This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals. They have to renegotiate. Apple did nothing wrong. The DOJ and judge Cote erred. Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.
They did renegotiate, they switched to agency pricing which led to them being unable to compete on price.
You seem to be just putting your fingers in your ears and insisting they did nothing wrong at all. That's not really a winning tactic. Apple is entitled to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but at some point you're going to have to look at the evidence of what happened.
He doesn't, as far as I can see. I'm not defending the monitor, just correcting an inaccuracy. That said, I don't have any line of sight into Apple, so maybe there's some unexpected way in which Ive was involved in contractual matters. Maybe relating to procuring prototype materials; I really don't know.
I have literally no idea about Apple's board organisation. I expect neither does Bromwich. Meeting with Ive for an hour is not really some sort of impossible task for Apple and I bet that once he'd met him that would have been the end of it as he clearly wasn't involved. Still, Apple is free to make representations that certain staff be off limits, they refuse to do that though.
But they're not the only game in town. Both Apple and Google want to get in on this market, and you know they'll be waiting by the sidelines looking for the profit.
How do you know they haven't? An hour of your time may have minimal impact, but an hour of their time may not be.
Apple and Googs do want to get in but they intend to make profit. Selling at a loss != profits.
They did renegotiate, they switched to agency pricing which led to them being unable to compete on price.
You seem to be just putting your fingers in your ears and insisting they did nothing wrong at all. That's not really a winning tactic. Apple is entitled to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but at some point you're going to have to look at the evidence of what happened.
Why Amazon can not compete on price if it is selling at the same price? It seems Amazon simply can not compete. It is not the pricing.
How do you know they haven't? An hour of your time may have minimal impact, but an hour of their time may not be.
This is the tack Apple has taken, 'their time is of unlimited value' but it is just nonsense. Ive is a product designer. His time may be valuable, but that does not mean he can claim it is so valuable he is entitled to ignore court judgements. I think making a claim like yours requires extraordinary evidence, wheras Apple refuses to provide any.
Quote:
Apple and Googs do want to get in but they intend to make profit. Selling at a loss != profits.
Amazon makes profits. Their tactic is to use a loss-leader. Google was against the agency pricing, wheras Apple was for it as they expect their users to be motivated to use Apple's ecosystem and therefore pay more. That was not enough for Apple on its own, that's why this whole price fixing conspiracy was established.
This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals. They have to renegotiate.
It's a good idea to, as otherwise you're not selling anything. But no, you don't have to renegotiate a deal. If the contract allows, you can exit. If not, you'll have to negotiate something, be it a settlement, or a new arrangement, but you don't have to renegotiate a sales deal if you don't want to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Apple did nothing wrong. The DOJ and judge Cote erred. Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.
Different subject. Apple insisted on a price matching agreement. That definitely strays into anticompetitive territory.
Why Amazon can not compete on price if it is selling at the same price? It seems Amazon simply can not compete. It is not the pricing.
If Amazon dropped the price, Apple could also drop the price and pay the same. There was no competition on price. How many times do I have to repeat this? Apple wanted to compete on devices, Amazon wanted to compete on prices. Apple illegally conspired to remove Amazon's ability to compete as they obviously felt the iPad would beat the Kindle.
It's a good idea to, as otherwise you're not selling anything. But no, you don't have to renegotiate a deal. If the contract allows, you can exit. If not, you'll have to negotiate something, be it a settlement, or a new arrangement, but you don't have to renegotiate a sales deal if you don't want to sell.
Different subject. Apple insisted on a price matching agreement. That definitely strays into anticompetitive territory.
Price matching? How convenient for you to insert a new accusation!
If Amazon dropped the price, Apple could also drop the price and pay the same. There was no competition on price. How many times do I have to repeat this? Apple wanted to compete on devices, Amazon wanted to compete on prices. Apple illegally conspired to remove Amazon's ability to compete as they obviously felt the iPad would beat the Kindle.
It's as simple as that.
Are you out of your mind? You forget what the issue is. Apple did not set the price. Apple let the publishers set the price.
Price matching? How convenient for you to insert a new meaning!
New meaning how? Apple and the publishers agreed that ebooks wouldn't be sold cheaper in any other store, that the iBookstore price would always be matched to the lowest price in any other store.
I would call that price matching, sorry if it's the wrong technical term.
Are you out of your mind? You forget what the issue is. Apple did not set the price. Apple let the publishers set the price.
I really don't appreciate the insults. I have explained this to you clearly and patiently. Apple facilitated the publishers, they conspired with the publishers. This is why they were included.
New meaning how? Apple and the publishers agreed that ebooks wouldn't be sold cheaper in any other store, that the iBookstore price would always be matched to the lowest price in any other store.
