Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

H2SO4

macrumors 603
Nov 4, 2008
5,631
6,926
Tim should pay it in cash. With ones.

“Four hundred forty nine million, nine hundred, ninety nine thousand, and one ..."
"Four hundred forty nine million, nine hundred, ninety nine thousand, and two ..."

Yep, and the state should make Tim Cook wait while it’s counted.
 

winston1236

macrumors 68000
Dec 13, 2010
1,902
319
What a joke.

Apple tries to save the e-book industry from an abusive monopolist (Amazon) and instead of being thanked for improving the state of competition, the government slaps it down to protect the monopolist.

It should have been a higher dollar amount like a % of earnings.
 

digi999

macrumors member
Jul 3, 2014
52
0
And Amazon pays none... amazing.

I guess that goes to show you it's all about who you bribe.

It doesn't help that the entire trial was a sham, any way - nice of the justice department to do Amazon's bidding, though.

Apple, with it's billions and billions needs to try and take advantage of writers trying to make a living.

Nice.

:(

Except that's not what happened and if you're really concerned about the writers, you should be angry at Amazon.
 

yellowtruck

macrumors regular
Aug 9, 2013
134
1
Not an Apple Fan - or Despise Apple?

I really do not understand those who come to an Apple fan site to trash Apple and leave such incendiary comments - except if they are Samsung paid trolls just doing their job, but the others? Why exert so much effort to hang out regularly, create a profile and comment on the company you hate the most??
 

Oracle1729

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2009
638
0
What a joke.

Apple tries to save the e-book industry from an abusive monopolist (Amazon) and instead of being thanked for improving the state of competition, the government slaps it down to protect the monopolist.

I hope someone forwards this to Timmy. He'd get a better laugh out of you than I did.
 

Karma*Police

macrumors 68030
Jul 15, 2012
2,505
2,830
Hahahahahahahahaha you are so brainwashed it's unbelievable

Hope you don't get an email signed "Tim Cook" telling you to jump off a bridge or something, you'd believe it was him.

Tip: it's fake

Apple can do no wrong in your eyes

Apparently the government can do no wrong in yours. Apple's agency model would have created a healthier, more vibrant ebooks market. Amazon's recent moves to withhold the sale of Hachette's books is proof that the DOJ got it wrong. Even worse, Amazon, the monopolist, used their influence to push this case forward. There's so much that's wrong with this case, starting with Judge Cote and ending with her pal Bromwich, someone with no antitrust experience being appointed as the monitor in this case.

There's a lot of very smart people who questioned this case from the beginning and you can read plenty online about how this case is a complete farce; goes against the spirit of the law; politically driven; etc. Here's one of many to get you started....

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/economists-on-apple-ebook-antitrust-case-judge-cote-got-it-wrong
 

sostoobad

macrumors regular
Nov 5, 2011
155
0
Boston
I don't know the details of the case except a few things, 1st I think it was a settlement not a fine, 2nd, what I do no is no company pays 450 million to anybody UNLESS they are in fear if it goes to the courts they will lose much more than that.

Better to pay 450 mill, then a billon etc.
 

ccraig13

macrumors member
Jun 2, 2011
73
122
PA
Under the original wholesale model, companies like Amazon would pay a set amount for books from publishers and were then free to price ebooks however they wanted. Amazon often sold books at a loss or at very small profit margins to edge other sellers out of the market (and to encourage customer loyalty), which in turn forced publishers to continually cut the price on books. Publishers dislike the wholesale model because it encourages consumers to expect lower priced books, a burden that ultimately falls on them.

Under the agency model, set up by Apple, publishers set the price for books and retailers like Amazon were paid a set amount for every book sold (a 30/70 split, more or less). Because Amazon wasn't buying outright and setting its own prices, this ultimately led to higher e-book prices and more profit for publishers. Apple and six major publishers forced Amazon into an agency model over a wholesale model.

Another issue surrounding Apple's agreement with the major publishers included a "most favored nation" clause that prevented publishers from selling books at other retailers at a price lower than what was available in the iBookstore. Basically, publishers set book prices higher and no one could sell them lower than what was available in the iBookstore, and according to the DOJ, this resulted in artificially higher prices across the board for consumers. Definitely somewhat of a lose/lose situation -- either customers get higher prices or Amazon kills competition by taking a loss.

I'm glad someone on here actually knows what they're talking about instead of just agreeing with the headline...

TL;DR: Don't punish the publisher for setting their book's above $9.99 if they feel that's the appropriate price. Let the market decide that it's too expensive.

Amazon is fixing the market to make sure it benefits them. They force lower royalty payments on publishers who dare to set their prices above $9.99. Now, I still believe Amazon should be allowed to do what they want, but they're kinda a monopoly in the book world and so by them doing what they want they affect the entire industry. Also, checkout KDP Select. Sounds awfully familiar to the things claimed in that lawsuit.

Apple's model is their basic 70% royalty across the board. No punishment for pricing above $9.99.

You may say that publishers have no right to set a price above $9.99 and that's fine. Don't buy it. In fact, I decided yesterday that a new Porsche was too expensive. So I stuck it to Porsche by not purchasing one. I bet they feel terrible.

Here's a video on the Hachette vs Amazon dispute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odnaH-KWFqY
 

heyyoudvd

macrumors regular
May 13, 2011
218
74
Can you link to that ruling saying that Amazon is "an abusive monopolist"?

And can you explain how fixing the price in all the stores helps competition?

Those are both loaded questions.

