Am I missing something here? Apple's pricing is atrocious on ebooks and movies. I'm looking for the best price, it's that plain and simple. I've bought several books from iTunes. But no more, as Amazon will continue to get all of my money.
Just wasting more tax payers money by keeping this in the courts. Just like Samsung, They need to accept the fact that they are guilty and face the penalty and move on.
But they're not guilty, and Apple truly believes they have done nothing wrong- as do many that have actually followed the facts of this case. But nice to know you believe they should "accept the fact" and "move on". I would much rather Apple stick to their principles and convictions, and demand justice.
But yeah, it's "just like Samsung". Yep, identical cases. It's sad that you couldn't care less about the facts of each case, and would prefer to pretend they're identical because they both got appealed. Pretty superficial, but not surprising coming from you.
Apple spokesperson Tom Neumayr has said the company, unsurprisingly, plans to appeal. "Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations," he said in a statement to The Verge. "When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision."
Good choice! One of these three "gets it". We'll see if the full Court agrees with the one or the two. If nothing else, we see that there is disagreement over this verdict. That's worth furrher consideration. Those who say this "proved" Apple guilty are deceiving themselves.
PED posted a clip from Judge Jacobs' dissenting opinion in this ruling. Worth a read. AI should include it, lest they appear partial to the ruling on the issue.
Apple needs to get their heads out of their ass. When someone comes at you gangster-style, you break their knees. You don't throw your preppy legal team at them.
I know GoodFellas is on cable today, but could you rejoin the rest of us in the real world? Thanks.
PED posted a clip from Judge Jacobs' dissenting opinion in this ruling. Worth a read. AI should include it, lest they appear partial to the ruling on the issue.
I believe you're referring to:
“A further and pervasive error (by the district court and by my colleagues on this appeal) is the implicit assumption that competition should be genteel, lawyer-designed, and fair under sporting rules, and that antitrust law is offended by gloves-off competition.”
I think Apple should appeal for an en banc (full circuit court) hearing, and go to the Supreme Court if necessary. I believe the Supremes are business minded and Apple would ultimately win. I'm a bit shocked as I thought the panel showed its hand during questioning months ago.
?PS-The headline bugs the hell out of me. A bit premature on AI's part.
It doesn't look like it's in Amazon's best interests to win either. Their ebooks aren't tied to their hardware nor do they make much profit. They make more profit with higher prices. The following says Amazon had 90% marketshare of ebooks at one point:
Amazon had complained about the authors preventing them discounting books and set the whole thing in motion. The problem with the whole case is it's based around the idea that artificially raising prices through agreements always harms competition but in this case, it's Amazon's business model that is creating a monopoly. It's true that this results in the lowest prices for consumers but they can't just consider the short-term gain on the side of the consumer. The authors need to be profitable too otherwise it harms the long-term supply.
They can't overturn those laws though, it would set a bad precedent for other companies. If all the oil companies colluded together to raise fuel prices, people would expect them to be punished for it.
The same could have been done for music. Music labels could have gotten together to turn iTunes into an outlet that just sells music at prices they set and in collections they determine rather than Apple's simpler $0.99 per song format.
On the one hand, lower pricing on the digital side improves competition between digital retailers and physical because physical books can be bought in bulk and discounted and also resold. On the other hand, pricing too low makes it impossible for digital retailers to compete with each other because not every company wants to nor can sustain a loss-leading business model long-term.
If they sided with Apple, prices would have stayed higher and in the short term it's worse for consumers and for digital retailers competing with physical but better for authors/publishers. If they sided with Amazon, prices would be lower so better in the short term for consumers and easier for ebook to be cheaper than physical but harmful to authors/publishers and harder for digital retailers to compete with each other.
I think it's right to prevent raising prices but they need to consider the long-term outcome of Amazon's business model and take into account that it already demonstrated the result was a monopoly.
Anti-competitive loss-leading can happen in any business. It's what Google does. Their business model is advertising and this allows them to sell or give away hardware and software with little to zero profit but this harms competition from businesses like Apple which make a profit from hardware and software. It would be like Apple giving away free advertising (i.e Apple can pay as much money out as Google earns for ads instead of the ad publishers paying and still make billions) because their business model is hardware and software and putting everyone else out of the advertising business. But it's also like Apple being able to give away OS X and iOS where Microsoft has to charge for Windows.
