When Apple launched its iBookstore in April of 2010, virtually overnight the retail prices of many bestselling and newly released e-books published in this country jumped 30 to50 percent—affecting millions of consumers.
That's funny - their own data doesn't support their allegation. AT WORST (even assuming that their numbers are correct), the price jumped by 10-15%. Why would anyone believe the DOJ who can't even accurately report their own data?
But since other reports say that the price dropped after Apple got involved, even that conclusion is questionable.
Clearly, at a minimum, the data shows that prices, which were on a downward trajectory rose and afterwards oscillated between higher and the same price. However the agreements clearly changed the price direction for the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I suspect that if the DOJ forces Apple and the publishers to switch back to a wholesale model, Apple will still charge the same markup over the wholesale price as they are now (i.e., 30% of the sticker price goes to apple). The only difference is that Amazon will be liberated to sell books at a lower profit margin, or even at a loss.
If this had happened back in 2010 it might have seriously hurt iBooks. But now I'm not so sure. There's no "most favored nation" clause (that I know of) in Apple's agreements with recording labels. Indeed, you can often buy mp3s from Amazon for less money that AACs from iTunes. Yet iTunes is doing very well, in large part because it's the default option on iDevices. Being the default option is tremendously valuable, especially on a monster platform like the iPad (or the iPod before it).
Even if this does hurt iBooks, I doubt that it will hurt iPad sales since most of the value of the iPad comes from apps, not ebooks.
Finally, if the DOJ wins this, then the DOJ is on the hook to make sure that Amazon doesn't become a monopolist. If Amazon becomes a monopolist, it's the DOJ's fault, and it will be up to the DOJ to rectify the situation.
There is another scenario and that is that the DOJ could look into Apple and how they support a lack of competition within their own ecosystem by granting themselves rights that competitors are not granted. This is what got Microsoft into a consent decree related to inability to set other browsers as default and use of hidden system API's to gain benefits for their own apps.
As you note, Amazon and others cannot become the default option. People presume it is Amazon pushing this inquiry. I suspect it is simply the fact that collusion occurred but beyond that, I suspect this grand group looking for relief from competing will come after Apple next. If they don't want to compete against Amazon on price what makes someone think they want to compete against Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
By the way apple uses the agency model to sell music, movies, tv shows, and audio books, it is a fair way to sell things.
The DOJ has there head so far up there ass on this one they will be lucky if they win. Even Senator Chuck Shumer wrote a letter to the doj asking them to drop this ridiculous law suit.
Apple does not use the agency model to sell other services and they certainly do not have a most favored nation clause forbidding price competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Do you own a Mac or an iPod? Aren't those items priced considerably higher than similar competing items? So why is Apple all of a sudden worried about the price of a competitor? Is it because they're late to the game? Or because this is a rare instance that they cannot offer a better product?
Apple hasn't offered a better product. iBooks is inferior to solutions both from BN and Amazon. They are also late to the game. Apple really hasn't seemed to do well with new software or even continuing software development lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festerfeet
So the DOJ decided to cherry-pick less than 10% of the public comments which suited their argument and dismissed the rest as self-serving.
Does anybody else sense a note of irony here?
Most of the time, determining whether someone has broken the law is not a popularity contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchessPDX
And the flaw in your logic is that amazon no longer has 90% of the e-book market. Your scenario might have been true when it was a kindle only market but now iPad, Android Tablets and Nook all share the same marketplace. Logic says these retailers should be able to compete on the free market by offering these books at their lowest price and compete based on price. Now prices are artificially inflated because the agency agreements they have with apples say that they can't offer the books elsewhere for less. Normally I would agree that manufacturers should be able to price their goods as they see fit but we're talking about monopolistic pricing which is keeping prices artificially high. The proof, look at the price of physical books. Physical books are on average less expensive than their electronic counterparts. You can't call this supply and demand since there is no supply component per se to a virtual good. It costs as much to sell 1 as it does 100 electronic versions.
Allowing retailers to price electronics to books the same way they do physical books is good for consumers and competition so I support the DOJ's actions here.
The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorris
Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.
You've hit it on the head. Most people on here who have followed my political discussions have to know I would be the last person on earth who would desire to defend the Obama administration's DOJ. However they are correct in what they are doing here. It is very clear cut collusion and they have all manner of evidence to back it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine
Correct, I was mistaken about Amazon only taking 10%, it is actually 30%. However, that's still a lot more than what the publishers give to the Author's. And Amazon was usually right in where they priced books, Amazon knew that more people would buy a book if it was priced at 9.99 rather that 12.99, that 9.99 would actually make them more money selling at 12.99. Its called economics, finding what price you can reach the most consumers.
