Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 23, 2012, 09:38 PM   #126
jca666us
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrymr View Post
The agency model isn't the problem.

The problem is that as a group the publishers decided Amazon couldn't have any more e-books unless it accepted the same deal.

I don't see how Apple has a hand in that however.
God forbid the publishers decide to set their own price! What's next, amazon telling everyone dvd's can't cost more than $9.99
jca666us is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 09:46 PM   #127
deftdrummer
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego
I'm a technie but also a basic consumer. What I know is that I have bought one retail book from the ibook store and that's it. The problem is that people who read in volume cannot afford to continue their reading trends with this new digital format. Two losers in this; Apple and the consumer.

On the other hand, part of me feels like the publishing industry is very comparable to the digital music industry about 4 years ago - in that it has dropped the ball with a strategy to monetize itself well into the digital future.

Did the publishing industry come out with any e-readers? Did they push app stores? Did they make a marketplace? NO. They dropped the ball and now it's "we can't make books anymore then at a profit."

I expect to see a lot of indie publishers in the very near future. The same as the music industry. You don't need binding and distribution and pulp for paper anymore. Author becomes publisher (same as apps) and 70% profits to the writer without the middle man. Seems like a no brainer to me.

All I can say with confidence is that something's gotta give because consumers are getting screwed. Or in my case...I'm just not buying e-books period.
deftdrummer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 09:53 PM   #128
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by blow45 View Post
No they are not, most are arguing that apple used it's monopoly power and colluded with publishers and that's what rendered these practices illegal.
And, yet, very few posts in this thread argue evidence of collusion. (And, of course, Apple did not have any monopoly power in the markets related to this discussion at the time of this agreement.)

Quote:
No one argued that agency pricing is illegal, and please quote me one that did, or for that matter that MFN is a an illegal practice. I am waiting for a single quote.
Quote:
Here is your single quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Small White Car View Post
If anything is wrong here, it's Apple's insistence that publishers have to give Apple the lowest price.
Here's one about the agency model being illegal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveoc64 View Post
That's true to some extent, but it doesn't stop the model being illegal or immoral in the first place.
----------
As has been noted above, it's not just the US that thinks the Agency Model is illegal.
More?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
The Most Favored Nation clause should be zapped. That is possible guilt by Apple since it is a flavor of using their market strength for tablets to perhaps gain in another market.
And here you are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blow45 View Post
Apple's agency model though, as opposed to the agency models others might have suggested, involved requiring publishers to offer the lowest price to them. The agency business model in general doesn't involve this.
More:
Quote:
Originally Posted by prhammer View Post
I completely agree - the problem isn't the price - it is the attempt to limit what anyone else can charge. What is significant is that they aren't just saying that other businesses can't get a better wholesale price > they are forcing everyone to set the same retail price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboutilier View Post
The key part of the agreement completely avoided by this so called article is that publishers had to agree to not sell thier product to anyone else at any lower pricing. If that's not price fixing I'm not sure what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macUser2007 View Post
The problem is that Apple struck a deal with the publishers which effectively barred competition based on price (or at least at any price lower than what Apple charges).

Bad for consumers and likely illegal.
Here's one that argues that Apple shouldn't be allowed to take 30%:
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1ex View Post
anti-competitive behavior by Apple.

What is missing here is .....

Competition amongst retail. Competition that would drive the retail expenses down as much as possible until retailers operate as efficiently as possible which in turn lowers the price of an ebook for consumers as much as possible.

And books are different than games. Books take up a tiny fraction of the bandwidth of a 100mb game. So Apple's expenses are less. And thus a 30% is something that Apple shouldn't be asking for.

Not to mention the price of a book is over $10 whereas many games are a $1 or $2. IT doesn't cost Apple any more to sell a book.

That is why we need retail competition.

Apple's form of retail competition is to force monopoly type pricing under the guise of having a second ebook retailer in the marketplace being beneficial.

Bassackwards. Competition is supposed to drive pricing downwards.

