loss to get people in the door.
Apple did not "collude" with the publishers, the INDIVIDUAL agreements, reached INDEPENDENTLY, with each of them is testament to that.
The DoJ has NO case unless they can prove otherwise, what publishers may have done or not done had NOTHING to do with Apple and there is no evidence to suggest that Apple was involved in any alleged collusion.
The DoJ have not even demonstrate what the OVERALL effect of Apple's entry to the eBook market has been for consumers apart from a few VERY SPECIFIC cherry picked examples.
Amazon use financial penalties to force content providers into "fixing" the pricing Amazon wants wielding the big stick of a 65% "Amazon tax".
There is nothing illegal about the agency model, the only way to stop people using it is to enable legislation outlawing it in specific instances e.g. eBooks that fall into the following category "discounted New Releases".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple did not "collude" with the publishers, the INDIVIDUAL agreements, reached INDEPENDENTLY, with each of them is testament to that.
The DoJ has NO case unless they can prove otherwise, what publishers may have done or not done had NOTHING to do with Apple and there is no evidence to suggest that Apple was involved in any alleged collusion.
The DoJ have not even demonstrate what the OVERALL effect of Apple's entry to the eBook market has been for consumers apart from a few VERY SPECIFIC cherry picked examples.
Amazon use financial penalties to force content providers into "fixing" the pricing Amazon wants wielding the big stick of a 65% "Amazon tax".
There is nothing illegal about the agency model, the only way to stop people using it is to enable legislation outlawing it in specific instances e.g. eBooks that fall into the following category "discounted New Releases".
Look, I am not saying apple is guilty, I am saying that it was what this case is about. The presence of individual agreements doesn't preclude the possibility of collusion. Obviously the DOJ thinks they have a strong case, and the fact that a few of the publishers have already settled should probably be a concern for apple. You keep talking Amazon tax, but once again this tax didn't even exist under the wholesale model, it came with the switch to agency agreements. And funny enough, these "taxes" seem to favor the consumer. I clearly stated that the agency model is a legitimate sales model, however 5 large publishers all switching to this model at the same time apple announces ibooks and the ipad is suspicious. That in and of itself is not proof of collusion, but you would have to be burying your head in the sand to not think it was at least a little suspicious
http://www.macnewsworld.com/rsstory/75686.html
"Overall e-book pricing declined, too, the senator maintained, to an average price of US$7 from $9."
plus:
"Amazon's market share dropped to 60 percent and the company was forced to expand its catalog, invest in innovation and reduce the price of its Kindle electronic readers."
So if eBook pricing is lower now than before, competition has entered the market, and the monopoly player has been forced to expand its catalog and invest in innovation, who's being hurt? No one but Amazon - who is probably behind the entire lawsuit.