If Apple wants to turn this into a headline, they should refund whatever portion of the settlement can be applied to each purchase of an affected computer.
Which is likely pennies if anything. Not worth the fuss to track everyone down and spent $5 a person for a $1 check,
If Apple was to do anything it might be some kind of refund for those that had to pay for replacing a faulty display, partial at least due to 'jacked up' pricing.
. What OPEC exploited was a dependence upon a product and did so from establishments outside the USA, often by stealing capital from the USA.
What's ironic is that they may have had a fair price on those parts, at
least in the eyes of the buyers, but because they sat down and agreed to set price or range of prices amongest themselves they are in trouble.
That has nothing to do with it. Any group of private non-US companies doing business in the US can be sued by the DoJ under antitrust laws,...
OPEC is an instance of sovereign immunity, plain and simple.
Then why are you disagreeing with me? I thought at first you were under the impression that OPEC was "group of private non-US companies doing business in the US".
Clearly you understnd that this is irrelevant - so why did you even bring it up?
And the shock of Apple being mentioned in an article about price fixing -- as a victim.
Personally, I doubt that Apple was victimized by the collusion. It is my impression that Apple is able to negotiate favorable deals, no matter what others might be paying.
They are not price takers like a small company might be. Instead, they are a force to be reckoned with.
Then why are you disagreeing with me? I thought at first you were under the impression that OPEC was "group of private non-US companies doing business in the US".
Clearly you understnd that this is irrelevant - so why did you even bring it up?
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
What's ironic is that they may have had a fair price on those parts, at
least in the eyes of the buyers, but because they sat down and agreed to set price or range of prices amongest themselves they are in trouble.
I don't think it's at all ironic. It's impossible to rise to the level of CEO of a major global company without realizing that colluding with the competition is illegal. Even if you agree to set prices LOWER than the free market would otherwise reach, it's still illegal (although proving harm and assessing damages might be difficult).
If the CEOs were involved, there's no excuse at all. If the collusion occurred at a much lower level and without the involvement of management, it indicates a failure of the training and supervision programs, but might not directly implicate the CEOs.
However, given the magnitude of the fines, there must have been some pretty solid evidence for the companies to agree.
Personally, I doubt that Apple was victimized by the collusion. It is my impression that Apple is able to negotiate favorable deals, no matter what others might be paying.
They are not price takers like a small company might be. Instead, they are a force to be reckoned with.
Actually, they should have been able to negotiate even more favorable deals. The size of their panel orders not being as low as analysts projected would be one of the original red flags.
Personally, I doubt that Apple was victimized by the collusion. It is my impression that Apple is able to negotiate favorable deals, no matter what others might be paying.
They are not price takers like a small company might be. Instead, they are a force to be reckoned with.
Maybe, maybe not. Apple likely looks for a discount off of market price. If the market price is artificially high because of collusion, Apple might still be paying more than if they negotiated a deal based on a lower market price.
Alternatively, the manufacturers could have used their extra revenues from overcharging the rest of the OEMs to provide even greater discounts to Apple.
No one knows for sure what Apple's price is today or what it would have been under other scenarios, but it's fallacious to pretend that it couldn't have changed Apple's price.
Maybe, maybe not. Apple likely looks for a discount off of market price. If the market price is artificially high because of collusion, Apple might still be paying more than if they negotiated a deal based on a lower market price.
Alternatively, the manufacturers could have used their extra revenues from overcharging the rest of the OEMs to provide even greater discounts to Apple.
No one knows for sure what Apple's price is today or what it would have been under other scenarios, but it's fallacious to pretend that it couldn't have changed Apple's price.
Had I said that "it couldn't have changed Apple's price", then you might have a point.
Given that I never said that, you have much less than that.
The only problem with that is that Apple is probably not the one receiving the money. Usually, these fines go to the government and the companies agree to stop price fixing - so Apple would benefit going forward but not for the past infractions. They could theoretically announce a price cut based on the likely reduction in LCD screen prices, but that's not likely to happen. The dollars per device are relatively small (Apple might pay $35 for an iPad 3 screen instead of $40) - and not enough to disrupt their pricing schedule.
What would make you think that the victims of the price fixing wouldn't get paid out from this? Goes against logic as well as what the article clearly states.