I would call that price matching, sorry if it's the wrong technical term.
I have doubt in the preciseness of your two statements.
You're allowed to have any doubt you want, but regardless it's a well documented fact of the agreement Apple made with publishers. It's often referred to as the Most Favoured Nation clause (apologies, I only just remembered that, otherwise I would have said it instead of "price matching").
I'm not sure what your favoured news outlet is, but I'm sure they covered it. Here's an example:
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.
Apart from not "orchestrating" anything, the publishers were already seeking the same deal with Barnes and Noble BEFORE Apple even started looking into iBooks.
Apple was a vertical player, the idiot judge, in her rabid, frothing at the mouth crazy rampage to find Apple guilty judged them based on rules applied to horizontal players.
Apple did not set ANY prices.
The sooner they are out of this stupid bitches kangaroo court, the better.
The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.
By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.
Wrong.
The publishers contracts came up for renewal and were renegotiated.
Normal course of business.
Since when is it the governments business to mandate the price of books?
Apart from not "orchestrating" anything, the publishers were already seeking the same deal with Barnes and Noble BEFORE Apple even started looking into iBooks.
The correct quote to use from me is "involved in orchestrating". Apple certainly was and there's direct testimony that they "expected" publishers to raise their prices. Regardless of the publishers' previous behaviour Apple did indeed facilitate this conspiracy with them. Yes the publishers were also at fault and they settled with the court. Apple chose to defend itself.
Quote:
Apple was a vertical player, the idiot judge, in her rabid, frothing at the mouth crazy rampage to find Apple guilty judged them based on rules applied to horizontal players.
I believe I've asked you or others before for a citation on this and I can't remember one being provided. The judgement makes it clear that they need only be disparate economic entities rather than horizontal competitors.
Quote:
The sooner they are out of this stupid bitches kangaroo court, the better.
The thread you're posting in is about Apple in a different court. The misogynistic insults don't help your case.
You're allowed to have any doubt you want, but regardless it's a well documented fact of the agreement Apple made with publishers. It's often referred to as the Most Favoured Nation clause (apologies, I only just remembered that, otherwise I would have said it instead of "price matching").
I'm not sure what your favoured news outlet is, but I'm sure they covered it. Here's an example:
The judgement against Apple wasn't a judgement against the agency model, but the way in which it was negotiated (collusion), along with the most-favoured nation clause. (anti-competitive).
Comments
This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals. They have to renegotiate. Apple did nothing wrong. The DOJ and judge Cote erred. Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.
They did renegotiate, they switched to agency pricing which led to them being unable to compete on price.
You seem to be just putting your fingers in your ears and insisting they did nothing wrong at all. That's not really a winning tactic. Apple is entitled to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but at some point you're going to have to look at the evidence of what happened.
So how does Ive figure in that.
He doesn't, as far as I can see. I'm not defending the monitor, just correcting an inaccuracy. That said, I don't have any line of sight into Apple, so maybe there's some unexpected way in which Ive was involved in contractual matters. Maybe relating to procuring prototype materials; I really don't know.
How do you know they haven't? An hour of your time may have minimal impact, but an hour of their time may not be.
Apple and Googs do want to get in but they intend to make profit. Selling at a loss != profits.
They did renegotiate, they switched to agency pricing which led to them being unable to compete on price.
You seem to be just putting your fingers in your ears and insisting they did nothing wrong at all. That's not really a winning tactic. Apple is entitled to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but at some point you're going to have to look at the evidence of what happened.
Why Amazon can not compete on price if it is selling at the same price? It seems Amazon simply can not compete. It is not the pricing.
How do you know they haven't? An hour of your time may have minimal impact, but an hour of their time may not be.
This is the tack Apple has taken, 'their time is of unlimited value' but it is just nonsense. Ive is a product designer. His time may be valuable, but that does not mean he can claim it is so valuable he is entitled to ignore court judgements. I think making a claim like yours requires extraordinary evidence, wheras Apple refuses to provide any.
Amazon makes profits. Their tactic is to use a loss-leader. Google was against the agency pricing, wheras Apple was for it as they expect their users to be motivated to use Apple's ecosystem and therefore pay more. That was not enough for Apple on its own, that's why this whole price fixing conspiracy was established.
This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals. They have to renegotiate.
It's a good idea to, as otherwise you're not selling anything. But no, you don't have to renegotiate a deal. If the contract allows, you can exit. If not, you'll have to negotiate something, be it a settlement, or a new arrangement, but you don't have to renegotiate a sales deal if you don't want to sell.
Apple did nothing wrong. The DOJ and judge Cote erred. Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.
Different subject. Apple insisted on a price matching agreement. That definitely strays into anticompetitive territory.