Note this is a different argument than what price publishers should sell ebooks at. I think they are overpriced considering they eliminate the used book market, you can't share ebooks very easily in many cases and they cost much less to manufacture/distribute/sell.
And you agreed with it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blow45 View Post
Exactly, one of the voices of reason here.
Quote:
But the topic seems to make you constantly uncomfortable and you keep twisting it around.
Please stop making this personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacird View Post
Damn you quoted me before I could fix my errors. I knew it would happen

After the Mac Pro gets axed and the eventual airification of everything, I would call it a brand new ball game for a case. I'm glad I had money to absorb the hit at least, others had to deal with some serious hoop jumping. But it is wandering way off topic, so my bad, I like to hit the cage occasionally.
Fixed error or not, Mac Pro or not, monopoly control of Apple's own OS is not cause for antitrust action. The whole point of copyright and patents is to give the rights holder monopoly control of their product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blow45 View Post
You know damn well that 4 out of the 6, or so publishers have already settled. Isn't that implicit admission of guilt for colluding to implement these prices? Are you not aware of their documented by the DOJ meetings at NY restaurants? You seem to be so well informed about this case but you 've missed that out? Why do you keep misrepresenting the case here for the average mr reader who doesn't have a background in the story and doing such a disservice to everyone?
No, settlement is not an implicit admission of guilt. From the evidence, I think it is likely that at least some of the publishers colluded, but it's far from an open and shut case. As described in the article, the fact that Apple offered publishers the same terms as they offered labels and developer is a pretty straightforward argument against collusion, at least on Apple's part.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 09:56 PM   #129
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregwyattjr View Post
Can they please let Apple do what they wanna do? If the prices are too high, customers will let Apple know by closing their wallets.
The reason Apple is being tried is because the government thinks that they will be forcing customers to pay high prices for eBooks. They would not have the choice of buying eBooks for less. Personally, I doubt this is the case.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icaras View Post
That statement alone should be enough to end this conspiracy theory once and for all.
Like it or not, various governments are convinced that Apple is not playing fair. There is a not-so-tiny chance that they are correct.

You've been PC free since 2008? But you have an PC right now, according to your signature.
faroZ06 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 10:06 PM   #130
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by drorpheus View Post
Do you even read what you are arguing? Yeah it clearly applys here as well, you are failing to comprehend that the publisher has already been paid, as in he's gotten all they were looking to get in terms of their side of the deal (payment for the books purchased at the cost set BY THE PUBLISHING HOUSE)
I didn't fail to comprehend that at all. It had nothing to do with my argument.

Quote:
They've seemed to have no problem with it for the last 30-40 yrs, Your the one who seems to think that Apple's model is the only way to sell anything,
I seem to think that? Weird. Since I don't actually think that. Or say that. Or even imply that.

Quote:
which results in a 30% mark up in price to cover the Apple Tax or a 30% decrease in profit from picking up the Apple Tax for the consumer, no one except Apple benefits from Apple's pricing model, how do you not comprehend that?
That would make it very strange to consider that publishers colluded to implement a model that they don't benefit from.

Quote:
Exactly if you read it over again you can put together exactly what I was getting at, Apple is not a bookstore, they dont purchase any books in any capacity, so being that you dont purchase any books the validity of you arguing that you have the power/name recognition to set higher prices across an entire industry which you play little to no part in is assinine, feel free not to read the emails that couldnt be more clear [blah blah blah].
Apple doesn't set any prices, let alone across an entire industry. The publishers do. That's the whole point of the agency model.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 10:19 PM   #131
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by blow45 View Post
No they are not, most are arguing that apple used it's monopoly power and colluded with publishers and that's what rendered these practices illegal. No one argued that agency pricing is illegal, and please quote me one that did, or for that matter that MFN is a an illegal practice. I am waiting for a single quote. But the topic seems to make you constantly uncomfortable and you keep twisting it around.
You cannot have monopoly power in ebook retailing when you have 0% market share.