Just wasting more tax payers money by keeping this in the courts. Just like Samsung, They need to accept the fact that they are guilty and face the penalty and move on.
The only "crime" Apple is guilty of committing is the treasonous act of not bribing, er lobbying the US government as much as Amazon and Google. This country sold its government to corporations a long time ago, but most people have been too busy arguing about crap that doesn't matter to notice.
NOW... in the EU where they have the balls to penalise companies.
They did it to Microsoft forcing MS to change and they WILL do it to Amazon.
The interesting thing is they were also reasonable when it came to iTunes. Unlike America they found no indecent act on Apple's part with iTunes and I seriously doubt they'd find the same with iBooks.
The interesting thing is they were also reasonable when it came to iTunes. Unlike America they found no indecent act on Apple's part with iTunes and I seriously doubt they'd find the same with iBooks.
NO ONE messes with the EU. .
They did have an issue with iBooks. You just didn't read about it I guess? Apple settled with the EU well before the US case was heard.
NOW... in the EU where they have the balls to penalise companies.
They did it to Microsoft forcing MS to change and they WILL do it to Amazon.
The interesting thing is they were also reasonable when it came to iTunes. Unlike America they found no indecent act on Apple's part with iTunes and I seriously doubt they'd find the same with iBooks.
NOW... in the EU where they have the balls to penalise companies.
They did it to Microsoft forcing MS to change and they WILL do it to Amazon.
The interesting thing is they were also reasonable when it came to iTunes. Unlike America they found no indecent act on Apple's part with iTunes and I seriously doubt they'd find the same with iBooks.
NO ONE messes with the EU. Look at Greece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They did have an issue with iBooks. You just didn't read about it I guess? Apple settled with the EU well before the US case was heard.
Apple and four major publishing houses agree to kill off an e-book price-setting system in the European Union in hopes of ending an antitrust investigation over the matter.
...
First launched in December 2011, the Commission's inquiry is in related to Apple's so-called "agency model," which allows book publishers to set the prices for e-books sold in the iBookstore under a most favored nations clause, meaning the houses couldn't sell their product elsewhere for a lower price. If the investigation were to have found the companies in violation of European antitrust laws, each faced penalties equaling up to 10 percent of revenue from global sales.
This wasn't an admission of guilt, it wasn't saying "We did wrong, so to make amends we'll kill off our way of making money from Ebooks". All Apple and these other guys did was end the exclusivity agreement that's all if you read the argument. It was the "most favoured nations clause" that the EU was concerned with so Apple et al killed it off. The mere fact that that was all that was needed to get the EU off their back shows that America got it so wrong.
The first commenter in that post made this point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So they removed the "most favoured nation" clause, which technically is not "price fixing", with no issues over the use of an agency model.
This is different to the US where the DoJ wants to dismantle the entire agency model based contracts.
Apple's pricing model stays the same the issue the EU had was where they said "You can't sell this elsewhere lower than us for two years".
So if the EU had no problems with the agency model why does America have an issue? Because the monopoly that is Amazon had a cry to their mummy that's why.
Now if Amazon isn't considered a monopoly in America why is it that it is under investigation in the EU? Not only that but why is it that Amazon seems to not have any play that will get the EU off its back? If the agency model that America is saying is wrong was actually bad for business the EU would have gone after the agency model but it didn't it was going after the most favoured nations clause.
So when does this go to the Supreme Court? Though with the court we have now I wouldn't expect them to make the right decision.
That's a strange way to word it. The justices tend to make their reasoning public with those that vote against whatever was voted on often publishing dissents.
Apple and four major publishing houses agree to kill off an e-book price-setting system in the European Union in hopes of ending an antitrust investigation over the matter.
...
First launched in December 2011, the Commission's inquiry is in related to Apple's so-called "agency model," which allows book publishers to set the prices for e-books sold in the iBookstore under a most favored nations clause, meaning the houses couldn't sell their product elsewhere for a lower price. If the investigation were to have found the companies in violation of European antitrust laws, each faced penalties equaling up to 10 percent of revenue from global sales.
