And I guess that you didn't read what I wrote in post #82.
Prices went down, consumers have more choice.
WTF is the f*cking issue then?
A microscope should be applied to the DoJ to find out exactly why they are wasting taxpayer money on this farce.
Who are the instigators, pulling the strings?
Quote:
Not all ebooks were sold for a loss. The vast majority were sold for a profit, some were even overpriced which would explain the studies that show that prices went down.
A microscope should be applied to the DoJ to find out exactly why they are wasting taxpayer money on this farce.
Who are the instigators, pulling the strings?
The issue is that the prices of the most desirable of eBooks (bestsellers) went up across the board in one fell swoop, and someone with political power took offense to that. You pose a great question. Was it Amazon who instigated it or some well connected people?
The qualification is in the word "trying". The govt. is "trying" to do so. That their attempt won't be successful is not for lack of "trying", but because there isn't a conspiracy to reverse-engineer. Saying that the govt is evidently trying to do this and fit Apple up (the govt having used terms like "collude" that necessarily imply a "conspiracy") does not admit that there is a conspiracy.
The qualification doesn't change the fact that "reverse engineering" is being misused in this context.
Here is the reasoning often presented here. You've presented it as well.
Apple colluded with publishers to force Amazon and the rest of the industry to adopt the agency model.
Retorts include......
Amazon was going to control everything.
Amazon is selling all their books at a loss and acting in a monopoly fashion.
Amazon wasn't playing fair because they are forgoing present profits for future monopoly status.
Provide some proof for those points. They are more than your opinions. They are allegations to excuse the wrong that Apple has done. Aside from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, you refuse to even prove the wrong that you use to excuse the second wrong by Apple.
The price of eBooks went from $7.97 on average to $7.34 since the introduction of iBooks.
This statement in no form or fashion supports the contention that Amazon was selling their e-books at a loss. If the prices were higher before the agreements with Apple then that would mean they were selling them for more profit, not at a loss.
Comments
Prices went down, consumers have more choice.
WTF is the f*cking issue then?
A microscope should be applied to the DoJ to find out exactly why they are wasting taxpayer money on this farce.
Who are the instigators, pulling the strings?
Quote:
Not all ebooks were sold for a loss. The vast majority were sold for a profit, some were even overpriced which would explain the studies that show that prices went down.
The issue is that the prices of the most desirable of eBooks (bestsellers) went up across the board in one fell swoop, and someone with political power took offense to that. You pose a great question. Was it Amazon who instigated it or some well connected people?
I missed the part where they jailed the bankers for nuking the economy before worrying about e-book pricing.
Jail "the bankers" for what? For being forced by our wonderful political leaders to make home loans to people with lousy credit?
And it wasn't "the bankers" who bailed out themselves out, it was Washington again. Politics is corrosive to basic fairness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
The qualification is in the word "trying". The govt. is "trying" to do so. That their attempt won't be successful is not for lack of "trying", but because there isn't a conspiracy to reverse-engineer. Saying that the govt is evidently trying to do this and fit Apple up (the govt having used terms like "collude" that necessarily imply a "conspiracy") does not admit that there is a conspiracy.
The qualification doesn't change the fact that "reverse engineering" is being misused in this context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Certainly you can do better than that.
Here is the reasoning often presented here. You've presented it as well.
Apple colluded with publishers to force Amazon and the rest of the industry to adopt the agency model.
Retorts include......
Amazon was going to control everything.
Amazon is selling all their books at a loss and acting in a monopoly fashion.
Amazon wasn't playing fair because they are forgoing present profits for future monopoly status.
Provide some proof for those points. They are more than your opinions. They are allegations to excuse the wrong that Apple has done. Aside from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, you refuse to even prove the wrong that you use to excuse the second wrong by Apple.
The price of eBooks went from $7.97 on average to $7.34 since the introduction of iBooks.
This statement in no form or fashion supports the contention that Amazon was selling their e-books at a loss. If the prices were higher before the agreements with Apple then that would mean they were selling them for more profit, not at a loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
The qualification doesn't change the fact that "reverse engineering" is being misused in this context.
How about... the government is attempting to change the facts to fit their case?
Doesn't everybody?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Doesn't everybody?
And how do you feel about that response against the backdrop of today's multiple bombshell reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post?
That's pretty disgusting but I'm not surprised. Everyone bowed down to fear tactics and agreed to the Patriot Act.