While I've never been particularly fond of apple requiring developers to adopt their agency model for in-app purchases, it is Their prerogative. There's No misuse or unlawful activity involved with this action. -Despite apple's intentions! It doesn't even matter if apple Designed these terms specifically to raise the prices offered in a third-party app. When developers chooses to build an app for a platform, they must comply with that platform's terms of use. If they disagree or have a problem with those terms, it's Their prerogative to abstain from developing for it. I'm flabbergasted that the DOJ was able to convince the judge to consider this as evidence in the Completely separate ebook price-fixing suit. It says to me that the judge is obviously incapable of differentiating law from aggressive competition practices. Apple need to file a motion a new one asap.
Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.
Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.
The apps may be the "same" but they have a bunch of different code. It's not the same app.
Correct. The publishers have dropped Apple's model, though it really seemed the fairest model since it would allow entrants into the market. Where the DOJ gets the story completely wrong is that Apple's model would have allow competitors, meaning competitive prices. Amazon's model is to sell at a loss, which effectively prevents any competition, no ebook store can loose money on every book & remain in business for long. So now DOJ has to sue Amazon for being a monopoly.
Cheers !
Don't you mean Barnes & Noble's model?
Which they were negotiating over with the publishers BEFORE Apple even came on the scene.
This was part of the testimony favouring Apple which the moronic judge completely dismissed.
Perhaps you meant to say "IF Amazon was selling all best-sellers at well below their purchase price"? I missed your evidence that all best-seller books are sold below cost at Amazon.
An easy way to question your claim of Amazon selling "way below cost" on every best-seller...
You realise that what you are saying is that the DoJ and their moronic, sidekick judge are completely wrong in their assertions, that there was no "increase" at all in the cost of eBooks.
That is part of what shows Apple is uncompetitive and also how they are failing to innovate...
Self-publishing has been helped along tremendously by Amazon. Anyone without fanboy goggles on can see that Amazon has been the innovator in the epub space. Apple has been a laggard that has hoped to cash in not by being the best or offering the best experience,
Apple won't make it because they are no longer an innovator...
...because they believe they are above the fray of having to innovate and compete...
The article is a good read and the reasoning here shows how Amazon is innovating and Apple is just sitting on their hands...
Colour and interactive content going far beyond the drabness of portraying a poor copy of a black and white piece of paper.
The suggested remedy for Apple's "antitrust violations" would preclude that.
So the DoJ's contention that this whole case is about "fair pricing" for consumers is the usual crock of horsesh*t which is usually the case when using a moronic judge for a political hatchet job.
The DOJ assertion is totally off basis. The reason the TOS was changed was due to Apple now allowing in app purchases. Prior to this you could either provide a free app or a paid app. In app purchases allowed you to put both in 1 program. A free version or a try it version, which you could unlock for a full version or additional levels etc. they also then later added in app subscriptions. While the Kimdle app was free and allowed you to buy additional content from within the app (I believe) via Amazon, Apple had to change the TOS due to the in app purchasing ability, which affected the Kimdle App, B&N App and others. There was really no choice. Otherwise, this would lead to every developer making a free App and then allowing them to allow you to buy an upgraded version from within the app itself and bypassing the AppStore. Thus, this would dumb down apps, make you personal info less secure etc. Apples other choice could have been to reject the Kindle app due to core functionality, which IMHO would have looked more like they were punishing Amazon or other book e-tailers directly.
Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.
I don't believe so. Which is precisely why this issue should Never be permitted as evidence. Apple has chosen to establish its iOS platform as a retailer. Any developer can choose to take advantage of idevices as a business strategy, but the terms ensure that Apple will also benefit from a portion of the profits ultimately made possible by the services they've created.
Speaking of business strategies, I personally believe that urging publishers to switch to a wide-scale agency model was just about the smartest move Apple could have made (from a financial perspective). But the e-mails exchanged specifically between Jobs and the publishers cast considerable doubt on the motivations behind Apple's actions. Without those e-mails, I think we'd have seen a very different outcome in this case.
Hmmm. I certainly don't have the apparent knowledge of many people on this forum, but I do have some overall thoughts.
1. Amazon is clearly a huge force in a variety of markets. Shouldn't we say "well done" - it's the capitalist MO at its best isn't it?
2. If the DOJ doesn't like what's going on in the book industry, it will be interesting to see what they say when Amazon really does do nation-wide same-day-grocery delivery - and wait for Big Food's response and the fall-out from that.
3. I have no idea when a monopoly becomes a monopoly, I guess there is some definition in US law somewhere. This is just the first of many conflicts going on and the DOJ clearly hasn't caught up yet - they are living in a previous century.