Collusion, if one exists, is major publishers picking a business model together. I don't think the law is clear in whether this is against the law. If they colluded to set the price of bestsellers in a some genres, that would be against the law, but colluding to favor one business model? I am not sure...
theBB is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 10:25 PM   #132
jca666us
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blow45 View Post
Exactly, one of the voices of reason here. And I ll that to that that's it's preposterous to demand 30% app store type cuts, when they are providing zero development tools (as in ios) and are doing zero quality control or testing on the book itself as in the app store...
Apples and Oranges - apple has developed the iBooks authoring tools, also the iBooks app, and the newsstand.
jca666us is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 10:25 PM   #133
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacman7331 View Post
U know what this smells like to me?

This smells like a false accusation operation by the government to establish what Apple is alleged to have done in the guise of preventing it.

Government is full of this kind of smack.
How is this hypocrisy, as you said?
faroZ06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 10:33 PM   #134
AppleHater
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
I don't really care one way or the other except I'm not happy that I'm paying as much for ebooks as hardcovers. Coincidentally or not, ebooks were cheaper before iBook came along.

It doesn't matter who wins to me, but the price should go down. I have a feeling that Apple should lose for that to happen in this case.
AppleHater is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 11:00 PM   #135
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic386 View Post
The government has waltzed in and announced that they have an issue with the second deal forgetting that the first deal wasn't market lead but monopolistic abuse.
No it's worse than that. The government is looking at the two models and saying model #1 (Amazon) results in lower prices to consumers. Model #2 results in higher prices to consumers. They have tunnel vision on that point. They could care less about property rights of the IP owners. They are China in this deal.

They also don't care about the BREADTH and VARIETY of distribution. If any dealer at all sells for less that is the singular goal no matter the market impact.

After Wal-Mart bypassed the Manufacturer-Distributor-Dealer-Consumer model and replaced it with the manufacturer-consumer model resulting in most of our manufacturing base going to China and most small brick and mortar stores closing or having a bunch less variety to sell, prices dropped too.

How is your economy doing lately?

Rocketman
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.

Last edited by Rocketman; Apr 23, 2012 at 11:29 PM.
Rocketman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 11:20 PM   #136
AppleHater
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
No it's worse than that. The government is looking at the two models and saying model #1 (Amazon) results in lower prices to consumers. Model #2 results in higher prices to consumers. They have tunnel vision on that point. They could care less about property rights of the IP owners. They are China in this deal.

Rocketman
You lost me some where along the line of having competitive pricing is China whereas fixed pricing every where is anti-China. What's bad about retailers having sales to bring customers? Should manufacturers dictate the price like Apple to avoid the injustice? I don't get it. I thought we are living in free market, not China.
AppleHater is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 11:22 PM   #137
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
In its rush to seem unbiased, Macrumors is quoting Chris Martucci, who seem to conflate different issues when he asks "If thatís not price-fixing, Iím not sure what is." If you follow Martucci's logic, using an agency model along with the most favored nation status is price fixing, so it is illegal. Yet, that is not what DOJ is arguing. Otherwise, why bother with 30 more pages of briefings. (The publishers are free to price their bestsellers below the bestsellers from another publisher, so I doubt you can call this price fixing.)

The argument is whether competitors have illegally came together to agree on a common business model. If you look at the list of "evidence" to prove the conspiracy, it is fairly short and mostly about the "defendant publishers". The remaining commentary about Apple's refusal to sell books from a publisher who has not accepted the agency model or contracts that go into affect if at least three other publishers agree to a similar contract or its offers of getting higher prices or publishers sending supportive emails about a competitor facing a common enemy sound quite legal by themselves. The only smoking gun, if there is one, is communications between CEOs about whether they are all going to move towards the new pricing model. That may be enough to get them and Apple punished, but then again it may not be. Considering the defense has not put together its files that show them in the best light possible (as opposed to the worst light possible in the prosecutors' complaints ), the case does not look very iron clad to me.
theBB is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 11:41 PM   #138
jameskatt
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
The best thing for publishers is to publish their works directly - at lower prices

The best thing for publishers is to publish their works directly - at lower prices than is available at Amazon.

