The DOJ is turning into a Socialist regime, just faster than the other parts of government, because Holder is at the helm. This is what you get when you have a government that rules with an iron fist, like China, and won't look at the evidence, and pays off the judge with bonuses and paid leave. Hopefully 2014 and 2016 elections will give us better results and we can head back towards democracy.
Oh please… "socialist regime"?? Stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh. They are misinforming and misguiding you. That isn't "education". Socialism is an Economic System.
Please go and get a proper education about the nature of "Socialism" before posting silly, ignorant, politically laced commentary here. It clearly isn't what you think it is. SImple definitions are a good start. You could even try Wikipedia for basics:
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...
It's the MFN clause that forbids them from lowering the price without lowering it for Apple as well.
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.
What's scary is that the growing (& majority) entitlement mentality in the U.S. seems to be an obstacle to your logic.
Why would an innovative company like Apple want to enter the discount book business and get mired in individually pricing thousands upon thousands of publications? The agency model is the only one that makes sense for Apple, but the DOJ says that can't be allowed. WTF?
Mmmk… and how is that different from my second sentence? I quote:
"It does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."
Oh, I see… YOU reapplied the word "forbids"… because it's much more meaningful and overflowing with dark implication or… something...
It's different because I included the MFN clause not the agency model. Apple doesn't forbid them the agreement does.
The Department Of Justice is doing the right thing. I know because the Ministry Of Truth said so. I mean, it's not as if the DOJ was supposed to enforce behavior that was collectively deemed acceptable by the majority of people (hmmm... we could call them something like 'Rules'). That would be crazy.
No it's not its up to the seller. Apple does this on their HW products. If it cost too much people won't buy it.
Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.
You can thank low wages for that. It's not a mindset it's a necessity.
Don't blame alcohol for alcoholism. It's a factor but not the cause.
Don't think that the entitlement mentality only exists in those with low wages.
To clarify... the consumer SHOULD desire the lowest possible price for the value they seek to obtain. They just should NOT feel entitled to it. And if they feel entitled, they need to see the whole picture (i.e. see it from the "producers" perspective).
Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.
What?? "The fact remains you … could not compete with Apple on price". WHAT?? In what fantasy realm would that be remotely true?
OMG, you are flipping this from being a "can't compete with AMAZON's artificially low pricing" argument to "can't compete with APPLE on price"?
How could one not compete with iBooks pricing? How could one NOT compete with "Apple on price"?
You are completely wrongly and negatively distorting this entire discussion, and steering it back into your constant "Apple is the bad guy" frame...
Of course it matters who sets prices. It especially matters to YOUR argument which requires that Apple sets pricing in order to be valid. But… they don't. So, where does that leave your argument?
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.
A reasonable passive aggressive. Now I have seen it all. You mad? You lost your cool man. It's obvious your attempt to make a reasonable looking argument was flawed, this why people are calling you in it. You messed up.
It's different because I included the MFN clause not the agency model. Apple doesn't forbid them the agreement does.
OK I"ll rephrase then:
"The MFNdoes say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."
Oh, perhaps I should use the word FORBID there? It isn't quite Darth Vader enough saying "must"?
No, what's different is your semantics. From "terms of agreement" to "forbidden acts"… one is in a spirit of cooperation. The other really isn't.
Listen, I've written a lot of B2B agreements. Contracts, Memos of understanding, statements of work, cobranded exercises, cooperative agreements, whatever you want to call them. Business agreements. Written understandings of what we want to do together as companies.
We pretty much don't go anywhere near the ideas of "forbid" and "demand" and "must" and "will"… we say in a very friendly and clear and unemotional way what the spirit of our agreement is. Sometimes in more "legally defined" terms for complicated agreements, and with the understanding that in many cases we are entering into binding agreements. Still, words like "forbidden" and "thou shalt not" rarely enter the lexicon.
Even non-disclose / non-compete agreements that contain a definition of consequences should one party or the other violate the terms of the agreement don't even apply terms like FORBID.
You're trying way too hard here to use semantics to make Apple look like the evil Imperial Empire...
What?? "The fact remains you … could not compete with Apple on price". WHAT?? In what fantasy realm would that be remotely true?
OMG, you are flipping this from being a "can't compete with AMAZON's artificially low pricing" argument to "can't compete with APPLE on price"?
How could one not compete with iBooks pricing? How could one NOT compete with "Apple on price"?
You are completely wrongly and negatively distorting this entire discussion, and steering it back into your constant "Apple is the bad guy" frame...
Of course it matters who sets prices. It especially matters to YOUR argument which requires that Apple sets pricing in order to be valid. But… they don't. So, where does that leave your argument?
It leaves it intact. Yes I should have included Amazon in there but that would be stating the obvious and oft repeated on here so I omitted it. Yes it is the publishers that set the price but it's Apple's iBookstore you'd be competing with and not the publishers.
"The MFNdoes say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Oh, perhaps I should use the word FORBID there? It isn't quite Darth Vader enough saying "must"?</p>
No, what's different is your semantics. From "terms of agreement" to "forbidden acts"… one is in a spirit of cooperation. The other really isn't.
Listen, I've written a lot of B2B agreements. Contracts, Memos of understanding, statements of work, cobranded exercises, cooperative agreements, whatever you want to call them. Business agreements. Written understandings of what we want to do together as companies.
