Apple to pay $450M fine after US Supreme Court rejects e-book antitrust appeal

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    sog35 said:

    Because they're not taking a loss on every book they sell. It was always only a select few.

    "At the time, Amazon was selling e-books at a loss, buying a book for, say, $14.99 but then charging Kindle users just $9.99."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-07/how-apple-and-big-publishers-pushed-e-books-toward-failure

    How the crap can you compete with that. Selling items at massive loss. And doing so for a decade. With the Amazon the only ones getting rich is Wall Street and Amazon shareholders. Everyone else suffers. Small business suffer, jobs suffer, artist suffer, even suppliers who still sell to Amazon suffer because Amazon has a virtual monopoly.

    And now that Amazon has a monopoly on E-book sales with 80% of the market they are not jacking up the price. Anyone with half a brain could see this coming.

    "Today, three of the top five best-selling books on the New York Times list for fiction cost at least $12. It’s not unusual to be able to buy a paperback book for less than the cost of the digital version."

    Amazon sucks for middle class America.  But they get a pass because they are making Wall Street rich and pay a king's ransom to politicians.
    http://www.teleread.com/amazons-monopoly-is-not-predatory/

    this also seems to disagree with you

    http://ia801509.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628.113.0.pdf

    us market share puts Amazon at 74% but whats 6% between friends 
    http://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/what-market-share-do-amazon-apple-bn-kobo-and-google-have-selling-ebooks 

    looks like the publishers are reaping what they have sown. getting higher prices and lower sales
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/e-book-sales-weaken-amid-higher-prices-1441307826
  • Reply 62 of 71
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member

    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    You do apparently since you've decided that the eBooks case is solely responsible for today's stock price dip. The chart comparison I pointed you to should tell you differently. If one goes up or down then barring anything unusual and specific to one of them the other two will do the same (tho by different percentages). That's obvious to even a non-investor like me. IMO Apple is down today because the segment is down, not because SCOTUS won't hear an appeal. 
    Why don't you compare last year?
    Or the last 2 years?
    Or the last 3 years?
    Or the last 5 years?

    Oh, because it won't follow your mistaken thesis that Google and Apple's stock price move in step.  Get out of here.

    Bottom line Apple is down because of this eBooks case.
    Google is down because they are overvalued and will go down on many random days.

    The NASDAQ is now GREEN, yet Apple is still down $3 billion today. Its time for Tim Cook to stop being an idealist and be a realist.  Stop being stubborn and start paying money to lobbyist, media, Wall STreet, and politicians.  

    Newsflash!
    -------------
    (For immediate release)
    Outspoken Apple Insider member SOG35 revises (again) the reason why Apples stock price continues to struggle in the marketplace.  In mid-2015, he claimed that the source of all AAPL woes stemmed from the fact that AAPL was "publicly traded" and should be taken private and claimed that that would somehow create a surge in value for stockholders. Towards the end of 2015, he revised his statement and called for Tim Cook's resignation claiming that Mr Cook should have promoted the company more aggressively to Wall Street investors and further claimed that everything Tim Cook had done at the helm was either "too little" or "too late".  In 2016, it appears that he has once again revised his analysis and has declared that the reason AAPL has a share price that is struggling is due primarily to the fact that Apple does not spend enough time or money lobbying the government!  We expect many posts from Mr Sog35 over the coming weeks and months that reiterate the lobbying angle ad nauseum before he abruptly declares that it is not in fact Apples lobbying policy but it is instead actually something else which is responsible for Apples stock market performance.
    :)

    singularitygatorguy
  • Reply 63 of 71
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    tenly said:

    sog35 said:
    Why don't you compare last year?
    Or the last 2 years?
    Or the last 3 years?
    Or the last 5 years?

    Oh, because it won't follow your mistaken thesis that Google and Apple's stock price move in step.  Get out of here.

    Bottom line Apple is down because of this eBooks case.
    Google is down because they are overvalued and will go down on many random days.

