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 Jun 8, 2013, 10:43 AM   #101
steve119
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Scotland, land of the haggis
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMark View Post
I was merely providing sarcastic commentary, not judgement... Hence the - 's

I think you look my post too literally..
Yeah? Well I'm still wanting a shot of the crystal ball.
__________________
2011 MBP 13" 2.4 i5 8GB, 16GB ipad 2, 16GB ipad mini, apple tv 2nd gen, 80GB ipod.
2012 27"iMac i5 2.9 1TB 8GB Ram, black iPhone 5 16GB
steve119 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 01:49 PM   #102
AdonisSMU
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by zin View Post
Yeah, trying to protect the consumer is pretty stupid, I agree.
Trying to protect the consumer from what? If there is not product to sell then it doesnt matter anymore.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Amazon controls upwards of 60% of the book market. That's a majority, not a monopoly.

----------



And you obviously don't know what's going on. Read the other thread on the subject and educate yourself.
In 2010 amazon was nearly 100% of the e book market. Just want to make sure we have facts in this conversation.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/...ws-for-amazon/

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Amazon didn't have a monopoly. Fact.
Amazon was not guilty of doing anything illegally. Fact.

Amazon being hated by publishers was what you said but not just because of perceived value - but because Amazon sold some eBooks below what hard copy books were being sold for and reduced sales for printed books. The thing is - if you don't sell an eBook - you don't eat costs. When physical books don't sell - they get sent back to the publisher. Amazon was rapidly increasing the desire for eBooks OVER physical books. Which is why some publishers decided to hold back popular titles either "permanently" or until they believed they had gotten their physical sales "rush" and were comfortable releasing them electronically.

At the end of the day - Amazon was paying the publishers the very same regardless. The publishers weren't losing money on eBooks. They were losing money on printed books.

And the agency model didn't really help them diminish Amazon's sales of eBooks AND they were making less much of the time because of the 30% "commission."

I'm not saying you are factually incorrect. I just think you're posting with a bias that doesn't tell the entire story.
All these links say otherwise: https://www.google.com/search?q=amaz...&client=safari also note that while amazon was going the wholesale route for ebooks amazon would issue a harsh punishments if publishers didnt go along with their plans.

Last edited by AdonisSMU; Jun 8, 2013 at 01:56 PM.
AdonisSMU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 02:26 PM   #103
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post
All these links say otherwise: https://www.google.com/search?q=amaz...&client=safari also note that while amazon was going the wholesale route for ebooks amazon would issue a harsh punishments if publishers didnt go along with their plans.
Very few of those links portray Amazon and their ebook business in a negative light, and really, they shouldn't. Amazon might be guilty of some underhanded tactics here and there (what business isn't), but nothing they did could be considered outright illegal.

Amazon's push into ebooks was very similar to Apple's push into digital music. Sure, there were e-readers before the kindle, much like there were MP3 players before the iPod. But Amazon and Apple both managed to launch the right product with the right services at the right time and claim a huge chunk of the market.

No one's screaming that Apple should be punished for owning 63% of the digital music market as of April 2013, so why should we be giving them but not Amazon a pass for basically being in the same position?
Renzatic is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 03:06 PM   #104
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Very few of those links portray Amazon and their ebook business in a negative light, and really, they shouldn't. Amazon might be guilty of some underhanded tactics here and there (what business isn't), but nothing they did could be considered outright illegal.

Amazon's push into ebooks was very similar to Apple's push into digital music. Sure, there were e-readers before the kindle, much like there were MP3 players before the iPod. But Amazon and Apple both managed to launch the right product with the right services at the right time and claim a huge chunk of the market.

No one's screaming that Apple should be punished for owning 63% of the digital music market as of April 2013, so why should we be giving them but not Amazon a pass for basically being in the same position?
Thanks again for avoiding the data point that Amazon had MORE than 63% on the day of iPad's release. Correlation is not causation, but wouldn't the agency model be at least partially responsible for moving Amazon to the position it is now in sales versus where it was? Couldn't it be argued that the agency model created more competitors in the ebook space?

It can even be argued that prices have come down from an early peak and are similar to those of the wholesale model, averaged over time for an ebook bestseller. Isn't that exactly what was stated would happen?