They should charge a high price at Amazon. Then charge a lower price on their own store.
jameskatt is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 11:42 PM   #139
appsforkids
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: US
I really wish iBooks was more like the App Store, just pay your dues and publish your content. Don't make artists use a middle man.
appsforkids is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 11:53 PM   #140
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt View Post
The best thing for publishers is to publish their works directly - at lower prices than is available at Amazon.

They should charge a high price at Amazon. Then charge a lower price on their own store.
While I agree in principle, realistically, this model would require them to go DRM free. I'm all for it, but I have a feeling that the publishers are more scared of DRM free than they are of Amazon.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by appsforkids View Post
I really wish iBooks was more like the App Store, just pay your dues and publish your content. Don't make artists use a middle man.
Apple already allows you to self publish to the iBookstore through iBooks Author. No dues or middle man necessary.
BaldiMac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 12:30 AM   #141
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
I appreciate the effort to restore some balance to the article. But was it really? I don't see the equity of balancing the Wall Street Journal with a blogger. I also don't see the equity of adding a rebuttal to his argument, as though it could not be presented without qualification. It's also painfully clear that MR added this update because this blogger had taken them to task for the lack of balance in the original article. Ironic. I know that MR had at one time at least some pretentions towards journalism, but I believe the approach taken here shows why they remain mostly a fan site.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 12:39 AM   #142
skellener
macrumors 65816
 
skellener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post
Apples and Oranges - apple has developed the iBooks authoring tools, also the iBooks app, and the newsstand.
Every Kindle eBook is available on any Kindle, iOS, Mac, Windows, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone with Kindle Apps. So even if you ditched your iPhone for an Android or Windows Phone, or just want to read on your computer, you are set. I'm talking about books here, not interactive magazines and the like. Apple doesn't even support all the devices they make.
__________________
2013 nMP iPhone 5 S⃣ iPad 2
skellener is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:36 AM   #143
wovel
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: America(s)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by skellener View Post
Every Kindle eBook is available on any Kindle, iOS, Mac, Windows, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone with Kindle Apps. So even if you ditched your iPhone for an Android or Windows Phone, or just want to read on your computer, you are set. I'm talking about books here, not interactive magazines and the like. Apple doesn't even support all the devices they make.
I never understood why anyone would buy a standard book from the iBookstore. I would even pay a little more from Amazon (which has never been an issue anyway). On top of everything else, the kindle app on iPad and iOs is a lot better than iBooks.
wovel is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:47 AM   #144
RobertMartens
macrumors 6502a
 
RobertMartens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by macthetiger85 View Post
I don't think Apple has ever sold a product below cost, in fact they are known for high margins.
In 1996 they sold they pre-iMac All-in-One Performa 475 about 200 dollars below cost to dump about 2 billion dollars in inventory. It was a bloody mess, losing 700 million dollars in one quarter but it worked.

They moved on with the G3 and then the iMac

And the rest is history.

Before that they used to just bury their excess inventory. Literally
RobertMartens is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:58 AM   #145
skellener
macrumors 65816
 
skellener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wovel View Post
I never understood why anyone would buy a standard book from the iBookstore. I would even pay a little more from Amazon (which has never been an issue anyway). On top of everything else, the kindle app on iPad and iOs is a lot better than iBooks.
Yup. And slightly off topic, I bought an audiobook from iTunes long ago. It was really crappy low sample rate audio, but that's what they had at the time. While later I found the same audiobook on Audible available at the low sample rate like iTunes, but also in various other formats including the top one - enhanced. I wrote to Apple and asked if I could get a newer better quality version. I mean their audiobooks are basically right from Audible. They replied "No - we do not offer higher quality downloads to previous purchased audiobooks.". Needless to say, I NEVER purchased another one from iTunes, and in fact went back to Audible and repurchased the same one - again and many others and have never even considered getting another one from iTunes. Same goes for Kindle books. I'm sold. I'm never going to the iBookstore.
__________________
2013 nMP iPhone 5 S⃣ iPad 2
skellener is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 02:39 AM   #146
Mystic386
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
No it's worse than that. The government is looking at the two models and saying model #1 (Amazon) results in lower prices to consumers. Model #2 results in higher prices to consumers. They have tunnel vision on that point. They could care less about property rights of the IP owners. They are China in this deal.

