DOJ: Email from Steve Jobs implies Apple wanted to create falsely inflated e-book pricing

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 88
    nsgarvnsgarv Posts: 7member
    So... How is this illegal. Sounds like free market capitalism to me.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 88
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,715member
    The DOJ is full of it and they know it.
    They will lose.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 88
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    hill60 wrote: »
    So an analysis of possible prices based on physical books and Amazon pricing.

    Has anyone told the DoJ that an implication is not conclusive evidence, particularly as relates to hearsay where the writer of the email is not available to clarify the true meaning.

    Apple will be exonerated, they have done nothing wrong.

    Maybe Steve Jobs should recuse himself from the investigation...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 88
    nelsonxnelsonx Posts: 278member


    Steve Jobs quote: "our motives are pure"


    Veeeery pure indeed! Hey, let's raise the books prices and see if we can PROFIT!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 88
    gijoeinlagijoeinla Posts: 215member
    superbass wrote: »
    Am I the only one surprised and disappointed that Jobs was colluding with Rupert Murdoch directly? Not just the fact that Murdoch is one of the worst humans on the planet, but just how stupid this is in the internet age? Shouldn't there have been at least a go-between or two when they're corresponding about fixing prices so the companies could have downplayed it somehow?

    All this certainly now explains the WSJ being relentless against Apple...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 88
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    enzos wrote: »
    The full letter confirms Jobs and Apple as fair and honest traders. End of story.

    The DoJ will only submit...

    James,

    Our proposal does set [...] higher prices because we are all pretty [...]

    Regards,
    Steve

    ...In other news, the Department Of Justice has decided to change its name to the Ministry Of Truth,,,
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 88
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    F*** it, the email seems super clear to me. There were two price points that could work, and only one that Apple was willing to work with.

    Is the DOJ that stupid in the USA? Or does it work for Amazon? Department of Amazon Justice?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 88
    widowsoftwidowsoft Posts: 17member
    It is obvious from comment that Murdoch wanted more and Steve said try at this price but anymore you will fail
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 88
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 265member
    lol - is that what their case rests on? Truly hopeless.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 88
    leavingthebiggleavingthebigg Posts: 1,291member
    In a weird kind of way I am thinking that DOJ is attacking Apple as a ruse to be able to attack Amazon. Since Amazon worked with the DOJ against Apple a lot of evidence was collected and the DOJ saw that in order to break up the Amazon monopoly Apple had to present the data showing the monopolistic practices that Amazon had and has forced upon book publishers. Once all of the information becomes public I think Apple will be exonerated and the book publishers will then be in a position of power to stop being pawns for Amazon. Let's see what happens.

    On a different note I used Siri to type this.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 88

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Superbass View Post



    Am I the only one surprised and disappointed that Jobs was colluding with Rupert Murdoch directly? Not just the fact that Murdoch is one of the worst humans on the planet, but just how stupid this is in the internet age? Shouldn't there have been at least a go-between or two when they're corresponding about fixing prices so the companies could have downplayed it somehow?


     


    Definitely disappointed about working with Murdoch.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 88
    caliminiuscaliminius Posts: 944member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    It seems that wall degree plaque was purchased off the Internet for $9.99 along with the degree, going by the complete lack of understanding of the law that the perpetrators of this farcical nonsense portray.



     


    If they'd bought that plaque from Apple, it would have been $12.99...


     


    I think the important thing in the email isn't the discussion of price, it's the repeated use of "we all" in the text: "...we'll all fail.", "...we can all...". It sort of blows away the concept that Apple was negotiating in a vacuum with the book publishers. And that was part of Apple's claim, that they negotiated individually with the book publishers. They all knew what Apple was doing. Couple that with Apple requirement that publisher's couldn't let other book sellers sell at a cheaper price and the switch to the agency model.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 88
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,418member
    This is what passes off for evidence at the DoJ!?

    They would be a laughable bunch if they didn't have such untrammeled prosecutorial power.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 88
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,928member
    caliminius wrote: »
    If they'd bought that plaque from Apple, it would have been $12.99...

    I think the important thing in the email isn't the discussion of price, it's the repeated use of "we all" in the text: "...we'll all fail.", "...we can all...". It sort of blows away the concept that Apple was negotiating in a vacuum with the book publishers. And that was part of Apple's claim, that they negotiated individually with the book publishers. They all knew what Apple was doing. Couple that with Apple requirement that publisher's couldn't let other book sellers sell at a cheaper price and the switch to the agency model.

    I didn't see a mention of other publishers. "We" can describe just two people/entities.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 88
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Klark Kent View Post


     


    Definitely disappointed about working with Murdoch.



     


    Why?


     


    Both men had visions and created empires based on bringing them about.


     


    From what was said in the article both men shared a similar idea of keeping their respective corporate cultures alive and active.


     


    Both had stunning successes and equally spectacular failures.


     


    They had a lot in common.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 88
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Superbass View Post



    Am I the only one surprised and disappointed that Jobs was colluding with Rupert Murdoch directly? Not just the fact that Murdoch is one of the worst humans on the planet, but just how stupid this is in the internet age? Shouldn't there have been at least a go-between or two when they're corresponding about fixing prices so the companies could have downplayed it somehow?


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Klark Kent View Post


     


    Definitely disappointed about working with Murdoch.



     


    Quick you two should update your resumes just in case the board does can Tim Cook. Obviously you know things about Murdoch that Steve was unaware of.   What was Rupert doing that was so evil and different from any other new organization?  Was he snipping the spinal cords of babies?  Using the DoJ to wiretap reporters phone lines? Using the IRS to shutdown his competition?


     


    Is Rupert a bad guy? I don't know, but there is very little difference between how his companies are run to those of NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS groups.  Steve's number one job was to watch out for Apple's interests, not police organizations/people you don't like.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 88
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post


    Steve Jobs quote: "our motives are pure"


    Veeeery pure indeed! Hey, let's raise the books prices and see if we can PROFIT!



     


    And what's wrong with that?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 88
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


     


    If they'd bought that plaque from Apple, it would have been $12.99...


     


    I think the important thing in the email isn't the discussion of price, it's the repeated use of "we all" in the text: "...we'll all fail.", "...we can all...". It sort of blows away the concept that Apple was negotiating in a vacuum with the book publishers. And that was part of Apple's claim, that they negotiated individually with the book publishers. They all knew what Apple was doing. Couple that with Apple requirement that publisher's couldn't let other book sellers sell at a cheaper price and the switch to the agency model.



    We, as in Apple and Harper Collins.


     


    One bookstore + one publisher = "we".

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 88
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    klark kent wrote: »
    Definitely disappointed about working with Murdoch.

    The guy is the CEO of one of the largest media conglomerates and you expect Jobs is going to snub the guy?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 88
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    caliminius wrote: »
    If they'd bought that plaque from Apple, it would have been $12.99...

    I think the important thing in the email isn't the discussion of price, it's the repeated use of "we all" in the text: "...we'll all fail.", "...we can all...". It sort of blows away the concept that Apple was negotiating in a vacuum with the book publishers. And that was part of Apple's claim, that they negotiated individually with the book publishers. They all knew what Apple was doing. Couple that with Apple requirement that publisher's couldn't let other book sellers sell at a cheaper price and the switch to the agency model.

    We can be just two, but it does not matter if the we refers to Apple and all the publishers. Apple can tell one publisher it has other publishers on board as long as Apple worked out the deals independently. That is a common sales technique. You tell one party you wish to sell to that another competing party is on board. Nothing wrong with that.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.