And here's one of the articles on the THIRD publisher settling: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57436521-37/simon-schuster-settles-e-book-antitrust-suit-with-state-ags/ . That means that even though those three publishers would have been in a lawsuit with Apple, a company that has billions of dollars in its warchest to throw at a case like this, they STILL settled, obviously meaning that they must believe they did wrong doing.
The case is a slam dunk, please stop embarrassing yourselves and come to accept that.
I've really been mystified by the acceptance of these actions on here and the defense of Apple at any and all costs. Apple now isn't the same Apple many of us signed on the help back in the day. There was a time where a half billion dollar Microsoft investment and pledge to continue Office basically kept the company alive. Now Apple has $100 billion in cash reserves and is among the largest cap companies on earth. They can have their big boy britches on and compete against everyone else on equal terms.
I was well well aware of that. After all you did quote it. However, you posted it in response to a post about the U.S. government. That's the reason I posted.
Actually, I almost made another post apologizing once I saw your 'nic', so to speak. I've read a lot of you posts and you have great insite and views.
Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.
Because the DOJ says it is so, does not make it so.
Because the DOJ says it is so, does not make it so.
True enough, but this isn't a case of the DoJ simply saying it is so. According to the complaint: There are emails between the publishers and Apple outlining specific ebook pricing tiers. There are emails between the publishers making sure the others were on board with the plan before they signed the agreement with Apple. There are emails to employees directing them to "double delete" certain emails so there would be no paper trail. Surely the feds know they will have to produce this information at trial, so I tend to doubt they're just making it all up.
The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.
I never suggested that Amazon did anything but acquire their market share legally, if not mostly because they were first to the market. In the current pricing arrangement Amazon has no choice but to offer ebooks at a set price because the publishers now require them to sell at a fixed price because of their arrangements with apple. This is why amazon isn't named as a party of the DOJ anti-trust suit. It's because the publishers have colluded with apple to raise the price so that apple could make a fixed profit also ensuring that the value of an e-book wasn't diluted in the marketplace and consumers wouldn't get used to cheap e-book prices therefore ensuring future revenue streams for the publishing houses. If a pricing war occurred the publishers would be encouraged to reduce prices by retailers like amazon and apple in order to sell their books. All this puts downward pressure on the price. I completely agree that apple has behaved in a monopolistic manner and I also think that the publishers were in it too because they benefited from the arrangement.
The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.
I never suggested that Amazon did anything but acquire their market share legally, if not mostly because they were first to the market. In the current pricing arrangement Amazon has no choice but to offer ebooks at a set price because the publishers now require them to sell at a fixed price because of their arrangements with apple. This is why amazon isn't named as a party of the DOJ anti-trust suit. It's because the publishers have colluded with apple to raise the price so that apple could make a fixed profit also ensuring that the value of an e-book wasn't diluted in the marketplace and consumers wouldn't get used to cheap e-book prices therefore ensuring future revenue streams for the publishing houses. If a pricing war occurred the publishers would be encouraged to reduce prices by retailers like amazon and apple in order to sell their books. All this puts downward pressure on the price. I completely agree that apple has behaved in a monopolistic manner and I also think that the publishers were in it too because they benefited from the arrangement.
I didn't mean to imply the flaw was yours but was an additional one to point out to the one flaw you mentioned.
They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled. Sure, maybe if only one of them settled it just might have had their own reasons to get out and move on. But when the majority settles? They know they are guilty and want to avoid what could be a deadly anti trust case. (Deadly in that they lose all the revenue from all books sold during that time period, or some thing of the like)
The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing. I agree with Trumptman the most, in that I will never vote for Obama and am against almost everything he does, but this DoJ case is a rare exception. Cmorris was right, the DoJ case doesn't just depend on any one piece of evidence, they have loads of emails and the very nice graph provided by B&N as well.
And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
Your trolling, I gave you two links, one about Steve Jobs admitting that they price fixed, and one about the third Publisher settling. Your the one without any proof, or any counter argument. You just choose to ignore my facts.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
Even more embarrassing is that Random House is apparently the only publishing company whose lawyers had enough sense to wave a hand and say, "Yanno, maybe this isn't such a good idea."
Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.
So true. Nobody bothers to seek out the truth. They are accustomed to being spoon fed apple's marketing hype.
The DOJ's mission is to promote economic competition through enforcing and providing guidance on antitrust laws and principles. Antitrust Laws The goal of the antitrust laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free and fair competition in the marketplace. Competition in a free market benefits American consumers through lower prices, better quality and greater choice. Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by anti-competitive restraints. Competition also tests and hardens American companies at home, the better to succeed abroad.
