The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.
You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.
A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.
"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"
NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.
And NOT ONE SCRAP of evidence of what the effect on general eBook prices has been apart from a very few, specific examples, cherry picked because their prices increased.
That wasn't what was presented and basically since you used the same handle and the same rants at another website (I believe it was Gizmodo) in their discussion on this, you're trolling. Apple did not merely offer each publisher the right to use their store, set their prices, give Apple their 30% and be done with it. Likewise nothing about iTunes agreements in other content areas demands that the publisher withhold content from other providers if they offer said content for lower than Apple can offer due to their 30% profit margin. I regularly go buy $5 albums from Amazon and likewise buy music from the Play store when they have their crazy sales (whole albums for $.99-2.99 as examples). Per this agreement that cannot happen. If Amazon tried to sell me a $5 album of MP3's with this collusion publisher agreement, then Apple could demand the music company pull their rights to sell the album. That is what is wrong here. There is plenty of evidence because Apple along with certain publishers demanded that at least 4 of the publishers sign on or the deal was null and void.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple will take this all the way first because they are innocent and secondly to protect the rights of all the other smaller, independent bookstores which have since adopted the agency model and are using it to break Amazon's attempt at a monopoly.
Apple can take it all the way and they will have taken the first steps towards completely altering their public image toward that of a giant corporation that stays ahead by squashing competition when they are late to the market instead of innovating. They will become Microsoft and lose their cool factor. This case is the antithesis of what Apple used to be and do. I don't care if it came straight out of Jobs mouth himself, everyone loses their edge and forgets their roots at some point. Pixar hasn't released a movie in about three years that I want to see as an example. Apple can do wrong just like anyone else and this is WRONG. It is proven wrong. They have the evidence. Apple should settle and get back to innovating in the ebook area instead of leaving us all wondering why they can't update their product lines anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
First there is substantial proof Apple colluded.
Make a case. I've seen absolutely no "evidence" that shows Apple secretly met with publishers with an agenda to raise prices. Everything I've seen merely gave publishers the option to simply set prices as they saw fit. The only questionable action which is in itself legal is that Apple required the favored nation clause.
And what about Amzon's dumping and limit pricing, and then there refusal to deal threats when Apple entered the market? What is the defense that those aren't anti-competitive practices pushed by Amazon?
Quote:
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. [...] You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet.
Even if you ignore the features and usability iBook has over other apps the Kindle employees that created the digital layouts seems to not care about readability. iBooks does this quite well. So much so that I've removed DRM and converted all the Kindle books I could so that they would work in iBooks.
Then you didn't read the complaint. As for the features and usability of iBooks, you must be delusional. Just the fact that the title doesn't leave the top drives me nuts. Nothing about the display is any better than half a dozen other e-readers I have tried. My fav was Stanza which Amazon has bought and left on the vine so I assure you they aren't perfect in my mind either. The point is though that this is about collusion and Apple did in fact collude. Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. It is about an old industry wanting to hold onto their old model and when the hell did Apple become about that? When did Apple become the guys that say, we know your old model counted on bundling some hit singles with 7-8 crappy filler songs for $12.99 so let's help you sustain that instead of destroying it with $.99 singles and convenience?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Did you miss this part?
The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.
You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.
You are wrong. Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.
Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. ...
Because no prosecutor has ever overstated his case, so the allegations must be true? As an argument, your statement is ridiculously absurd.
Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman. Of course there are prosecutors who have overstated or even lost their cases. No one ever claimed contrary. You would claim contrary because that is the point of a strawman. You set it up and knock it down and now pat yourself on the back believing some actual thinking has happened. It hasn't.
Please address this particular complaint and why you believe it overstates the case for Apple. I would say every major publisher invalidating all prior agreements with all prior e-book retailers and forcing the entire industry including the current market leader into a new and completely different type of model all at the same time certainly looks and sounds like collusion. The meetings, emails and other evidence show action was discussed and taken together for the express purpose of denying pricing competition and raising prices industry-wide.
If this were gas companies or any other field we would all be losing our minds. Why is it suddenly okay just because Apple is involved? If every music publisher somehow found a new partner and tried to force Apple to give up their current prices and instead move everyone to $20 albums, no singles, and no one else is allowed to offer a lower price, we would all be losing our minds and crying bloody murder.
Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.
Apple, using the leverage of iTunes already being on millions of devices and computers, forced the record labels to lower prices on which Apple made a small percentage for providing the platform. Amazon on the other hand is supposedly selling books and the reader at less than cost, so it does appear to be different.