Quote:
Prosecutors in the case, which began in 2008, asserted that Apple was among a number of device makers who were victims of a price fixing scheme by LCD manufacturers. Customers affected by the alleged scheme could receive "substantial amounts" of money, according to San Francisco-based attorney Joseph Alioto.
What would make you think that the victims of the price fixing wouldn't get paid out from this? Goes against logic as well as what the article clearly states.
Wait. That's a rhetorical question, right?
Since when have logic or clearly stated prose made any difference in these situations?
Happy to see this news. The last thing we need is price fixing as all this does in the end is screw over the customer.
I know its not the same thing, but the way that OPEC operates should be investigated as well. Why are they allowed to collaborate and set production volumes to influence prices?
Perhaps because they aren't under US jurisdiction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
If Apple wants to turn this into a headline, they should refund whatever portion of the settlement can be applied to each purchase of an affected computer. That would highlight the fact that the PC makers are not doing the same thing, which they really can't because this settlement will probably account for most of the PC makers' profits on the systems in question.
I don't have a WSJ subscription, which is required for access to the full article. Is Apple actually receiving part of this fine? Somehow I doubt it. I also doubt they overpaid, although Samsung and LG do basically have a duopoly going there even without any form of collusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
Those poor Suadi's with their golden bathtubs. The opulence and waste is hardly a good example of the downtrodden middle east. Just an FYI, it's not stealing if the owners sell it. OPEC exists to maximize profits. Nothing more complicated than that. Claiming some altruistic goal 'for future generations' is bullshit. They collude and set a price that the market will bare and while maximizing profits. In a few hundred years they'll be irrelevant as far as oil is concerned, and good riddance.
You should really look at more more than their ruling family when passing judgment there. Do a quick google search and perhaps you'll read about some of the problems experienced by their citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
It is not hard to figure something was rotten [once more] when my HP LP2475w went for just over $400 with a top of the line S-IPS panel and lots of bells and whistles to a cheaper product today for nearly $300 more.
Interestingly LG panels were not used in most of the higher end displays a few years ago. Others presumably got out due to waning margins, but Hitachi, Mitsubishi, and NEC panels were much more common in displays in the $1k+ range 3-4 years ago.
Of course, at $6-8 K, it will be a few more years before they bring the price down enough for them to hit the mass market, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Comments
Which is likely pennies if anything. Not worth the fuss to track everyone down and spent $5 a person for a $1 check,
If Apple was to do anything it might be some kind of refund for those that had to pay for replacing a faulty display, partial at least due to 'jacked up' pricing.
Have you download the app? There must be an app for that.
What's ironic is that they may have had a fair price on those parts, at
least in the eyes of the buyers, but because they sat down and agreed to set price or range of prices amongest themselves they are in trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That has nothing to do with it. Any group of private non-US companies doing business in the US can be sued by the DoJ under antitrust laws,...
OPEC is an instance of sovereign immunity, plain and simple.
Then why are you disagreeing with me? I thought at first you were under the impression that OPEC was "group of private non-US companies doing business in the US".
Clearly you understnd that this is irrelevant - so why did you even bring it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
And the shock of Apple being mentioned in an article about price fixing -- as a victim.
Personally, I doubt that Apple was victimized by the collusion. It is my impression that Apple is able to negotiate favorable deals, no matter what others might be paying.
They are not price takers like a small company might be. Instead, they are a force to be reckoned with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Then why are you disagreeing with me? I thought at first you were under the impression that OPEC was "group of private non-US companies doing business in the US".
Clearly you understnd that this is irrelevant - so why did you even bring it up?
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
I don't think it's at all ironic. It's impossible to rise to the level of CEO of a major global company without realizing that colluding with the competition is illegal. Even if you agree to set prices LOWER than the free market would otherwise reach, it's still illegal (although proving harm and assessing damages might be difficult).
If the CEOs were involved, there's no excuse at all. If the collusion occurred at a much lower level and without the involvement of management, it indicates a failure of the training and supervision programs, but might not directly implicate the CEOs.
However, given the magnitude of the fines, there must have been some pretty solid evidence for the companies to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Personally, I doubt that Apple was victimized by the collusion. It is my impression that Apple is able to negotiate favorable deals, no matter what others might be paying.
They are not price takers like a small company might be. Instead, they are a force to be reckoned with.
Actually, they should have been able to negotiate even more favorable deals. The size of their panel orders not being as low as analysts projected would be one of the original red flags.
