Only 5 hours to veto the iphone 4 and ipad 2 ban. If this becomes effective I think Apple should drop the 4s price to the iphone 4 price. We are just a month away from this to happen anyway.
1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?
That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.
Great. Fundamentalism. Exactly what we need for fair and balanced judgement.
Never mind the fact that Amazon was dumping its product in order to establish a monopoly. Never mind the fact that they had already driven Borders out of business and that Barns and Noble is struggling. Lets ignore the fact that the publishers were losing money on their contract with Amazon, that they were looking for a way out, and that they refused to release the most popular books digitally because Amazon would destroy hardback sales.
This is our government. Worrying about stinken Ebooks, rather than trying to protect us. They stink. An unfair punishment. The whole United States government is corrupted like this. Apple has done nothing but good for how many years? This is how we repay them? Apple should just leave America, or not sale to any state that doesn't support them. I'm supporting Apple all the way. You stink Department Of Justice (injustice, more like it).
best seller price. Not overall price. iQQ because iDon't know what else to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen
Great. Fundamentalism. Exactly what we need for fair and balanced judgement.
Never mind the fact that Amazon was dumping its product in order to establish a monopoly. Never mind the fact that they had already driven Borders out of business and that Barns and Noble is struggling. Lets ignore the fact that the publishers were losing money on their contract with Amazon, that they were looking for a way out, and that they refused to release the most popular books digitally because Amazon would destroy hardback sales.
Amazon is a different case. Go QQ more.
I explained how Apple caused the rise in ebook pricing earlier. And this happened because Apple got its way.
As a note, the deal was a good biz deal for Apple, publishers were making less money per book, consumers were paying more per book, consumers were buying less books, Apple was making more money it would have otherwise made.
I have read so many articles on this case and I still don't get it. Can someone explain to me in plain English what Apple did wrong in the eyes of the DOJ?
They used their insane clout (and genius) to put together a scheme whereby they would enter a new market and raise prices in that market by 30% literally overnight.
They entered the book market. Prices rose by 30%.
Books might be harder to grasp because people don't generally worry too much about $3- especially rich Apple people.
So.....
Picture you were eyeing a Ford you really like. It was priced at $42,000 for the last few years. You save, you go to your dealer, and you go to buy the car. He tells you he's selling it for $55,000 now.
Y: Wait, what? Just 3 days ago it was selling for $42,000.
Yes, but Apple entered the market with iCars, and they demanded 30% of the profits, so in order to make the same money we had to raise prices by 30%.
Y: I don't care if Apple users want to pay $55,000 for a $42,000 car. I'm buying it from *you*, not through iCars
Well, yes, but Apple made us sign a clause that if we offer it at a lower price anywhere else, we have to offer it to them at the same price
Y: Hmmm that actually sounds fair on paper.
Yes, but they would still get 30%.
Y: You're joking?!
Nope. If we sold it to you for $42000 we'd have to let Apple sell if for $42000 too, and since they would take 30% of that we'd be losing our shirts, not going to happen.
Y: Wow. That's the dumbest deal I've ever heard. Thanks a lot for your time, but no thanks, I'm going across the street and buying the Chevy I liked almost as much for $42,000. You guys are idiots if you think you can sell a $42000 car for $55,000
Yeah. Ummm. Good luck with that.
Y: What do you mean?
Their prices all jumped by 30% too.
Y: What??!!!!!
Check it out, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Jeep, GM, Honda, Toyota. Yep, all signed up to the Apple deal.
Y: You're kidding?
Do you think we're stupid? If we raised our prices from $42,000 to $55,000 overnight and no one else did LOL! We wouldn't sell any cars! By working with Apple they assured us that all the other major manufacturers were all on board at the same time too. Its win/win!
Y: Win/win???? I'm getting ripped off!
Well its win/win. We win by charging 30% more from sales *NOT* through Apple (we don't actually make more money selling on Apple itself). And Apple wins! Big! That's two of us.... Win/win!
Y: And I'm........
Yep. The loser. You pay 30% more for cars now. Sorry. Steve Jobs said it best, "Apple makes more money, dealers make more money, and the consumers pay a whole lot more- but that's what we all want" Where *we* is everyone but you.
Apple Fan: OMG Apple is saving the car industry! By making us pay more Apple is making more money because they are just pure magic and that's good and now that the car makers can charge so much more it ensures they can stay in business and have more money to make us better cars and that is good too!
Apple entered the book market with iBooks and prices everywhere jumped by 30% Overnight.
