Duh, but that doesn't negate the fact that your hypothetical was a reality that involved amazon. Device or no device, it still happened. Arguing that it didn't solely based on an unrelated matter is disingenuous.
AI forgot the last two paragraphs from the original:
"There might, of course, be an e-mail equivalent of a smoking gun that eventually surfaces, much like those quips from Microsoft executives in the 1990s that indelicately referred to cutting off Netscape's "air supply" and were introduced as evidence in the Justice Department's antitrust case.
But that hasn't happened yet. "I'm not saying that Apple can smile and walk away from this," says Joseph Bauer, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. "It's just that the government will have to show that Apple had some kind of involvement in the original arrangement."
Amazon has sold a ton of kindles as well. The big difference between the kindle and iPod is that you cannot take your current book collection and convert it to a e-book, one is forced to get content from Amazon. ITunes allowed one to rip their current music library and put it on the device. I know people with thousands of songs on their iPods and not a single song was purchased thru iTunes.
Duh, but that doesn't negate the fact that your hypothetical was a reality that involved amazon. Device or no device, it still happened. Arguing that it didn't solely based on an unrelated matter is disingenuous.
If you don't think SJ and Apple wanted to strip eBook market share from Amazon in order to sell iPads than you're too naive for the internet. You think Apple was not active in the eBook negotiations and was just going by what the publishers wanted when SJ was flying back and forth to NY meeting with publisher after publisher?
If you believe that then I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Amazon has sold a ton of kindles as well. The big difference between the kindle and iPod is that you cannot take your current book collection and convert it to a e-book, one is forced to get content from Amazon. ITunes allowed one to rip their current music library and put it on the device. I know people with thousands of songs on their iPods and not a single song was purchased thru iTunes.
Ok then it's their fault for not having their own digital content stores in order- not Amazon's.
In my opinion it doesn't matter what any one person says. If they say Apple will win, it doesn't matter. It's the US Government. They don't have to win. They are pulling the strings.
A settlement does not mean that a suit has merit unless the party settling admits to wrongdoing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
irrelevant - most publishers settled, and the case against the other two are there regardless of Apple.
If the publishers go down the DOJ does not need to care what Apple thinks - publishers need to do what the DOJ tells them at that point.
I wouldn't be surprised if the publishers have told DOJ lots and incriminated Apple to settle lightly . We have no way of knowing yet. They is more here than meets the eye.
If you don't think SJ and Apple wanted to strip eBook market share from Amazon in order to sell iPads than you're too naive for the internet. You think Apple was not active in the eBook negotiations and was just going by what the publishers wanted when SJ was flying back and forth to NY meeting with publisher after publisher?
If you believe that then I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Apple didn't need to strip ebook market share to sell iPads. Didn't you notice that there were several ebook readers available for iPad (including amazon's kindle) at launch? You seem to think that ebooks is some HUGE draw for the iPad and that really is just not the case. And btw, you are the one who appears naive in your posts.
From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss."
Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much.
DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
In my opinion it doesn't matter what any one person says. If they say Apple will win, it doesn't matter. It's the US Government. They don't have to win. They are pulling the strings.
Thankfully we don't live in that world. The fact that DOJ "doesn't like something" is irrelevant if they can't prove in court that it's against the law (or at least convince the other party that they might be able to do so).
From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss."
Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much.
DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
The first part of your post is right on. The last line is just silly.
Going after Amazon for maintaining a monopoly through unfair practices (such as selling books cheaply--below cost) is both hard and not very politically astute. "Curse you Amazon for giving people low-cost books! We'll put a stop to that!" That's a pretty lousy sound bite.
Going after the publishers and Apple for colluding to raise prices is (in theory) much easier to prove and politically very appealing. "DOJ cracks down on publishers and Apple for artificially propping up e-book prices" was a top story on the evening news last night and I'm sure 90% of the audience thought "grr, those damn publishers and Apple." A back-room deal where publishers agreed to not undercut each other on price (if such a thing happened) is illegal price-fixing. DOJ should be cracking down on that. On the other hand agreeing to a new business model that just happens to raise prices... maybe that's ok.
Apple didn't need to strip ebook market share to sell iPads. Didn't you notice that there were several ebook readers available for iPad (including amazon's kindle) at launch? You seem to think that ebooks is some HUGE draw for the iPad and that really is just not the case. And btw, you are the one who appears naive in your posts.