Guilt or innocence of Apple's "collusion" will be determined in this trial, but I believe that DOJ jumped the gun on this case and trial based on a single metric of "consumer" pricing.
TMay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 03:25 PM   #105
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
Thanks again for avoiding the data point that Amazon had MORE than 63% on the day of iPad's release. Correlation is not causation, but wouldn't the agency model be at least partially responsible for moving Amazon to the position it is now in sales versus where it was? Couldn't it be argued that the agency model created more competitors in the ebook space?

It can even be argued that prices have come down from an early peak and are similar to those of the wholesale model, averaged over time for an ebook bestseller. Isn't that exactly what was stated would happen?
At one time, Apple had more of the digital music market as well. When it comes right down to it, Amazon never had a stranglehold on ebooks, even with having nearly 100% of the marketshare. They were never a true monopoly, in a position to squash and and all competition that came up against them. They merely had the most popular service that everyone preferred using.

Yes, it would've been difficult for a newcomer to go against Amazon, but not impossible. After all, they're a retailer. It's difficult to corner a market when you're not producing anything, but rather selling someone else's goods. Yes, they do have a lot of say in their particular market, and have worked out quite a few deals to their advantage, but none of it was illegal.

I will agree that moving to the agency model did allow for more players to enter into the scene, but it came at a huge cost. Basically replacing an alleged potential monopoly with an actual one. And like I said before, it's not the agency model itself anyone should have a problem with. It's how it came about.

Quote:
Guilt or innocence of Apple's "collusion" will be determined in this trial, but I believe that DOJ jumped the gun on this case and trial based on a single metric of "consumer" pricing.
Apple's involvement is a little murky. They knew about it, and were certainly willing to take advantage of it, but were they directly involved? I think there's enough evidence to justify an investigation, but the matter of their guilt is still very much up in the air.

The publishers on the other hand, well, three of the big 5 have already settled out rather than going to trial. It certainly doesn't look good for them.

Last edited by Renzatic; Jun 8, 2013 at 03:31 PM.
Renzatic is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 03:34 PM   #106
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMark View Post
On the contrary, there is no misperception, or misinterpretation (on my part at least) and it is for that reason you are entertaining.
Okay then...You're wrong, I'm right...Your turn.
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 03:51 PM   #107
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

----------

[/COLOR]

All these links say otherwise: https://www.google.com/search?q=amaz...&client=safari also note that while amazon was going the wholesale route for ebooks amazon would issue a harsh punishments if publishers didnt go along with their plans.
Say what. What are they saying. You linked to a google search. Care to explain what your point actually is?

Last edited by samcraig; Jun 8, 2013 at 07:28 PM.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 06:54 PM   #108
AppleMark
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The CCTV Capital of the World
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDav View Post
Okay then...You're wrong, I'm right...Your turn.
You are as right, as you think I am wrong. As I have already said, you have been very entertaining. However every show must have an ending and so I will take my leave.
__________________
Although I may not always reply to negative comments, this will not necessarily mean that I concede the point.
AppleMark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 10:06 PM   #109
AdonisSMU
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Very few of those links portray Amazon and their ebook business in a negative light, and really, they shouldn't. Amazon might be guilty of some underhanded tactics here and there (what business isn't), but nothing they did could be considered outright illegal.

Amazon's push into ebooks was very similar to Apple's push into digital music. Sure, there were e-readers before the kindle, much like there were MP3 players before the iPod. But Amazon and Apple both managed to launch the right product with the right services at the right time and claim a huge chunk of the market.

No one's screaming that Apple should be punished for owning 63% of the digital music market as of April 2013, so why should we be giving them but not Amazon a pass for basically being in the same position?
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged magazines and newspaper sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them.

Edited to say magazines and newspapers not ebooks. Publishers should have the right to set the retail price of the item being sold as eBooks are fundamentally different then something that is a tangible item for Apple they always charge 30% cut for any digital content or apps sold on their store. Why would eBooks be any different?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Say what. What are they saying. You linked to a google search. Care to explain what your point actually is?
Claims that amazon didnt have a monopoly are false. They did have one.