The baffling part to me is how many Apple users avidly defend them. It would be curious to see if they still defended the scheme as avidly if after iBooks (had they gotten away with it) they did move on to iCars and car prices shot up 30% overnight using the same logic they used with books.
Apple makes great products- terrific ones even. Their corporate behavior is among the sleeziest on the planet. But they are friggin smooth.
Apple actually could have probably gotten away with it if they were smoother about it, but I guess all the money and power goes to the head... Both Eddy Cue, the book publishers, and Steve himself made some pretty big gaffes which when put together showed they all knew exactly what they were doing...
The Steve comment about consumers paying more. Steve telling publishers to set their prices to $12.99 but he wasn't telling them to set it, they were setting it 'on their own' but "if you sell it for more, we're not in, and if you sell it for less you're going to lose money" Probably the biggest gaffe was Steve when interviewed was asked the same question as the example above: "How do you expect to sell books on iBooks for $12.99 when your competions prices are lower?" Steves response was "They won't be" How dumb was that!!!!! Actually, that was exactly what one of the publishers fired off in an email in response to that saying something along the lines of 'we're going to get caught' and on another gaffed email someone actual wrote back 'everyone make sure you double delete this email' Things like that just painted a picture even Apple couldn't wriggle out of.
The fact that the book publishers settled has no bearing on Apple's guilt.
Moreover, if I am recalling right, it was brought out in trial that that DoJ's monetary damage threats to the publishers were so onerous, that some of them feared having to file for Chapter 11 in the event the judgment went against them.
That sounds like a fairly thuggish -- and scary -- threat for an industry that is barely hanging by a thread, financially speaking.
Please don't confuse QAMF with the facts. His head will explode and someone will have to clean up the mess.
Yes, it's true that there was an instantaneous increase in price when the new agreements were put into place. Breaking a monopoly which is dumping product at below cost to put competitors out of business does have consequences. But after Apple was established in the market, there was true competition for the first time - and the price fell.
1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?
That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.
Apple got its agency model with the large companies, Amazon and Google "folded" before the forced agency model. Prices rose after that. Apple was the company that pushed for Agency pricing. Therefore, Apple is directly responsible for the price in the rise of ebooks. Having read all of the link (<a href="http://tidbits.com/article/13912" style="line-height:1.231;" target="_blank">http://tidbits.com/article/13912</a>;
<span style="line-height:1.231;">) I don't see how the agency model helped anyone besides Apple.</span>
Look at the number if competitors prior to Apple entering the market. Look at the number of competitors after Apple.
The anti-Apple losers on this thread sicken me along with our so called Government. Crowley and QAMF are the worst kind of posters. They have already made up their so called minds and they lie to themselves and spew nonsense. They look for arguments in support of their opinions of what they think the outcome should be instead of following the law.They like it when an out of control DOJ punishes successful, profitable businesses in favor of their political donors. It only makes sense that corrupted minds support the rulings of a corrupt Government.
The issue wasn't that the price rose, but that Apple was accused of colluding with all the publishers together, and the result was a price increase. It was the combo platter, not either or.
So Apple has found a way to keep profits offshore and legally avoid being taxed. Is there some way Apple can move their ebook business offshore as well, and legally avoid regulation by the U.S. government (or any unfriendly government)? In other words, shut down their ebook business in the U.S. and direct those sales to another Apple entity located in another nation. Haven't some internet gambling sites taken a similar approach?
Comments
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2013/ebook-best-seller-price-average-plummets-to-lowest-level-yet/
Of course when government runs the courts you can't get justice in a case against the government.
Obama's dogs need to be called off!
Because of this, I will never buy anything from Amazon again.
Great. Fundamentalism. Exactly what we need for fair and balanced judgement.
Never mind the fact that Amazon was dumping its product in order to establish a monopoly. Never mind the fact that they had already driven Borders out of business and that Barns and Noble is struggling. Lets ignore the fact that the publishers were losing money on their contract with Amazon, that they were looking for a way out, and that they refused to release the most popular books digitally because Amazon would destroy hardback sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2013/ebook-best-seller-price-average-plummets-to-lowest-level-yet/
best seller price. Not overall price. iQQ because iDon't know what else to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen
Great. Fundamentalism. Exactly what we need for fair and balanced judgement.
Never mind the fact that Amazon was dumping its product in order to establish a monopoly. Never mind the fact that they had already driven Borders out of business and that Barns and Noble is struggling. Lets ignore the fact that the publishers were losing money on their contract with Amazon, that they were looking for a way out, and that they refused to release the most popular books digitally because Amazon would destroy hardback sales.
Amazon is a different case. Go QQ more.