This wasn't an admission of guilt, it wasn't saying "We did wrong, so to make amends we'll kill off our way of making money from Ebooks". All Apple and these other guys did was end the exclusivity agreement that's all if you read the argument. It was the "most favoured nations clause" that the EU was concerned with so Apple et al killed it off. The mere fact that that was all that was needed to get the EU off their back shows that America got it so wrong.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The first commenter in that post made this point:</span>
So they removed the "most favoured nation" clause, which technically is not "price fixing", with no issues over the use of an agency model.
This is different to the US where the DoJ wants to dismantle the entire agency model based contracts.
Apple's pricing model stays the same the issue the EU had was where they said "You can't sell this elsewhere lower than us for two years".
So if the EU had no problems with the agency model why does America have an issue? Because the monopoly that is Amazon had a cry to their mummy that's why.
Now if Amazon isn't considered a monopoly in America why is it that it is under investigation in the EU? Not only that but why is it that Amazon seems to not have any play that will get the EU off its back? If the agency model that America is saying is wrong was actually bad for business the EU would have gone after the agency model but it didn't it was going after the most favoured nations clause.
I'd be very worried if I was Amazon.
Who said there's anything wrong with the agency model? Why didn't Apple fight the EU like they did the US DoJ?
This wasn't an admission of guilt, it wasn't saying "We did wrong, so to make amends we'll kill off our way of making money from Ebooks". All Apple and these other guys did was end the exclusivity agreement that's all if you read the argument. It was the "most favoured nations clause" that the EU was concerned with so Apple et al killed it off. The mere fact that that was all that was needed to get the EU off their back shows that America got it so wrong.
I don't think you actually understand the issues the EU had with Apple and iBooks, nor what exactly Amazon's issue with them is now. Yes, the EU had problems accepting the agency agreements. Here's what the European Commission had to say about the settlement with Apple and four of the five publishers. Note the EU had already announced they had "reasons to believe" there was illegal collusion between Apple and the publishers which prompted the opening of the formal antitrust investigation a year earlier. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1367_en.htm
"The Commission opened proceedings in December 2011 against these companies as well as a fifth international publisher, Penguin (Pearson group, United Kingdom). The Commission had doubts concerning the joint switch by these companies from a wholesale model, where the retail price of e-books is determined by the retailer, to agency contracts that contained the same key terms for retail prices - including an unusual retail price Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause, maximum retail price grids and the same 30% commission payable to Apple. The Commission was concerned that the switch to these agency contracts may have been coordinated between the publishers and Apple, as part of a common strategy aimed at raising retail prices for e-books or preventing the introduction of lower retail prices for e-books on a global scale."
What you don't get is there's nothing inherently wrong with the agency model nor MFN so don't get distracted by it. But there is when 5 of the largest all have the same terms and prices and most-favored-nation clauses with one particular eBook seller, an indication they may all be working together to set prices illegally.
That's the same concern the US has. For whatever unknown reason Apple decided it was smart to terminate the agreements in Europe to avoid further legal action but held fast to them in the US, refusing to do the3 same as they had in Europe. Perhaps they felt they had a better than even chance with the "hometown" courts. Who knows for sure. All we do know is it didn't work out the way they expected it might, and in retrospect it likely would have been better to terminate the contracts just as they did in the EU instead of rolling the dice.
With Amazon it's a slightly different tho related issue. Rather than collusion it's this:
"The Commission has concerns that certain clauses included in Amazon's contracts with publishers concerning such e-books could constitute a breach of EU antitrust rules that prohibit the abuse of a dominant market position and restrictive business practices. In particular, the investigation is focused on clauses which seem to shield Amazon from competition from other e-book distributors, such as clauses granting it:
the right to be informed of more favourable or alternative terms offered to its competitors; and/or
the right to terms and conditions at least as good as those offered to its competitors.
The Commission will now investigate further whether such clauses may hinder the level playing field and potentially decrease competition between different e-book distributors to the detriment of consumers." http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5166_en.htm
Comments
Just wasting more tax payers money by keeping this in the courts. Just like Samsung, They need to accept the fact that they are guilty and face the penalty and move on.
But they're not guilty, and Apple truly believes they have done nothing wrong- as do many that have actually followed the facts of this case. But nice to know you believe they should "accept the fact" and "move on". I would much rather Apple stick to their principles and convictions, and demand justice.
