Perhaps they should decide Bromwich should go & look into Amazon's practice of killing off other competitors in the e-book & book market, on-line & high street, by overly aggressive pricing. When they've killed off most the competition, who's to say they won't be raising their prices to higher than the publishers recommended prices for a profit. It could be, 'You want or need a book, pay our price or go elsewhere. Oh you can't can you?'
The way I see it, Apple's planned iBook structure would only help rebalance the market. Hell, if it meant Amazon had to even sell books at the purchase prices, the recommended prices, or stop selling books directly, & leave it to others on their site to sell them, they could increase their profits, as they would not be taking a loss on each sale.
Competition & choice is good for the market, & the consumers. Monopolies, like Amazon is becoming, are not.
Gas prices aren't the same at every gas station and they go up and down for no apparent reason yet I'm not seeing the DOJ going after the oil companies for obvious price fixing.
Well in Australia the oil companies got around this by arguing the price isn't changing, it remains level tied to the price of Singapore crude, discounts on the "price" is what causes daily fluctuations.
Offering to remove the discounts soon got the government off their backs.
Although it beats me (and a lot of Australians) why an increase in the cost of Singapore crude is reflected almost immediately at the pumps, yet a decrease takes days or weeks to flow through.
The $9.99 was a discounted price by Amazon and as such was not representative of the real value.
Well in Australia the oil companies got around this by arguing the price isn't changing, it remains level tied to the price of Singapore crude, discounts on the "price" is what causes daily fluctuations.
Offering to remove the discounts soon got the government off their backs.
Although it beats me (and a lot of Australians) why an increase in the cost of Singapore crude is reflected almost immediately at the pumps, yet a decrease takes days or weeks to flow through.
The $9.99 was a discounted price by Amazon and as such was not representative of the real value.
Gas stations sell current supply to pay for future supply. Meaning they take an educated guess on what the wholesale price would be when they next get supply and adjust retail price accordingly.
"Maybe if they had spent some of their very valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, perhaps they wouldn't be in this position," Judge Gerard Lynch said.
"The government has other things to do," Judge Guido Calabresi said.
These statements are definitely prejudicial. These judges have already sided with Judge Cote without even waiting for anything to be presented. The DOJ is upset because an American company is making money. Go figure. I guess court cases take too much time away from their golf games.
Appropriate since Cote did the same thing. And then cherry picked the evidence she heard to back up her decision.
This whole thing will likely have to go to the highest court before anything changes. And Apple will see it that far if needed. And hopefully along the way the full history f how Amazon behaved will come out etc.
The DOJ positioned this as protecting consumers as well as competition. And yes laws need to change but they need to cover all the players to ensure we can buy from where we want fairly. For all media. Whether we are talking from iTunes, Amazon or even paper/disk
Appropriate since Cote did the same thing. And then cherry picked the evidence she heard to back up her decision.
This whole thing will likely have to go to the highest court before anything changes. And Apple will see it that far if needed. And hopefully along the way the full history f how Amazon behaved will come out etc.
Whatever Amazon does or doesn't do has zero influence on this case and probably won't even be raised by Apple's attorneys. Why would it matter? Apple made their own choices, unless you want to believe that Amazon can play them like a puppet. I have a teenager who's tried that excuse.
The gist of the argument here for many seems to be Apple dun nuttin and even if they did it's 'cause Amazon made 'em do it. :rolleyes: Anant has the right idea IMO. Keeping the story alive isn't doing Apple any good on the PR front. With so little to be made from e-Book sales in the first place just move on.
Perhaps they should decide Bromwich should go & look into Amazon's practice of killing off other competitors in the e-book & book market, on-line & high street, by overly aggressive pricing. When they've killed off most the competition, who's to say they won't be raising their prices to higher than the publishers recommended prices for a profit. It could be, 'You want or need a book, pay our price or go elsewhere. Oh you can't can you?'
That would also be illegal.
Quote:
The way I see it, Apple's planned iBook structure would only help rebalance the market. Hell, if it meant Amazon had to even sell books at the purchase prices, the recommended prices, or stop selling books directly, & leave it to others on their site to sell them, they could increase their profits, as they would not be taking a loss on each sale.
How is illegally forcing another company to raise their prices in any way a good thing? Amazon wants to take a loss on the bestsellers as it means people are more likely to purchase other books that are priced above the wholesale price.
