DOJ claims Apple's changes to in-app purchase rules were aimed at Amazon

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 161
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,182member


    What if Apple simply gets out of the ebook business. Let everybody buy from Amazon with the Kindle app, or from B&N. Can the government force Apple to sell ebooks? It wouldn't be that big of a deal and probably doesn't represent much profit. Just let the DOJ deal with a complete Amazon monopoly.

  • Reply 82 of 161
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    What if Apple simply gets out of the ebook business. Let everybody buy from Amazon with the Kindle app, or from B&N. Can the government force Apple to sell ebooks? It wouldn't be that big of a deal and probably doesn't represent much profit. Just let the DOJ deal with a complete Amazon monopoly.



    It would be interesting if Apple just sold e-books at 30% higher price than Amazon and people still bought them.

  • Reply 83 of 161
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    soloman wrote: »
    Funny because all the bookstores I go to have plenty of people in them. It's the music stores that Apple killed that I really miss.

    Apple didn't kill the music stores, pirating and Walmart did.
    soloman wrote: »
    I'd like to know if Google takes 30% from Amazon for ebooks purchased through the Kindle app. I also agree that there should be tiered percentages. Amazon handles the storage and delivery of their content alleviating Apple of that responsibility so why shouldn't they pay less?

    The kindle app is on Apple's servers and Apple handles payments.
  • Reply 84 of 161
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member


    I do order a lot of books from Amazon but they are actual books and all technical or scientific topics. I almost never read fiction. I bought one recently from iBook Store to read on the plane and even though it was on NYT best seller list I thought it was terrible. 


     


    How big is the business of fiction novels and political autobiographies anyway?


     


    With iBooks Author books you can get really complex representations that rival or even surpass traditional books be it technical or coffee table type picture books. The best seller fiction category which is the category in contention seems so trite to me.

  • Reply 85 of 161
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,473member
    Geesh, over the top much with a double-scoop of hyperbole? From the AllThingsD article:

    In its latest filing, the DOJ said that the remedy adjustments Apple proposed “imposed virtually no limitations” on its conduct, beyond those established by the DOJ’s earlier settlements with the publishers involved in the case.
    “Quite simply, Apple wants to continue business as usual, regardless of the antitrust laws,” the DOJ said in its filing. “Under these circumstances, this Court should have no confidence that Apple on its own effectively can ensure that its illegal conduct will not be repeated. There must be significant oversight by someone not entrenched in Apple’s culture of insensitivity to basic tenets of antitrust law.”
    http://allthingsd.com/20130823/doj-softens-proposed-apple-ebook-injunctions-slightly/?mod=atd_homepage_carousel
  • Reply 86 of 161

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I do order a lot of books from Amazon but they are actual books and all technical or scientific topics. I almost never read fiction. I bought one recently from iBook Store to read on the plane and even though it was on NYT best seller list I thought it was terrible. 


     


    How big is the business of fiction novels and political autobiographies anyway?


     


    With iBooks Author books you can get really complex representations that rival or even surpass traditional books be it technical or coffee table type picture books. The best seller fiction category which is the category in contention seems so trite to me.



     


    This is a matter of perspective.  I typically read fiction.  I like nonfiction but it's boring... so I usually go with an audiobook when I want or need to read nonfiction.  Also, look at stuff like Game of Thrones making it big.  Do you honestly think there is no market for it?


     


    That being said, yes, it is trite.  Much of modern life is trite.  Do you read Chuck Palahniuk?  He has a great line in his book "Choke" where he refers to parenting as the opiate for the masses.  Absolutely brilliant.  Fiction can be moving; it isn't all swords and sorcery.

  • Reply 87 of 161

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Geesh, over the top much? From the AllThingsD article:



    In its latest filing, the DOJ said that the remedy adjustments Apple proposed “imposed virtually no limitations” on its conduct, beyond those established by the DOJ’s earlier settlements with the publishers involved in the case.

    “Quite simply, Apple wants to continue business as usual, regardless of the antitrust laws,” the DOJ said in its filing. “Under these circumstances, this Court should have no confidence that Apple on its own effectively can ensure that its illegal conduct will not be repeated. There must be significant oversight by someone not entrenched in Apple’s culture of insensitivity to basic tenets of antitrust law.”


     


    Can't they just say that Apple's contracts will be subject to review and approval by the DOJ for so many years?  I mean, it basically boils down to "Stop doing what you did."  Saying "You can't do what you did before for 5 years" is dumb; it's like telling a kid not to push the red button.


