I'm with Apple on this, but not because of how I feel about the company. Anytime a judge makes prejudicial statements before hearing a case, as in this one, his or her rulings should be overturned. Allowing this clown to extend the scope of his questionable mandate goes well beyond anything that should be allowed to happen.
Odd though, now that the government is keeping an eye on Apple's ebook shenanigans, the ebook prices on Amazon have come down again (they are still too high though, no ebook ought to cost more than $4).
What really needs to happen though is the world's governments looking into Apple's iTunes (music) business -- if that is not a monopoly then I don't know what is...
My hunch is that you don't know what a monopoly is. But even if you do, you apparently don't know that monopolies are not illegal. It's what many companies strive for and a few companies achieve. It only becomes illegal if you leverage that monopoly in illegal ways to stifle competition. For example, if a company has a monopoly in a specific market, then they are not allowed to price those products at a loss in order to prevent new entries to market.
This is called predatory pricing, and here is a Wikipedia page that describes it...
Amazon Kindle Store. That's right. Amazon was paying the publishers a lot more than they were charging the consumers in order to prevent new competition from entering the market. Amazon was already engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior, and there was no way Apple (or anybody else for that matter) could compete without the agreement that the publishers price their Apple iBooks as low as any other retailer. Without that agreement, customers would have simply continued buying from Amazon (at predatory pricing) and nobody else. But the justice department fixated only on price differential pre and post iBooks. Why didn't they focus on the increase in consumer choice (many eBooks vendors exist and are surviving now) along with the fact that prices pre-iBooks were at predatory levels?
The fact that prices rose was clearly predictable under the circumstances, because the publishers otherwise would have had to accept a lot less from Apple than they were currently getting from Amazon. Apple surely knew it would probably turn out this way, but that doesn't make it illegal. In fact, Apple's action was the natural remedy for Amazon's illegal pricing.
Of course, once the publishers met with each other and actually colluded to set that price (without Apple present) then that action is bad on them. They should have independently set the prices they needed to run their business and then adjusted when they saw how the other publishers were acting/reacting.
"Asked by the reporter why consumers would pay $14.99 to Apple to purchase an e-book that was selling at Amazon for $9.99, Jobs replied, “Well, that won’t be the case.” The reporter then asked, “You mean you won’t be 14.99 or they won’t be 9.99?” Jobs paused, and “with a knowing nod” responded, “The price will be the same.”"
In other words, Jobs said that the price would be about the same as Amazon's. Only frothing-at-the-mouth control freaks would defend the government's use of anti-trust law to protect Amazon's monopoly.
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.
Not how it works, Apple. You don't get to remove the monitor because you don't like what he's saying.
They are asking the judge to remove the monitor because they claim he is biased against the company, doing things that the judge told him not to do (e.g. interview people without attorneys present), acting as a prosecutor (i.e. advocate for the plaintiffs) instead of a judge (i.e. monitoring compliance with an existing court order), and charging fees that are neither reasonable nor customary.
The police don't install a breathalyzer car ignition lock if you get a ticket for driving 35mph in a 30mph zone. That's sort of like what the monitor is trying to do.
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.
Oh, he clearly is. Just peruse his posting history and tell me if you disagree.
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.
He's not new and yes he is one of the biggest trolls on the site. His accounts include:
This is in the last year or two. I guess some people just have problems with rejection. There's another person does this too, it's quite a strange thing to do. I can understand doing it once or twice to get kicks out of annoying people but to do it so much is very odd. I'm not sure what their expected outcome is. It also makes it look like there's a lot more new nuisance posters than there are.
I guess some people just have problems with rejection.
This is a mental illness at this point.
I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
This is in the last year or two. I guess some people just have problems with rejection. There's another person does this too, it's quite a strange thing to do. I can understand doing it once or twice to get kicks out of annoying people but to do it so much is very odd. I'm not sure what their expected outcome is. It also makes it look like there's a lot more new nuisance posters than there are.
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.
I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too.
I think that one's still available but either he or someone else has been signing up other variations:
There's also TallistDah and Tallist Huh. The above guy also has SuJu, SteffenJobs, exonn, SteveJobsIsDead, appleisshit.
They're Windows/Android users again. When it's both together, it's understandable that their user experience would be so infuriating that they'd just have to lash out at people who have it better.
It's like when you see that Salman Rushdie was married to Padma Lashki for 3 years and she sleeps naked:
Instead of congratulating them both, it's natural to be bitter about it and the reaction is more 'well, she probably doesn't look good naked anyway' or 'that would get boring after a while having her sleep naked beside you every night'.
Windows/Android users just hate that we have it so good so their reactions are 'well, Apple has to copy other people too', 'OS X probably gets viruses, you just don't hear about them', 'oh iOS has just as many security and fragmentation problems as Android if not more'. The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android is their users.
A couple of weeks ago, I purchased "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" (2007 US edition) via iBooks for $2.99. I couldn't resist looking it up on Amazon to compare.
