davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
187
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,775
Badges
1
Posts
2,205

Reactions

2.4KLike49Dislike470Informative

  • Lawsuit that claims Apple and Amazon elbowed out resellers will proceed

    davidwdavidw
    JP234 said:
    davidw said:
    fred1 said:
    The Reuters article is much clearer.
    https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-amazon-must-face-consumer-lawsuit-over-iphone-ipad-prices-us-judge-2023-06-09/

    The complaint is over Apple and Amazon agreeing to limit the number of resellers of Apple products through Amazon. This is anticompetitive and therefore illegal. The claim that it was meant to limit the number of resellers of bogus products is what is being examined. 
    If that is what you got from the article, then the article is in no way "clearer". 

    The lawsuit (this one anyway) is claiming that consumers that purchased new iPhones and iPads on Amazon, paid a higher price than otherwise, if Apple and Amazon had not conspired to reduce the number of resellers (and thus competition). Amazon reducing the number of resellers (of Apple products) is not "anti-completive", if it can not be proven that their reduction kept the price of new iPhones and iPads higher that otherwise.

    The thing one have to remember is the vast majority of resellers that got eliminated because of the higher requirements Amazon placed on them to qualify as an Apple reseller, were not selling new iPhones and iPads. They were selling refurbished Apple products. This lawsuit would have to prove that because there were less resellers on Amazon that were selling used Apple iPhones and iPads, consumers shopping on Amazon were forced pay a higher price for the new ones. In other words, Amazon did not have to discount their new iPhones and iPads as much, because there was less competition from resellers selling refurbished iPhones and iPads, on Amazon. The plaintiffs for this class action lawsuit are consumers that  bought new iPhones and iPads from Amazon (after the Amazon/Apple agreement), not the resellers that were eliminated from selling refurbished Apple products.


    Here's a much clearer article, that don't leave out some of the important aspects pertaining to this suit. 

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/judge-allows-apple-and-amazon-price-fixing-lawsuit-to-move-forward/

    Take note from this article .....

    >.... (Judge) Coughenour wrote, and the fact that the plaintiffs agree that not all resellers of Apple products were removed from Amazon's marketplace, a "per se" finding of antitrust violation could not be sustained.<


    Pretty lucid way to explain an almost impenetrable contention. If I understand correctly, Apple and Amazon are colluding to price resellers of used product out of the market, so potential customers will buy new ones from Amazon or Apple.

    The big problem with this initiative, and the reason it's going to fail, is that it's virtually impossible to prove. And even if it were provable, how is it breaking the law by giving a better price to someone who can spend $25 million/month on Apple used or refurbs than to someone who can buy $10 thousand/month?

    Not quite. What's being claimed in this lawsuit is that because Amazon reduced the number of resellers (of Apple products) by raising the requirements needed to be an Apple reseller on Amazon, Amazon did not have to discount the sale of new iPhones and iPads as much, in order to compete with the resellers. So the claim is that consumers that bought new iPhones and iPads (From Amazon since 2019) paid more than if there were more resellers competing. Any discount they got, doesn't matter as it should have been more of a discount. It's not about whether the consumer that bought a new iPhone or iPad on Amazon would have bought a used one, if there were more Apple resellers.

    Since there are still Apple resellers, (besides Amazon) on Amazon, any Amazon shopper that bought a new iPhone or iPad could still have bought one from any of the Apple resellers that remained. If Amazon had eliminated all Apple resellers (in the Amazon MarkerPlace), then Amazon would mostly have faced anti-trust violation charges by some government agency by now. It's been over 4 years since Amazon started reducing the number of Apple resellers and i have not yet heard of any case representing the Apple resellers that got eliminated. If what Amazon did was truly illegal.


    >The lawsuit accuses the two tech giants of conspiring to artificially inflate the prices of iPhones and iPads sold on Amazon's platform. <

    >The plaintiffs, in this case, are US residents who purchased new iPhones and iPads on Amazon starting in January 2019.<

    How can Amazon "inflate" the price of a new iPhone or iPad? Was Amazon selling them for more that MSRP? And Amazon shoppers were paying the "inflated" price because they couldn't shop anywhere else? Like at a Walmart, Target, BestBuy, BHPhoto, ATT Store, etc.. So the compliant is that Amazon did not have to discount the price of new iPhones and iPads as much as they should have, if there was more competition from resellers. The "inflated" price is Amazon not being forced to offer a bigger discount.

    And as the the Judge (and you) pointed out, the relationship between Amazon and Apple is that of a manufacturer and distributor. They are not partners or that Apple is a reseller on Amazon.  Amazon buys iPhones and iPads from Apple at wholesale discount (depending on volume), so it doesn't matter to Apple what price Amazon sells them for. Amazon is no different than Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc. So there's no monetary gain for Apple whether Amazon sells new iPhones and iPads, at a discount or full MSRP.  