You're missing the boat again. You don't think eBooks sales were a draw for SJ and Apple?
How exactly does Apple make money of other eBook reader sales -at that point in time?
Apple thought eBooks would drive trhe iPad originally hence the iBook store
I read the complaint and it seems like a slam dunk against the publishers but not apple. Nowhere did it state that apple was present when the publishers set the price nor any evidence that apple even suggested a price point.
What do you think about the allegations that Apple was complicit in the scheme, and that it would not have worked if not for Apple's part in the whole situation?
Was Apple a patsy? Or did it know what it was doing?
And excatly how much does an eBook cost? NO paper, no binding? This is digital evolution everyone - hello? The publishing world is dying just like the printing press and the cave tablet.
Replace Microsoft with Amazon and that actually did happen with music. Apple wanted to strip drm from its tracks and music companies refused. They then went to Amazon and allowed them not only to sell drm free tracks but for a lower price than Apple. When they allowed apple to strip the drm, apple had to raise its prices. No DoJ involvement there.
What do you think about the allegations that Apple was complicit in the scheme, and that it would not have worked if not for Apple's part in the whole situation?
Was Apple a patsy? Or did it know what it was doing?
I think apple wanted the agency model for itself and other ebook sellers but didn't actually cross the line and tell the publishers what to charge. I think the illegal aspect of this case came about when the publishers all met and decided on prices across the board as opposed to coming up with their own prices individually (which I think they did in order to insure solidarity against amazon and none of the parties stabbed each other in the back by offering lower prices than the other parties). If it comes up in the case that Apple even suggested a price point to all parties, then I would definitely change my mind. If it comes out that apple knew what the publishers did but figured that that was their own issue, I'm not sure if I'd have an issue with it.
Comments
Oh, fuck... here we go with this crap!
Ignore list is your friend as I am often reminded here
No they just sold millions of iPods.
Duh, but that doesn't negate the fact that your hypothetical was a reality that involved amazon. Device or no device, it still happened. Arguing that it didn't solely based on an unrelated matter is disingenuous.
If the publishers go down the DOJ does not need to care what Apple thinks - publishers need to do what the DOJ tells them at that point.
"There might, of course, be an e-mail equivalent of a smoking gun that eventually surfaces, much like those quips from Microsoft executives in the 1990s that indelicately referred to cutting off Netscape's "air supply" and were introduced as evidence in the Justice Department's antitrust case.
But that hasn't happened yet. "I'm not saying that Apple can smile and walk away from this," says Joseph Bauer, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. "It's just that the government will have to show that Apple had some kind of involvement in the original arrangement."
No they just sold millions of iPods.
Amazon has sold a ton of kindles as well. The big difference between the kindle and iPod is that you cannot take your current book collection and convert it to a e-book, one is forced to get content from Amazon. ITunes allowed one to rip their current music library and put it on the device. I know people with thousands of songs on their iPods and not a single song was purchased thru iTunes.
Duh, but that doesn't negate the fact that your hypothetical was a reality that involved amazon. Device or no device, it still happened. Arguing that it didn't solely based on an unrelated matter is disingenuous.
If you don't think SJ and Apple wanted to strip eBook market share from Amazon in order to sell iPads than you're too naive for the internet. You think Apple was not active in the eBook negotiations and was just going by what the publishers wanted when SJ was flying back and forth to NY meeting with publisher after publisher?
If you believe that then I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
irrelevant - most publishers settled, and the case against the other two are there regardless of Apple.
If the publishers go down the DOJ does not need to care what Apple thinks - publishers need to do what the DOJ tells them at that point.
A settlement does not mean that a suit has merit unless the party settling admits to wrongdoing.
Amazon has sold a ton of kindles as well. The big difference between the kindle and iPod is that you cannot take your current book collection and convert it to a e-book, one is forced to get content from Amazon. ITunes allowed one to rip their current music library and put it on the device. I know people with thousands of songs on their iPods and not a single song was purchased thru iTunes.
Ok then it's their fault for not having their own digital content stores in order- not Amazon's.
A settlement does not mean that a suit has merit unless the party settling admits to wrongdoing.
irrelevant - most publishers settled, and the case against the other two are there regardless of Apple.