Maybe, maybe not. Apple likely looks for a discount off of market price. If the market price is artificially high because of collusion, Apple might still be paying more than if they negotiated a deal based on a lower market price.
Alternatively, the manufacturers could have used their extra revenues from overcharging the rest of the OEMs to provide even greater discounts to Apple.
No one knows for sure what Apple's price is today or what it would have been under other scenarios, but it's fallacious to pretend that it couldn't have changed Apple's price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Maybe, maybe not. Apple likely looks for a discount off of market price. If the market price is artificially high because of collusion, Apple might still be paying more than if they negotiated a deal based on a lower market price.
Alternatively, the manufacturers could have used their extra revenues from overcharging the rest of the OEMs to provide even greater discounts to Apple.
No one knows for sure what Apple's price is today or what it would have been under other scenarios, but it's fallacious to pretend that it couldn't have changed Apple's price.
Had I said that "it couldn't have changed Apple's price", then you might have a point.
Given that I never said that, you have much less than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The only problem with that is that Apple is probably not the one receiving the money. Usually, these fines go to the government and the companies agree to stop price fixing - so Apple would benefit going forward but not for the past infractions. They could theoretically announce a price cut based on the likely reduction in LCD screen prices, but that's not likely to happen. The dollars per device are relatively small (Apple might pay $35 for an iPad 3 screen instead of $40) - and not enough to disrupt their pricing schedule.
What would make you think that the victims of the price fixing wouldn't get paid out from this? Goes against logic as well as what the article clearly states.
Quote:
Prosecutors in the case, which began in 2008, asserted that Apple was among a number of device makers who were victims of a price fixing scheme by LCD manufacturers. Customers affected by the alleged scheme could receive "substantial amounts" of money, according to San Francisco-based attorney Joseph Alioto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
What would make you think that the victims of the price fixing wouldn't get paid out from this? Goes against logic as well as what the article clearly states.
Wait. That's a rhetorical question, right?
Since when have logic or clearly stated prose made any difference in these situations?
This latest case is about Toshiba, LG and AUO.
What great way to throw in Samsung into the mix AI.
Either way, none of you people will get a check in the mail.
The biggest winners are, obviously, the lawyers.
Sucks to be you all.
This is why I stick with OLED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Happy to see this news. The last thing we need is price fixing as all this does in the end is screw over the customer.
I know its not the same thing, but the way that OPEC operates should be investigated as well. Why are they allowed to collaborate and set production volumes to influence prices?
Perhaps because they aren't under US jurisdiction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
If Apple wants to turn this into a headline, they should refund whatever portion of the settlement can be applied to each purchase of an affected computer. That would highlight the fact that the PC makers are not doing the same thing, which they really can't because this settlement will probably account for most of the PC makers' profits on the systems in question.
I don't have a WSJ subscription, which is required for access to the full article. Is Apple actually receiving part of this fine? Somehow I doubt it. I also doubt they overpaid, although Samsung and LG do basically have a duopoly going there even without any form of collusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
Those poor Suadi's with their golden bathtubs. The opulence and waste is hardly a good example of the downtrodden middle east. Just an FYI, it's not stealing if the owners sell it. OPEC exists to maximize profits. Nothing more complicated than that. Claiming some altruistic goal 'for future generations' is bullshit. They collude and set a price that the market will bare and while maximizing profits. In a few hundred years they'll be irrelevant as far as oil is concerned, and good riddance.
You should really look at more more than their ruling family when passing judgment there. Do a quick google search and perhaps you'll read about some of the problems experienced by their citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
It is not hard to figure something was rotten [once more] when my HP LP2475w went for just over $400 with a top of the line S-IPS panel and lots of bells and whistles to a cheaper product today for nearly $300 more.
Interestingly LG panels were not used in most of the higher end displays a few years ago. Others presumably got out due to waning margins, but Hitachi, Mitsubishi, and NEC panels were much more common in displays in the $1k+ range 3-4 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
This is why I stick with OLED.
It must be hard to use a PC with a sub 5" screen, watching TV wouldn't be much good either.
Which is why you probably don't "stick with oled".
True, however, it looks like OLED might finally make it to TVs:
http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2012/01/ces-2012-lg-announces-thinnest-largest-oled-tv.html
Of course, at $6-8 K, it will be a few more years before they bring the price down enough for them to hit the mass market, but at least it's a step in the right direction.