    >US District Judge John Coughenour rejected attempts by Apple and Amazon to dismiss the prospective class action on various legal grounds. He said that the "validity" of the relevant market, which is a crucial aspect in antitrust litigation, should be determined by a jury. <

    This is why the suit is going to trial. That whether Amazon and Apple agreement (regarding the reduction of Apple resellers on Amazon) is anti-competitive, depends on defining the "relevant market". If Amazon is its own "relevant market", then getting rid of resellers on Amazon greatly reduces competition in that market. But if Amazon competes in a market that includes the likes of Walmart, Best Buy, Target, ATT Stores, etc (when selling Apple products), then reducing resellers on Amazon plays a much smaller role in reducing competition. Are consumers locked into buying Apple products from Amazon? Unlike the Judge in the Epic/Apple lawsuit, this Judge is leaving a jury to determine what is the "relevant market" in this case.  




    ronnFileMakerFeller

  • Lawsuit that claims Apple and Amazon elbowed out resellers will proceed

    davidwdavidw
    fred1 said:
    The Reuters article is much clearer.
    https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-amazon-must-face-consumer-lawsuit-over-iphone-ipad-prices-us-judge-2023-06-09/

    The complaint is over Apple and Amazon agreeing to limit the number of resellers of Apple products through Amazon. This is anticompetitive and therefore illegal. The claim that it was meant to limit the number of resellers of bogus products is what is being examined. 
    If that is what you got from the article, then the article is in no way "clearer". 

    The lawsuit (this one anyway) is claiming that consumers that purchased new iPhones and iPads on Amazon, paid a higher price than otherwise, if Apple and Amazon had not conspired to reduce the number of resellers (and thus competition). Amazon reducing the number of resellers (of Apple products) is not "anti-completive", if it can not be proven that their reduction kept the price of new iPhones and iPads higher that otherwise.

    The thing one have to remember is the vast majority of resellers that got eliminated because of the higher requirements Amazon placed on them to qualify as an Apple reseller, were not selling new iPhones and iPads. They were selling refurbished Apple products. This lawsuit would have to prove that because there were less resellers on Amazon that were selling used Apple iPhones and iPads, consumers shopping on Amazon were forced pay a higher price for the new ones. In other words, Amazon did not have to discount their new iPhones and iPads as much, because there was less competition from resellers selling refurbished iPhones and iPads, on Amazon. The plaintiffs for this class action lawsuit are consumers that  bought new iPhones and iPads from Amazon (after the Amazon/Apple agreement), not the resellers that were eliminated from selling refurbished Apple products.


    Here's a much clearer article, that don't leave out some of the important aspects pertaining to this suit. 

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/judge-allows-apple-and-amazon-price-fixing-lawsuit-to-move-forward/

    Take note from this article .....

    >.... (Judge) Coughenour wrote, and the fact that the plaintiffs agree that not all resellers of Apple products were removed from Amazon's marketplace, a "per se" finding of antitrust violation could not be sustained.<


    watto_cobraJP234ronnFileMakerFeller

  • The OpenCore patcher will help older Macs run macOS Sonoma -- eventually

    davidwdavidw
    appleinsideruser said:
    “Presently, these devices' sole recognized constraint is the absence of wireless functionality.”

    Don’t follow. Can anyone explain please? 
    PS opencore rock and have kept my 2014 5k 27” iMac running smoothly, even with continuity camera.
    It means that the people developing OCPL for Sonoma has not yet figure now to support the wireless cards in those Macs. But there's a good chance that the patch will at least support a USB wireless dongle. This is because since Apple stopped supporting those Macs with Sonoma, Sonoma do not include the drivers for the hardware used in those Macs, unless the same hardware are also used in the newer Macs that Sonoma supports. . 
    Alex_Vappleinsideruserwatto_cobraAlex1N

  • Apple stock price hits record high in anticipation of WWDC headset launch

    davidwdavidw
    FYI

    The fact that Apple hit the $3T market cap when AAPL reached $183 in 2021 and is still $100B short of the $3T mark this time it hit $183, is because of all the shares of AAPL that Apple bought back since 2021. There are less outstanding shares of AAPL now, than in 2021. This why market cap comparison between companies is only of value when comparisons are made in the same point in time. Any comparisons made with past market cap numbers gets distorted by buy backs and new shares issued, if they result in a significant change in the number of outstanding shares.

    One can not state that Apple is "worth" $100B less now at $183 a share and a market cap of $2.9T, than it was in 2021 at $183 a share and a market cap of $3T. 
    ronn

  • As you may expect, the internet already says that Apple's headset is doomed, apparently

    davidwdavidw
    Now i'm screwing up. Not invested in MSFT, so hadn't really followed the stocks over the years. Except when articles compares it to AAPL. 

    in the above ... It should be .....

    MSFT in June 2007 was at about  $29 a share and $1000 invested in 2007 would get you 34 shares of MSFT. With no splits since then, that would be about $11,500 today, at about $336 a share.  
    williamlondon