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.
The best thing with a Kindle is I can order a newspaper or book on the beach and not have to have pay a cent to the carriers- ever. Amazon pays it all.
It's utterly laughable how those on here actually want to pay more for a book solely because Apple would be selling it to them.
Unbelievable!
It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.
The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.
The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
Like when iTunes songs jumped from 99 cents to $1.29? Oh that was solely the greedy record labels- I forgot.
"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."
"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?
Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu
It's utterly laughable how those on here actually want to pay more for a book solely because Apple would be selling it to them.
Unbelievable!
It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.
The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.
Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.
You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.
Amazon did invent the market but the govt shouldn't allow them to maintain a monopoly with its predatory pricing. That is a barrier to entry. When Apple got involved, more competitors sprang up as well. Long term, the prices would have normalized. Who says $10 is fair market value? Only amazon.
It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.
The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
Question is were you concerned when nobody could compete with $.99 songs, and $9.99 albums on iTunes?
Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.
You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.
Amazon did invent the market but the govt shouldn't allow them to maintain a monopoly with its predatory pricing. That is a barrier to entry. When Apple got involved, more competitors sprang up as well. Long term, the prices would have normalized. Who says $10 is fair market value? Only amazon.
There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.
Question is were you concerned when nobody could compete with $.99 songs, and $9.99 albums on iTunes?
iTunes was competing against piracy. I guess the DOJ should have investigated Apple then because Apple raised the price of music from free to $.99. Oh and Amazon sells songs for .25 and .69.
There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.
The DOJ should have investigated Amazon and not collect bribes.
iTunes was competing against piracy. I guess the DOJ should have investigated Apple then because Apple raised the price of music from free to $.99. Oh and Amazon sells songs for .25 and .69.
That's not what I asked you. Nice try at redirection though.
Probably a lot higher than Amazon's competitors when Amazon was undercutting everyone.
Yes but even you said yourself that the ebook market is yet young. All the players have yet to get going. Again having the lowest price doesn't mean others cannot compete.
There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.
The DOJ should have investigated Amazon and not collect bribes.
Someone bribed a whole lot of people then because Apple was investigated in the EU as well.
Comments
It's utterly laughable how those on here actually want to pay more for a book solely because Apple would be selling it to them.
Unbelievable!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
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.
The best thing with a Kindle is I can order a newspaper or book on the beach and not have to have pay a cent to the carriers- ever. Amazon pays it all.
It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.
The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.
The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
Like when iTunes songs jumped from 99 cents to $1.29? Oh that was solely the greedy record labels- I forgot.
It was also partly due to Amazon. Please do a little research before making comments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/technology/17amazon.html?_r=0
Originally Posted by pazuzu
Like when iTunes songs jumped from 99 cents to $1.29? Oh that was solely the greedy record labels- I forgot.
Unless you have proof otherwise, you'd better darn well not claim otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
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."
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?
Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu
It's utterly laughable how those on here actually want to pay more for a book solely because Apple would be selling it to them.
Unbelievable!
It's not that we want to pay more, it's that we want competition so we aren't relying solely on Amazon which could jack up prices once its monopoly is solidified because stock holders do want to see $$$.
The ebook market is relatively new. When has the govt acted so early in a new market before?
You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.
Amazon did invent the market but the govt shouldn't allow them to maintain a monopoly with its predatory pricing. That is a barrier to entry. When Apple got involved, more competitors sprang up as well. Long term, the prices would have normalized. Who says $10 is fair market value? Only amazon.
Question is were you concerned when nobody could compete with $.99 songs, and $9.99 albums on iTunes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Nothing within those articles supports your claim. The articles declare that BN was starting to lose a lot of money. They internally pondering switching to agency and apparently had one person "socialize" the idea to publishers. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What we do have from Apple is a clear and compelling series of phone logs, emails, and the actual signed agreements.
You seem to hurt your own argument here. Amazon was clearly an early innovator and practically invented and helped establish the entire ebook market. The market is very new yet others like yourself declare that Apple and others should be protected from them because of an imagined monopoly in the future where they can harm the consumer. If said monopoly happens and harms consumers, then the government can take action as they have in the past. It isn't appropriate however to allow competitors today to ignore the law in hopes of preventing an imagined future problem.
Amazon did invent the market but the govt shouldn't allow them to maintain a monopoly with its predatory pricing. That is a barrier to entry. When Apple got involved, more competitors sprang up as well. Long term, the prices would have normalized. Who says $10 is fair market value? Only amazon.
There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.
iTunes was competing against piracy. I guess the DOJ should have investigated Apple then because Apple raised the price of music from free to $.99. Oh and Amazon sells songs for .25 and .69.
The DOJ should have investigated Amazon and not collect bribes.
That's not what I asked you. Nice try at redirection though.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's not what I asked you.
Your question was based on a false premise in the first place; you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore what you say.
No one could compete? Then maybe you can explain why just about everyone else matched (or beat) the price right away.
Having the same price does not equate competing.
That makes no sense. Competing involves competitors in the same market. It makes no mention on price.
I was answering jragosta's question on price. Yes there are competitors with the same or lower price than Apple but what's their market share?
Probably a lot higher than Amazon's competitors when Amazon was undercutting everyone.
Yes but even you said yourself that the ebook market is yet young. All the players have yet to get going. Again having the lowest price doesn't mean others cannot compete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
There's no proof of this and if someone feels they can prove it they should go to the government and it will be Amazon on trial. In the meantime again, no one can rationalize illegal behavior by saying someone else is imagined to be breaking the law but there's no proof, no trial and no judgement.
The DOJ should have investigated Amazon and not collect bribes.
Someone bribed a whole lot of people then because Apple was investigated in the EU as well.