Why Amazon can not compete on price if it is selling at the same price? It seems Amazon simply can not compete. It is not the pricing.
If Amazon dropped the price, Apple could also drop the price and pay the same. There was no competition on price. How many times do I have to repeat this? Apple wanted to compete on devices, Amazon wanted to compete on prices. Apple illegally conspired to remove Amazon's ability to compete as they obviously felt the iPad would beat the Kindle.
It's as simple as that.
It's a good idea to, as otherwise you're not selling anything. But no, you don't have to renegotiate a deal. If the contract allows, you can exit. If not, you'll have to negotiate something, be it a settlement, or a new arrangement, but you don't have to renegotiate a sales deal if you don't want to sell.
Different subject. Apple insisted on a price matching agreement. That definitely strays into anticompetitive territory.
Price matching? How convenient for you to insert a new accusation!
If Amazon dropped the price, Apple could also drop the price and pay the same. There was no competition on price. How many times do I have to repeat this? Apple wanted to compete on devices, Amazon wanted to compete on prices. Apple illegally conspired to remove Amazon's ability to compete as they obviously felt the iPad would beat the Kindle.
It's as simple as that.
Are you out of your mind? You forget what the issue is. Apple did not set the price. Apple let the publishers set the price.
Price matching? How convenient for you to insert a new meaning!
New meaning how? Apple and the publishers agreed that ebooks wouldn't be sold cheaper in any other store, that the iBookstore price would always be matched to the lowest price in any other store.
I would call that price matching, sorry if it's the wrong technical term.
Price matching? How convenient for you to insert a new accusation!
Oh wait, new "accusation".
Well it's the same accusation I've always used, and the same one that the DOJ used, so I'm not sure what's new about it, but whatever,
Apologies for the inconvenience of facts.
Are you out of your mind? You forget what the issue is. Apple did not set the price. Apple let the publishers set the price.
I really don't appreciate the insults. I have explained this to you clearly and patiently. Apple facilitated the publishers, they conspired with the publishers. This is why they were included.
New meaning how? Apple and the publishers agreed that ebooks wouldn't be sold cheaper in any other store, that the iBookstore price would always be matched to the lowest price in any other store.
I would call that price matching, sorry if it's the wrong technical term.
I have doubt in the preciseness of your two statements.
You're allowed to have any doubt you want, but regardless it's a well documented fact of the agreement Apple made with publishers. It's often referred to as the Most Favoured Nation clause (apologies, I only just remembered that, otherwise I would have said it instead of "price matching").
I'm not sure what your favoured news outlet is, but I'm sure they covered it. Here's an example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/business/media/publishers-tell-of-disputes-with-apple-on-e-book-prices.html
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.
Apart from not "orchestrating" anything, the publishers were already seeking the same deal with Barnes and Noble BEFORE Apple even started looking into iBooks.
Apple was a vertical player, the idiot judge, in her rabid, frothing at the mouth crazy rampage to find Apple guilty judged them based on rules applied to horizontal players.
Apple did not set ANY prices.
The sooner they are out of this stupid bitches kangaroo court, the better.
The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.
By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.
Wrong.
The publishers contracts came up for renewal and were renegotiated.
Normal course of business.
Since when is it the governments business to mandate the price of books?
Apart from not "orchestrating" anything, the publishers were already seeking the same deal with Barnes and Noble BEFORE Apple even started looking into iBooks.
The correct quote to use from me is "involved in orchestrating". Apple certainly was and there's direct testimony that they "expected" publishers to raise their prices. Regardless of the publishers' previous behaviour Apple did indeed facilitate this conspiracy with them. Yes the publishers were also at fault and they settled with the court. Apple chose to defend itself.
Apple was a vertical player, the idiot judge, in her rabid, frothing at the mouth crazy rampage to find Apple guilty judged them based on rules applied to horizontal players.
I believe I've asked you or others before for a citation on this and I can't remember one being provided. The judgement makes it clear that they need only be disparate economic entities rather than horizontal competitors.
The thread you're posting in is about Apple in a different court. The misogynistic insults don't help your case.
Since when is it the governments business to mandate the price of books?
It's the government's business to act against restraints of trade that increase prices and hurt consumers.
You're allowed to have any doubt you want, but regardless it's a well documented fact of the agreement Apple made with publishers. It's often referred to as the Most Favoured Nation clause (apologies, I only just remembered that, otherwise I would have said it instead of "price matching").
I'm not sure what your favoured news outlet is, but I'm sure they covered it. Here's an example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/business/media/publishers-tell-of-disputes-with-apple-on-e-book-prices.html
OK This provision is wrong. But the agency model is not.