But yeah, it's "just like Samsung". Yep, identical cases. It's sad that you couldn't care less about the facts of each case, and would prefer to pretend they're identical because they both got appealed. Pretty superficial, but not surprising coming from you.
I buy little from Amazon these days. Prime is about to expire.
Buh-bye, Amazon.
When is Amazon ever going to get probed.?
The KING of e-books.
Also of giving bribes to the courts ?
I appears to me someone was pushing for Apple to be made guilty of something they didn't do !
Apple needs to get their heads out of their ass. When someone comes at you gangster-style, you break their knees. You don't throw your preppy legal team at them.
I know GoodFellas is on cable today, but could you rejoin the rest of us in the real world? Thanks.
PED posted a clip from Judge Jacobs' dissenting opinion in this ruling. Worth a read. AI should include it, lest they appear partial to the ruling on the issue.
I believe you're referring to:
“A further and pervasive error (by the district court and by my colleagues on this appeal) is the implicit assumption that competition should be genteel, lawyer-designed, and fair under sporting rules, and that antitrust law is offended by gloves-off competition.”
I think Apple should appeal for an en banc (full circuit court) hearing, and go to the Supreme Court if necessary. I believe the Supremes are business minded and Apple would ultimately win. I'm a bit shocked as I thought the panel showed its hand during questioning months ago.
?PS-The headline bugs the hell out of me. A bit premature on AI's part.
It doesn't look like it's in Amazon's best interests to win either. Their ebooks aren't tied to their hardware nor do they make much profit. They make more profit with higher prices. The following says Amazon had 90% marketshare of ebooks at one point:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.
Amazon had complained about the authors preventing them discounting books and set the whole thing in motion. The problem with the whole case is it's based around the idea that artificially raising prices through agreements always harms competition but in this case, it's Amazon's business model that is creating a monopoly. It's true that this results in the lowest prices for consumers but they can't just consider the short-term gain on the side of the consumer. The authors need to be profitable too otherwise it harms the long-term supply.
They can't overturn those laws though, it would set a bad precedent for other companies. If all the oil companies colluded together to raise fuel prices, people would expect them to be punished for it.
The same could have been done for music. Music labels could have gotten together to turn iTunes into an outlet that just sells music at prices they set and in collections they determine rather than Apple's simpler $0.99 per song format.
On the one hand, lower pricing on the digital side improves competition between digital retailers and physical because physical books can be bought in bulk and discounted and also resold. On the other hand, pricing too low makes it impossible for digital retailers to compete with each other because not every company wants to nor can sustain a loss-leading business model long-term.
If they sided with Apple, prices would have stayed higher and in the short term it's worse for consumers and for digital retailers competing with physical but better for authors/publishers. If they sided with Amazon, prices would be lower so better in the short term for consumers and easier for ebook to be cheaper than physical but harmful to authors/publishers and harder for digital retailers to compete with each other.
I think it's right to prevent raising prices but they need to consider the long-term outcome of Amazon's business model and take into account that it already demonstrated the result was a monopoly.
Anti-competitive loss-leading can happen in any business. It's what Google does. Their business model is advertising and this allows them to sell or give away hardware and software with little to zero profit but this harms competition from businesses like Apple which make a profit from hardware and software. It would be like Apple giving away free advertising (i.e Apple can pay as much money out as Google earns for ads instead of the ad publishers paying and still make billions) because their business model is hardware and software and putting everyone else out of the advertising business. But it's also like Apple being able to give away OS X and iOS where Microsoft has to charge for Windows.
The only "crime" Apple is guilty of committing is the treasonous act of not bribing, er lobbying the US government as much as Amazon and Google. This country sold its government to corporations a long time ago, but most people have been too busy arguing about crap that doesn't matter to notice.
When is Amazon ever going to get probed.?
The KING of e-books.
NOW... in the EU where they have the balls to penalise companies.
They did it to Microsoft forcing MS to change and they WILL do it to Amazon.
The interesting thing is they were also reasonable when it came to iTunes. Unlike America they found no indecent act on Apple's part with iTunes and I seriously doubt they'd find the same with iBooks.
