Last I checked competition and choice is a good thing for us as consumers.
I agree with you, all Apple needs to do it allow content providers to sell at different prices elsewhere. Apple is not dumping its hardware at cost, it can afford a cut rate war. If Amazon dumps its hardware at cost and on top of that doesnt makes a decent cut rate on content, then how the hell are they going to make money?
Yes I know that- but did they state Apple was involved in their executing these statements?
I don't believe so. This is bullying on part of the DoJ. This is like saying 5 out of 5 death row inmates don't like their death sentence so they must've conspired.
I agree with you, all Apple needs to do it allow content providers to sell at different prices elsewhere. Apple is not dumping its hardware at cost, it can afford a cut rate war. If Amazon dumps its hardware at cost and on top of that doesnt makes a decent cut rate on content, then how the hell is it going to make money?
Amazon is almost like a burlesque dancer. Seems like she's going to get naked but never does, she just shows some glimpses, but men kept going just in case she did. Sometimes the perception is greater than the reality.
The DOJ is turning into a Socialist regime, just faster than the other parts of government, because Holder is at the helm. This is what you get when you have a government that rules with an iron fist, like China, and won't look at the evidence, and pays off the judge with bonuses and paid leave. Hopefully 2014 and 2016 elections will give us better results and we can head back towards democracy.
Do you think this petition on We the People would help? The response from the DOJ seems to be escalating out of proportion to the crime (if one did occur) and perhaps getting this visible to more people and possibly a presidential response may help.
" the DOJ argued that the publishers have “banded together once again.”
OK, so the DOJ is admitting that they don't know what conspiracy is. Hint: The fact that several publishers reach the same conclusion independently is NOT conspiracy.
Was it independently
And if it wasn't is that such a bad thing. Is a 'consoiracy' in this case wrong. The publishers aren't saying don't punish Apple just don't do it in a way that renigs in the deals set up as part of the settlements. Th DOJ it seems said that the publishers can use agency, can even have an MFN, can do business with Apple. Just that for a discrete period they have to let the retailers change prices and pay from that price even if it ends up being free. But that terms shorter than this Apple punishment, removes that permission to deal with Apple etc.
AND it tosses in all other forms of media. If the labels etc jump in to object are they part of the conspiracy as well.
Do you think this petition on We the People would help? The response from the DOJ seems to be escalating out of proportion to the crime (if one did occur) and perhaps getting this visible to more people and possibly a presidential response may help.
Forcing everyone to sell at the same price is just as anticompetitive.
let's expand on that a little.....Forcing writers to take lower fees, forcing out smaller publishers, forcing out local booksellers, forcing a smaller ecosystem in which creativity can be ushered. ( yes I know, a new paradigm will emerge, someday)
Amazon is being propped up as the darling of price reduction....at such a cost.
Some would argue that what's occurring is blind justice
Do you think this petition on We the People would help? The response from the DOJ seems to be escalating out of proportion to the crime (if one did occur) and perhaps getting this visible to more people and possibly a presidential response may help.
One of the things that's so ridiculous about this is that about five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers could set minimum selling prices, not just minimum advertised prices as had been the case before the ruling. If manufacturers can set minimum selling prices, why can't publishers? Nikon and Sony, among others, are using that ruling to force retailers to not discount their products, especially at the high end of their lines.
Not that I agree with the ruling. Frankly, I think retailers of any kind should be able to set their own prices as long as it's not predatory. But I do think that Amazon uses predatory techniques to squeeze others out of the market. They frequently sell below cost to gain market share and once they do so, they raise prices to ever higher levels. There have already been reports of shrinking discounts on Amazon. Since the advent of Amazon, we've lost about half the bookstores in the U.S. Borders is gone and Barnes & Noble is "quite ill". Which might be fine if there were still strong independent stores and regional chains, but most have already been squeezed out either by the big chains or because of Amazon.
According to Publisher's Weekly, there are now about 12,700 bookstores left in the U.S. (I believe this count includes bookstore "departments" within larger stores, like the book section of a Costco or WalMart.) Before Amazon, there were over 25,000. Missouri has the most bookstores per capita, with 6.37 bookstores per 100,000 people. New Jersey has the least with only 2.45 bookstores per 100,000 people.
IMO, the DOJ is wrong because they're only looking at the short term impact of pricing on consumers. They need to look at both the long term impact of Amazon's pricing as well as the impact of Amazon on other businesses. I really don't understand why the DOJ is so obsessed over this. There are far bigger fish to fry than the price of an eBook. Why don't they obsess over gasoline prices -- there's no shortage of oil (worldwide demand is declining in the poor economy) and gas is still priced like there was or the fraud committed by health insurance companies or the banks?
What happens of the major book publishers decide to get out of the ebook business all together? If you want to buy a book you buy either a hardback or paperback. Could the DOJ force them to sell ebooks? It would appear they are not making any profit from ebooks anyway. And I also have been reading some articles about the comeback of smaller, independent retail booksellers.
Just to be clear, from reading the gigaom article it seems that the DoJ haven't made any accusation of further illegal conspiracy, they've just publicly commented that the filings from the book publishers are indicative of a shared mindset that could lead to further anticompetitive behaviour in the future. If that's the case, they're saying that regulators should be wary of, and perhaps takes preventative measures to prevent conspiracy and encourage competition.
It might be a little speculative, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with stating that as a position. It doesn't hurt to be sceptical.
And on the positive side, some might say that encouraging a multi-retailer market where Amazon isn't as dominant and predatory price dumping is eliminated, might be a good way to kick off that position.