4. I don't think it's necessarily "price-fixing" to say - "let's price it higher and offer a superior service at the same time". If Apple executives had such talks with book-sellers, I don't see collusion, it seems like good business practice, and nimble, on-the-balls-of-your-feet - typical Steve Jobs business-savvy.
BTW: don't disrespect the physical book format. When the grid goes down and your batteries fail, you'll still be able to learn & enjoy if you can read on the couch, in the bath, at the lake . . . Ray Bradbury's novel "Fahrenheit 451" said all we need to know about the loss of hard-copy.
Which they were negotiating over with the publishers BEFORE Apple even came on the scene.
This was part of the testimony favouring Apple which the moronic judge completely dismissed.
It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
That is part of what shows Apple is uncompetitive and also how they are failing to innovate...
Self-publishing has been helped along tremendously by Amazon. Anyone without fanboy goggles on can see that Amazon has been the innovator in the epub space. Apple has been a laggard that has hoped to cash in not by being the best or offering the best experience,
Apple won't make it because they are no longer an innovator...
...because they believe they are above the fray of having to innovate and compete...
The article is a good read and the reasoning here shows how Amazon is innovating and Apple is just sitting on their hands...
Colour and interactive content going far beyond the drabness of portraying a poor copy of a black and white piece of paper.
It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.
It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.
It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.
Apple were NOT the "leaders' of this "conspiracy", Barnes and Noble testified as such.
The only "innovation" Amazon did was adding DRM to Adobe pdf.
iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.
Amazon responded with their sunglasses ads, touting the "superiority" of the Kindles black and white, low refresh rate screen.
iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.
Apple could of very easily said "the ebooks in the iBookstore will cost a little more but you're getting much more in return compared to the ebooks Amazon sells"
I think Philip put way too much stock in people switching to Android because they could read their ebooks from Amazon on a Android just as on a iOS device. While it's convenient I don't believe it's a major selling point.
Hmmm. I certainly don't have the apparent knowledge of many people on this forum, but I do have some overall thoughts.
1. Amazon is clearly a huge force in a variety of markets. Shouldn't we say "well done" - it's the capitalist MO at its best isn't it?
2. If the DOJ doesn't like what's going on in the book industry, it will be interesting to see what they say when Amazon really does do nation-wide same-day-grocery delivery - and wait for Big Food's response and the fall-out from that.
3. I have no idea when a monopoly becomes a monopoly, I guess there is some definition in US law somewhere. This is just the first of many conflicts going on and the DOJ clearly hasn't caught up yet - they are living in a previous century.
4. I don't think it's necessarily "price-fixing" to say - "let's price it higher and offer a superior service at the same time". If Apple executives had such talks with book-sellers, I don't see collusion, it seems like good business practice, and nimble, on-the-balls-of-your-feet - typical Steve Jobs business-savvy.
1. No, using the government to strong arm the competition and maintain a monopoly is the exact opposite of capitalism.
It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.
It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.
Apple were NOT the "leaders' of this "conspiracy", Barnes and Noble testified as such.
The only "innovation" Amazon did was adding DRM to Adobe pdf.
iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.
Amazon responded with their sunglasses ads, touting the "superiority" of the Kindles black and white, low refresh rate screen.
Incorrect. What Barnes and Noble testimony did was helped establish motive. BN testimony actually showed why Apple was the leader. Book publishers were not losing money. Barnes and Noble was losing money trying to gain marketshare against Amazon since they couldn't compete on price. Apple also knew they couldn't compete on price and thus the only solution, the solution both of them sought, was a conspiracy with book publishers to raise prices and limit competition in the ebook space. The solution they should have endorsed wasn't a conspiracy lead by one or the other but innovation in the space. Apple to this day is a laggard in the ebook space. iBooks is an inferior experience to using the Kindle app on iPhone and iPad. The fact that it can't even run on Mac, the cloud, etc all make it worse.
Kindle's have certainly been able to show photos for quite a while. Beginning in 2009 with the Kindle 2, they were even able to display PDF's. The Amazon ad you showed is appropriate. I do prefer my Kindle Touch for reading in many scenarios and the month long battery life doesn't hurt either. Better still I can use my iPhone and iPad Mini to read whenever I want and have where I left off synced to my Kindle Touch when I'm outside enjoying the sun.
Incorrect. What Barnes and Noble testimony did was helped establish motive. BN testimony actually showed why Apple was the leader.
