Court shoots down Apple motion to rein in e-books antitrust monitor

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 74
    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

    Amazon has direct competitors including Apple.

     

    Not anymore.

  • Reply 62 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Not anymore.


     

    Since when? Apple's illegal deal got struck down but they are absolutely free to sign agency or wholesale agreements with book distributors and in fact I believe that's exactly what they have done. Does iBooks no longer work for you?

  • Reply 63 of 74
    Not anymore.

    Yes they do.
  • Reply 64 of 74
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Yes they do.

    Outside of Apple, all the smaller ones will drop out as they need to make money. Selling below cost does not make good business sense for long.
  • Reply 65 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Outside of Apple, all the smaller ones will drop out as they need to make money. Selling below cost does not make good business sense for long.

     

    Well, Apple, Google, Microsoft are the big 3 that can clearly afford to sustain an ebook business despite minimal profits. There's also Amazon's more direct competitors and potential new entrants to the market.

     

    I really don't think it's reasonable to say that without an illegal price fixing conspiracy, prices would somehow be worse when only Apple were happy with the new deals that increased price.

  • Reply 66 of 74
    Shut up.

    Because the only way it’s a “rip-off” is if you enjoy paying $50 for an eBook from Amazon for the rest of your life.

    Your mother has sex with animals. That's how she got pregnant with you.
  • Reply 67 of 74
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    Well, Apple, Google, Microsoft are the big 3 that can clearly afford to sustain an ebook business despite minimal profits. There's also Amazon's more direct competitors and potential new entrants to the market.

    I really don't think it's reasonable to say that without an illegal price fixing conspiracy, prices would somehow be worse when only Apple were happy with the new deals that increased price.

    Interesting you say that since B&N was thinking of going in Apple's direction prior to Apple. Also note the number of viable competitors increased when Apple got in the game.
  • Reply 68 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Interesting you say that since B&N was thinking of going in Apple's direction prior to Apple. Also note the number of viable competitors increased when Apple got in the game.

     

    It's a weird issue because publishers actually earned less with the Apple deal. What they feared most was price erosion to below $10. For some people such as Apple (who has the iPad to drive adoption) or high street stores (who have presence where Amazon does not) then agency deals and similar with MFN clauses are preferable.

     

    I do however disagree with your last sentence, the only reason these companies were 'viable competitors' is that there was no price competition. A market made up of non competing stores isn't really a market anymore, the competition is shifted to things like iPads / Androids or high street presence vs online.

  • Reply 69 of 74
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    It's a weird issue because publishers actually earned less with the Apple deal. What they feared most was price erosion to below $10. For some people such as Apple (who has the iPad to drive adoption) or high street stores (who have presence where Amazon does not) then agency deals and similar with MFN clauses are preferable.

    I do however disagree with your last sentence, the only reason these companies were 'viable competitors' is that there was no price competition. A market made up of non competing stores isn't really a market anymore, the competition is shifted to things like iPads / Androids or high street presence vs online.

    Publishers would earn less in the short term but they would have more say in the long term rather than be subjected to Amazon's monopoly. Who is to say 9.99 is fair market price for an ebook? Never in the history of the US has the DOJ took action this early in an emerging market.

    In addition, the kindle app is available every where. These are ebooks were talking about. No "in store" selling is necessary.
  • Reply 70 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Publishers would earn less in the short term but they would have more say in the long term rather than be subjected to Amazon's monopoly. Who is to say 9.99 is fair market price for an ebook? Never in the history of the US has the DOJ took action this early in an emerging market.

    Indeed the publishers would have price control, but this is exactly the opposite of what consumers want. They want as many parties fighting to lower prices as possible. The fair market value is set by how much people will pay. Sales went down when prices went up, so that is direct evidence of harm.

     

    Quote:


    In addition, the kindle app is available every where. These are ebooks were talking about. No "in store" selling is necessary.


    Right, but what I'm saying is that under the deal the publishers preferred, the competition in the market was eliminated and instead competition was moved to alternate factors. If Apple rejected the Kindle app but had iBooks and the prices were identical, then the balance would be based on that market's competition, rather than ebook price competition.