It's not a strawman at all. Your entire argument is based on assuming that the story the DoJ presents in it's filings is the absolute, complete and entirely in context truth. Without that assumption, you don't even have an argument. But, since all it is right now is a story, told to the advantage of the party telling it, you haven't offered a shred of proof to back up the claims you are making. All you've done is repeat someone else's claims as "proof" that your claims are correct. That particular fallacy is called "Begging the Question". You need to go back to school as far as logic is concerned.
Please address this particular complaint and why you believe it overstates the case for Apple. I would say every major publisher invalidating all prior agreements with all prior e-book retailers
No agreements with Amazon were "invalidated" they expired due to an elapse of time.
Any renegotiations of expired contracts had nothing, whatsoever to do with Apple.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this, it is pure conjecture.
Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.
No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.
Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.
Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"
That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.
Jesus after that thread on this you dominated with 30+ posts and there wasn't anyone agreeing with you, no one person, you still come back with the same delusion...I got to give it to you man, you're as persistent as they get...even if in denial that's a good thing.
Jesus after that thread on this you dominated with 30+ posts and there wasn't anyone agreeing with you, no one person, you still come back with the same delusion...I got to give it to you man, you're as persistent as they get...even if in denial that's a good thing.
So, say the DoJ terminates the legally binding and obtained agreements between the publishers and the group of independent resellers whose market share has grown from 10% to 40% of the eBook market since the widespread adoption of the agency model.
How will wiping out the independents with a GOVERNMENT MANDATED price fixing scheme help the consumer?
"you can keep selling your books at 9.99 or withdraw your books from amazon and go with us" "throw in with apple at set prices of 14.99 and 15.99, for a mainstream book market the customers pays a bit more bit that's what you want anyway" THER IS NO EVIDENCE.
AMAZON SHOULD GO TO THE BIG 5 RECORD COMPANIES, ASK THEM FOR A 30% CUT, TELL THEM THEY CAN SET THE PRICES THEY WAnt BUT APPLE OR ANYONE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO SELL FOR LESS...THEN WE LL COME HERE AND SAY AMAZON IS REALLY THE GOOD GUY BECAUSE IT'S HURTING THE BAD MUSIC MONOPOLIST APPLE. AND THUS THE CONSUMER BENEFITS.
ANYONE CLAIMING APPLE HAVE A LEG TO STAND HERE IS JUST DELUSIONAL. PERIOD.
"you can keep selling your books at 9.99 or withdraw your books from amazon and go with us"
"throw in with apple at set prices of 14.99 and 15.99, for a mainstream book market the customers pays a bit more bit that's what you want anyway"
THER IS NO EVIDENCE.
AMAZON SHOULD GO TO THE BIG 5 RECORD COMPANIES, ASK THEM FOR A 30% CUT, TELL THEM THEY CAN SET THE PRICES THEY WAnt BUT APPLE OR ANYONE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO SELL FOR LESS...THEN WE LL COME HERE AND SAY AMAZON IS REALLY THE GOOD GUY BECAUSE IT'S HURTING THE BAD MUSIC MONOPOLIST APPLE. AND THUS THE CONSUMER BENEFITS.
ANYONE CLAIMING APPLE HAVE A LEG TO STAND HERE IS JUST DELUSIONAL. PERIOD.
Yet you still haven't shown any clear cut evidence that Apple broke the law. There's some speculation and hearsay from the DOJ, but nothing conclusive.
Once again (you seem to be a slow learner): Apple is innocent until proven guilty. The DOJ's accusations are not proof.
Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.
Apple, using the leverage of iTunes already being on millions of devices and computers, forced the record labels to lower prices on which Apple made a small percentage for providing the platform. Amazon on the other hand is supposedly selling books and the reader at less than cost, so it does appear to be different.
Amazon has never lost money on their book sales. They may have had a few loss leaders or even some books sold at cost but they make their money. They were not purchasing marketshare by taking losses in their book sales. Apple offers sales, sets, free singles, and what have you as well. They are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman.
It's not a strawman at all. Your entire argument is based on assuming that the story the DoJ presents in it's filings is the absolute, complete and entirely in context truth. Without that assumption, you don't even have an argument. But, since all it is right now is a story, told to the advantage of the party telling it, you haven't offered a shred of proof to back up the claims you are making. All you've done is repeat someone else's claims as "proof" that your claims are correct. That particular fallacy is called "Begging the Question". You need to go back to school as far as logic is concerned.