I agree with you, all Apple needs to do it allow content providers to sell at different prices elsewhere. Apple is not dumping its hardware at cost, it can afford a cut rate war. If Amazon dumps its hardware at cost and on top of that doesnt makes a decent cut rate on content, then how the hell is it going to make money?
Well that's the point. Amazon DOESN'T make any money and Wall Street loves them for it.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Last I checked competition and choice is a good thing for us as consumers.
I agree with you, all Apple needs to do it allow content providers to sell at different prices elsewhere. Apple is not dumping its hardware at cost, it can afford a cut rate war. If Amazon dumps its hardware at cost and on top of that doesnt makes a decent cut rate on content, then how the hell are they going to make money?
I don't believe so. This is bullying on part of the DoJ. This is like saying 5 out of 5 death row inmates don't like their death sentence so they must've conspired.
Except that the DOJ would have to have proof- hence the spying. Otherwise Apple should simply sue if these accusations are knowingly false.
it's funny how the DOJ is handing Amazon an ebook monopoly under the guise of an Apple price fixing scandal.
Here's some good reading.
http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/08/05/bezos-not-bozos/
http://www.asymco.com/2013/08/07/the-anti-apple/
Amazon is almost like a burlesque dancer. Seems like she's going to get naked but never does, she just shows some glimpses, but men kept going just in case she did. Sometimes the perception is greater than the reality.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-doj-and-save-consumer-choice-ebooks/GF68xsB7
Was it independently
And if it wasn't is that such a bad thing. Is a 'consoiracy' in this case wrong. The publishers aren't saying don't punish Apple just don't do it in a way that renigs in the deals set up as part of the settlements. Th DOJ it seems said that the publishers can use agency, can even have an MFN, can do business with Apple. Just that for a discrete period they have to let the retailers change prices and pay from that price even if it ends up being free. But that terms shorter than this Apple punishment, removes that permission to deal with Apple etc.
AND it tosses in all other forms of media. If the labels etc jump in to object are they part of the conspiracy as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyChandra
Do you think this petition on We the People would help? The response from the DOJ seems to be escalating out of proportion to the crime (if one did occur) and perhaps getting this visible to more people and possibly a presidential response may help.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-doj-and-save-consumer-choice-ebooks/GF68xsB7
Excellent idea
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Forcing everyone to sell at the same price is just as anticompetitive.
let's expand on that a little.....Forcing writers to take lower fees, forcing out smaller publishers, forcing out local booksellers, forcing a smaller ecosystem in which creativity can be ushered. ( yes I know, a new paradigm will emerge, someday)
Amazon is being propped up as the darling of price reduction....at such a cost.
Some would argue that what's occurring is blind justice
I'm afraid we the people would be named as co-conspirators...
Well if there is only Amazon left, they will be the only ones charging a price.
One of the things that's so ridiculous about this is that about five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers could set minimum selling prices, not just minimum advertised prices as had been the case before the ruling. If manufacturers can set minimum selling prices, why can't publishers? Nikon and Sony, among others, are using that ruling to force retailers to not discount their products, especially at the high end of their lines.
Not that I agree with the ruling. Frankly, I think retailers of any kind should be able to set their own prices as long as it's not predatory. But I do think that Amazon uses predatory techniques to squeeze others out of the market. They frequently sell below cost to gain market share and once they do so, they raise prices to ever higher levels. There have already been reports of shrinking discounts on Amazon. Since the advent of Amazon, we've lost about half the bookstores in the U.S. Borders is gone and Barnes & Noble is "quite ill". Which might be fine if there were still strong independent stores and regional chains, but most have already been squeezed out either by the big chains or because of Amazon.
According to Publisher's Weekly, there are now about 12,700 bookstores left in the U.S. (I believe this count includes bookstore "departments" within larger stores, like the book section of a Costco or WalMart.) Before Amazon, there were over 25,000. Missouri has the most bookstores per capita, with 6.37 bookstores per 100,000 people. New Jersey has the least with only 2.45 bookstores per 100,000 people.
IMO, the DOJ is wrong because they're only looking at the short term impact of pricing on consumers. They need to look at both the long term impact of Amazon's pricing as well as the impact of Amazon on other businesses. I really don't understand why the DOJ is so obsessed over this. There are far bigger fish to fry than the price of an eBook. Why don't they obsess over gasoline prices -- there's no shortage of oil (worldwide demand is declining in the poor economy) and gas is still priced like there was or the fraud committed by health insurance companies or the banks?
Just to be clear, from reading the gigaom article it seems that the DoJ haven't made any accusation of further illegal conspiracy, they've just publicly commented that the filings from the book publishers are indicative of a shared mindset that could lead to further anticompetitive behaviour in the future. If that's the case, they're saying that regulators should be wary of, and perhaps takes preventative measures to prevent conspiracy and encourage competition.
It might be a little speculative, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with stating that as a position. It doesn't hurt to be sceptical.
And on the positive side, some might say that encouraging a multi-retailer market where Amazon isn't as dominant and predatory price dumping is eliminated, might be a good way to kick off that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I agree with you, all Apple needs to do it allow content providers to sell at different prices elsewhere. Apple is not dumping its hardware at cost, it can afford a cut rate war. If Amazon dumps its hardware at cost and on top of that doesnt makes a decent cut rate on content, then how the hell is it going to make money?
Well that's the point. Amazon DOESN'T make any money and Wall Street loves them for it.