Unfortunately, the court testimony doesn't support your claim:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/19/apple-ebooks-barnes-noble/
"But according to Horner's testimony, Barnes & Noble was already planning internally to switch the Big Six to agency before Apple arrived, and that she was under instructions to put those plans into "overdrive" before Barnes & Noble lost even more money."
So if B&N was already working on Agency before Apple even got involved and B&N was losing money because of Amazon, how do you conclude that Apple was actually the leader?
So if B&N was already working on Agency before Apple even got involved and B&N was losing money because of Amazon, how do you conclude that Apple was actually the leader?
Not being first doesn't automatically exclude anyone from being the leader. Apple has proven that time and time again.
Comments
Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.
Good point but answer this. Does Apple require devs to price their apps the same as they do on Android? Before you or anyone else answers don't get stuck in the mindset that every user only has iOS or Android devices. A great many people have both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619
Correct. The publishers have dropped Apple's model, though it really seemed the fairest model since it would allow entrants into the market. Where the DOJ gets the story completely wrong is that Apple's model would have allow competitors, meaning competitive prices. Amazon's model is to sell at a loss, which effectively prevents any competition, no ebook store can loose money on every book & remain in business for long. So now DOJ has to sue Amazon for being a monopoly.
Cheers !
Don't you mean Barnes & Noble's model?
Which they were negotiating over with the publishers BEFORE Apple even came on the scene.
This was part of the testimony favouring Apple which the moronic judge completely dismissed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Perhaps you meant to say "IF Amazon was selling all best-sellers at well below their purchase price"? I missed your evidence that all best-seller books are sold below cost at Amazon.
An easy way to question your claim of Amazon selling "way below cost" on every best-seller...
You realise that what you are saying is that the DoJ and their moronic, sidekick judge are completely wrong in their assertions, that there was no "increase" at all in the cost of eBooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
That is part of what shows Apple is uncompetitive and also how they are failing to innovate...
Self-publishing has been helped along tremendously by Amazon. Anyone without fanboy goggles on can see that Amazon has been the innovator in the epub space. Apple has been a laggard that has hoped to cash in not by being the best or offering the best experience,
Apple won't make it because they are no longer an innovator...
...because they believe they are above the fray of having to innovate and compete...
The article is a good read and the reasoning here shows how Amazon is innovating and Apple is just sitting on their hands...
Colour and interactive content going far beyond the drabness of portraying a poor copy of a black and white piece of paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The suggested remedy for Apple's "antitrust violations" would preclude that.
So the DoJ's contention that this whole case is about "fair pricing" for consumers is the usual crock of horsesh*t which is usually the case when using a moronic judge for a political hatchet job.
And aren't ebooks formatted differently? So using your logic it's not the same ebook.
I don't believe so. Which is precisely why this issue should Never be permitted as evidence. Apple has chosen to establish its iOS platform as a retailer. Any developer can choose to take advantage of idevices as a business strategy, but the terms ensure that Apple will also benefit from a portion of the profits ultimately made possible by the services they've created.
Speaking of business strategies, I personally believe that urging publishers to switch to a wide-scale agency model was just about the smartest move Apple could have made (from a financial perspective). But the e-mails exchanged specifically between Jobs and the publishers cast considerable doubt on the motivations behind Apple's actions. Without those e-mails, I think we'd have seen a very different outcome in this case.
Hmmm. I certainly don't have the apparent knowledge of many people on this forum, but I do have some overall thoughts.
1. Amazon is clearly a huge force in a variety of markets. Shouldn't we say "well done" - it's the capitalist MO at its best isn't it?
2. If the DOJ doesn't like what's going on in the book industry, it will be interesting to see what they say when Amazon really does do nation-wide same-day-grocery delivery - and wait for Big Food's response and the fall-out from that.
3. I have no idea when a monopoly becomes a monopoly, I guess there is some definition in US law somewhere. This is just the first of many conflicts going on and the DOJ clearly hasn't caught up yet - they are living in a previous century.
4. I don't think it's necessarily "price-fixing" to say - "let's price it higher and offer a superior service at the same time". If Apple executives had such talks with book-sellers, I don't see collusion, it seems like good business practice, and nimble, on-the-balls-of-your-feet - typical Steve Jobs business-savvy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez
Apple raised the prices
So that protected Amazon from Apple.
What is the problem with that, Apple isn't undercutting Amazon?
Additional edit:
BTW: don't disrespect the physical book format. When the grid goes down and your batteries fail, you'll still be able to learn & enjoy if you can read on the couch, in the bath, at the lake . . . Ray Bradbury's novel "Fahrenheit 451" said all we need to know about the loss of hard-copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Don't you mean Barnes & Noble's model?