"Many critics of the settlements view the consequences of the conspiracy—higher prices—as serving their own self-interests, and they prefer that unfettered competition be replaced by industry collusion that places the welfare of certain firms over that of the public. That position is wholly at odds with the purposes of the federal antitrust laws—which were enacted to protect competition, not competitors."
They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled.
And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.
Quote:
The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
It means that having the resources to fight the complain wasn't a concern. Given Apple's penchant for litigation and lawyers, it is the exact opposite. The publishers that settled know full well that Apple goes to the mat on all legal matters. They settled because they were wrong. The DOJ has plenty to be embarassed about especially with regard to Voter ID, Fast and Furious, etc. On this matter they have done what needed to be done though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
Your trolling, I gave you two links, one about Steve Jobs admitting that they price fixed, and one about the third Publisher settling. Your the one without any proof, or any counter argument. You just choose to ignore my facts.
I agree. TS, you are a moderator and should know better than to just ignore what has been presented across multiple threads by multiple people all in support of their contentions. You haven't even engaged that information.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
That's funny - their own data doesn't support their allegation. AT WORST (even assuming that their numbers are correct), the price jumped by 10-15%. Why would anyone believe the DOJ who can't even accurately report their own data?
But since other reports say that the price dropped after Apple got involved, even that conclusion is questionable.
Clearly, at a minimum, the data shows that prices, which were on a downward trajectory rose and afterwards oscillated between higher and the same price. However the agreements clearly changed the price direction for the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I suspect that if the DOJ forces Apple and the publishers to switch back to a wholesale model, Apple will still charge the same markup over the wholesale price as they are now (i.e., 30% of the sticker price goes to apple). The only difference is that Amazon will be liberated to sell books at a lower profit margin, or even at a loss.
If this had happened back in 2010 it might have seriously hurt iBooks. But now I'm not so sure. There's no "most favored nation" clause (that I know of) in Apple's agreements with recording labels. Indeed, you can often buy mp3s from Amazon for less money that AACs from iTunes. Yet iTunes is doing very well, in large part because it's the default option on iDevices. Being the default option is tremendously valuable, especially on a monster platform like the iPad (or the iPod before it).
Even if this does hurt iBooks, I doubt that it will hurt iPad sales since most of the value of the iPad comes from apps, not ebooks.
Finally, if the DOJ wins this, then the DOJ is on the hook to make sure that Amazon doesn't become a monopolist. If Amazon becomes a monopolist, it's the DOJ's fault, and it will be up to the DOJ to rectify the situation.
There is another scenario and that is that the DOJ could look into Apple and how they support a lack of competition within their own ecosystem by granting themselves rights that competitors are not granted. This is what got Microsoft into a consent decree related to inability to set other browsers as default and use of hidden system API's to gain benefits for their own apps.
As you note, Amazon and others cannot become the default option. People presume it is Amazon pushing this inquiry. I suspect it is simply the fact that collusion occurred but beyond that, I suspect this grand group looking for relief from competing will come after Apple next. If they don't want to compete against Amazon on price what makes someone think they want to compete against Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
By the way apple uses the agency model to sell music, movies, tv shows, and audio books, it is a fair way to sell things.
The DOJ has there head so far up there ass on this one they will be lucky if they win. Even Senator Chuck Shumer wrote a letter to the doj asking them to drop this ridiculous law suit.
Apple does not use the agency model to sell other services and they certainly do not have a most favored nation clause forbidding price competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Do you own a Mac or an iPod? Aren't those items priced considerably higher than similar competing items? So why is Apple all of a sudden worried about the price of a competitor? Is it because they're late to the game? Or because this is a rare instance that they cannot offer a better product?
Apple hasn't offered a better product. iBooks is inferior to solutions both from BN and Amazon. They are also late to the game. Apple really hasn't seemed to do well with new software or even continuing software development lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festerfeet
So the DOJ decided to cherry-pick less than 10% of the public comments which suited their argument and dismissed the rest as self-serving.
Does anybody else sense a note of irony here?
Most of the time, determining whether someone has broken the law is not a popularity contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchessPDX
And the flaw in your logic is that amazon no longer has 90% of the e-book market. Your scenario might have been true when it was a kindle only market but now iPad, Android Tablets and Nook all share the same marketplace. Logic says these retailers should be able to compete on the free market by offering these books at their lowest price and compete based on price. Now prices are artificially inflated because the agency agreements they have with apples say that they can't offer the books elsewhere for less. Normally I would agree that manufacturers should be able to price their goods as they see fit but we're talking about monopolistic pricing which is keeping prices artificially high. The proof, look at the price of physical books. Physical books are on average less expensive than their electronic counterparts. You can't call this supply and demand since there is no supply component per se to a virtual good. It costs as much to sell 1 as it does 100 electronic versions.