    The NASDAQ is now GREEN, yet Apple is still down $3 billion today. Its time for Tim Cook to stop being an idealist and be a realist.  Stop being stubborn and start paying money to lobbyist, media, Wall STreet, and politicians.  

    Newsflash!
    -------------
    (For immediate release)
    Outspoken Apple Insider member SOG35 revises (again) the reason why Apples stock price continues to struggle in the marketplace.  In mid-2015, he claimed that the source of all AAPL woes stemmed from the fact that AAPL was "publicly traded" and should be taken private and claimed that that would somehow create a surge in value for stockholders. Towards the end of 2015, he revised his statement and called for Tim Cook's resignation claiming that Mr Cook should have promoted the company more aggressively to Wall Street investors and further claimed that everything Tim Cook had done at the helm was either "too little" or "too late".  In 2016, it appears that he has once again revised his analysis and has declared that the reason AAPL has a share price that is struggling is due primarily to the fact that Apple does not spend enough time or money lobbying the government!  We expect many posts from Mr Sog35 over the coming weeks and months that reiterate the lobbying angle ad nauseum before he abruptly declares that it is not in fact Apples lobbying policy but it is instead actually something else which is responsible for Apples stock market performance.
    :)

    comedy gold  :)
  • Reply 64 of 71
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 662member
    Yet another black eye for Bruce Sewell and the Apple legal beagles; Cook is well overdue to replace him. 
  • Reply 65 of 71
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    I'll just be sitting here waiting to see how much Amazon will be fined for their ebooks monopoly...
    Monopolies aren't illegal. 
  • Reply 66 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I'll just be sitting here waiting to see how much Amazon will be fined for their ebooks monopoly...
    Monopolies aren't illegal. 
    Abusing it is. 
  • Reply 67 of 71
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Very disappointing anti-climax to this case.  Now Cote-like judgements are more likely in the future….  for all companies, not just Apple.
  • Reply 68 of 71
    leighrleighr Posts: 256member
    So, how come Samsung never have to pay their fines? They just keep appealing and stalling until they get their own way, and don't have to pay a cent.
  • Reply 69 of 71
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    sog35 said:
    The NASDAQ is down a mere .50%

    Apple is down double that.

    Sure other tech stocks like Amazon and Google are down big. But that's because they are grossly overvalued.  Apple isn't.  The stock is down because of the ebooks case.
    There was another analyst today who came out with a note expressing concern over drop in iPhone sales. That's the main reason. http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/03/07/apple-analysts-keep-warning-of-slowing-iphone-sales/
    Bingo.

    Plus, this was the analyst that first expressed concerns last December.  Sure, it was based on what we thought were questionable data from the supply chain, but he turned out to be right.  He gained some Street cred, so he's going to be listened to for a while.  

    Sog thinks that the eBooks ruling accounted for this drop?  Oh brother. 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 70 of 71
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    daven said:
    Honestly I still don't get it. It is ok for Amazon to use their dominant position to drive others out of business but a small reseller can't set up a framework where the price they pay is no higher than the price offered to other resellers?
    Other way around. Apple was setting the minimum price with iBooks, and no one else, including Amazon, could sell for less than that price. If the price had been fair, it wouldn't have been an issue, but the bloom fell off the rose as soon as Apple started pricing ebooks well above what they had been selling for previously. Basically, Apple and the four largest publishers colluded to control ebook prices instead of allowing the market to do so on it's own, and I'm sorry to everyone who is upset by this decision, but that is illegal. What Amazon is doing by selling ebooks at a discounted rate is no different than when Apple shook up the music world by selling individual songs for $.99 despite cries from artists and the industry that such low prices were going to kill the music business and cheat artists out of their fair share. 
    Apple allowed the publishers to set the price themselves but reserved the right to match a lower price if found elsewhere. In Brick and Mortar we would call that "price matching."  If anything, blame the vendors, not Apple.  They were allowed to set the prices and they raised them.  The market would take care of it eventually and Amazon could have sold for less.  Apple would have price matched.
Sign In or Register to comment.