We pretty much don't go anywhere near the ideas of "forbid" and "demand" and "must" and "will"… we say in a very friendly and clear and unemotional way what the spirit of our agreement is. Sometimes in more "legally defined" terms for complicated agreements, and with the understanding that in many cases we are entering into binding agreements. Still, words like "forbidden" and "thou shalt not" rarely enter the lexicon.
Even non-disclose / non-compete agreements that contain a definition of consequences should one party or the other violate the terms of the agreement don't even apply terms like FORBID.
You're trying way too hard here to use semantics to make Apple look like the evil Imperial Empire...
I'm not a baker so I don't sugarcoat things. A demand is a demand regardless of how you word it.
How is it collusion when the publishers aren't selling the same books? Would it be collusion if a car manufacturer talked with a real estate broker before coming to an agreement with Apple about how to price cars and real estate in iTunes?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by travisgamedev
The DOJ is turning into a Socialist regime, just faster than the other parts of government, because Holder is at the helm. This is what you get when you have a government that rules with an iron fist, like China, and won't look at the evidence, and pays off the judge with bonuses and paid leave. Hopefully 2014 and 2016 elections will give us better results and we can head back towards democracy.
Oh please… "socialist regime"?? Stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh. They are misinforming and misguiding you. That isn't "education". Socialism is an Economic System.
Please go and get a proper education about the nature of "Socialism" before posting silly, ignorant, politically laced commentary here. It clearly isn't what you think it is. SImple definitions are a good start. You could even try Wikipedia for basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
That's it in a nutshell. See how NOT relevant that is?
It's the MFN clause that forbids them from lowering the price without lowering it for Apple as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Just not yet.
FUD FUD FUD… please...
I wonder how many DOJ staffers will end up with cushy executive jobs at Amazon, Google and Samsung in let's say 2-3 years from now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It's the MFN clause that forbids them from lowering the price without lowering it for Apple as well.
Mmmk… and how is that different from my second sentence? I quote:
"It does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."
Oh, I see… YOU reapplied the word "forbids"… because it's much more meaningful and overflowing with dark implication or… something...
Gotta get those imperious words in there, eh?
Apple FORBIDS…. *snicker...
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
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.
What's scary is that the growing (& majority) entitlement mentality in the U.S. seems to be an obstacle to your logic.
...and that's sad.
Great point, just wish more people "get it".
Why would an innovative company like Apple want to enter the discount book business and get mired in individually pricing thousands upon thousands of publications? The agency model is the only one that makes sense for Apple, but the DOJ says that can't be allowed. WTF?
It's different because I included the MFN clause not the agency model. Apple doesn't forbid them the agreement does.
You can thank low wages for that. It's not a mindset it's a necessity.
Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You can thank low wages for that. It's not a mindset it's a necessity.
Don't blame alcohol for alcoholism. It's a factor but not the cause.
Don't think that the entitlement mentality only exists in those with low wages.
To clarify... the consumer SHOULD desire the lowest possible price for the value they seek to obtain. They just should NOT feel entitled to it. And if they feel entitled, they need to see the whole picture (i.e. see it from the "producers" perspective).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.
What?? "The fact remains you … could not compete with Apple on price". WHAT?? In what fantasy realm would that be remotely true?
OMG, you are flipping this from being a "can't compete with AMAZON's artificially low pricing" argument to "can't compete with APPLE on price"?
How could one not compete with iBooks pricing? How could one NOT compete with "Apple on price"?
You are completely wrongly and negatively distorting this entire discussion, and steering it back into your constant "Apple is the bad guy" frame...
Of course it matters who sets prices. It especially matters to YOUR argument which requires that Apple sets pricing in order to be valid. But… they don't. So, where does that leave your argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It's different because I included the MFN clause not the agency model. Apple doesn't forbid them the agreement does.
OK I"ll rephrase then:
"The MFN does say that if they do sell for less elsewhere, they must also sell for those lower prices on the iBooksstore."
Oh, perhaps I should use the word FORBID there? It isn't quite Darth Vader enough saying "must"?
No, what's different is your semantics. From "terms of agreement" to "forbidden acts"… one is in a spirit of cooperation. The other really isn't.
Listen, I've written a lot of B2B agreements. Contracts, Memos of understanding, statements of work, cobranded exercises, cooperative agreements, whatever you want to call them. Business agreements. Written understandings of what we want to do together as companies.
We pretty much don't go anywhere near the ideas of "forbid" and "demand" and "must" and "will"… we say in a very friendly and clear and unemotional way what the spirit of our agreement is. Sometimes in more "legally defined" terms for complicated agreements, and with the understanding that in many cases we are entering into binding agreements. Still, words like "forbidden" and "thou shalt not" rarely enter the lexicon.
Even non-disclose / non-compete agreements that contain a definition of consequences should one party or the other violate the terms of the agreement don't even apply terms like FORBID.
You're trying way too hard here to use semantics to make Apple look like the evil Imperial Empire...
It leaves it intact. Yes I should have included Amazon in there but that would be stating the obvious and oft repeated on here so I omitted it. Yes it is the publishers that set the price but it's Apple's iBookstore you'd be competing with and not the publishers.
Of COURSE if more than one person holds an opinion, there must be "collusion".
It's too bad the Department of Jokes has their Jokes taken seriously, and their absurdity here shows just how far from justice we've gotten.
I'm not a baker so I don't sugarcoat things. A demand is a demand regardless of how you word it.
How is it collusion when the publishers aren't selling the same books? Would it be collusion if a car manufacturer talked with a real estate broker before coming to an agreement with Apple about how to price cars and real estate in iTunes?