The judge is the problem. How she interpreted Apple was at fault for providing a platform for publishers to collude still makes my head spin. Judge that do not understand tech and business has no place being there in the first place. This is only interesting because publishers settled for two-year ban from agency model...and by forcing Apple to a 5-yrs ban...well, where do publishers go besides Amazon for the next 5-yrs? DOJ is screwing everyone but Amazon!
The judge's errors go well beyond that. The fact that she said that the DOJ was going to win the case before the case even started indicates that she was in way over her head or was biased from the start.
I said this many times before, if Apple can get out of consumer ebooks completely for the next 5-yrs now, they should, just to prove two points: 1) DOJ is dumb! 2) neither Amazon nor ebook readers are victims here! Publishers are making money, Apples gets their 30%, readers still paying less than print version! WTF, why is there always victims in this kind of bs? The saddest part, the judge is clueless at cutting through the phony shit DOJ came up with.
Get out now Apple! Allocate resources to something else thing better, like Apple iTV! Wait a few years and let those publishers come begging for agency model again!
That would be absurd. Apple has a chance to gain a place in the eBooks market. If they put it off 5 years, they'd have very little chance of EVER playing a significant role.
What wholesale contracts? The publishers already switched those to agency. That was part of the alleged collusion. Took away retailer pricing control.
its my understand that the DoJ settlement forced publishers back to wholesale with Amazon. However, publishers are still using agency model with Apple. See the response above from Techboy above who believes the DoJ settlement agreement with publishers was to ban agency model for 2 years with Amazon. tick tick.
the fact the publishers have not broken agency deal with Apple, and are opposing DoJ breaking contract between Apple and publishers, and placing a 5 year ban on Apple using agency tells me Amazon's monopoly on the eBook is over come expiration of the 2 year ban with Amazon anyways.
Also important to note that Apple iBook sales are going very well... regardless of Amazon selling books for a loss (aka lower price than Apple). DoJ needs to go pound sand. Apple is selling books at higher prices than Amazon already. Apple is making their 30%.. Publishers are charging what they want. Consumers are still buying even though you can run Kindle app on iPad.
Let the market decide. Don't be forcing Apple to be breaking existing contracts with publishers. That just wrong.
you are not going to stop the publishers from doing whatever they want. Agency model is not illegal. If publishers want to stop wholesale model when the two years are up with Amazon, that is up to them. Its a slap on the wrist and they will wait it out. Genie is out of the bottle now that there is viable competitor to Amazon. No doubt the DoJ/Apple thing will be stuck in Appeals beyond the expiration of the two year ban settlement.
Come to think of it, offering Kindle App on iOS seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I think it was boneheaded move. Buy Kindle books today, you can still read on iPad two years from now. Amazon has lost their leverage and monopoly. they are done for.
Basically they're saying that if Apple didn't settle, they want to shut down the entire iTunes Store. That's BS.
However, I'm not sure but I don't think Apple applies the "Agency Model" to any other part of the iTunes Products.
Music: price set by Apple and approved by Industry.
Movies/TV: same as music
Apps: Price set by Dev's
Magazines: not sure.
So really, what I'm confused about is why would the DoJ impose this later clause at all? Apple appears to have done nothing wrong, in the iBookstore or any other division of the iTunes Store. So why add this clause?
I think really the DoJ was trying for force a settlement, and Apple wouldn't budge because they've really done nothing wrong and refused to admit false guilt...so the DoJ stuck it out and forced the guilty verdict.
Sounds like first class horse-shit to me.
EDIT: Also, if i'm quite certain, some products that iTunes sell has no competition. There is no other place to download apps for your iDevices...sure if you jailbreak, yes. What about eBooks? Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore? I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.
I think really the DoJ was trying for force a settlement, and Apple wouldn't budge because they've really done nothing wrong and refused to admit false guilt...so the DoJ stuck it out and forced the guilty verdict.