It is a classic strawman because no one in here declared what you stated and knocked down. One isn't even related to the other. I cited the complaint that was filed by the DOJ. I have not begged the question at all. I have not at all claimed the complaint is true simply because it was filed by the DOJ and granted them any particular authority above other things. I have stated in the court of public opinion Apple will be a huge loser. I have also said that when an entire industry and all prior participants in it are forced to change their behavior in a uniform and sudden fashion, that it follows that it was a colluded upon action. We also have as proof the fact that multiple parties who were among those who colluded have already settled. When the settled they did not agree to a wholesale or agency model for future contracts but were expressly forbidden to agree to the most favored nation clause (put in by Apple) that forbid other retailers from competing on price. Those aren't claims. Those are actual settlements and they settled because the claims against them were true and they decided to take the easier way out.
Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
That wasn't what was presented...
THERE
IS
NO
EVIDENCE
FOR
THE
ENTIRETY
OF
YOUR
CONJECTURAL
RANT.
None, the DoJ has nothing except hearsay and conjecture, Apple are innocent they will be exonerated.
The DOJ has phone records, emails, and the testimony of the publishing companies that settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
No agreements with Amazon were "invalidated" they expired due to an elapse of time.
Any renegotiations of expired contracts had nothing, whatsoever to do with Apple.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this, it is pure conjecture.
Really?
"So we told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 per cent, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’ They went to Amazon and said, ‘You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not giving you the books.’” - Steve Jobs
You just called Steve Jobs a liar. Great job!!! That is from his official biography by the way. That way after you piss yourself some more you can declare yourself unilaterally truthful again "because you said so."
... It is a classic strawman because no one in here declared what you stated and knocked down. ... I cited the complaint that was filed by the DOJ. I have not begged the question at all. ...
You appear to be very confused. The "strawman" argument is that I questioned your citing of the DoJ claims as proving your points on the basis that prosecutos are well known to make grandiose claims regarding the strength of their cases in filings and that, therefore, they hardly serve as an authoritative source for anything. Now you are denying that you did so, while stating in the same post that you did and your posts throughout the thread continually cite the DoJ's filing as evidence that Apple is going down. It's not even clear what it is you are claiming that I "stated and knocked down," if its not what you've actually been doing, which it must not be since you're insisting it's a strawman argument.
"So we told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 per cent, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’ They went to Amazon and said, ‘You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not giving you the books.’” - Steve Jobs
You just called Steve Jobs a liar. Great job!!! That is from his official biography by the way. That way after you piss yourself some more you can declare yourself unilaterally truthful again "because you said so."
Hearsay.
Unfortunately the dead can't be called to testify.
Any lawyer worth his salt will have this "evidence" thrown out in no time.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.
You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.
I give up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So what.
A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.
"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"
NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.
And NOT ONE SCRAP of evidence of what the effect on general eBook prices has been apart from a very few, specific examples, cherry picked because their prices increased.
That wasn't what was presented and basically since you used the same handle and the same rants at another website (I believe it was Gizmodo) in their discussion on this, you're trolling. Apple did not merely offer each publisher the right to use their store, set their prices, give Apple their 30% and be done with it. Likewise nothing about iTunes agreements in other content areas demands that the publisher withhold content from other providers if they offer said content for lower than Apple can offer due to their 30% profit margin. I regularly go buy $5 albums from Amazon and likewise buy music from the Play store when they have their crazy sales (whole albums for $.99-2.99 as examples). Per this agreement that cannot happen. If Amazon tried to sell me a $5 album of MP3's with this collusion publisher agreement, then Apple could demand the music company pull their rights to sell the album. That is what is wrong here. There is plenty of evidence because Apple along with certain publishers demanded that at least 4 of the publishers sign on or the deal was null and void.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple will take this all the way first because they are innocent and secondly to protect the rights of all the other smaller, independent bookstores which have since adopted the agency model and are using it to break Amazon's attempt at a monopoly.
Apple can take it all the way and they will have taken the first steps towards completely altering their public image toward that of a giant corporation that stays ahead by squashing competition when they are late to the market instead of innovating. They will become Microsoft and lose their cool factor. This case is the antithesis of what Apple used to be and do. I don't care if it came straight out of Jobs mouth himself, everyone loses their edge and forgets their roots at some point. Pixar hasn't released a movie in about three years that I want to see as an example. Apple can do wrong just like anyone else and this is WRONG. It is proven wrong. They have the evidence. Apple should settle and get back to innovating in the ebook area instead of leaving us all wondering why they can't update their product lines anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
First there is substantial proof Apple colluded.
Make a case. I've seen absolutely no "evidence" that shows Apple secretly met with publishers with an agenda to raise prices. Everything I've seen merely gave publishers the option to simply set prices as they saw fit. The only questionable action which is in itself legal is that Apple required the favored nation clause.
