Doesn't this case hinge on Apple negotiating with all (or several) of the publishers present at the same time? i.e. Apple reps and publisher reps all met together and hashed out the details of the agreement. Or in this modern age, exchanged emails with several parties at once.
If Apple negotiated with each publisher separately, then there is no case. I don't know if Apple could do things like say, "publisher A has agreed to this, will you agree too, publisher B?" i.e. Apple is having one-to-one communications, but is making each party aware of what the other parties are saying.
Now if the publishers all got together without Apple present and agreed amongst themselves how to negotiate, then they are guilty of collusion - and they've pled so. (Or settled without pleading either way, they just threw enough money at the DOJ to make the case go away.)
Doesn't this case hinge on Apple negotiating with all (or several) of the publishers present at the same time? i.e. Apple reps and publisher reps all met together and hashed out the details of the agreement. Or in this modern age, exchanged emails with several parties at once.
In the end, it doesn't matter. It's hearsay, whether they told him directly or told one of his team members. As such, it's meaningless.
Which is also why I think Jobs e-mails are going to be useless (he's not here to explain them in context) as are comments in his biography (did Isaacson correctly portray what Steve was thinking when he made comments).
"The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices."
MFN does not prohibit publishers from selling at lower prices. All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.
Didn't score well on reading comprehension, did you? They can sell to other resellers at lower prices but must immediately sell to Apple at that same price. Hence, "The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices." It's not that complicated.
I'm confident Apple's iBookstore arrangement and legal language was reviewed by Al Gore before it left the door. Gore being a politician and lawyer would've provided his input as a board member to steer Apple away from potential problems with government.
It's all just more Kabuki theater and distractions.
This latest DOJ witch hunt is so reminiscent of the one they conducted on John Edwards, where the government didn't have its facts straight and wasted millions of tax payer dollars for nothing.
This latest DOJ witch hunt is so reminiscent of the one they conducted on John Edwards, where the government didn't have its facts straight and wasted millions of tax payer dollars for nothing.
Or as it has become known, business as usual on Capitol Hill.
Actually, it says exactly that. The publisher could set prices differently for different resellers, but whatever the lowest price was always what Apple's price would be. It couldn't set a price of $13.99 for Apple and $10.99 for Amazon. If it tried to do that, the Apple price became $10.99. Although it could do the reverse, say set a price of $10.99 for Apple and $13.99 for Amazon.
+1 Perfect analysis. Crystal clear. Here's hoping that Apple's PR Agency (have they got one that's more than a press release machine?) will start getting this simple, clear message out via Apple Management being interviewed, etc. EVEN Pay for some media, Apple! A novel idea that Apple would defend themselves with paid media. (Having said this -- the suit is in progress -- so we'll have to wait).
Didn't score well on reading comprehension, did you? They can sell to other resellers at lower prices but must immediately sell to Apple at that same price. Hence, <span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);line-height:1.231;">"The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices." It's not that complicated.</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);line-height:1.231;">Maybe some pseudo-code would help:</span>
It's all relative. $5 is a Low price. Amazon could sell it for that and Apple will follow suit. In this scenario, nothing stopped amazon and Apple from selling at a low price. What the clause couldn't do is allow AMZ to sell at 10 but keep Apple at $14. So it takes price away as a selling pt. I don't see how that's different than "price matching".
All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.
...work out a worse deal for the publishers... a better deal for the competitor... and thus Apple benefits from the "better deal." Sound very reasonable and legal to me.
Why should Apple be undercut by Amazon and hamstrung by the Publishers? The price manipulations were (are) by the Publishers. As far as I could tell, the iBookStore has less titles and mostly a higher price. I've only bought a couple of audio books via iTunes. I still buy most others from Amazon. Having the new titles and more Authors would have me switch from Amazon... I'd like to buy more from Apple at some point.
By the way, Steven Pressfield:
"Do the Work" ebook -- Kindle $4.99/iBooks $9.99
"Turning Pro" both $9.99
"The Professional" both $11.99
On the other hand, for example, one of his audiobooks, "Do the Work": Amazon $12.81/iTunes $9.95. So I'd buy this audiobook from Apple, duh.