If the publishers go down the DOJ does not need to care what Apple thinks - publishers need to do what the DOJ tells them at that point.
I wouldn't be surprised if the publishers have told DOJ lots and incriminated Apple to settle lightly . We have no way of knowing yet. They is more here than meets the eye.
If you don't think SJ and Apple wanted to strip eBook market share from Amazon in order to sell iPads than you're too naive for the internet. You think Apple was not active in the eBook negotiations and was just going by what the publishers wanted when SJ was flying back and forth to NY meeting with publisher after publisher?
If you believe that then I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Apple didn't need to strip ebook market share to sell iPads. Didn't you notice that there were several ebook readers available for iPad (including amazon's kindle) at launch? You seem to think that ebooks is some HUGE draw for the iPad and that really is just not the case. And btw, you are the one who appears naive in your posts.
I know people with thousands of songs on their iPods and not a single song was purchased thru iTunes.
wink wink, nod nod, know-what-i-mean?
I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss."
Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much.
DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
In my opinion it doesn't matter what any one person says. If they say Apple will win, it doesn't matter. It's the US Government. They don't have to win. They are pulling the strings.
Thankfully we don't live in that world. The fact that DOJ "doesn't like something" is irrelevant if they can't prove in court that it's against the law (or at least convince the other party that they might be able to do so).
Amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss."
Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much.
DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
The first part of your post is right on. The last line is just silly.
Going after Amazon for maintaining a monopoly through unfair practices (such as selling books cheaply--below cost) is both hard and not very politically astute. "Curse you Amazon for giving people low-cost books! We'll put a stop to that!" That's a pretty lousy sound bite.
Going after the publishers and Apple for colluding to raise prices is (in theory) much easier to prove and politically very appealing. "DOJ cracks down on publishers and Apple for artificially propping up e-book prices" was a top story on the evening news last night and I'm sure 90% of the audience thought "grr, those damn publishers and Apple." A back-room deal where publishers agreed to not undercut each other on price (if such a thing happened) is illegal price-fixing. DOJ should be cracking down on that. On the other hand agreeing to a new business model that just happens to raise prices... maybe that's ok.
Apple didn't need to strip ebook market share to sell iPads. Didn't you notice that there were several ebook readers available for iPad (including amazon's kindle) at launch? You seem to think that ebooks is some HUGE draw for the iPad and that really is just not the case. And btw, you are the one who appears naive in your posts.
You're missing the boat again. You don't think eBooks sales were a draw for SJ and Apple?
How exactly does Apple make money of other eBook reader sales -at that point in time?
Apple thought eBooks would drive trhe iPad originally hence the iBook store
Read the article please- Jeesh!:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...-book-pricing/
I read the complaint and it seems like a slam dunk against the publishers but not apple. Nowhere did it state that apple was present when the publishers set the price nor any evidence that apple even suggested a price point.
What do you think about the allegations that Apple was complicit in the scheme, and that it would not have worked if not for Apple's part in the whole situation?
Was Apple a patsy? Or did it know what it was doing?
Amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
And excatly how much does an eBook cost? NO paper, no binding? This is digital evolution everyone - hello? The publishing world is dying just like the printing press and the cave tablet.
Replace Microsoft with Amazon and that actually did happen with music. Apple wanted to strip drm from its tracks and music companies refused. They then went to Amazon and allowed them not only to sell drm free tracks but for a lower price than Apple. When they allowed apple to strip the drm, apple had to raise its prices. No DoJ involvement there.
QFT
And the thread ends with this AWESOME post!!
What do you think about the allegations that Apple was complicit in the scheme, and that it would not have worked if not for Apple's part in the whole situation?
Was Apple a patsy? Or did it know what it was doing?
I think apple wanted the agency model for itself and other ebook sellers but didn't actually cross the line and tell the publishers what to charge. I think the illegal aspect of this case came about when the publishers all met and decided on prices across the board as opposed to coming up with their own prices individually (which I think they did in order to insure solidarity against amazon and none of the parties stabbed each other in the back by offering lower prices than the other parties). If it comes up in the case that Apple even suggested a price point to all parties, then I would definitely change my mind. If it comes out that apple knew what the publishers did but figured that that was their own issue, I'm not sure if I'd have an issue with it.