And what about Amzon's dumping and limit pricing, and then there refusal to deal threats when Apple entered the market? What is the defense that those aren't anti-competitive practices pushed by Amazon?
Quote:
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. [...] You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet.
Even if you ignore the features and usability iBook has over other apps the Kindle employees that created the digital layouts seems to not care about readability. iBooks does this quite well. So much so that I've removed DRM and converted all the Kindle books I could so that they would work in iBooks.
Then you didn't read the complaint. As for the features and usability of iBooks, you must be delusional. Just the fact that the title doesn't leave the top drives me nuts. Nothing about the display is any better than half a dozen other e-readers I have tried. My fav was Stanza which Amazon has bought and left on the vine so I assure you they aren't perfect in my mind either. The point is though that this is about collusion and Apple did in fact collude. Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. It is about an old industry wanting to hold onto their old model and when the hell did Apple become about that? When did Apple become the guys that say, we know your old model counted on bundling some hit singles with 7-8 crappy filler songs for $12.99 so let's help you sustain that instead of destroying it with $.99 singles and convenience?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Did you miss this part?
The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.
You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.
You are wrong. Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. ...
Because no prosecutor has ever overstated his case, so the allegations must be true? As an argument, your statement is ridiculously absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. ...
Because no prosecutor has ever overstated his case, so the allegations must be true? As an argument, your statement is ridiculously absurd.
Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman. Of course there are prosecutors who have overstated or even lost their cases. No one ever claimed contrary. You would claim contrary because that is the point of a strawman. You set it up and knock it down and now pat yourself on the back believing some actual thinking has happened. It hasn't.
Please address this particular complaint and why you believe it overstates the case for Apple. I would say every major publisher invalidating all prior agreements with all prior e-book retailers and forcing the entire industry including the current market leader into a new and completely different type of model all at the same time certainly looks and sounds like collusion. The meetings, emails and other evidence show action was discussed and taken together for the express purpose of denying pricing competition and raising prices industry-wide.
If this were gas companies or any other field we would all be losing our minds. Why is it suddenly okay just because Apple is involved? If every music publisher somehow found a new partner and tried to force Apple to give up their current prices and instead move everyone to $20 albums, no singles, and no one else is allowed to offer a lower price, we would all be losing our minds and crying bloody murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.
Apple, using the leverage of iTunes already being on millions of devices and computers, forced the record labels to lower prices on which Apple made a small percentage for providing the platform. Amazon on the other hand is supposedly selling books and the reader at less than cost, so it does appear to be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman.
It's not a strawman at all. Your entire argument is based on assuming that the story the DoJ presents in it's filings is the absolute, complete and entirely in context truth. Without that assumption, you don't even have an argument. But, since all it is right now is a story, told to the advantage of the party telling it, you haven't offered a shred of proof to back up the claims you are making. All you've done is repeat someone else's claims as "proof" that your claims are correct. That particular fallacy is called "Begging the Question". You need to go back to school as far as logic is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
That wasn't what was presented...
THERE
IS
NO
EVIDENCE
FOR
THE
ENTIRETY
OF
YOUR
CONJECTURAL
RANT.
None, the DoJ has nothing except hearsay and conjecture, Apple are innocent they will be exonerated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Please address this particular complaint and why you believe it overstates the case for Apple. I would say every major publisher invalidating all prior agreements with all prior e-book retailers
No agreements with Amazon were "invalidated" they expired due to an elapse of time.
Any renegotiations of expired contracts had nothing, whatsoever to do with Apple.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this, it is pure conjecture.
Jesus after that thread on this you dominated with 30+ posts and there wasn't anyone agreeing with you, no one person, you still come back with the same delusion...I got to give it to you man, you're as persistent as they get...even if in denial that's a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Jesus after that thread on this you dominated with 30+ posts and there wasn't anyone agreeing with you, no one person, you still come back with the same delusion...I got to give it to you man, you're as persistent as they get...even if in denial that's a good thing.
So, say the DoJ terminates the legally binding and obtained agreements between the publishers and the group of independent resellers whose market share has grown from 10% to 40% of the eBook market since the widespread adoption of the agency model.
How will wiping out the independents with a GOVERNMENT MANDATED price fixing scheme help the consumer?
"throw in with apple at set prices of 14.99 and 15.99, for a mainstream book market the customers pays a bit more bit that's what you want anyway"
THER IS NO EVIDENCE.
