Negotiating from a market power position is not the same as illegal abuse of monopoly power. Ask Macmillan.
You're right it isn't. I'm sure it wasn't your intent to prove Amazon is an illegal monopoly either so I'm not sure why you even bothered to write that.
Apple didn't have ANY control over the publishers. There's no way in hell Apple COERCED the publishers into setting up contracts with other retailers. Apple didn't have any leverage - they didn't even have a book store yet. Coercion only works when you're capable of forcing pressure on someone to meet your demands. Please explain how Apple was in this position to do that to the publishers?
What we're witnessing here is the publishers colluding to use Apple to force changes at Amazon. Just as the music industry used Amazon to force Apple into a tiered pricing model for music. Didn't anyone notice how fast all the publishers caved and agreed to settle out of court - they knew they screwed up and left Apple to take the fall.
The government is trying to make the case that Apple was involved in the price fixing due to their MFN clause and agency pricing model. Apple basically said to the publishers, look you can set whatever price you want, but you're not screwing us and our users over by charging us higher rates. At this point the publishers are free to set whatever price they want - keep them the same or raise the prices. If they had kept them the same none of this would be a problem, however they decided to use Apple (or more so, Apple's spend-happy user base) to force Amazon into this more lucrative agency model.
Of course Amazon is going to be scared, Apple's iTunes platform and user base was huge - and growing rapidly. The publishers probably could've completely dumped Amazon and just went with Apple's iBookStore and made the same amount of money and eventually sold the same number of eBooks.
But they forced them into a contract which forced them to renegotiate with Amazon, cause and effect.
Why would Amazon be scared? They also have access to Apple's huge customer base plus everyone else on a competing platform.
Negotiating from a market power position is not the same as illegal abuse of monopoly power. Ask Macmillan.
Why as MacMillan when I can ask you? But I already know the answer. Only Apple negotiates from a market power position and everybody else negotiates from a imaginary monopolistic position.
Whether this has anything to do with iBooks or not is irrelevant, it just shows how much power Amazon was trying to wield with the publishers.
Nice backtracking there. You post a link to article that makes no mention of Amazon threatening to pull a publisher's books if they sign with Apple and when someone calls BS, your response is, "Well it doesn't matter whether they really did or not." Typical AppleInsider comment. Why bother with facts when you can just make shit up?
Nice backtracking there. You post a link to article that makes no mention of Amazon threatening to pull a publisher's books if they sign with Apple and when someone calls BS, your response is, "Well it doesn't matter whether they really did or not." Typical AppleInsider comment. Why bother with facts when you can just make shit up?
The fact is Amazon did not have to react to Apple's entry into the market at all.
The fact is Amazon was not forced or coerced to do anything.
Apple and Amazon both made separate and different agreements with each of the publishers.
The fact is Apple did no wrong and will be exonerated.
Comments
You're right it isn't. I'm sure it wasn't your intent to prove Amazon is an illegal monopoly either so I'm not sure why you even bothered to write that.
But they forced them into a contract which forced them to renegotiate with Amazon, cause and effect.
Why would Amazon be scared? They also have access to Apple's huge customer base plus everyone else on a competing platform.
Why as MacMillan when I can ask you? But I already know the answer. Only Apple negotiates from a market power position and everybody else negotiates from a imaginary monopolistic position.
Because they loose their dominate position as both an ebook supplier and reduction in sales of the Kindle and stranglehold on the book market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Whether this has anything to do with iBooks or not is irrelevant, it just shows how much power Amazon was trying to wield with the publishers.
Nice backtracking there. You post a link to article that makes no mention of Amazon threatening to pull a publisher's books if they sign with Apple and when someone calls BS, your response is, "Well it doesn't matter whether they really did or not." Typical AppleInsider comment. Why bother with facts when you can just make shit up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Nice backtracking there. You post a link to article that makes no mention of Amazon threatening to pull a publisher's books if they sign with Apple and when someone calls BS, your response is, "Well it doesn't matter whether they really did or not." Typical AppleInsider comment. Why bother with facts when you can just make shit up?
The fact is Amazon did not have to react to Apple's entry into the market at all.
The fact is Amazon was not forced or coerced to do anything.
Apple and Amazon both made separate and different agreements with each of the publishers.
The fact is Apple did no wrong and will be exonerated.