The same US 2007 edition for Kindle is $11.99. Why such a disparity?
When it’s both together, it's understandable that their user experience would be so infuriating that they'd just have to lash out at people who have it better. The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android is their users.
I’m using that. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Amazon has always operated on the premise that they are willing to lose money because they have the latitude from the market to do so. They buy the e-books at wholesale like everyone else and then lose money on each transaction because they can. Most businesses don't have that freedom (smaller retailers) or aren't willing to lose money (Apple). Jeff Bezos has go so far as to say "The Internet is disrupting every media industry, Charlie, you know, people can complain about that, but complaining is not a strategy. And Amazon is not happening to book selling, the future is happening to book selling." Amazon popularized e-books and their kindle readers are great products but on the retail side of it, they don't care about what ramifications there are to anyone. Whether it is devaluing creative work or stomping on smaller retailers. They take the freedom that shareholders give them and undercut everyone in a way that most can't compete on. I deal with retail almost daily, including dealing with selling product into retail channels, and it's a tough business. When a competitor is willing to operate on razor thin margins or at a loss, it's hard, if not impossible, to compete. We haven't even talked about the numerous complaints about how they operate their warehouses.
Amazon is no saint and by the tone of your comments, they didn't do anything wrong. The prices went down because Amazon is back to their old tactics of losing money. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple's gross margins dip a few percentage points and the market loses its damn mind. Amazon loses money in a quarter and their stock goes up. It is a weird dynamic that no matter how much I know about the world, it still doesn't make sense to me. With regards to this case, t</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">he publishers are inherently the ones to blame. The whole case still seems whacky to me. Beyond that, this compliance monitor over-stepped with his requests but due to well publicized ties to the judge, he felt he could do whatever he wanted. At one point the judge even backed down from certain requests because they started to gain unwanted scrutiny. The judge started distancing herself a bit from the monitor.</span>
Do I think Apple always does right, no, but I also don't think that they were in the wrong. Ultimately, I don't even think the monitoring should even start until the case has been put in front of the appellant court. We will see how this turns out but to think that this isn't on some level a bit shady is weird to me.
As a side note, I think Amazon does a lot of cool stuff, including AWS. I just think we have to try and look at things realistically.
Fully agree about the smaller traders losing out. In my local town in the uk we had an amazing bookstore where you could go in and browse, it even had a children's section where you could sit and read the books to your kids. They would order you any book that they didn't have in stock. The store even won the national book retailer of the year award two years running. The store has now disappeared because it lost most of its trade to Amazon who will continue to trade at a loss until they have a monopoly, much the same as Google is doing with android.
Not how it works, Apple. You don't get to remove the monitor because you don't like what he's saying.
That isn't entirely accurate. There is a need for some manner of recourse if things are not being handled in an efficient manner or place undue stress on other parts of the business. It's not like any of us have enough information available to assess the entire situation anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is a mental illness at this point.
I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I'm slightly jealous. I always wanted a doppelganger.
Comments
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Odd though, now that the government is keeping an eye on Apple's ebook shenanigans, the ebook prices on Amazon have come down again (they are still too high though, no ebook ought to cost more than $4).
What really needs to happen though is the world's governments looking into Apple's iTunes (music) business -- if that is not a monopoly then I don't know what is...
My hunch is that you don't know what a monopoly is. But even if you do, you apparently don't know that monopolies are not illegal. It's what many companies strive for and a few companies achieve. It only becomes illegal if you leverage that monopoly in illegal ways to stifle competition. For example, if a company has a monopoly in a specific market, then they are not allowed to price those products at a loss in order to prevent new entries to market.
This is called predatory pricing, and here is a Wikipedia page that describes it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
Amazon Kindle Store. That's right. Amazon was paying the publishers a lot more than they were charging the consumers in order to prevent new competition from entering the market. Amazon was already engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior, and there was no way Apple (or anybody else for that matter) could compete without the agreement that the publishers price their Apple iBooks as low as any other retailer. Without that agreement, customers would have simply continued buying from Amazon (at predatory pricing) and nobody else. But the justice department fixated only on price differential pre and post iBooks. Why didn't they focus on the increase in consumer choice (many eBooks vendors exist and are surviving now) along with the fact that prices pre-iBooks were at predatory levels?
The fact that prices rose was clearly predictable under the circumstances, because the publishers otherwise would have had to accept a lot less from Apple than they were currently getting from Amazon. Apple surely knew it would probably turn out this way, but that doesn't make it illegal. In fact, Apple's action was the natural remedy for Amazon's illegal pricing.
Of course, once the publishers met with each other and actually colluded to set that price (without Apple present) then that action is bad on them. They should have independently set the prices they needed to run their business and then adjusted when they saw how the other publishers were acting/reacting.
Thompson
LOL
Only frothing-at-the-mouth Apple fanatics defend a multi-billion company's right to overcharge its customers.