AMAZON SHOULD GO TO THE BIG 5 RECORD COMPANIES, ASK THEM FOR A 30% CUT, TELL THEM THEY CAN SET THE PRICES THEY WAnt BUT APPLE OR ANYONE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO SELL FOR LESS...THEN WE LL COME HERE AND SAY AMAZON IS REALLY THE GOOD GUY BECAUSE IT'S HURTING THE BAD MUSIC MONOPOLIST APPLE. AND THUS THE CONSUMER BENEFITS.
ANYONE CLAIMING APPLE HAVE A LEG TO STAND HERE IS JUST DELUSIONAL. PERIOD.
Yet you still haven't shown any clear cut evidence that Apple broke the law. There's some speculation and hearsay from the DOJ, but nothing conclusive.
Once again (you seem to be a slow learner): Apple is innocent until proven guilty. The DOJ's accusations are not proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.
Apple, using the leverage of iTunes already being on millions of devices and computers, forced the record labels to lower prices on which Apple made a small percentage for providing the platform. Amazon on the other hand is supposedly selling books and the reader at less than cost, so it does appear to be different.
Amazon has never lost money on their book sales. They may have had a few loss leaders or even some books sold at cost but they make their money. They were not purchasing marketshare by taking losses in their book sales. Apple offers sales, sets, free singles, and what have you as well. They are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman.
It's not a strawman at all. Your entire argument is based on assuming that the story the DoJ presents in it's filings is the absolute, complete and entirely in context truth. Without that assumption, you don't even have an argument. But, since all it is right now is a story, told to the advantage of the party telling it, you haven't offered a shred of proof to back up the claims you are making. All you've done is repeat someone else's claims as "proof" that your claims are correct. That particular fallacy is called "Begging the Question". You need to go back to school as far as logic is concerned.
It is a classic strawman because no one in here declared what you stated and knocked down. One isn't even related to the other. I cited the complaint that was filed by the DOJ. I have not begged the question at all. I have not at all claimed the complaint is true simply because it was filed by the DOJ and granted them any particular authority above other things. I have stated in the court of public opinion Apple will be a huge loser. I have also said that when an entire industry and all prior participants in it are forced to change their behavior in a uniform and sudden fashion, that it follows that it was a colluded upon action. We also have as proof the fact that multiple parties who were among those who colluded have already settled. When the settled they did not agree to a wholesale or agency model for future contracts but were expressly forbidden to agree to the most favored nation clause (put in by Apple) that forbid other retailers from competing on price. Those aren't claims. Those are actual settlements and they settled because the claims against them were true and they decided to take the easier way out.
Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
That wasn't what was presented...
THERE
IS
NO
EVIDENCE
FOR
THE
ENTIRETY
OF
YOUR
CONJECTURAL
RANT.
None, the DoJ has nothing except hearsay and conjecture, Apple are innocent they will be exonerated.
The DOJ has phone records, emails, and the testimony of the publishing companies that settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
No agreements with Amazon were "invalidated" they expired due to an elapse of time.
Any renegotiations of expired contracts had nothing, whatsoever to do with Apple.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this, it is pure conjecture.
Really?
"So we told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 per cent, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’ They went to Amazon and said, ‘You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not giving you the books.’” - Steve Jobs
You just called Steve Jobs a liar. Great job!!! That is from his official biography by the way. That way after you piss yourself some more you can declare yourself unilaterally truthful again "because you said so."
You appear to be very confused. The "strawman" argument is that I questioned your citing of the DoJ claims as proving your points on the basis that prosecutos are well known to make grandiose claims regarding the strength of their cases in filings and that, therefore, they hardly serve as an authoritative source for anything. Now you are denying that you did so, while stating in the same post that you did and your posts throughout the thread continually cite the DoJ's filing as evidence that Apple is going down. It's not even clear what it is you are claiming that I "stated and knocked down," if its not what you've actually been doing, which it must not be since you're insisting it's a strawman argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngel21x
How can they possibly be accused of price fixing when Apple lets the publishers choose the price?
collusion is a fun game
Sounds like a good idea for a new board game. Like Monopoly but instead of the railroads they can be the 4 largest publishers.
Whoever buys them all first shouts, "AMAZON!" and then they sell below cost to try to make up losses on hardware.
Chance card: "Your company has too much mind share. You get investigated by senators so they can get their name in the press. Loss a turn."
Somehow, I think that selling books below cost to try to make up hardware losses isn't much of a strategy.
The real concern is that after Amazon has monopolized the market, they can drive the prices as high as they want.
Hearsay.
Unfortunately the dead can't be called to testify.
Any lawyer worth his salt will have this "evidence" thrown out in no time.