It's probably a foregone conclusion that Apple will eventually cave in to the DOJ. So much power and intimidation brought to bear. It really doesn't matter whether Apple is guilty of anything or not. Both corporations and individuals now rightly fear the government, something the founding fathers tried to warn us about. Look what happens when you get the attention of the IRS. We didn't listen. We decided to place unbridled power in the hands of bureaucrats under the false hope that the government would take care of us.
The really scary thing to me is that there are so many who believe the federal government should have even more power over its citizens, not less. The government should fear the people. That's not the case these days is it. We blabber on about how free we are when the reverse is true. Every inch of power we cede to the government means less freedom, and we applaud it.
Of course they all agreed to act in concert which is why the DoJ and EU got involved.
So if the DoJ and EU get involved it's proof that you're guilty?
I see no proof of collusion. Apple's deal was attractive to them — especially considering what Amazon was doing to the eBook market with their dumping strategy — but in no way does that mean there were secret, closed door meetings where Apple got them all together to find a way to stick it to the consumer.
So if the DoJ and EU get involved it's proof that you're guilty?
I see no proof of collusion. Apple's deal was attractive to them — especially considering what Amazon was doing to the eBook market with their dumping strategy — but in no way does that mean there were secret, closed door meetings where Apple got them all together to find a way to stick it to the consumer.
It's probably a foregone conclusion that Apple will eventually cave in to the DOJ. So much power and intimidation brought to bear. It really doesn't matter whether Apple is guilty of anything or not. Both corporations and individuals now rightly fear the government, something the founding fathers tried to warn us about. Look what happens when you get the attention of the IRS. We didn't listen. We decided to place unbridled power in the hands of bureaucrats under the false hope that the government would take care of us.
The really scary thing to me is that there are so many who believe the federal government should have even more power over its citizens, not less. The government should fear the people. That's not the case these days is it. We blabber on about how free we are when the reverse is true. Every inch of power we cede to the government means less freedom, and we applaud it.
I found it quite odd how fast the government drew up the Patriot Act, almost as if it was already written, and ready to go.
So if the DoJ and EU get involved it's proof that you're guilty?
I see no proof of collusion. Apple's deal was attractive to them — especially considering what Amazon was doing to the eBook market with their dumping strategy — but in no way does that mean there were secret, closed door meetings where Apple got them all together to find a way to stick it to the consumer.
And 99¢ songs wasn't dumping? Of course not. Silly me the music industry needed saving, and Apple exploited them... I mean rescued them.
Why don't you ever mention the most favored nation clause that Apple insisted be combined with it. It wasn't just the agency model that got the DoJ and EU's attention. The partnership between Apple and the major publishers was obviously not building a "free market" IMO.
Your last sentence is particularly confusing. The DoJ has no evidence. . . except for a few examples??
Apple set a condition that publishers had to offer the same deals they gave to others, giving Apple a chance to compete.
So, since the introduction of iBooks what has been the effect on the average price of ebooks, ALL ebooks not some cherry picked sample chosen specifically to show price increases?
Based on a "sample" of US citizens I have come to the conclusion that they are all psychopathic killers carrying guns.
Amazon had a monopoly on ebooks. Apple leveled the playing field with the agency model. The latter brought real competition to the market. So what's the DOJ's beef? Price shouldn't be the only factor.
Amazon had a monopoly on ebooks. Apple leveled the playing field with the agency model. The latter brought real competition to the market. So what's the DOJ's beef? Price shouldn't be the only factor.
No, Amazon only had 90% in no way did they have a monopoly, now they only have 60% and won't get back to a monopoly until their competitors who have enjoyed a brief respite since Apple entered the market, all go under.
When combined with the agency model and simultaneously agreed to and announced by Apple and each of the major publishers?
EDIT: The telling part is the timing. If Apple and the major publishers had not all agreed to the exact same conditions and all at the same time this would not have become an issue IMHO... but they did. A reasonable person would conclude that one party would likely have coordinated the negotiations for all to have come together and agreed at once.
"Hey dude, I'm opening a new shop next week, you wanna sell your stuff there?"