Quote:
Competition & choice is good for the market, & the consumers. Monopolies, like Amazon is becoming, are not.
Right, and Apple collaborated with the largest publishers to completely eliminate price competition. Leaving them to use their market position to try and destroy Amazon with the iPad. How is a consumer being duped into paying higher prices so Apple can sell more iPads a good thing?
How is illegally forcing another company to raise their prices in any way a good thing? Amazon wants to take a loss on the bestsellers as it means people are more likely to purchase other books that are priced above the wholesale price.
Predatory pricing is illegal. That is what Amazon is doing. It illegally created a barrier to entry. All Apple did was level the playing field. Notice after the agreements were made, more competition was formed.
Predatory pricing is illegal. That is what Amazon is doing. It illegally created a barrier to entry. All Apple did was level the playing field. Notice after the agreements were made, more competition was formed.
You've absolutely no evidence of Amazon predatory pricing. Indeed the DOJ indicates they have consistently made a profit. Provide proof or retract your claim.
How can Apple have created more competition by eliminating the ability to compete on price. What competition remains? iPad vs Kindle Fire? You think that's particularly reasonable competition?
You've absolutely no evidence of Amazon predatory pricing. Indeed the DOJ indicates they have consistently made a profit. Provide proof or retract your claim.
How can Apple have created more competition by eliminating the ability to compete on price. What competition remains? iPad vs Kindle Fire? You think that's particularly reasonable competition?
You just said Amazon is taking a loss on each best seller it sells. I don't know about you, but I would like to make money by selling ebooks. More companies would rather sell ebooks at the same price rather than lose money at lower prices. Hence more companies will get in the game.
You just said Amazon is taking a loss on each best seller it sells. I don't know about you, but I would like to make money by selling ebooks. More companies would rather sell ebooks at the same price rather than lose money at lower prices. Hence more companies will get in the game.
I am also talking about ebook competition.
I'm sure the companies would love to sell ebooks at higher prices. That however is not competing. That is sharing a market by collaborating to ensure no consumer gets a better deal. You've basically typed out almost the definition (as I understand it) of an anti-competitive collusion and are arguing it is pro-competitive.
Competitive is not 'lots of companies'. It is lots of companies fighting for the market by reducing prices. Apple (and the publishers, they also deserve blame) eliminated this competition, leaving only external factors like iPads / Kindles to compete on. Apple can obviously win that competition without losing money.
I'm sure the companies would love to sell ebooks at higher prices. That however is not competing. That is sharing a market by collaborating to ensure no consumer gets a better deal. You've basically typed out almost the definition (as I understand it) of an anti-competitive collusion and are arguing it is pro-competitive.
Competitive is not 'lots of companies'. It is lots of companies fighting for the market by reducing prices. Apple (and the publishers, they also deserve blame) eliminated this competition, leaving only external factors like iPads / Kindles to compete on. Apple can obviously win that competition without losing money.
How is it competitive when one company can sell for a loss indefinitely? If other companies do this, they'd go out of business. Competition is more than just prices.
How is it competitive when one company can sell for a loss indefinitely? If other companies do this, they'd go out of business. Competition is more than just prices.
Amazon still makes a profit on their overall ebook department, so they can only use loss-leaders indefinitely. Apple could already compete on many factors such as having an amazingly best selling tablet. They knew (as shown in the emails) that they couldn't reasonably price things at the wholesale prices ($14.99 or so) if Amazon were willing to sell them for $9.99.
Thus Apple could have resigned themselves to selling fewer ebooks, they could have adopted a process of loss-leaders and reduced their income, they could have (and to some extent, did) pioneered new features that the competition didn't have.
In fact you can see evidence of this tactic all over the place, for example B&N put a bunch of effort into 'lending' services with the Nook, somewhere Amazon couldn't compete due to their lack of high street presence. This is the sort of competition that these laws enforce. If Amazon truly was predatory pricing then there would be a genuine issue, but as Cote mentioned, the correct procedure to go through is to file a complaint. It is not to orchestrate an illegal price fixing conspiracy that benefits Apple massively.
If Apple had just levelled the market without putting themselves at a huge advantage I might have some sympathy, but it's clear that the upper management knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. It certainly wasn't to provide the consumer with direct benefits.
Technically not true, though it can form part of an antitrust claim against monopolistic behaviour.
