Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 16, 2014, 12:41 PM   #26
H2SO4
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.T. View Post
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.
__________________
MP1,1. 30"ACD. 11GB
H2SO4 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 12:42 PM   #27
winston1236
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ><
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyyoudvd View Post
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.
winston1236 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 12:46 PM   #28
KidPub
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsci954 View Post
Legit question here, what is the difference between what Apple did and what Amazon does? Because I hear people say that Amazon gets away with worse than what Apple did.
Apple didn't 'contribute' to congressional campaigns as much as Amazon did.
KidPub is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 12:47 PM   #29
digi999
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iChrist View Post
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.
digi999 is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 12:48 PM   #30
bobenhaus
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by fa8362 View Post
The fine should have been much higher.
I agree.
bobenhaus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:01 PM   #31
yellowtruck
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
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??
yellowtruck is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:02 PM   #32
Oracle1729
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyyoudvd View Post
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.
Oracle1729 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:02 PM   #33
Karma*Police
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnnw View Post
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
Karma*Police is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:04 PM   #34
sostoobad
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 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.
sostoobad is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:05 PM   #35
ccraig13
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclo View Post
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
__________________
Macintosh 128K, Macintosh Classic, iMac G3, iBook G3, '07 MacBook Pro, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4S, MacBook Pro Retina
ccraig13 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:12 PM   #36
heyyoudvd
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
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
heyyoudvd is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:13 PM   #37
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by digi999 View Post
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.
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:14 PM   #38
tdmac
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclo View Post
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.
tdmac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:18 PM   #39
hexor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by WBRacing View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by iChrist View Post
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.
hexor is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:20 PM   #40
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyyoudvd View Post
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.
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:23 PM   #41
theheadguy
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: california
Send a message via AIM to theheadguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFMNX View Post
Found in the seat cushions of the lobby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080p View Post
That's pocket change for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidPub View Post
Apple didn't 'contribute' to congressional campaigns as much as Amazon did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.T. View Post
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...
theheadguy is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:30 PM   #42
digi999
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
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.
digi999 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:30 PM   #43
danckwerts
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclo View Post
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.
danckwerts is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:32 PM   #44
orioncrystalice
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by theheadguy View Post
If anyone needed a reminder that these forums are a joke...
Seriously. It's the vending machines people need to look under, not the reception seating.
orioncrystalice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:32 PM   #45
D.T.
macrumors 68020
 
D.T.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vilano Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by theheadguy View Post
If anyone needed a reminder that these forums are a joke...
I need a reminder to get ice when I stop by the grocery, can you help me out?
__________________
"It is not daily increase but daily decrease; hack away the unessential." ~Bruce Lee
D.T. is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:40 PM   #46
heyyoudvd
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
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.
heyyoudvd is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:47 PM   #47
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyyoudvd View Post
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?
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:50 PM   #48
Jvanleuvan
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
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.
Jvanleuvan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:53 PM   #49
ryanasimov
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Does the math work out? Was it worth it for Apple?
ryanasimov is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 01:53 PM   #50
Plutonius
macrumors 68040
 
Plutonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Quote:
Originally Posted by WBRacing View Post
Yes, paying $450m as an out of court settlement screams "we are innocent" to me.
It's contingent on the appeal of the original verdict. The $450 million out of court is a cheaper alternative if the appeal verdict is against Apple.
Plutonius 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

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.

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

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