Sounds like first class horse-shit to me.
careful mstone is stock piling aluminum foil bought with free shipping from Amazon and has a hat waiting for you. Frood is helping him use up the foil by making underwear.
EDIT: Also, if i'm quite certain, some products that iTunes sell has no competition. There is no other place to download apps for your iDevices...sure if you jailbreak, yes. What about eBooks? Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore? I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.
You can read Kindle books on the Kindle iOS App. You can Read B&N Books on the B&N iOS App. Likely you can do the same with Google books too.
However, you can not read Google, B&N books or Apple books on Kindle . Simliarly, no Kindle Books, Google, Apple books on B&N Nook. Seem to me all roads lead to iPad. Damage has already been done. Apple and publishers can wait out this agency model ban. Apple has no reason to get out of eBook market. it will only grow for them an they are already making a 30% profit while Amazon is messing around with selling below cost trying to knock out competitors. They are not gonna knock out Apple no matter how much they cut the price. Eventually the bans will expire and people will continue to happily read on iPad. No matter where they bought the books from.
you can be sure the publishers are gonna go back to Agency when the bans expire. How is Amazon gonna compete after that is anyone's guess. Free Kindles?
"The provisions do not impose any limitation on Apple's pricing behavior at all; rather, under the guise of punishing Apple, they effectively punish the settling defendants by prohibiting agreements with Apple using an agency model," the documents read.
Acording the article below, it would prevent ANY e-book contracts for 5 years, not only agency model pricing.
From this -> DOJ settlement would require Apple to allow links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble e-book stores
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."
(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."
(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)
and this is going to help improve free market competition how? lol Are they trying to build a healthy competitive market or just a healthy Amazon monopoly?
Judge Coyote got paid off before the trial began. So the publishers objection will go unheard by this so called judge. We need to get to the appeals court with a new judge who hopefully isn't paid off by the DOJ or Amazon for that matter. This whole case reeks with a bad smell of political crap going on. As for the DOJ's proposal it is exactly what Apple said it is. Especially when they try and reach for Apple's other business, music, movies, and Apps which has nothing to do with this case what so ever. Apple was supposedly guilty of something to do with books, not music, not movies, not Apps. Therefore the DOJ should have no legal right to go there period.
It is not absurd for Apple to get out of consumer ebooks. Statistically, iPad is being used more in other forms of entertainment, reading is just small part of its capability that won't need to go away. If anything reading on iPad and mini can only improve in the next 5 yrs. Why not take the high road and show why DOJ is wrong by getting out of it? I would, to prove a point. No better way than to see publishers succumb to Amazon and then we can call DOJ for sticking their nose into things they do not understand.
The DOJ is trying to build a monopoly to reward companies that paid them off. This is a load of shit. I'm ashamed to live in this once-great country (I bet that set off the NSA). My only hope is that Apple will appeal this straight to the top and the DOJ and Amazon will be held liable for corruption of our judicial system for corporate gain.
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."
(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)
seems like an easy fix for Apple even with this crazy DoJ terms getting handed down. Apply buy's Barnes and Noble e-book stores as a whole-owned subsidiary for song.
Or even better, Apple acquires all of B&N including brick and mortar stores in the deal. Apple then sets up a good sized Apple Store inside B&N. Offers free Wifi and eBook reading on iPad devices while in the store. This will attract people who have taste and miss book stores. While they are hanging out at the store, they can browse the Apple products. Switch B&N to all printed and ebooks sold using agency model. Publishers will cut all wholesale contracts with Amazon anyways.. the writing is on the wall. Local books stores return to our society which can actually make a profit and survive. One can dream, right?
B&N got out making and selling their own eBook reader anyways.. seems like and win win deal to me. B&N is not long from certain death without this type of deal.
The penalties were written by Amazon. I guess they messed up.
The DOJ forgot to tell Amazon that they made those deals with the publishers.
The DOJ and Amazon should be investigated.
Well it certainly was not written to benefit Barnes & Noble who if you recall was defending Apple in the case and was already pursuing an agency model with the publishers independent of Apple. Saying that they should advertise B&N is disrespectful slap in the face to B&N; for who this will not help at all. Not fooling anyone here DoJ. Its all about Amazon.
Amazon distributes other newspapers in electronic form. Why favor one of your content providers (by buying it) while you distribute its competitors content also... Its like Amazon buy a book publisher. Or Apple buying a music publisher..
I'm done.... go ahead and be ignorant of obvious facts. your choice. tin foil my ass.
Amazon didn't buy the Post, Bezos did. I do agree that it was likely in some amount due to its influence in DC. However, it is a national brand as well. So buying the Post has many benefits over other struggling papers. With its brand, he can try to push it digitally to a much larger audience. I am interested to see what he can do with it. He has to keep it at arms length or there will be all sorts of issues. Not sure how he will do that in some instances.
What is baffling is that i live in a country where agency model is mandated by law on books (this was done to put big & small retaillers on equal footing and forbid the big ones to use predatory pricing like amazon or our wallmarts equivalents). Book prices here are lower than in all surrounding EU countries. Publishers are free to set the price, but it is the same for everyone everywhere, including amazon.
Note also that prices are set for the life of the book publication, no higher prices at launch for example. Price changes are made only when new editions (eg paperback) come.
So agency model per se is not bad, and nothing presented was convincing of a conspiracy.
What is baffling is that i live in a country where agency model is mandated by law on books (this was done to put big & small retaillers on equal footing and forbid the big ones to use predatory pricing like amazon or our wallmarts equivalents). Book prices here are lower than in all surrounding EU countries. Publishers are free to set the price, but it is the same for everyone everywhere, including amazon.
Note also that prices are set for the life of the book publication, no higher prices at launch for example. Price changes are made only when new editions (eg paperback) come.
So agency model per se is not bad, and nothing presented was convincing of a conspiracy.
How do you decide where to shop for your books? How do book sellers gain your business?
Maybe Apple should counter-propose selling ebooks at 5% below Amazon for 5 years, provided they can buy the books at the same price as Amazon?
That would meet the judges concern that consumers suffered because Apple was instrumental in raising prices. This way Apple would benefit consumers by lowering prices.
Apple has very deep pockets. This would cost them pennies out of their petty cash, barely noticeable in their overall accounts.
It would be nice to see Amazon hoisted on their own Petard....LOL
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Btw I believe Apple uses the wholesale model for TV shows/movies.
thanks for the correction.
The judge's errors go well beyond that. The fact that she said that the DOJ was going to win the case before the case even started indicates that she was in way over her head or was biased from the start.
That would be absurd. Apple has a chance to gain a place in the eBooks market. If they put it off 5 years, they'd have very little chance of EVER playing a significant role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
What wholesale contracts? The publishers already switched those to agency. That was part of the alleged collusion. Took away retailer pricing control.
its my understand that the DoJ settlement forced publishers back to wholesale with Amazon. However, publishers are still using agency model with Apple. See the response above from Techboy above who believes the DoJ settlement agreement with publishers was to ban agency model for 2 years with Amazon. tick tick.
the fact the publishers have not broken agency deal with Apple, and are opposing DoJ breaking contract between Apple and publishers, and placing a 5 year ban on Apple using agency tells me Amazon's monopoly on the eBook is over come expiration of the 2 year ban with Amazon anyways.
Also important to note that Apple iBook sales are going very well... regardless of Amazon selling books for a loss (aka lower price than Apple). DoJ needs to go pound sand. Apple is selling books at higher prices than Amazon already. Apple is making their 30%.. Publishers are charging what they want. Consumers are still buying even though you can run Kindle app on iPad.
Let the market decide. Don't be forcing Apple to be breaking existing contracts with publishers. That just wrong.
you are not going to stop the publishers from doing whatever they want. Agency model is not illegal. If publishers want to stop wholesale model when the two years are up with Amazon, that is up to them. Its a slap on the wrist and they will wait it out. Genie is out of the bottle now that there is viable competitor to Amazon. No doubt the DoJ/Apple thing will be stuck in Appeals beyond the expiration of the two year ban settlement.
Come to think of it, offering Kindle App on iOS seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I think it was boneheaded move. Buy Kindle books today, you can still read on iPad two years from now. Amazon has lost their leverage and monopoly. they are done for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
. tin foil my ass.
at least it will match your hat
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
For its part, Apple called the proposal a "draconian and punitive intrusion" on its iBookstore business and plans to appeal the ruling.
Confusing the situation further, the proposed settlement also suggests that Apple be prohibited from entering similar agreements with sellers of "music, movies, television shows or other content that are likely to increase the prices at which Apple's competitors may sell that content." This would extend the proposal's scope far beyond the iBookstore.
What confuses me about this last bit...
Basically they're saying that if Apple didn't settle, they want to shut down the entire iTunes Store. That's BS.
However, I'm not sure but I don't think Apple applies the "Agency Model" to any other part of the iTunes Products.
Music: price set by Apple and approved by Industry.
Movies/TV: same as music
Apps: Price set by Dev's
Magazines: not sure.
So really, what I'm confused about is why would the DoJ impose this later clause at all? Apple appears to have done nothing wrong, in the iBookstore or any other division of the iTunes Store. So why add this clause?
I think really the DoJ was trying for force a settlement, and Apple wouldn't budge because they've really done nothing wrong and refused to admit false guilt...so the DoJ stuck it out and forced the guilty verdict.
Sounds like first class horse-shit to me.
EDIT: Also, if i'm quite certain, some products that iTunes sell has no competition. There is no other place to download apps for your iDevices...sure if you jailbreak, yes. What about eBooks? Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore? I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I think really the DoJ was trying for force a settlement, and Apple wouldn't budge because they've really done nothing wrong and refused to admit false guilt...so the DoJ stuck it out and forced the guilty verdict.
Sounds like first class horse-shit to me.
careful mstone is stock piling aluminum foil bought with free shipping from Amazon and has a hat waiting for you. Frood is helping him use up the foil by making underwear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
EDIT: Also, if i'm quite certain, some products that iTunes sell has no competition. There is no other place to download apps for your iDevices...sure if you jailbreak, yes. What about eBooks? Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore? I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.
You can read Kindle books on the Kindle iOS App. You can Read B&N Books on the B&N iOS App. Likely you can do the same with Google books too.
However, you can not read Google, B&N books or Apple books on Kindle . Simliarly, no Kindle Books, Google, Apple books on B&N Nook. Seem to me all roads lead to iPad. Damage has already been done. Apple and publishers can wait out this agency model ban. Apple has no reason to get out of eBook market. it will only grow for them an they are already making a 30% profit while Amazon is messing around with selling below cost trying to knock out competitors. They are not gonna knock out Apple no matter how much they cut the price. Eventually the bans will expire and people will continue to happily read on iPad. No matter where they bought the books from.
you can be sure the publishers are gonna go back to Agency when the bans expire. How is Amazon gonna compete after that is anyone's guess. Free Kindles?
From this -> DOJ settlement would require Apple to allow links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble e-book stores
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."
(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Acording the article below, it would prevent ANY e-book contracts for 5 years, not only agency model pricing.
From this -> DOJ settlement would require Apple to allow links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble e-book stores
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."
(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)
and this is going to help improve free market competition how? lol Are they trying to build a healthy competitive market or just a healthy Amazon monopoly?
The penalties were written by Amazon. I guess they messed up.
The DOJ forgot to tell Amazon that they made those deals with the publishers.
The DOJ and Amazon should be investigated.