Last edited by AdonisSMU; Jun 9, 2013 at 08:57 AM.
AdonisSMU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 10:17 PM   #110
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged ebook sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them.
Okay, I might be willing to concede your point. I just read this, and it's pretty interesting. Amazon might've been doing a lot more than I thought.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2013, 11:41 PM   #111
Asia8
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
No.. no.. no..

All part of the plan... He was on his new boat apple bought him a couple of days ago getting smashed on booze the night before the case. His arguments were all true and honest, after drinking that much at such a huge party he couldn't even remember the 2 days leading up to the case.
Asia8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 01:29 AM   #112
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged ebook sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them.[COLOR="#808080"]
How they could charge a 70% when they had a wholesale model?
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 02:04 AM   #113
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMark View Post
You are as right, as you think I am wrong. As I have already said, you have been very entertaining. However every show must have an ending and so I will take my leave.
Well... It now seems rather obvious that you were only pretending to be entertained, while I was and am extremely entertained by you. However, you are correct in saying this must end. Of course it only ends when I say it ends, and I say it ends now. I always get to have the last word. You should know and respect that. Please do not reply to this post...ever... I'm not kidding.
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 02:39 AM   #114
macsmurf
macrumors 65816
 
macsmurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged ebook sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them
So why didn't they just sell their books cheaper to the reseller that required the smaller cut? Was it really necessary to break the law?
macsmurf is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 03:46 AM   #115
AppleMark
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The CCTV Capital of the World
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDav View Post
Well... It now seems rather obvious that you were only pretending to be entertained, while I was and am extremely entertained by you. However, you are correct in saying this must end. Of course it only ends when I say it ends, and I say it ends now. I always get to have the last word. You should know and respect that. Please do not reply to this post...ever... I'm not kidding.
Of course you are not kidding.... This really seems to have struck a nerve, however it has at least exposed the real reasons for your posts. Poster's who appear to display sociopathic tendencies are extremely amusing. Yes, I was getting a bit bored, but you have really come back with some really bizarre stuff.

Do you actually read what you post? Your last one is the funniest to date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDav View Post
"Of course it only ends when I say it ends, and I say it ends now."
Really? You forgot to add "Na ha ha and the world will be mine!!!!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDav View Post
"I always get to have the last word. You should know and respect that."
Really, why is that? Remind me of your status here on MR, so that I can ascertain your reasons as to why you believe I should "know and respect you".

Coming from somebody as yourself, who poorly attempted to take the high ground and is now acting like a child demanding to have the last word, I think not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDav View Post
"Please do not reply to this post...ever... I'm not kidding. "
Sure. Otherwise, you will probably write another inappropriate post, which will need modifying to avoid moderator intervention, as you did previously? It is widely accepted in debating that once a party loses control, they have generally lost all respect and the argument. You have demonstrated this point perfectly.

It appears that it is you and not myself who is pretending to be amused. I wish you good luck with your demands that we should all "know and respect" you etc. LOL!
__________________
Although I may not always reply to negative comments, this will not necessarily mean that I concede the point.
AppleMark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 08:46 AM   #116
AdonisSMU
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
How they could charge a 70% when they had a wholesale model?
For us at NYT Amazon kept 70% of all revenue from our kindle subscriptions and we at NYT got to keep 30% until apple got into the e-book retailing biz.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
So why didn't they just sell their books cheaper to the reseller that required the smaller cut? Was it really necessary to break the law?
I dont think they broke the law. Just because prices ended up being higher doesnt mean there was any law breaking and in the beginning Apple didnt have all of the publishers on board. I remember. When iBooks first showed up there was barely anything on there. It was quite obvious to anyone who actually tried to buy books all the publishers werent on board yet.

read here also
AdonisSMU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 08:58 AM   #117
AdonisSMU
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsmurf View Post
So why didn't they just sell their books cheaper to the reseller that required the smaller cut? Was it really necessary to break the law?
I edited the post to say newspapers and magazines.

Publishers should have the right to set the retail price of the item being sold as eBooks are fundamentally different then something that is a tangible item for Apple they always charge 30% cut for any digital content or apps sold on their store. Why would eBooks be any different? Apple has had the agency model in place way before book publishers got involved with Apple.