I explained how Apple caused the rise in ebook pricing earlier. And this happened because Apple got its way.
As a note, the deal was a good biz deal for Apple, publishers were making less money per book, consumers were paying more per book, consumers were buying less books, Apple was making more money it would have otherwise made.
-QAMF
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtomac1997
I have read so many articles on this case and I still don't get it. Can someone explain to me in plain English what Apple did wrong in the eyes of the DOJ?
They used their insane clout (and genius) to put together a scheme whereby they would enter a new market and raise prices in that market by 30% literally overnight.
They entered the book market. Prices rose by 30%.
Books might be harder to grasp because people don't generally worry too much about $3- especially rich Apple people.
So.....
Picture you were eyeing a Ford you really like. It was priced at $42,000 for the last few years. You save, you go to your dealer, and you go to buy the car. He tells you he's selling it for $55,000 now.
Y: Wait, what? Just 3 days ago it was selling for $42,000.
Y: I don't care if Apple users want to pay $55,000 for a $42,000 car. I'm buying it from *you*, not through iCars
Y: Hmmm that actually sounds fair on paper.
Y: You're joking?!
Y: Wow. That's the dumbest deal I've ever heard. Thanks a lot for your time, but no thanks, I'm going across the street and buying the Chevy I liked almost as much for $42,000. You guys are idiots if you think you can sell a $42000 car for $55,000
Y: What do you mean?
Y: What??!!!!!
Y: You're kidding?
Y: Win/win???? I'm getting ripped off!
Y: And I'm........
Apple Fan: OMG Apple is saving the car industry! By making us pay more Apple is making more money because they are just pure magic and that's good and now that the car makers can charge so much more it ensures they can stay in business and have more money to make us better cars and that is good too!
Apple entered the book market with iBooks and prices everywhere jumped by 30% Overnight.
The baffling part to me is how many Apple users avidly defend them. It would be curious to see if they still defended the scheme as avidly if after iBooks (had they gotten away with it) they did move on to iCars and car prices shot up 30% overnight using the same logic they used with books.
Apple makes great products- terrific ones even. Their corporate behavior is among the sleeziest on the planet. But they are friggin smooth.
Apple actually could have probably gotten away with it if they were smoother about it, but I guess all the money and power goes to the head... Both Eddy Cue, the book publishers, and Steve himself made some pretty big gaffes which when put together showed they all knew exactly what they were doing...
The Steve comment about consumers paying more. Steve telling publishers to set their prices to $12.99 but he wasn't telling them to set it, they were setting it 'on their own' but "if you sell it for more, we're not in, and if you sell it for less you're going to lose money" Probably the biggest gaffe was Steve when interviewed was asked the same question as the example above: "How do you expect to sell books on iBooks for $12.99 when your competions prices are lower?" Steves response was "They won't be" How dumb was that!!!!! Actually, that was exactly what one of the publishers fired off in an email in response to that saying something along the lines of 'we're going to get caught' and on another gaffed email someone actual wrote back 'everyone make sure you double delete this email' Things like that just painted a picture even Apple couldn't wriggle out of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
So.....
Picture you were eyeing a Ford you really like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Many say that this was the smoking gun.
How is it a smoking gun? Steve Jobs shmoozing with Walt Mossberg isn't sworn testimony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Still got found guilty first time round.
So what?
Assuming (perhaps I am being kind here) you understand the basics of how the legal system works out here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
You've made that clear a few times now.
You can stop at "I have no idea."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The fact that the book publishers settled has no bearing on Apple's guilt.
Moreover, if I am recalling right, it was brought out in trial that that DoJ's monetary damage threats to the publishers were so onerous, that some of them feared having to file for Chapter 11 in the event the judgment went against them.
That sounds like a fairly thuggish -- and scary -- threat for an industry that is barely hanging by a thread, financially speaking.
Please don't confuse QAMF with the facts. His head will explode and someone will have to clean up the mess.
Yes, it's true that there was an instantaneous increase in price when the new agreements were put into place. Breaking a monopoly which is dumping product at below cost to put competitors out of business does have consequences. But after Apple was established in the market, there was true competition for the first time - and the price fell.
Saying "the price will be the same" wasn't the smartest thing to schmooze about.
That's cool, so let's ask Jobs what he thought/meant. Oh, he's gone. So was this under oath? Oh, no.
Look at the number if competitors prior to Apple entering the market. Look at the number of competitors after Apple.
So? You don't understand the case.
The issue wasn't that the price rose, but that Apple was accused of colluding with all the publishers together, and the result was a price increase. It was the combo platter, not either or.