In any case, if Amazon were setting prices of bestsellers artificially low while other books made enough profit to carry the business then that isn't predatory pricing, it's more of a loss leader strategy, which is totally legal.
And Apple's agency model was only part of the antitrust complaint. The deal to match prices in the iBooks store with any other ebooks store was far more pertinent in making Apple's deals anticompetitive.
Amazon still makes a profit on their overall ebook department, so they can only use loss-leaders indefinitely. Apple could already compete on many factors such as having an amazingly best selling tablet. They knew (as shown in the emails) that they couldn't reasonably price things at the wholesale prices ($14.99 or so) if Amazon were willing to sell them for $9.99.
Thus Apple could have resigned themselves to selling fewer ebooks, they could have adopted a process of loss-leaders and reduced their income, they could have (and to some extent, did) pioneered new features that the competition didn't have.
In fact you can see evidence of this tactic all over the place, for example B&N put a bunch of effort into 'lending' services with the Nook, somewhere Amazon couldn't compete due to their lack of high street presence. This is the sort of competition that these laws enforce. If Amazon truly was predatory pricing then there would be a genuine issue, but as Cote mentioned, the correct procedure to go through is to file a complaint. It is not to orchestrate an illegal price fixing conspiracy that benefits Apple massively.
If Apple had just levelled the market without putting themselves at a huge advantage I might have some sympathy, but it's clear that the upper management knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. It certainly wasn't to provide the consumer with direct benefits.
I still don't understand what Apple did to fix the price. Apple let the publishers set the price. Apple did not fix the price. Conspiracy is a word that DOJ and Cote used without really understand high tech.
I still don't understand what Apple did to fix the price. Apple let the publishers set the price. Apple did not fix the price. Conspiracy is a word that DOJ and Cote used without really understand high tech.
What Apple did was to sit in the middle of all of the publishers and offer them a platform that would comply with their demands. Before Apple's involvement the publishers did want to conspire regardless, but they had no way to fight with Amazon. It was unpalatable to them to lose so many sales in order to try and move prices up.
Apple provided the iPad, which would comply with their demands and undoubtedly be incredibly popular. They did this knowing full well that it would eliminate retail price competition and so put their platform in a perfect place to sell to their users. Why would anyone install a Kindle app if the prices were exactly the same?
This is what Apple did that was illegal, they were involved in orchestrating a conspiracy to eliminate price competition which would directly benefit them. It's a long read, but http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf summarises it pretty well.
What Apple did was to sit in the middle of all of the publishers and offer them a platform that would comply with their demands. Before Apple's involvement the publishers did want to conspire regardless, but they had no way to fight with Amazon. It was unpalatable to them to lose so many sales in order to try and move prices up.
Apple provided the iPad, which would comply with their demands and undoubtedly be incredibly popular. They did this knowing full well that it would eliminate retail price competition and so put their platform in a perfect place to sell to their users. Why would anyone install a Kindle app if the prices were exactly the same?
This is what Apple did that was illegal, they were involved in orchestrating a conspiracy to eliminate price competition which would directly benefit them. It's a long read, but http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf summarises it pretty well.
Are you writing this in your imagination? Kindle app opens the books bought from Amazon. How could the prices be exactly the same as from the iBook store?
Comments
Gee, thanks for enlightening me. :rolleyes:
Perhaps they should decide Bromwich should go & look into Amazon's practice of killing off other competitors in the e-book & book market, on-line & high street, by overly aggressive pricing. When they've killed off most the competition, who's to say they won't be raising their prices to higher than the publishers recommended prices for a profit. It could be, 'You want or need a book, pay our price or go elsewhere. Oh you can't can you?'
The way I see it, Apple's planned iBook structure would only help rebalance the market. Hell, if it meant Amazon had to even sell books at the purchase prices, the recommended prices, or stop selling books directly, & leave it to others on their site to sell them, they could increase their profits, as they would not be taking a loss on each sale.
Competition & choice is good for the market, & the consumers. Monopolies, like Amazon is becoming, are not.
Gas prices aren't the same at every gas station and they go up and down for no apparent reason yet I'm not seeing the DOJ going after the oil companies for obvious price fixing.
Well in Australia the oil companies got around this by arguing the price isn't changing, it remains level tied to the price of Singapore crude, discounts on the "price" is what causes daily fluctuations.
Offering to remove the discounts soon got the government off their backs.