  • Reply 71 of 74
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    Indeed the publishers would have price control, but this is exactly the opposite of what consumers want. They want as many parties fighting to lower prices as possible. The fair market value is set by how much people will pay. Sales went down when prices went up, so that is direct evidence of harm.

    Right, but what I'm saying is that under the deal the publishers preferred, the competition in the market was eliminated and instead competition was moved to alternate factors. If Apple rejected the Kindle app but had iBooks and the prices were identical, then the balance would be based on that market's competition, rather than ebook price competition.

    I'm sure more people will buy ebooks at $5 too. That doesn't mean it's the fair price for it.

    "If" Apple blocked the Kindle app. They haven't.
  • Reply 72 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    I'm sure more people will buy ebooks at $5 too. That doesn't mean it's the fair price for it.

    Doesn't it? If people won't buy at $6 but will at $5, that is clearly the value they assign for it in their mind. I have no problem with retail price competition, hell it's saved me plenty of money that I can use to buy more things. It's economically beneficial as well.

     

    Quote:


    "If" Apple blocked the Kindle app. They haven't.


    Sure, the whole thing was a hypothetical. My point was that I don't agree with saying there's "more competition" when in fact there were just a number of different sellers competing in different markets, they were all bound to the same prices in the ebook market. That is only good if you are one of the publisher companies or if you have another market to drive purchases (so the iPad or Kindle). It's not so good for everyone else including the consumer.

  • Reply 73 of 74
    foadfoad Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

    Doesn't it? If people won't buy at $6 but will at $5, that is clearly the value they assign for it in their mind. I have no problem with retail price competition, hell it's saved me plenty of money that I can use to buy more things. It's economically beneficial as well.


     

    Price competition is fair, but what is unfair is when Amazon has a long leash to continue to lose money on its ebook business. Amazon has used its market position to stifle competition. A lot of folks say that its ok for Amazon to undercut competitors on pricing because it's their choice and the free market will dictate how things should be. My opinion is that the actions that Amazon takes by spreading out losses across multiple businesses has had a direct impact on competitors large and small. Amazon is given the freedom to break even or lose money on Kindles, as well as break even and lose money on ebooks, because that isn't their only business. B&N and even worse, smaller book stores, don't have that luxury. Investors haven't dumped Amazon because they are banking on the long play that if they continue to back it, hopefully at some point, they won't have any real competitors across a lot of their businesses.

     

    Beyond that, there have been reports that show that Amazon actually had a hand in this investigation with Apple even coming up. Then you have the shadiness of the relationship of the Judge with the court monitor. You also have the fact that Amazon isn't getting any attention from the DOJ even though they exert a monopoly position to stifle competition.

     

    This whole case is just weird.

  • Reply 74 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foad View Post

     

     

    Price competition is fair, but what is unfair is when Amazon has a long leash to continue to lose money on its ebook business. Amazon has used its market position to stifle competition. A lot of folks say that its ok for Amazon to undercut competitors on pricing because it's their choice and the free market will dictate how things should be. My opinion is that the actions that Amazon takes by spreading out losses across multiple businesses has had a direct impact on competitors large and small. Amazon is given the freedom to break even or lose money on Kindles, as well as break even and lose money on ebooks, because that isn't their only business. B&N and even worse, smaller book stores, don't have that luxury.


     

    Lets assume that is the case, and Amazon is conducting illegal activities. That still wouldn't give Apple the freedom to conduct a price fixing conspiracy. Regardless of Amazon's actions, it doesn't change the illegality of Apple's actions.

     

    Quote:


    Beyond that, there have been reports that show that Amazon actually had a hand in this investigation with Apple even coming up. Then you have the shadiness of the relationship of the Judge with the court monitor. You also have the fact that Amazon isn't getting any attention from the DOJ even though they exert a monopoly position to stifle competition.


    There's been 'reports' of a lot of things, so far the only evidence I've seen for the relationship between the two is that she might have endorsed him nearly 2 decades ago. How would that be a bad thing though? the Judge is the judge, not the prosecution. You would in fact expect her to appoint someone she had previously endorsed for good work.

     

    Now that his job has been doubly confirmed, we'll have to see if Apple continues to fight for his removal.

Sign In or Register to comment.