"Everyone else will be in for the opening, how about you?"
That's how business is done, there is nothing sinister in all of this.
Amazon had a monopoly on ebooks. Apple leveled the playing field with the agency model. The latter brought real competition to the market. So what's the DOJ's beef? Price shouldn't be the only factor.
The most popular does not a monopoly make. Making sure that the price is the same everywhere is not competition.
Of course they all agreed to act in concert which is why the DoJ and EU got involved. That they didn't all reach the same agreement all at the same time until after the iPad was released doesn't change that.
It doesn't necessarily mean Apple is guilty of antitrust violations. The DoJ still has to prove their case if Apple doesn't reach a settlement with them in the meantime, just as they did with European authorities.
Of course they agreed, they wanted to have their stuff in at the opening of a new store.
So you think that if a new store opens in America they should have nothing but bread the first week, maybe some milk the second and slowly introduce more products because opening with fully stocked shelves is some sort of crime?
"Hey dude, I'm opening a new shop next week, you wanna sell your stuff there?"
"Everyone else will be in for the opening, how about you?"
That's how business is done, there is nothing sinister in all of this.
"We need to agree on prices though. I don't want to compete on prices if I can avoid it. How about we agree no less than $12.99 for our popular stuff and no one else can sell similar stuff for less than that in your shop. We can both make good money"
"I'll do better than that. If your competitors want to sell in my store they have to agree not to let any other stores somewhere else sell their stuff for less than that either"
"You sure that's legal?"
"Hey, my lips are sealed if yours are. I'll talk to those guys and make sure they're on board. All I want is my 30% OK? I'd just as soon not compete on price either."
The agency model isn't the problem, trying to force other businesses to use it is.
I see the free market working. Amazon had unfavorable options for publishers but without any real competition to Amazon's model Amazon had them by their bindings. When Apple came in with a better offer and fair competition they had an out from Amazon's unsavory plan.
Of course they agreed, they wanted to have their stuff in at the opening of a new store.
So you think that if a new store opens in America they should have nothing but bread the first week, maybe some milk the second and slowly introduce more products because opening with fully stocked shelves is some sort of crime?
Tin foil hat time.
No tin foil because the Saran people will think you're colluding with the Reynolds people.
Amazon could have bowed out gracefully and not accepted the publishers new contract negotiations but the fact is they didn't, they agreed willingly.
The Soviet Socialist United States has stepped in in an attempt to restore Government control over free markets.
United States of America, land of Government controlled fixed prices.
Sure they did, they used a bargaining tactic used by used by unions called collective bargaining in which the threat of a action by many in unison to get their way.
Comments
I'll do whatever pleases me. If the agency model was the problem then the DoJ would've taken it up with Apple 10 years ago.
It's probably a foregone conclusion that Apple will eventually cave in to the DOJ. So much power and intimidation brought to bear. It really doesn't matter whether Apple is guilty of anything or not. Both corporations and individuals now rightly fear the government, something the founding fathers tried to warn us about. Look what happens when you get the attention of the IRS. We didn't listen. We decided to place unbridled power in the hands of bureaucrats under the false hope that the government would take care of us.
The really scary thing to me is that there are so many who believe the federal government should have even more power over its citizens, not less. The government should fear the people. That's not the case these days is it. We blabber on about how free we are when the reverse is true. Every inch of power we cede to the government means less freedom, and we applaud it.
So if the DoJ and EU get involved it's proof that you're guilty?
I see no proof of collusion. Apple's deal was attractive to them — especially considering what Amazon was doing to the eBook market with their dumping strategy — but in no way does that mean there were secret, closed door meetings where Apple got them all together to find a way to stick it to the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So if the DoJ and EU get involved it's proof that you're guilty?
I see no proof of collusion. Apple's deal was attractive to them — especially considering what Amazon was doing to the eBook market with their dumping strategy — but in no way does that mean there were secret, closed door meetings where Apple got them all together to find a way to stick it to the consumer.
Ummm. . . from my post, #21
"It doesn't necessarily mean Apple is guilty..."