1. There was no ruling labeling Amazon as such because the DOJ never went after Amazon. That's precisely the problem. Instead of tacking the actual problem in the ebook industry, the DOJ foolishly went after the company that was working to solve this problem.

2. No one fixed prices. Apple helped transition the publishers from selling ebooks via the wholesale model to selling book via the agency model. That is not price fixing in any way.


If you'd like to know more about this case and why it's so ridiculous, read this: Justice Department Abets Amazon’s E-Book Monopoly
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
And Amazon pays none... amazing.

I guess that goes to show you it's all about who you bribe.

It doesn't help that the entire trial was a sham, any way - nice of the justice department to do Amazon's bidding, though.

So, when the outcome is not the one you want it is because there is corruption, funny.
 

tdmac

macrumors 6502
Feb 9, 2008
353
6
Another issue surrounding Apple's agreement with the major publishers included a "most favored nation" clause that prevented publishers from selling books at other retailers at a price lower than what was available in the iBookstore. Basically, publishers set book prices higher and no one could sell them lower than what was available in the iBookstore, and according to the DOJ, this resulted in artificially higher prices across the board for consumers. Definitely somewhat of a lose/lose situation -- either customers get higher prices or Amazon kills competition by taking a loss.

Not exactly phrased correctly. A publisher could set prices lower at any other retailer. Just that they would have to then offer Apple/iBookstore the same price. The way you phrased it is as if Apple/iBookstore sets the prices for the industry.

However, what Amazon was recently asking for in their contract negotiations is that they set the price and all other retailers have to pay a higher price.
 

hexor

macrumors 6502
Nov 26, 2002
271
88
Minnesota
Yes, paying $450m as an out of court settlement screams "we are innocent" to me.

And yet Amazon has 90%+ of the market and bullies publishers into signing agreements unfavorable to them or else not have your books listed n Amazon? They took the wrong company to court.

----------

Apple, with it's billions and billions needs to try and take advantage of writers trying to make a living.

Nice.

:(

You have this completely backwards. Authors plead people to buy their books form iBooks instead of Amazon because Amazon takes a much larger percentage of the book price compared to anyone else.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
Those are both loaded questions.

1. There was no ruling labeling Amazon as such because the DOJ never went after Amazon. That's precisely the problem. Instead of tacking the actual problem in the ebook industry, the DOJ foolishly went after the company that was working to solve this problem.

2. No one fixed prices. Apple helped transition the publishers from selling ebooks via the wholesale model to selling book via the agency model. That is not price fixing in any way.


If you'd like to know more about this case and why it's so ridiculous, read this: Justice Department Abets Amazon’s E-Book Monopoly


The one that has to read about the case is you because both of your point are totally wrong.

Funny your link, just two hints, yap, the overall average price decreased but the average price for the five accuse publishers increased. And the authors guild talking about predatory pricing without a proof it is also funny.
 

theheadguy

macrumors 65816
Apr 26, 2005
1,156
1,385
california
Found in the seat cushions of the lobby.
That's pocket change for Apple.
Apple didn't 'contribute' to congressional campaigns as much as Amazon did.
Tim should pay it in cash. With ones. “Four hundred forty nine million, nine hundred, ninety nine thousand, and one ..." "Four hundred forty nine million, nine hundred, ninety nine thousand, and two ..."
If anyone needed a reminder that these forums are a joke...
 

digi999

macrumors member
Jul 3, 2014
52
0
So, when the outcome is not the one you want it is because there is corruption, funny.

No, there's corruption because there is corruption.

Lovely how all the Amazon fanboys come out of the woodwork to blindly overlook anything they're doing and pin it on anybody else.
 

danckwerts

macrumors regular
Jun 7, 2008
147
102
Richmond upon Thames
Another issue surrounding Apple's agreement with the major publishers included a "most favored nation" clause that prevented publishers from selling books at other retailers at a price lower than what was available in the iBookstore. Basically, publishers set book prices higher and no one could sell them lower than what was available in the iBookstore, and according to the DOJ, this resulted in artificially higher prices across the board for consumers. Definitely somewhat of a lose/lose situation -- either customers get higher prices or Amazon kills competition by taking a loss.

I'm pretty sure that Amazon had already introduced such a clause.
 

heyyoudvd

macrumors regular
May 13, 2011
218
74
The one that has to read about the case is you because both of your point are totally wrong.

Funny your link, just two hints, yap, the overall average price decreased but the average price for the five accuse publishers increased. And the authors guild talking about predatory pricing without a proof it is also funny.

The fact that prices went up does NOT mean there was any price fixing. You really need to learn more about this case, because you're clearing speaking from a position of ignorance.

Start by reading what these two economists had to say on the matter.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
The fact that prices went up does NOT mean there was any price fixing. You really need to learn more about this case, because you're clearing speaking from a position of ignorance.

Start by reading what these two economists had to say on the matter.

What part of the "publishers forced all the ****ing stores to set the same price" don't you get?

Why people post the same two article all the time thinking they prove anything?
 

Jvanleuvan

macrumors regular
Dec 21, 2012
126
37
I think the "crux" of the governments case was based on the fact that Ebook prices would/have risen under apple's models. This is probably true, but mostly because the prices that amazon sells at are artificially low and not sustainable. These too-low prices (loss leaders are supposed to be illegal under the law) only work to drive all other competition out of the market and possibly even lead to the death of major sections of the publishing industry, which in the end would reduce the variety and quantity of books published. Which is bad.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.