They also don't care about the BREADTH and VARIETY of distribution. If any dealer at all sells for less that is the singular goal no matter the market impact.

After Wal-Mart bypassed the Manufacturer-Distributor-Dealer-Consumer model and replaced it with the manufacturer-consumer model resulting in most of our manufacturing base going to China and most small brick and mortar stores closing or having a bunch less variety to sell, prices dropped too.

How is your economy doing lately?

Rocketman
So it'll be an interesting case with a negotiated settlement after many years then.

As for our economy. It's doing poorly and likely to get much worse before it gets better. We have record numbers leaving the country. Not good.

We have a government hell bent on keeping inflation down to next to nothing and the worldwide downturn has helped. With income falling they are now cutting costs by wholesale government cuts to balance the books.

If you do this to a business it's a downward spiral to death.

Today for the first time I think we need a change in leadership. We can certainly do much better.
Mystic386 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 03:09 AM   #147
Bonte
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bruges, Belgium
Is Walmart a most favored nation? I think so, if an item is to expensive they just remove it from there stores, i don't see a difference with Apple policy exept that Apple's is in writing and Walmart is in practice.
__________________
Canterbury Tales comic
Bonte is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 03:45 AM   #148
mrklaw
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Once again, apple are the masters of misleading simplicity.

First, it is not their standard model, it is merely the same revenue share model they are using for the app store. It isn't the same as being used in their music store or TV/movie store, where they set retail prices. There is no precedent saying apple have a preferred model - if anything, the original itunes store would be their 'standard' model, and ibooks pricing is a move away from that.

Second, the app store does not have terms that require publishers to not sell their products more cheaply on other platforms. If you want to write Angry Birds iOS and sell it for $1.99, and also sell it on Android for 99c, you can. With ibooks you can't. While the headline rev share is the same, the model overall is not.
mrklaw is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 04:25 AM   #149
bsolar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
As described in the article, the fact that Apple offered publishers the same terms as they offered labels and developer is a pretty straightforward argument against collusion, at least on Apple's part.
That's only if you ignore a part of the DoJ claims. Just one example from the excellent The Verge analysis, emphasis mine:

Quote:
The DOJ says Apple "knowingly served as a critical conspiracy participant" by promising all the publishers the exact same deal and keeping everyone informed about the status of negotiations. When Penguin explicitly said that it wouldn't sign unless at least three other companies signed, Apple "supplied the needed assurances."
bsolar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 04:28 AM   #150
alhedges
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
I'm not sure the distinction that you are trying to make. The term "monopoly" is routinely used in the discussion of antitrust laws to refer to companies that abuse their market power.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/mono...n_defined.shtm
Monopolies are addressed in Sec. 2 of the Anti-Trust Act. The current action pertains to Sec. 1 of the Act. Here's what it says:

Quote:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
There is no "monopoly" requirement here; the fact that Apple had zero market share in e-books doesn't matter if Apple did, in fact, collude with the publishers.
alhedges is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Toyota commercial from Apple ad agency? RowellE Community Discussion 11 Aug 31, 2013 11:17 AM
Apple Blames Book Publishers in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 88 Jun 3, 2013 09:33 AM
Google and Apple Losing Mobile Advertising Market to Publishers MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 34 Apr 10, 2013 10:58 PM
Apple Offering Concessions in European E-Book Suit as Several Publishers Settle in U.S. MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 67 Nov 6, 2012 11:00 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC