Maybe it is time for the competitive arguments to be focused on the services provided instead of only focusing on dumping the prices.
Don't forget that in the agency model, you still have to negotiate at which price you get the books from the publishers, so there is still margin competition there.
A world where everyone goes bankrupt even the ones with the most market shares isn't healthy neither. Just look at the California electricity crisis in 2001.
Yes but would you want your competitor to benefit from the results of your negotiations? That's like wooing the prettiest girl in town and because she went out with you she has to go out with everyone else.
Please extend your metaphor to explain the proposed punishment of Apple.
Well if there is only Amazon left, they will be the only ones charging a price.
Agreed. I think the publishers should've been proactive instead of reactive with Amazon and negotiated better terms. There's no clear cut everyone wins solution here and it's definitely not what the DoJ has suggested.
Agreed. I think the publishers should've been proactive instead of reactive with Amazon and negotiated better terms. There's no clear cut everyone wins solution here and it's definitely not what the DoJ has suggested.
Amazon has the power with its near monopoly. You don't think the publishers tried to get better terms prior to Apple? The DOJ said nope, fall in line with Amazon or we'll just make up a conspiracy.
Isn't the ability to drop prices good for the consumers ? Meaning content prices would drop right ?
Price drops are not necessarily good. In many areas, people spend far too much for, say, brand name items, that offer nothing but ostentatiousness. But, the idea that low prices are good is a mistake. Low prices are a race to the bottom for anyone who wants to make a real contribution -- you have to be a producer not merely a consumer. Low prices keep competition from entering the market -- low prices prevent productive investments and prevents risk taking at all levels. It prevents innovation. And, it just make a living, low prices demands a massive market for your product, and prevents development of local and necessarily small enterprises.
Amazon has the power with its near monopoly. You don't think the publishers tried to get better terms prior to Apple? The DOJ said nope, fall in line with Amazon or we'll just make up a conspiracy.
Amazon didn't start as powerful, they not only let it get to that level they actually helped. They could've withheld content and if Amazon would've taken all their ebooks then so be it. Sometimes one has to take a loss for a bigger win later on.
Price drops are not necessarily good. In many areas, people spend far too much for, say, brand name items, that offer nothing but ostentatiousness. But, the idea that low prices are good is a mistake. Low prices are a race to the bottom for anyone who wants to make a real contribution -- you have to be a producer not merely a consumer. Low prices keep competition from entering the market -- low prices prevent productive investments and prevents risk taking at all levels. It prevents innovation. And, it just make a living, low prices demands a massive market for your product, and prevents development of local and necessarily small enterprises.
Agreed, I just wish someone would tell Walmart and it's customers that.
Amazon didn't start as powerful, they not only let it get to that level they actually helped. They could've withheld content and if Amazon would've taken all their ebooks then so be it. Sometimes one has to take a loss for a bigger win later on.
Is the "bigger win later on" what happens when they are the only game in town and they can set the price of books at whatever price they want? If so, that's the perfect example of predatory behavior leading to a monopoly, but I know you know that.
Not to bring in big oil, but how do all the oil companies get away with manipulating the price of gas without any DOJ intrusion? There hasn't been any price competition in gas prices in years.
Amazon didn't start as powerful, they not only let it get to that level they actually helped. They could've withheld content and if Amazon would've taken all their ebooks then so be it. Sometimes one has to take a loss for a bigger win later on.
And the ebook market was non-existent so they partnered up. What happen was the ebook market exploded and surprised the publishers. Of course it was too late to do anything since Amazon is the ebook market. If they threaten to withhold ebooks, Amazon could/would stop selling the hard covers. And since amazon was also a major player in books, the publishers couldn't risk cutting off their feet.
I'd bet that if you were to take a poll of Apple employees, that 95 % of them routinely and reliably vote for whatever Democrat candidate is on a given ballot. Al Gore is on the freaking Board of Directors, for cry'n out loud! Yet, this is how the Obama administration rewards them? What am I missing here? Is it because Greenpeace isn't giving Apple their 100% Seal of Approval rating, with Obama using the same "logic" as with the Keystone pipeline - that is, tick off one democrat faction (unions) while favoring another faction (environmentalists). I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not on Amazon's side. I'm on yours and my side as consumers. I see things for what they really are. No reality distortion field clouding my vision and if you look at my posts I've repeatedly agreed that Amazon's way is not good for competition.
The only reality distortion field here is the argument that this is about the consumer. This is, and has always been, about Amazon getting upset because its attempt at a monopoly was thwarted. If you are incapable of even considering this as a possibility, then please do not set yourself up as the sole arbitrator of truth.
You claim to oppose an Amazon monopoly, yet even after it has been pointed out that the number of ebook retailers has grown you continue to defend a position that has the expressed purpose of returning the ebook market to pre-Apple conditions by using false dilemmas and buzzwords like "duopoly".
Wow, it's almost as if the DOJ is going to call "Conspiracy!" every time Apple and the publishers have a feckin' conversation! They've got to talk, they've got to try and reach agreements, they need to do business together. I'm sure they are NOT running around trying to find ways to break the law at every opportunity.
The way the DOJ is applying the term, simply doing ANY cooperative business at all (have a meeting, agree to a coordinated action, execute on it) is a "conspiracy".
So, they are now saying it would be illegal and "conspiring" to get together and agree to push back, in unity, against the DOJ's ham-handed actions?
Is the "bigger win later on" what happens when they are the only game in town and they can set the price of books at whatever price they want? If so, that's the perfect example of predatory behavior leading to a monopoly, but I know you know that.
Not to bring in big oil, but how do all the oil companies get away with manipulating the price of gas without any DOJ intrusion? There hasn't been any price competition in gas prices in years.
I was referring to the publishers with the bigger win later on not Amazon. Apologies if my wording didn't indicate that.
It is the Department of Jerks. Forget justice, if this is their idea of what constitutes fair play.
What they don't seem to understand is that credibility as an authoritative body is slipping away with cases like these. Sure, you'll have people that would like to see Apple hung out to dry for anything but it doesn't change the view. You can not depend on getting a square deal in America.
I'm a grown man so no I wasn't trying to be 'cute' I was being facetious, and thanks for your concern but it's none of your business if I want to embarrass myself.
This is a very dangerous situation for Apple. This could spread into allowing anyone to sell content (music, books, movies, ty shows, ...) on iOS bypassing itunes.
The only problem in Apple case is its rule of forbitting content providers to sell at a lesser price elsewhere. This is where Apple got greedy and this is why we have a problem right now. Remove that and I dont see how Apple could impact prices elsewhere. The "solution" of the DOJ doesnt makes any sense imo... Apple makes this rule to hide its cut rate, but this wrong in so many levels. Apple bigger cut rate will make content prices higher in iOS ecosystem. Well Apple, deal with it or lower youre cut.
Seriously either those guys are retarted or there is corruption going on.
WRONG. The Agency Agreement does not "forbid" content providers from selling for less elsewhere.
It does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore.
Finally, what you also don't seem to get is this: Apple doesn't set the prices at all. The publishers/content providers do.
That's why this entire case is so back-asswards. All that Apple really did was remove the artificially lower pricing imposed by Amazon's near-monopoly on the entire market (a monopoly in part gained, I might add, by unfairly leveraging its dominant position to kill competition by lowering prices to AT OR BELOW costs).
Basing "fair market pricing" on Amazon's artificially low prices is the DOJ's first major error. Their second was to base their premise that Apple unfairly "raised prices" in that it was also based on those artificially low prices AND the notion that Apple somehow controls pricing. They don't. The publishers do.
Comments
Please extend your metaphor to explain the proposed punishment of Apple.
Agreed. I think the publishers should've been proactive instead of reactive with Amazon and negotiated better terms. There's no clear cut everyone wins solution here and it's definitely not what the DoJ has suggested.
You've used up your alloted one metaphor per day. Ask me tomorrow but I wouldn't bother because I probably won't be able to think one up.
Amazon has the power with its near monopoly. You don't think the publishers tried to get better terms prior to Apple? The DOJ said nope, fall in line with Amazon or we'll just make up a conspiracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
Isn't the ability to drop prices good for the consumers ? Meaning content prices would drop right ?
Price drops are not necessarily good. In many areas, people spend far too much for, say, brand name items, that offer nothing but ostentatiousness. But, the idea that low prices are good is a mistake. Low prices are a race to the bottom for anyone who wants to make a real contribution -- you have to be a producer not merely a consumer. Low prices keep competition from entering the market -- low prices prevent productive investments and prevents risk taking at all levels. It prevents innovation. And, it just make a living, low prices demands a massive market for your product, and prevents development of local and necessarily small enterprises.
Amazon didn't start as powerful, they not only let it get to that level they actually helped. They could've withheld content and if Amazon would've taken all their ebooks then so be it. Sometimes one has to take a loss for a bigger win later on.
Agreed, I just wish someone would tell Walmart and it's customers that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Amazon didn't start as powerful, they not only let it get to that level they actually helped. They could've withheld content and if Amazon would've taken all their ebooks then so be it. Sometimes one has to take a loss for a bigger win later on.
Is the "bigger win later on" what happens when they are the only game in town and they can set the price of books at whatever price they want? If so, that's the perfect example of predatory behavior leading to a monopoly, but I know you know that.
Not to bring in big oil, but how do all the oil companies get away with manipulating the price of gas without any DOJ intrusion? There hasn't been any price competition in gas prices in years.
And the ebook market was non-existent so they partnered up. What happen was the ebook market exploded and surprised the publishers. Of course it was too late to do anything since Amazon is the ebook market. If they threaten to withhold ebooks, Amazon could/would stop selling the hard covers. And since amazon was also a major player in books, the publishers couldn't risk cutting off their feet.
The only reality distortion field here is the argument that this is about the consumer. This is, and has always been, about Amazon getting upset because its attempt at a monopoly was thwarted. If you are incapable of even considering this as a possibility, then please do not set yourself up as the sole arbitrator of truth.
You claim to oppose an Amazon monopoly, yet even after it has been pointed out that the number of ebook retailers has grown you continue to defend a position that has the expressed purpose of returning the ebook market to pre-Apple conditions by using false dilemmas and buzzwords like "duopoly".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You've used up your alloted one metaphor per day. Ask me tomorrow but I wouldn't bother because I probably won't be able to think one up.
Do you really think you're cute?
Wow. Stop embarrassing yourself (and this forum).
Signed. 'Nuff Said.
The way the DOJ is applying the term, simply doing ANY cooperative business at all (have a meeting, agree to a coordinated action, execute on it) is a "conspiracy".
So, they are now saying it would be illegal and "conspiring" to get together and agree to push back, in unity, against the DOJ's ham-handed actions?
Huh…
I was referring to the publishers with the bigger win later on not Amazon. Apologies if my wording didn't indicate that.
What they don't seem to understand is that credibility as an authoritative body is slipping away with cases like these. Sure, you'll have people that would like to see Apple hung out to dry for anything but it doesn't change the view. You can not depend on getting a square deal in America.
I'm a grown man so no I wasn't trying to be 'cute' I was being facetious, and thanks for your concern but it's none of your business if I want to embarrass myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
This is a very dangerous situation for Apple. This could spread into allowing anyone to sell content (music, books, movies, ty shows, ...) on iOS bypassing itunes.
The only problem in Apple case is its rule of forbitting content providers to sell at a lesser price elsewhere. This is where Apple got greedy and this is why we have a problem right now. Remove that and I dont see how Apple could impact prices elsewhere. The "solution" of the DOJ doesnt makes any sense imo... Apple makes this rule to hide its cut rate, but this wrong in so many levels. Apple bigger cut rate will make content prices higher in iOS ecosystem. Well Apple, deal with it or lower youre cut.
Seriously either those guys are retarted or there is corruption going on.
WRONG. The Agency Agreement does not "forbid" content providers from selling for less elsewhere.
It does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore.
Finally, what you also don't seem to get is this: Apple doesn't set the prices at all. The publishers/content providers do.
That's why this entire case is so back-asswards. All that Apple really did was remove the artificially lower pricing imposed by Amazon's near-monopoly on the entire market (a monopoly in part gained, I might add, by unfairly leveraging its dominant position to kill competition by lowering prices to AT OR BELOW costs).
Basing "fair market pricing" on Amazon's artificially low prices is the DOJ's first major error. Their second was to base their premise that Apple unfairly "raised prices" in that it was also based on those artificially low prices AND the notion that Apple somehow controls pricing. They don't. The publishers do.
Ye, very weird indeed...