I found it quite odd how fast the government drew up the Patriot Act, almost as if it was already written, and ready to go.
And 99¢ songs wasn't dumping? Of course not. Silly me the music industry needed saving, and Apple exploited them... I mean rescued them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Why don't you ever mention the most favored nation clause that Apple insisted be combined with it. It wasn't just the agency model that got the DoJ and EU's attention. The partnership between Apple and the major publishers was obviously not building a "free market" IMO.
Your last sentence is particularly confusing. The DoJ has no evidence. . . except for a few examples??
Apple set a condition that publishers had to offer the same deals they gave to others, giving Apple a chance to compete.
So, since the introduction of iBooks what has been the effect on the average price of ebooks, ALL ebooks not some cherry picked sample chosen specifically to show price increases?
Based on a "sample" of US citizens I have come to the conclusion that they are all psychopathic killers carrying guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Amazon had a monopoly on ebooks. Apple leveled the playing field with the agency model. The latter brought real competition to the market. So what's the DOJ's beef? Price shouldn't be the only factor.
No, Amazon only had 90% in no way did they have a monopoly, now they only have 60% and won't get back to a monopoly until their competitors who have enjoyed a brief respite since Apple entered the market, all go under.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'll do whatever pleases me.
Not here, you won't.
Thanks, by the way, for confirming what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
When combined with the agency model and simultaneously agreed to and announced by Apple and each of the major publishers?
EDIT: The telling part is the timing. If Apple and the major publishers had not all agreed to the exact same conditions and all at the same time this would not have become an issue IMHO... but they did. A reasonable person would conclude that one party would likely have coordinated the negotiations for all to have come together and agreed at once.
"Hey dude, I'm opening a new shop next week, you wanna sell your stuff there?"
"Everyone else will be in for the opening, how about you?"
That's how business is done, there is nothing sinister in all of this.
The most popular does not a monopoly make. Making sure that the price is the same everywhere is not competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The agency model isn't the problem, trying to force other businesses to use it is.
No-one "forced" anyone to do anything.
Amazon could have bowed out gracefully and not accepted the publishers new contract negotiations but the fact is they didn't, they agreed willingly.
The Soviet Socialist United States has stepped in in an attempt to restore Government control over free markets.
United States of America, land of Government controlled fixed prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Of course they all agreed to act in concert which is why the DoJ and EU got involved. That they didn't all reach the same agreement all at the same time until after the iPad was released doesn't change that.
It doesn't necessarily mean Apple is guilty of antitrust violations. The DoJ still has to prove their case if Apple doesn't reach a settlement with them in the meantime, just as they did with European authorities.
Of course they agreed, they wanted to have their stuff in at the opening of a new store.
So you think that if a new store opens in America they should have nothing but bread the first week, maybe some milk the second and slowly introduce more products because opening with fully stocked shelves is some sort of crime?
Tin foil hat time.
It's important that all parties understand each other and what's being discussed, then and only then can a debate take place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
"Hey dude, I'm opening a new shop next week, you wanna sell your stuff there?"
"Everyone else will be in for the opening, how about you?"
That's how business is done, there is nothing sinister in all of this.
"We need to agree on prices though. I don't want to compete on prices if I can avoid it. How about we agree no less than $12.99 for our popular stuff and no one else can sell similar stuff for less than that in your shop. We can both make good money"
"I'll do better than that. If your competitors want to sell in my store they have to agree not to let any other stores somewhere else sell their stuff for less than that either"
"You sure that's legal?"
"Hey, my lips are sealed if yours are. I'll talk to those guys and make sure they're on board. All I want is my 30% OK? I'd just as soon not compete on price either."
I see the free market working. Amazon had unfavorable options for publishers but without any real competition to Amazon's model Amazon had them by their bindings. When Apple came in with a better offer and fair competition they had an out from Amazon's unsavory plan.
The comment I replied to contrasts that other post.
No tin foil because the Saran people will think you're colluding with the Reynolds people.
Sure they did, they used a bargaining tactic used by used by unions called collective bargaining in which the threat of a action by many in unison to get their way.