Although it beats me (and a lot of Australians) why an increase in the cost of Singapore crude is reflected almost immediately at the pumps, yet a decrease takes days or weeks to flow through.
The $9.99 was a discounted price by Amazon and as such was not representative of the real value.
In any event, Apple would be better served by just jettisoning this trivial business.
Trivial?
States are after $840 million in triple damages over this.
Has Apple even sold $840 million worth of iBooks?
His much does/did it generate as profits for Apple? I am guessing it's, indeed, trivial.
I thought the $840M number was triple damages?.
"Morons"? Typically. "Rulers"? Well, what should be remembered is they are NOT rulers but rather SERVANTS of the people!
Gas stations sell current supply to pay for future supply. Meaning they take an educated guess on what the wholesale price would be when they next get supply and adjust retail price accordingly.
Appropriate since Cote did the same thing. And then cherry picked the evidence she heard to back up her decision.
This whole thing will likely have to go to the highest court before anything changes. And Apple will see it that far if needed. And hopefully along the way the full history f how Amazon behaved will come out etc.
The DOJ positioned this as protecting consumers as well as competition. And yes laws need to change but they need to cover all the players to ensure we can buy from where we want fairly. For all media. Whether we are talking from iTunes, Amazon or even paper/disk
Whatever Amazon does or doesn't do has zero influence on this case and probably won't even be raised by Apple's attorneys. Why would it matter? Apple made their own choices, unless you want to believe that Amazon can play them like a puppet. I have a teenager who's tried that excuse.
The gist of the argument here for many seems to be Apple dun nuttin and even if they did it's 'cause Amazon made 'em do it. :rolleyes: Anant has the right idea IMO. Keeping the story alive isn't doing Apple any good on the PR front. With so little to be made from e-Book sales in the first place just move on.
Perhaps they should decide Bromwich should go & look into Amazon's practice of killing off other competitors in the e-book & book market, on-line & high street, by overly aggressive pricing. When they've killed off most the competition, who's to say they won't be raising their prices to higher than the publishers recommended prices for a profit. It could be, 'You want or need a book, pay our price or go elsewhere. Oh you can't can you?'
That would also be illegal.
Right, and Apple collaborated with the largest publishers to completely eliminate price competition. Leaving them to use their market position to try and destroy Amazon with the iPad. How is a consumer being duped into paying higher prices so Apple can sell more iPads a good thing?
Predatory pricing is illegal. That is what Amazon is doing. It illegally created a barrier to entry. All Apple did was level the playing field. Notice after the agreements were made, more competition was formed.
Predatory pricing is illegal. That is what Amazon is doing. It illegally created a barrier to entry. All Apple did was level the playing field. Notice after the agreements were made, more competition was formed.
You've absolutely no evidence of Amazon predatory pricing. Indeed the DOJ indicates they have consistently made a profit. Provide proof or retract your claim.
How can Apple have created more competition by eliminating the ability to compete on price. What competition remains? iPad vs Kindle Fire? You think that's particularly reasonable competition?
You just said Amazon is taking a loss on each best seller it sells. I don't know about you, but I would like to make money by selling ebooks. More companies would rather sell ebooks at the same price rather than lose money at lower prices. Hence more companies will get in the game.
I am also talking about ebook competition.
You just said Amazon is taking a loss on each best seller it sells. I don't know about you, but I would like to make money by selling ebooks. More companies would rather sell ebooks at the same price rather than lose money at lower prices. Hence more companies will get in the game.
I am also talking about ebook competition.
I'm sure the companies would love to sell ebooks at higher prices. That however is not competing. That is sharing a market by collaborating to ensure no consumer gets a better deal. You've basically typed out almost the definition (as I understand it) of an anti-competitive collusion and are arguing it is pro-competitive.
Competitive is not 'lots of companies'. It is lots of companies fighting for the market by reducing prices. Apple (and the publishers, they also deserve blame) eliminated this competition, leaving only external factors like iPads / Kindles to compete on. Apple can obviously win that competition without losing money.
How is it competitive when one company can sell for a loss indefinitely? If other companies do this, they'd go out of business. Competition is more than just prices.
How is it competitive when one company can sell for a loss indefinitely? If other companies do this, they'd go out of business. Competition is more than just prices.