Which they were negotiating over with the publishers BEFORE Apple even came on the scene.
This was part of the testimony favouring Apple which the moronic judge completely dismissed.
It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
That is part of what shows Apple is uncompetitive and also how they are failing to innovate...
Self-publishing has been helped along tremendously by Amazon. Anyone without fanboy goggles on can see that Amazon has been the innovator in the epub space. Apple has been a laggard that has hoped to cash in not by being the best or offering the best experience,
Apple won't make it because they are no longer an innovator...
...because they believe they are above the fray of having to innovate and compete...
The article is a good read and the reasoning here shows how Amazon is innovating and Apple is just sitting on their hands...
Colour and interactive content going far beyond the drabness of portraying a poor copy of a black and white piece of paper.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000729511
It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.
A ho-hum copy of Apple's innovation one year and nine months after the iPad launch
It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.
Apple were NOT the "leaders' of this "conspiracy", Barnes and Noble testified as such.
The only "innovation" Amazon did was adding DRM to Adobe pdf.
iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.
Amazon responded with their sunglasses ads, touting the "superiority" of the Kindles black and white, low refresh rate screen.
Apple could of very easily said "the ebooks in the iBookstore will cost a little more but you're getting much more in return compared to the ebooks Amazon sells"
I think Philip put way too much stock in people switching to Android because they could read their ebooks from Amazon on a Android just as on a iOS device. While it's convenient I don't believe it's a major selling point.
1. No, using the government to strong arm the competition and maintain a monopoly is the exact opposite of capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
It doesn't and didn't favor Apple. What it showed was that another late entrant to the party who couldn't innovate and couldn't compete devised the exact same plan as Apple did to turn around their fortunes and allow them to profit without having to innovate or improve their service. It wasn't dismissed. It was proof that great minds think alike when it comes to devising a plan to profit without improving or competing.
A ho-hum copy of Apple's innovation one year and nine months after the iPad launch
It's only been around since 2011. Perhaps people might have given iBooks a better chance with their advanced features if Apple hadn't been so vague in their EULA and had language that left most people, and several lawyers, thinking that Apple owned all content created with the app. Also the fact that the advanced features were limited to the iPad and couldn't be used with a Mac, browser or anything else has likely limited their appeal as well.
Apple were NOT the "leaders' of this "conspiracy", Barnes and Noble testified as such.
The only "innovation" Amazon did was adding DRM to Adobe pdf.
iBooks containing photo's were shown at the iPad launch in 2010.
Amazon responded with their sunglasses ads, touting the "superiority" of the Kindles black and white, low refresh rate screen.
Incorrect. What Barnes and Noble testimony did was helped establish motive. BN testimony actually showed why Apple was the leader. Book publishers were not losing money. Barnes and Noble was losing money trying to gain marketshare against Amazon since they couldn't compete on price. Apple also knew they couldn't compete on price and thus the only solution, the solution both of them sought, was a conspiracy with book publishers to raise prices and limit competition in the ebook space. The solution they should have endorsed wasn't a conspiracy lead by one or the other but innovation in the space. Apple to this day is a laggard in the ebook space. iBooks is an inferior experience to using the Kindle app on iPhone and iPad. The fact that it can't even run on Mac, the cloud, etc all make it worse.
Kindle's have certainly been able to show photos for quite a while. Beginning in 2009 with the Kindle 2, they were even able to display PDF's. The Amazon ad you showed is appropriate. I do prefer my Kindle Touch for reading in many scenarios and the month long battery life doesn't hurt either. Better still I can use my iPhone and iPad Mini to read whenever I want and have where I left off synced to my Kindle Touch when I'm outside enjoying the sun.
Unfortunately, the court testimony doesn't support your claim:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/19/apple-ebooks-barnes-noble/
"But according to Horner's testimony, Barnes & Noble was already planning internally to switch the Big Six to agency before Apple arrived, and that she was under instructions to put those plans into "overdrive" before Barnes & Noble lost even more money."
http://appledailyreport.com/2013/06/19/barnes-noble-vp-testimony-damages-dojs-ebook-case-against-apple/
"Theresa Horner, B&N’s vice president of Digital Content, told the court her company was already negotiating agency pricing deals with publishers before Apple was on the scene in hopes of killing the profit losses it was suffering at the hands of Amazon.com, the article adds."
So if B&N was already working on Agency before Apple even got involved and B&N was losing money because of Amazon, how do you conclude that Apple was actually the leader?
Not being first doesn't automatically exclude anyone from being the leader. Apple has proven that time and time again.
[VIDEO]