Do you actually want to pay more for ebooks?
from http://business.time.com/2013/07/10/apple-found-guilty-in-e-book-price-fixing-conspiracy-trial/
"Asked by the reporter why consumers would pay $14.99 to Apple to purchase an e-book that was selling at Amazon for $9.99, Jobs replied, “Well, that won’t be the case.” The reporter then asked, “You mean you won’t be 14.99 or they won’t be 9.99?” Jobs paused, and “with a knowing nod” responded, “The price will be the same.”"
In other words, Jobs said that the price would be about the same as Amazon's. Only frothing-at-the-mouth control freaks would defend the government's use of anti-trust law to protect Amazon's monopoly.
Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.
Not how it works, Apple. You don't get to remove the monitor because you don't like what he's saying.
They are asking the judge to remove the monitor because they claim he is biased against the company, doing things that the judge told him not to do (e.g. interview people without attorneys present), acting as a prosecutor (i.e. advocate for the plaintiffs) instead of a judge (i.e. monitoring compliance with an existing court order), and charging fees that are neither reasonable nor customary.
The police don't install a breathalyzer car ignition lock if you get a ticket for driving 35mph in a 30mph zone. That's sort of like what the monitor is trying to do.
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.
Oh, he clearly is. Just peruse his posting history and tell me if you disagree.
Add: Heh, heh. Looks like he's been erased....
That seems illegal.
To be expected from ConradJoe.
He's not new and yes he is one of the biggest trolls on the site. His accounts include:
KoreaFighting
SuperJunior
TwoPM
hill6O
NUEST
oolong
AppleIII
neobiani
LGprada
OpticWhite
AppleWill
AppleWill2
AppleWins
SKFTW
OnlyApple
Ta11est Skil
sharklasers
TS Buster 1
Zombie Steve
Zombi Steve
B2ST
beloFreeFifty
belowFreeFifty
appleisbest
AllApple
exom
Lowest Skil
VIXX
TheOnion
guerilla
Sluffs
Hereticz
2NE1
NotASheep
AOA1
Adolf Muller
This is in the last year or two. I guess some people just have problems with rejection. There's another person does this too, it's quite a strange thing to do. I can understand doing it once or twice to get kicks out of annoying people but to do it so much is very odd. I'm not sure what their expected outcome is. It also makes it look like there's a lot more new nuisance posters than there are.
This is a mental illness at this point.
I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
That's just sad and pitiful. I stand corrected.
Where have you been hiding all these years? You're quickly becoming the biggest troll on this site.
Instead of calling him a troll why don't you educate him on how and why it's different? Don't always assume that a post like this is purposely meant to incite.
Where is DalShabet's original post?
Where is DalShabet's original post?
Where it belongs: deleted.
I think that one's still available but either he or someone else has been signing up other variations:
There's also TallistDah and Tallist Huh. The above guy also has SuJu, SteffenJobs, exonn, SteveJobsIsDead, appleisshit.
They're Windows/Android users again. When it's both together, it's understandable that their user experience would be so infuriating that they'd just have to lash out at people who have it better.
It's like when you see that Salman Rushdie was married to Padma Lashki for 3 years and she sleeps naked:
Instead of congratulating them both, it's natural to be bitter about it and the reaction is more 'well, she probably doesn't look good naked anyway' or 'that would get boring after a while having her sleep naked beside you every night'.
Windows/Android users just hate that we have it so good so their reactions are 'well, Apple has to copy other people too', 'OS X probably gets viruses, you just don't hear about them', 'oh iOS has just as many security and fragmentation problems as Android if not more'. The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android is their users.
OK, so semi-back-on-topic...
A couple of weeks ago, I purchased "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" (2007 US edition) via iBooks for $2.99. I couldn't resist looking it up on Amazon to compare.
The same US 2007 edition for Kindle is $11.99. Why such a disparity?
There should be cuts across the board for all upper level executives, too...
I KNEW IT. I knew those were knockoffs.
I’m using that.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The sole reason this guy needs to be dumped is the money he expects to be paid for what amounts to being a middle-micro-manager.
There should be cuts across the board for all upper level executives, too...
The part I find fascinating is he had to hire another law firm to actually provide the relevant legal expertise. For which he's billing Apple....
Fully agree about the smaller traders losing out. In my local town in the uk we had an amazing bookstore where you could go in and browse, it even had a children's section where you could sit and read the books to your kids. They would order you any book that they didn't have in stock. The store even won the national book retailer of the year award two years running. The store has now disappeared because it lost most of its trade to Amazon who will continue to trade at a loss until they have a monopoly, much the same as Google is doing with android.
Not how it works, Apple. You don't get to remove the monitor because you don't like what he's saying.
That isn't entirely accurate. There is a need for some manner of recourse if things are not being handled in an efficient manner or place undue stress on other parts of the business. It's not like any of us have enough information available to assess the entire situation anyway.
This is a mental illness at this point.
I missed the “Ta11est Skil” one. That’s funny. You’d think he’d do “Talest Skill” or something, too.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I'm slightly jealous. I always wanted a doppelganger.