US Justice Department details Apple's e-book 'conspiracy' in opening arguments

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    One doesn't buy music directly from them, they have partner retailers.

    I said get digital music and made no mention of an music store in the way you used it. The point is it' possible to get popular media from many sources that are from all the major labels, but before iBookstore came along I don't know of a single eBook vendor that let you buy or rent popular media from the major publishers.
  • Reply 62 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,973member
    jragosta wrote: »
    As usual, we have Gatorguy throwing out red herrings.

    Several people cited the clause in question as 'proof' that Apple was guilty. I pointed out that it was no such thing - and was not proof of guilt. The fact that there might be something else that might make Apple guilty does not make their statement correct.
    Think long term. What happens after Amazon gains control of the entire book selling market by putting brick and mortar chains out of business and by becoming the overwhelmingly dominant online seller (I saw figures like 80% of online sales were through Amazon). At that point, they can dictate any terms they want - and damage consumers in the bargain

    Just like when Apple eliminated all the B&M music store with iTunes? Did you cry for them?

    You're a educated man so you should know full well that there doesn't need to be proof of guilt in a civil case. Remember OJ Simpson? Not guilty in criminal court but guilty in a civil court.
  • Reply 63 of 71
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post




    Quote:



    Originally Posted by mstone View Post



    I'm not sure how the break even pricing harmed consumers. Isn't that the issue at hand? The DoJ is claiming that Apple, by forcing the prices up by some 30% across the board, was bad for consumers.




    Think long term. What happens after Amazon gains control of the entire book selling market by putting brick and mortar chains out of business and by becoming the overwhelmingly dominant online seller (I saw figures like 80% of online sales were through Amazon). At that point, they can dictate any terms they want - and damage consumers in the bargain.




    Let me get this straight... So years from now once Amazon has put Apple iBookstore, Google Play Bookstore and Barnes & Noble completely out of business with predatory pricing and then they raise prices by 30%, all the Apple extremists will shout "See, that is what happens when you have a monopoly", however those same Apple apologists would be perfectly happy for Apple to make everyone raise the prices 30% starting tomorrow.

  • Reply 64 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,973member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I said get digital music and made no mention of an music store in the way you used it. The point is it' possible to get popular media from many sources that are from all the major labels, but before iBookstore came along I don't know of a single eBook vendor that let you buy or rent popular media from the major publishers.

    Did you forget Barnes & Noble, and Sony's ebook store?
  • Reply 65 of 71
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Did you forget Barnes & Noble, and Sony's ebook store?

    I always forget them. I seem to recall B&N had a store with at least some of the major publishers and had no idea that Sony had any store at all. How are they doing these days? Are they at least carving out a decent niche for themselves?
  • Reply 66 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,973member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I always forget them. I seem to recall B&N had a store with at least some of the major publishers and had no idea that Sony had any store at all. How are they doing these days? Are they at least carving out a decent niche for themselves?

    Sony came out with a eInk reader with their own store almost a full year before the Kindle. I don't know how well Sony is doing right now but I remember seeing their readers everywhere and now I don't. Quite frankly I'm surprised at how being a year late Amazon was still able to gain such dominance.
  • Reply 67 of 71
    mrrodriguezmrrodriguez Posts: 215member
    The second to the last slide seems devastating. The guy asked Steve Jobs how the can possibly sell books for $14.99 when Amazon sells it for $9.99, and Jobs reply was 'the prices will all be the same'. The guy thinks Steve Jobs was crazy for even saying it out loud.
  • Reply 68 of 71
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Sony came out with a eInk reader with their own store almost a full year before the Kindle. I don't know how well Sony is doing right now but I remember seeing their readers everywhere and now I don't. Quite frankly I'm surprised at how being a year late Amazon was still able to gain such dominance.

    Oh yeah! I spent like $500 on a reader for my nephew back in the day. I don't recall how extensive their store was but the prices weren't very good. Seems as if Amazon killed any true competition but Sony also has a history of shooting themselves in the foot.

    The second to the last slide seems devastating. The guy asked Steve Jobs how the can possibly sell books for $14.99 when Amazon sells it for $9.99, and Jobs reply was 'the prices will all be the same'. The guy thinks Steve Jobs was crazy for even saying it out loud.

    That's what the MFN clause is. Well, it means that Amazon (or anyone else which would only happen once Amazon's artificial monopoly is reduced) can't sell it for less than what the charge Apple. MFN is not illegal. We've been over this many times. To prove price fixing you need to show Jobs/Apple stating what the prices will be, and to prove colluding you need to show Jobs/Apple getting all the publishers to talk to each other about conspiring.
  • Reply 69 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,030member
    Ah... my apologies.... I went back and checked: that was the ITC case you all were opining on.....

    gatorguy wrote: »
    Thanks for the correction. No prob. You can save the original post tho, since it's entirely possible I could be wrong about Apple and the ITC.

    If that happens I've no issue owning what I said in advance of the ruling.
    Guess you'll have to keep that post on ice a little longer :)
  • Reply 70 of 71
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,706member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post



    This sounds like an easy win for Apple. If THIS "evidence" is part the big opening splash, that doesn't bode well for the DoJ's case.


     


    You forget, however, that this is not a jury trial. You also forget, however, that the deciding judge has already publicly announced that she thinks Apple is guilty. Hard to overcome that kind of bias and prejudgement. 

  • Reply 71 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,030member
    oh. . . This particular email written by Mr. Jobs and meant for Eddy Cue doesn't help Apple's argument that they didn't care how the publishers handled Amazon.
    http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screen-shot-2013-06-12-at-5-21-23-am.png

    For those too lazy to click a link:
    Steve Jobs:
    "I can live with this, as long as they move Amazon to the agent model too for new releases for the first year. . . "

    EDIT: Fortune article suggesting it' might be an antitrust "smoking gun" from Steve Jobs.
    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/12/apple-ebook-jobs-smoking-gun/
Sign In or Register to comment.