     


    And when I say approval, I mean something like they have the right to bring them back to court on the drop of a hat.

  • Reply 88 of 161
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    What if Apple simply gets out of the ebook business. Let everybody buy from Amazon with the Kindle app, or from B&N. Can the government force Apple to sell ebooks? It wouldn't be that big of a deal and probably doesn't represent much profit. Just let the DOJ deal with a complete Amazon monopoly.

    That would be ridiculous. Apple makes a lot of money selling iPads and iPhones and iBooks and iTunes are major selling features. If they lose that, their advantages over the competition would be reduced.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Geesh, over the top much with a double-scoop of hyperbole? From the AllThingsD article:

    In its latest filing, the DOJ said that the remedy adjustments Apple proposed “imposed virtually no limitations” on its conduct, beyond those established by the DOJ’s earlier settlements with the publishers involved in the case.
    “Quite simply, Apple wants to continue business as usual, regardless of the antitrust laws,” the DOJ said in its filing. “Under these circumstances, this Court should have no confidence that Apple on its own effectively can ensure that its illegal conduct will not be repeated. There must be significant oversight by someone not entrenched in Apple’s culture of insensitivity to basic tenets of antitrust law.”
    http://allthingsd.com/20130823/doj-softens-proposed-apple-ebook-injunctions-slightly/?mod=atd_homepage_carousel

    Of course. You'll take the theatrics of the plaintiff as gospel truth. But since you obviously don't have any clue how the legal system works, that's not surprising.

    Apple has published its proposed remedy. Read it for yourself instead of listening to the whining of the DOJ. They actually proposed a number of remedies:
    A potentially valid injunction could include: (1) reasonable
    limitations on Apple’s abilityto share information (akin to the publishers’ consent decrees,
    see
    ECF No. 259 at 12-13; ECF No. 119 at 12-13; ECF No. 174-1 at 11-12);
    (2) a prohibition, tracking the publishers’ consent
    decrees, on retail price MFNs in agreements with the publisher defendants; and (3) reasonable antitrust training obligations for Apple, lasting a reasonable term.

    Since the MFN clause is the biggest complaint against Apple, their proposal that the MFN clauses be prohibited is actually quite significant.
    soloman wrote: »
    Funny because all the bookstores I go to have plenty of people in them. It's the music stores that Apple killed that I really miss.

    Really? Maybe you should talk to Borders. How many people are in the Borders stores? And how many independents closed? One estimate says that over 20% closed in the past decade - and that may be low.
    ealvarez wrote: »
    True ... about the Agency model. It was what I had in mind, but no need to be rude. The fact is the agency model favored by Apple helped in rising the prices of the books even though they did not decided the prices themselves. (and before you are rude about my English, it's not my first language)

    The agency model TEMPORARILY raised prices. They're now back down where they were. That's what happens when you put a stop to predatory pricing and return the market to a free market.
    dontuwish wrote: »

    I'm not kidding. Apple has refused, on many fronts, to cooperate. Unlike Google, Amazon, and MS (Windows 8 and TPM 2.0) that are willingly giving them everything they want. Interesting that Apple has been the main bluster target on tax haven issues, even though the others are doing the same. And, they keep fixing exploits that allow access into their iOS devices. Try and image one without jailbreaking it.....

    Really? And how is it that you "know" this?

    Apple is the target because they're highly visible and people are jealous of their success. In addition, some of their competitors will stoop to anything to try to make Apple look bad. It's well recognized that Amazon was a major player behind this DOJ action, for example.
  • Reply 89 of 161
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    brutus009 wrote: »
    Can't they just say that Apple's contracts will be subject to review and approval by the DOJ for so many years?  I mean, it basically boils down to "Stop doing what you did."  Saying "You can't do what you did before for 5 years" is dumb; it's like telling a kid not to push the red button.

    And when I say approval, I mean something like they have the right to bring them back to court on the drop of a hat.

    That's basically what Apple proposed:
    A potentially valid injunction could include: (1) reasonable
    limitations on Apple’s abilityto share information (akin to the publishers’ consent decrees,
    see
    ECF No. 259 at 12-13; ECF No. 119 at 12-13; ECF No. 174-1 at 11-12);
    (2) a prohibition, tracking the publishers’ consent
    decrees, on retail price MFNs in agreements with the publisher defendants; and (3) reasonableantitrust training obligations for Apple, lasting a reasonable term.