NO ONE messes with the EU. Look at Greece.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152734/apple-publishers-agree-to-settle-eu-e-book-price-fixing-inquiry
What I wrote:
NOW... in the EU where they have the balls to penalise companies.
They did it to Microsoft forcing MS to change and they WILL do it to Amazon.
The interesting thing is they were also reasonable when it came to iTunes. Unlike America they found no indecent act on Apple's part with iTunes and I seriously doubt they'd find the same with iBooks.
NO ONE messes with the EU. Look at Greece.
Quote:
They did have an issue with iBooks. You just didn't read about it I guess? Apple settled with the EU well before the US case was heard.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152734/apple-publishers-agree-to-settle-eu-e-book-price-fixing-inquiry
What that article said:
This wasn't an admission of guilt, it wasn't saying "We did wrong, so to make amends we'll kill off our way of making money from Ebooks". All Apple and these other guys did was end the exclusivity agreement that's all if you read the argument. It was the "most favoured nations clause" that the EU was concerned with so Apple et al killed it off. The mere fact that that was all that was needed to get the EU off their back shows that America got it so wrong.
The first commenter in that post made this point:
Originally Posted by hill60
So they removed the "most favoured nation" clause, which technically is not "price fixing", with no issues over the use of an agency model.
This is different to the US where the DoJ wants to dismantle the entire agency model based contracts.
Apple's pricing model stays the same the issue the EU had was where they said "You can't sell this elsewhere lower than us for two years".
So if the EU had no problems with the agency model why does America have an issue? Because the monopoly that is Amazon had a cry to their mummy that's why.
Now if Amazon isn't considered a monopoly in America why is it that it is under investigation in the EU? Not only that but why is it that Amazon seems to not have any play that will get the EU off its back? If the agency model that America is saying is wrong was actually bad for business the EU would have gone after the agency model but it didn't it was going after the most favoured nations clause.
I'd be very worried if I was Amazon.
So when does this go to the Supreme Court? Though with the court we have now I wouldn't expect them to make the right decision.
That's a strange way to word it. The justices tend to make their reasoning public with those that vote against whatever was voted on often publishing dissents.
Who said there's anything wrong with the agency model? Why didn't Apple fight the EU like they did the US DoJ?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/amazon-agrees-to-agency-pricing-model-with-two-more-publishers/
https://tidbits.com/article/13912
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1367_en.htm
"The Commission opened proceedings in December 2011 against these companies as well as a fifth international publisher, Penguin (Pearson group, United Kingdom). The Commission had doubts concerning the joint switch by these companies from a wholesale model, where the retail price of e-books is determined by the retailer, to agency contracts that contained the same key terms for retail prices - including an unusual retail price Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause, maximum retail price grids and the same 30% commission payable to Apple. The Commission was concerned that the switch to these agency contracts may have been coordinated between the publishers and Apple, as part of a common strategy aimed at raising retail prices for e-books or preventing the introduction of lower retail prices for e-books on a global scale."
What you don't get is there's nothing inherently wrong with the agency model nor MFN so don't get distracted by it. But there is when 5 of the largest all have the same terms and prices and most-favored-nation clauses with one particular eBook seller, an indication they may all be working together to set prices illegally.
That's the same concern the US has. For whatever unknown reason Apple decided it was smart to terminate the agreements in Europe to avoid further legal action but held fast to them in the US, refusing to do the3 same as they had in Europe. Perhaps they felt they had a better than even chance with the "hometown" courts. Who knows for sure. All we do know is it didn't work out the way they expected it might, and in retrospect it likely would have been better to terminate the contracts just as they did in the EU instead of rolling the dice.
With Amazon it's a slightly different tho related issue. Rather than collusion it's this:
"The Commission has concerns that certain clauses included in Amazon's contracts with publishers concerning such e-books could constitute a breach of EU antitrust rules that prohibit the abuse of a dominant market position and restrictive business practices. In particular, the investigation is focused on clauses which seem to shield Amazon from competition from other e-book distributors, such as clauses granting it:
the right to be informed of more favourable or alternative terms offered to its competitors; and/or
the right to terms and conditions at least as good as those offered to its competitors.
The Commission will now investigate further whether such clauses may hinder the level playing field and potentially decrease competition between different e-book distributors to the detriment of consumers."
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5166_en.htm