Allowing retailers to price electronics to books the same way they do physical books is good for consumers and competition so I support the DOJ's actions here.
The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorris
Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.
You've hit it on the head. Most people on here who have followed my political discussions have to know I would be the last person on earth who would desire to defend the Obama administration's DOJ. However they are correct in what they are doing here. It is very clear cut collusion and they have all manner of evidence to back it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine
Correct, I was mistaken about Amazon only taking 10%, it is actually 30%. However, that's still a lot more than what the publishers give to the Author's. And Amazon was usually right in where they priced books, Amazon knew that more people would buy a book if it was priced at 9.99 rather that 12.99, that 9.99 would actually make them more money selling at 12.99. Its called economics, finding what price you can reach the most consumers.
And here's one of the articles on the THIRD publisher settling: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57436521-37/simon-schuster-settles-e-book-antitrust-suit-with-state-ags/ . That means that even though those three publishers would have been in a lawsuit with Apple, a company that has billions of dollars in its warchest to throw at a case like this, they STILL settled, obviously meaning that they must believe they did wrong doing.
And the DoJ has proof of the price fixing from Steve Jobs as well http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57434195-37/new-details-reveal-steve-jobs-involved-in-e-book-lawsuit/
The case is a slam dunk, please stop embarrassing yourselves and come to accept that.
I've really been mystified by the acceptance of these actions on here and the defense of Apple at any and all costs. Apple now isn't the same Apple many of us signed on the help back in the day. There was a time where a half billion dollar Microsoft investment and pledge to continue Office basically kept the company alive. Now Apple has $100 billion in cash reserves and is among the largest cap companies on earth. They can have their big boy britches on and compete against everyone else on equal terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
I was well well aware of that. After all you did quote it. However, you posted it in response to a post about the U.S. government. That's the reason I posted.
Actually, I almost made another post apologizing once I saw your 'nic', so to speak. I've read a lot of you posts and you have great insite and views.
Thank you for responding!
No need to apologize. You are far too generous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorris
Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.
Because the DOJ says it is so, does not make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Because the DOJ says it is so, does not make it so.
True enough, but this isn't a case of the DoJ simply saying it is so. According to the complaint: There are emails between the publishers and Apple outlining specific ebook pricing tiers. There are emails between the publishers making sure the others were on board with the plan before they signed the agreement with Apple. There are emails to employees directing them to "double delete" certain emails so there would be no paper trail. Surely the feds know they will have to produce this information at trial, so I tend to doubt they're just making it all up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.
I never suggested that Amazon did anything but acquire their market share legally, if not mostly because they were first to the market. In the current pricing arrangement Amazon has no choice but to offer ebooks at a set price because the publishers now require them to sell at a fixed price because of their arrangements with apple. This is why amazon isn't named as a party of the DOJ anti-trust suit. It's because the publishers have colluded with apple to raise the price so that apple could make a fixed profit also ensuring that the value of an e-book wasn't diluted in the marketplace and consumers wouldn't get used to cheap e-book prices therefore ensuring future revenue streams for the publishing houses. If a pricing war occurred the publishers would be encouraged to reduce prices by retailers like amazon and apple in order to sell their books. All this puts downward pressure on the price. I completely agree that apple has behaved in a monopolistic manner and I also think that the publishers were in it too because they benefited from the arrangement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchessPDX
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
The additional flaw is that there has been zero proof that Amazon obtained their market-share by any other means than being the just about the first and best entrant into the market. Amazon Kindle was available for two years before BN crafted a competitor and for three years before Apple got into the game. It's hard to have market-share when you don't have a product to sell. Now that BN, Apple and others have products available, Amazon has settled into a position of majority share but not monopoly share. Amazon is hardly acting like any sort of monopolist in that they desire to still innovate and additionally to compete on price. That is the exact opposite of a monopolist. It is Apple who acts like the monopolist here in that they have a late and lagging product but still believe they should be able to demand their 30% and price increases to accommodate it. People neglect to mention that one of the reasons the publishers sought price increases was to keep giving Apple their 30%. Amazon under the wholesale model was still giving the publishers their profits but was sometimes forgoing their own profits. Apple would not forgo anything and thus demanded higher prices.