    Since the existing order is almost certain to get thrown out, it is likely that AT WORST, something close to what Apple proposed will be implemented. There's no way that the appeals court is going to let the existing order stand. In fact, since the judge had her mind made up before the trial even started and was stupid enough to publicize that, it's likely that the entire judgment will be thrown out.
  • Reply 90 of 161
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Really? Maybe you should talk to Borders. How many people are in the Borders stores? And how many independents closed? One estimate says that over 20% closed in the past decade - and that may be low.
    The agency model TEMPORARILY raised prices. They're now back down where they were.

    Yes really. Could be that Borders simply opened too many stores. Could also be that prices are down because sales dropped 17-19% after the price increase. Simple cause and effect.
  • Reply 91 of 161
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    soloman wrote: »
    Yes really. Could be that Borders simply opened too many stores. Could also be that prices are down because sales dropped 17-19% after the price increase. Simple cause and effect.

    If they opened too many stores, they would've just closed the unproductive ones and not disappear and go bankrupt.

    Free market "fixed" the prices? Who knew. /s
  • Reply 92 of 161
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,473member
    Closing unproductive stores doesn't automatically eliminate the expenses attached to them. There can still be significant on-going costs, particularly for parcel lease contracts.
  • Reply 93 of 161
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Closing unproductive stores doesn't automatically eliminate the expenses attached to them. There can still be significant on-going costs, particularly for parcel lease contracts.

    It drastically reduces the expenses though, plus they'll write that off anyway.
  • Reply 94 of 161
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,473member
    soloman wrote: »
    It drastically reduces the expenses though, plus they'll write that off anyway.

    Write-off's aren't' all that beneficial if there's no profit to apply them to.
  • Reply 95 of 161
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Closing unproductive stores doesn't automatically eliminate the expenses attached to them. There can still be significant on-going costs, particularly for parcel lease contracts.

    That's right but if the problem was they over expanded, their productive stores would cover the losses. Unless of course the real reason is Amazon undercutting them.
  • Reply 96 of 161
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,473member
    I don't think it was any one reason. A lot of things came together at once including a recession/depression leading to reduced consumer spending overall, high interest rates for everyone, little access to credit, little to no demand for available retail locations no longer needed, land values plummeting, comparatively high prices for hardback books, a transition from hard copy to e-readers on the part of the public, cutbacks in marketing/advertising money from the mall developers, buyers being more open to on-line purchasing, and yes the rise of Amazon too. . . . All in all a perfect storm of bad karma for most retailers and the book sellers were no exception.
  • Reply 97 of 161


    In agency model, the publishers is now sell their books direct to customers hand and paid 30% to their agency as a license fee or commission.


    In the other hand Amazon don't have their own books but buy book from the other publishers to resale and still need to paid 30% fee too.


    Now in Apple App store, Amazon was the other publisher's competitor but it's hard for them to compete with publishers who build their own book. 


    Amazon need to build their books and become publisher and compete with the other publishers if they want to sale and make money in App store in agency model.

  • Reply 98 of 161
    9secondko wrote: »

    Not to mention they should be grateful Apple has the Kindle App on the iOS devices.

    I don't see music and movies sold through itunes on the Kindle...

    Maybe the DOJ needs to look into THAT instead...

    Maybe Apple should have th b411s to bring it up with the DoJ..... But it doesn't.
  • Reply 99 of 161
    soloman wrote: »

    Funny because all the bookstores I go to have plenty of people in them. It's the music stores that Apple killed that I really miss.

    One word: Napster

    (Groan. AI, do you have a let's-see-who's-the-most-stupid contest on somewhere?)
  • Reply 100 of 161
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member


    I think the DOJ should stay out of it and let the markets sort the e-books out. I don't know anyone who actually buys books from iBookstore honestly. I know I myself buy books from the publisher directly. Amazon's terms of service as it relates to me changing devices and being able to redownload books makes me avoid the Kindle store. I have several books that i bought from Amazon that I can't even use now because they had rules in place that said I could only download the book so many times and I get a new iPad once a year. I think the DOJ prematurely got involved in the ebooks market. Of course Apple was going to entice ebook sellers with something they had wanted for quite sometime. That is to be expected IMO. All of this focus is on Amazon but at the end of the day the publishers wanted control over pricing their own material. The markets should determine prices not pricing wars.

Sign In or Register to comment.