So it takes price away as a selling pt. I don't see how that's different than "price matching".
Thus the accusations of price fixing. It takes away any point of shopping around because you know Apple will always have the lowest price. And since there's no particular convenience difference, it becomes moot who you buy from. Thus highly anticompetitive. Especially since Apple has made it inconvenient for anyone but themselves to sell content on their mobile devices. Price matching comes at the expense of profits.
Thus the accusations of price fixing. It takes away any point of shopping around because you know Apple will always have the lowest price. And since there's no particular convenience difference, it becomes moot who you buy from. Thus highly anticompetitive. Especially since Apple has made it inconvenient for anyone but themselves to sell content on their mobile devices. Price matching comes at the expense of profits.
How is that anticompetitive? It allows other competitors in the game and forces the them to offer something unique to their stores. With kindle, you can buy once, read any device; With Apple, ease of use with iDevices; With nook, B&N book club; Etc.
This entire case is built on top of a stack of toothpicks, and lies. How fucking pathetic.
Yeah perjury is an ugly thing.
The main problem with Google's case is the lack of a point --- Apple had no interest in having an agency model -- it only benefits the publishers and they were a minor part of the e-book market.
See where the Judge made a determination on the case before being presented with all the evidence.
See how the evidence that is coming out is falling apart in a shambles which supports the position I have held since day one i.e. that Apple has done nothing wrong and will be exonerated.
That's why I'm "blaming the judge".
So the sooner she finds Apple guilty, opening grounds for an appeal to the supreme court, the better.
I must have been still waking up at the time as I wrote that this morning.
They did sign up separately and independently with Apple, with negotiated variations in the terms of the various contracts, one of the big six publishers, Random House rejected Apple's offer altogether.
What? What are all those Random House ebooks doing in iBookstore right now?! They signed separately and then worked something out behind Apple's back...hence they are in hot waters now. As I said, this is more about publishers than it is about Apple. DOJ is wasting time and money in the hopes for squeezing something out of Apple too.
What? What are all those Random House ebooks doing in iBookstore right now?! They signed separately and then worked something out behind Apple's back...hence they are in hot waters now. As I said, this is more about publishers than it is about Apple. DOJ is wasting time and money in the hopes for squeezing something out of Apple too.
Who is missing from this picture:-
I'll give you a hint, it's one of the big SIX publishers whose name starts with R H and wasn't involved in this case at all.
Comments
Doesn't this case hinge on Apple negotiating with all (or several) of the publishers present at the same time? i.e. Apple reps and publisher reps all met together and hashed out the details of the agreement. Or in this modern age, exchanged emails with several parties at once.
If Apple negotiated with each publisher separately, then there is no case. I don't know if Apple could do things like say, "publisher A has agreed to this, will you agree too, publisher B?" i.e. Apple is having one-to-one communications, but is making each party aware of what the other parties are saying.
Now if the publishers all got together without Apple present and agreed amongst themselves how to negotiate, then they are guilty of collusion - and they've pled so. (Or settled without pleading either way, they just threw enough money at the DOJ to make the case go away.)
Am I understanding this right?
- Jasen.
No sir.
Mmmm...
Maybe "The Ministry of Truth".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In the end, it doesn't matter. It's hearsay, whether they told him directly or told one of his team members. As such, it's meaningless.
Which is also why I think Jobs e-mails are going to be useless (he's not here to explain them in context) as are comments in his biography (did Isaacson correctly portray what Steve was thinking when he made comments).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
"The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices."
MFN does not prohibit publishers from selling at lower prices. All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.
Didn't score well on reading comprehension, did you? They can sell to other resellers at lower prices but must immediately sell to Apple at that same price. Hence, "The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices." It's not that complicated.
Maybe some pseudo-code would help:
applePrice = publisher.getApplePrice();
amazonPrice = publisher.getAmazonPrice();
if (applePrice > amazonPrice) {
applePrice = amazonPrice;
}
It's all just more Kabuki theater and distractions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSince86
This latest DOJ witch hunt is so reminiscent of the one they conducted on John Edwards, .....