Amazon still makes a profit on their overall ebook department, so they can only use loss-leaders indefinitely. Apple could already compete on many factors such as having an amazingly best selling tablet. They knew (as shown in the emails) that they couldn't reasonably price things at the wholesale prices ($14.99 or so) if Amazon were willing to sell them for $9.99.
Thus Apple could have resigned themselves to selling fewer ebooks, they could have adopted a process of loss-leaders and reduced their income, they could have (and to some extent, did) pioneered new features that the competition didn't have.
In fact you can see evidence of this tactic all over the place, for example B&N put a bunch of effort into 'lending' services with the Nook, somewhere Amazon couldn't compete due to their lack of high street presence. This is the sort of competition that these laws enforce. If Amazon truly was predatory pricing then there would be a genuine issue, but as Cote mentioned, the correct procedure to go through is to file a complaint. It is not to orchestrate an illegal price fixing conspiracy that benefits Apple massively.
If Apple had just levelled the market without putting themselves at a huge advantage I might have some sympathy, but it's clear that the upper management knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. It certainly wasn't to provide the consumer with direct benefits.
Predatory pricing is illegal.
Technically not true, though it can form part of an antitrust claim against monopolistic behaviour.
In any case, if Amazon were setting prices of bestsellers artificially low while other books made enough profit to carry the business then that isn't predatory pricing, it's more of a loss leader strategy, which is totally legal.
And Apple's agency model was only part of the antitrust complaint. The deal to match prices in the iBooks store with any other ebooks store was far more pertinent in making Apple's deals anticompetitive.
Amazon still makes a profit on their overall ebook department, so they can only use loss-leaders indefinitely. Apple could already compete on many factors such as having an amazingly best selling tablet. They knew (as shown in the emails) that they couldn't reasonably price things at the wholesale prices ($14.99 or so) if Amazon were willing to sell them for $9.99.
Thus Apple could have resigned themselves to selling fewer ebooks, they could have adopted a process of loss-leaders and reduced their income, they could have (and to some extent, did) pioneered new features that the competition didn't have.
In fact you can see evidence of this tactic all over the place, for example B&N put a bunch of effort into 'lending' services with the Nook, somewhere Amazon couldn't compete due to their lack of high street presence. This is the sort of competition that these laws enforce. If Amazon truly was predatory pricing then there would be a genuine issue, but as Cote mentioned, the correct procedure to go through is to file a complaint. It is not to orchestrate an illegal price fixing conspiracy that benefits Apple massively.
If Apple had just levelled the market without putting themselves at a huge advantage I might have some sympathy, but it's clear that the upper management knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. It certainly wasn't to provide the consumer with direct benefits.
I still don't understand what Apple did to fix the price. Apple let the publishers set the price. Apple did not fix the price. Conspiracy is a word that DOJ and Cote used without really understand high tech.
I still don't understand what Apple did to fix the price. Apple let the publishers set the price. Apple did not fix the price. Conspiracy is a word that DOJ and Cote used without really understand high tech.
What Apple did was to sit in the middle of all of the publishers and offer them a platform that would comply with their demands. Before Apple's involvement the publishers did want to conspire regardless, but they had no way to fight with Amazon. It was unpalatable to them to lose so many sales in order to try and move prices up.
Apple provided the iPad, which would comply with their demands and undoubtedly be incredibly popular. They did this knowing full well that it would eliminate retail price competition and so put their platform in a perfect place to sell to their users. Why would anyone install a Kindle app if the prices were exactly the same?
This is what Apple did that was illegal, they were involved in orchestrating a conspiracy to eliminate price competition which would directly benefit them. It's a long read, but http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf summarises it pretty well.
What Apple did was to sit in the middle of all of the publishers and offer them a platform that would comply with their demands. Before Apple's involvement the publishers did want to conspire regardless, but they had no way to fight with Amazon. It was unpalatable to them to lose so many sales in order to try and move prices up.
Apple provided the iPad, which would comply with their demands and undoubtedly be incredibly popular. They did this knowing full well that it would eliminate retail price competition and so put their platform in a perfect place to sell to their users. Why would anyone install a Kindle app if the prices were exactly the same?
This is what Apple did that was illegal, they were involved in orchestrating a conspiracy to eliminate price competition which would directly benefit them. It's a long read, but http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf summarises it pretty well.
Are you writing this in your imagination? Kindle app opens the books bought from Amazon. How could the prices be exactly the same as from the iBook store?