As for the DOJ's proposal it is exactly what Apple said it is. Especially when they try and reach for Apple's other business, music, movies, and Apps which has nothing to do with this case what so ever. Apple was supposedly guilty of something to do with books, not music, not movies, not Apps. Therefore the DOJ should have no legal right to go there period.
The DOJ is trying to build a monopoly to reward companies that paid them off. This is a load of shit. I'm ashamed to live in this once-great country (I bet that set off the NSA). My only hope is that Apple will appeal this straight to the top and the DOJ and Amazon will be held liable for corruption of our judicial system for corporate gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Acording the article below, it would prevent ANY e-book contracts for 5 years, not only agency model pricing.
From this -> DOJ settlement would require Apple to allow links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble e-book stores
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."
(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)
seems like an easy fix for Apple even with this crazy DoJ terms getting handed down. Apply buy's Barnes and Noble e-book stores as a whole-owned subsidiary for song.
Or even better, Apple acquires all of B&N including brick and mortar stores in the deal. Apple then sets up a good sized Apple Store inside B&N. Offers free Wifi and eBook reading on iPad devices while in the store. This will attract people who have taste and miss book stores. While they are hanging out at the store, they can browse the Apple products. Switch B&N to all printed and ebooks sold using agency model. Publishers will cut all wholesale contracts with Amazon anyways.. the writing is on the wall. Local books stores return to our society which can actually make a profit and survive. One can dream, right?
B&N got out making and selling their own eBook reader anyways.. seems like and win win deal to me. B&N is not long from certain death without this type of deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
The penalties were written by Amazon. I guess they messed up.
The DOJ forgot to tell Amazon that they made those deals with the publishers.
The DOJ and Amazon should be investigated.
Well it certainly was not written to benefit Barnes & Noble who if you recall was defending Apple in the case and was already pursuing an agency model with the publishers independent of Apple. Saying that they should advertise B&N is disrespectful slap in the face to B&N; for who this will not help at all. Not fooling anyone here DoJ. Its all about Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Tin foil much?
use your brain much? its not even good business.
Amazon distributes other newspapers in electronic form. Why favor one of your content providers (by buying it) while you distribute its competitors content also... Its like Amazon buy a book publisher. Or Apple buying a music publisher..
I'm done.... go ahead and be ignorant of obvious facts. your choice. tin foil my ass.
Amazon didn't buy the Post, Bezos did. I do agree that it was likely in some amount due to its influence in DC. However, it is a national brand as well. So buying the Post has many benefits over other struggling papers. With its brand, he can try to push it digitally to a much larger audience. I am interested to see what he can do with it. He has to keep it at arms length or there will be all sorts of issues. Not sure how he will do that in some instances.
Note also that prices are set for the life of the book publication, no higher prices at launch for example. Price changes are made only when new editions (eg paperback) come.
So agency model per se is not bad, and nothing presented was convincing of a conspiracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukefrench
What is baffling is that i live in a country where agency model is mandated by law on books (this was done to put big & small retaillers on equal footing and forbid the big ones to use predatory pricing like amazon or our wallmarts equivalents). Book prices here are lower than in all surrounding EU countries. Publishers are free to set the price, but it is the same for everyone everywhere, including amazon.
Note also that prices are set for the life of the book publication, no higher prices at launch for example. Price changes are made only when new editions (eg paperback) come.
So agency model per se is not bad, and nothing presented was convincing of a conspiracy.
How do you decide where to shop for your books? How do book sellers gain your business?
Is agency also used for ebooks or just printed?
Maybe Apple should counter-propose selling ebooks at 5% below Amazon for 5 years, provided they can buy the books at the same price as Amazon?
That would meet the judges concern that consumers suffered because Apple was instrumental in raising prices. This way Apple would benefit consumers by lowering prices.
Apple has very deep pockets. This would cost them pennies out of their petty cash, barely noticeable in their overall accounts.
It would be nice to see Amazon hoisted on their own Petard....LOL