... or on Roger Clemens.
Or as it has become known, business as usual on Capitol Hill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Actually, it says exactly that. The publisher could set prices differently for different resellers, but whatever the lowest price was always what Apple's price would be. It couldn't set a price of $13.99 for Apple and $10.99 for Amazon. If it tried to do that, the Apple price became $10.99. Although it could do the reverse, say set a price of $10.99 for Apple and $13.99 for Amazon.
+1 Perfect analysis. Crystal clear. Here's hoping that Apple's PR Agency (have they got one that's more than a press release machine?) will start getting this simple, clear message out via Apple Management being interviewed, etc. EVEN Pay for some media, Apple! A novel idea that Apple would defend themselves with paid media. (Having said this -- the suit is in progress -- so we'll have to wait).
It's all relative. $5 is a Low price. Amazon could sell it for that and Apple will follow suit. In this scenario, nothing stopped amazon and Apple from selling at a low price. What the clause couldn't do is allow AMZ to sell at 10 but keep Apple at $14. So it takes price away as a selling pt. I don't see how that's different than "price matching".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.
...work out a worse deal for the publishers... a better deal for the competitor... and thus Apple benefits from the "better deal." Sound very reasonable and legal to me.
Why should Apple be undercut by Amazon and hamstrung by the Publishers? The price manipulations were (are) by the Publishers. As far as I could tell, the iBookStore has less titles and mostly a higher price. I've only bought a couple of audio books via iTunes. I still buy most others from Amazon. Having the new titles and more Authors would have me switch from Amazon... I'd like to buy more from Apple at some point.
By the way, Steven Pressfield:
"Do the Work" ebook -- Kindle $4.99/iBooks $9.99
"Turning Pro" both $9.99
"The Professional" both $11.99
On the other hand, for example, one of his audiobooks, "Do the Work": Amazon $12.81/iTunes $9.95. So I'd buy this audiobook from Apple, duh.
There is no collusion. Sorry Judge.
Thus the accusations of price fixing. It takes away any point of shopping around because you know Apple will always have the lowest price. And since there's no particular convenience difference, it becomes moot who you buy from. Thus highly anticompetitive. Especially since Apple has made it inconvenient for anyone but themselves to sell content on their mobile devices. Price matching comes at the expense of profits.
How is that anticompetitive? It allows other competitors in the game and forces the them to offer something unique to their stores. With kindle, you can buy once, read any device; With Apple, ease of use with iDevices; With nook, B&N book club; Etc.
This entire case is built on top of a stack of toothpicks, and lies. How fucking pathetic.
Yeah perjury is an ugly thing.
The main problem with Google's case is the lack of a point --- Apple had no interest in having an agency model -- it only benefits the publishers and they were a minor part of the e-book market.Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
See where I quoted the Judge.
See where the Judge made a determination on the case before being presented with all the evidence.
See how the evidence that is coming out is falling apart in a shambles which supports the position I have held since day one i.e. that Apple has done nothing wrong and will be exonerated.
That's why I'm "blaming the judge".
So the sooner she finds Apple guilty, opening grounds for an appeal to the supreme court, the better.
I must have been still waking up at the time as I wrote that this morning.
What? What are all those Random House ebooks doing in iBookstore right now?! They signed separately and then worked something out behind Apple's back...hence they are in hot waters now. As I said, this is more about publishers than it is about Apple. DOJ is wasting time and money in the hopes for squeezing something out of Apple too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy
What? What are all those Random House ebooks doing in iBookstore right now?! They signed separately and then worked something out behind Apple's back...hence they are in hot waters now. As I said, this is more about publishers than it is about Apple. DOJ is wasting time and money in the hopes for squeezing something out of Apple too.
Who is missing from this picture:-
I'll give you a hint, it's one of the big SIX publishers whose name starts with R H and wasn't involved in this case at all.
Try and keep up.