I never suggested that Amazon did anything but acquire their market share legally, if not mostly because they were first to the market. In the current pricing arrangement Amazon has no choice but to offer ebooks at a set price because the publishers now require them to sell at a fixed price because of their arrangements with apple. This is why amazon isn't named as a party of the DOJ anti-trust suit. It's because the publishers have colluded with apple to raise the price so that apple could make a fixed profit also ensuring that the value of an e-book wasn't diluted in the marketplace and consumers wouldn't get used to cheap e-book prices therefore ensuring future revenue streams for the publishing houses. If a pricing war occurred the publishers would be encouraged to reduce prices by retailers like amazon and apple in order to sell their books. All this puts downward pressure on the price. I completely agree that apple has behaved in a monopolistic manner and I also think that the publishers were in it too because they benefited from the arrangement.
I didn't mean to imply the flaw was yours but was an additional one to point out to the one flaw you mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Wow, that's some flawed thinking.
They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled. Sure, maybe if only one of them settled it just might have had their own reasons to get out and move on. But when the majority settles? They know they are guilty and want to avoid what could be a deadly anti trust case. (Deadly in that they lose all the revenue from all books sold during that time period, or some thing of the like)
The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing. I agree with Trumptman the most, in that I will never vote for Obama and am against almost everything he does, but this DoJ case is a rare exception. Cmorris was right, the DoJ case doesn't just depend on any one piece of evidence, they have loads of emails and the very nice graph provided by B&N as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine
They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled.
And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.
Quote:
The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
Your trolling, I gave you two links, one about Steve Jobs admitting that they price fixed, and one about the third Publisher settling. Your the one without any proof, or any counter argument. You just choose to ignore my facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
Even more embarrassing is that Random House is apparently the only publishing company whose lawyers had enough sense to wave a hand and say, "Yanno, maybe this isn't such a good idea."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorris
Reading through the comments, it's fairly apparent that hardly anyone has even bothered to read the DoJ complaint. The evidence against Apple and the publishers is pretty damning. If even half of it is true, this is a clear cut case of antitrust violation. I get that Amazon is a ruthless competitor but guess what? That's not illegal. However, a group of companies banding together to inflate prices across the board is. Not only that, it is a "per se" antitrust violation, meaning there are no mitigating factors. In other words, you can't walk into court and go, "Yeah but your honor, Amazon hit us first." As for the DoJ ignoring the bulk of the public complaints in refusing to drop the suit, this is not American Idol. You don't win just because you have the most votes. I read some of those complaints and even a layperson like me could see that they didn't have a basis in law. Rather these are publishing industry people desperately trying to avoid the same disintermediation that happened to the music industry. Good luck with that.
So true. Nobody bothers to seek out the truth. They are accustomed to being spoon fed apple's marketing hype.
The DOJ's mission is to promote economic competition through enforcing and providing guidance on antitrust laws and principles. Antitrust Laws The goal of the antitrust laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free and fair competition in the marketplace. Competition in a free market benefits American consumers through lower prices, better quality and greater choice. Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by anti-competitive restraints. Competition also tests and hardens American companies at home, the better to succeed abroad.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/about/mission.html
DOJ's response to the numerous public comments:
"Many critics of the settlements view the consequences of the conspiracy—higher prices—as serving their own self-interests, and they prefer that unfettered competition be replaced by industry collusion that places the welfare of certain firms over that of the public. That position is wholly at odds with the purposes of the federal antitrust laws—which were enacted to protect competition, not competitors."
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f285300/285315.pdf
Apple and publishers colluded to raise prices. They are guilty of violating antitrust laws, period.
Amazon being a monopoly? That's a whole different case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine
They had the National Bank of Apple backing their case, and yet 3 of the 5 publishers settled.
And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.
Quote:
The fact that a senator has told the DoJ to drop the case is just embarrassing.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
It means that having the resources to fight the complain wasn't a concern. Given Apple's penchant for litigation and lawyers, it is the exact opposite. The publishers that settled know full well that Apple goes to the mat on all legal matters. They settled because they were wrong. The DOJ has plenty to be embarassed about especially with regard to Voter ID, Fast and Furious, etc. On this matter they have done what needed to be done though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloFortyNine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And that means what? Both parts, the "bank of Apple" part and the part that you've yet to prove means anything.
I agree that it was embarrassing for the DoJ to have ever started this case.
Your trolling, I gave you two links, one about Steve Jobs admitting that they price fixed, and one about the third Publisher settling. Your the one without any proof, or any counter argument. You just choose to ignore my facts.
I agree. TS, you are a moderator and should know better than to just ignore what has been presented across multiple threads by multiple people all in support of their contentions. You haven't even engaged that information.