Was the music industry colluding to set prices when they all agreed to raise e price of songs from 99 cents to 1.29? That is a 30% jump in prices very much like book industry...except with Apple being the dominant player. Ebook publishers wanted to charge more than what the prices already are and Apple said they shouldnt because hen the books wouldnt sell and the book publishing industry ultimately agreed.

I think digital content is a different animal from physical items and I dont think the law adequately reflects this. But I will say that the difference between Apple and Amazon here is that mp3 prices weren't set so much lower that they initially were hurting cd sales. It gave people who werent in the market for cds to actually pay for what they consume.

Last edited by AdonisSMU; Jun 9, 2013 at 09:17 AM.
AdonisSMU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 04:09 PM   #118
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMark View Post
Of course you are not kidding.... This really seems to have struck a nerve, however it has at least exposed the real reasons for your posts. Poster's who appear to display sociopathic tendencies are extremely amusing. Yes, I was getting a bit bored, but you have really come back with some really bizarre stuff.

Do you actually read what you post? Your last one is the funniest to date.

Really? You forgot to add "Na ha ha and the world will be mine!!!!"

Really, why is that? Remind me of your status here on MR, so that I can ascertain your reasons as to why you believe I should "know and respect you".

Coming from somebody as yourself, who poorly attempted to take the high ground and is now acting like a child demanding to have the last word, I think not.

Sure. Otherwise, you will probably write another inappropriate post, which will need modifying to avoid moderator intervention, as you did previously? It is widely accepted in debating that once a party loses control, they have generally lost all respect and the argument. You have demonstrated this point perfectly.

It appears that it is you and not myself who is pretending to be amused. I wish you good luck with your demands that we should all "know and respect" you etc. LOL!
Got Cha...
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 04:37 PM   #119
hill60
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Your books won't mysteriously disappear off your iPad or Kindle the moment a publisher goes defunct. Whatever you have on your ebook reader now is what you'll have tomorrow. Assuming Apple or Amazon don't decide to whisk it away from your account for reasons unknown, of course.
Unless it was Orwell's 1984 or Animal Farm, removed from Kindles in 2009 due to them being published in Amazon's store by a company that did not have the rights to them.

Last edited by hill60; Jun 9, 2013 at 04:45 PM.
hill60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 06:53 PM   #120
albusseverus
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
The only way to stop the prosecution fabricating evidence is to require judges to immediately and permanently dismiss a prosecution - no chance of ever prosecuting again.

Currently, judges just shrug and say, it's only one case of evidence fabrication, the rest might be trustworthy…

It's so hard to expose this (common practice) and it should be stamped out immediately.

I don't know if OJ did it or not, but when the prosecution produced the gloves and they didn't fit OJ's hands, the whole case should have been thrown out. This 'we know they did it, we just don't have the evidence…' nonsense should be punished severely - not only thrown out, but prosecution staff and witnesses punished to the full extent of the law, not only for fabricating, not only for betraying the public trust over the future of people's lives, but wasting valuable time and money.

----

Also, not only does Google wish there were no laws, they don't bother with the ones we have.
albusseverus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2013, 07:12 PM   #121
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by albusseverus View Post
The only way to stop the prosecution fabricating evidence is to require judges to immediately and permanently dismiss a prosecution - no chance of ever prosecuting again.

Currently, judges just shrug and say, it's only one case of evidence fabrication, the rest might be trustworthy…

It's so hard to expose this (common practice) and it should be stamped out immediately.

I don't know if OJ did it or not, but when the prosecution produced the gloves and they didn't fit OJ's hands, the whole case should have been thrown out. This 'we know they did it, we just don't have the evidence…' nonsense should be punished severely - not only thrown out, but prosecution staff and witnesses punished to the full extent of the law, not only for fabricating, not only for betraying the public trust over the future of people's lives, but wasting valuable time and money.

----

Also, not only does Google wish there were no laws, they don't bother with the ones we have.

"don't know if OJ did it or not"

Seriously?
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 08:51 AM   #122
AppleMark
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The CCTV Capital of the World
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDav View Post
Got Cha...
__________________
Although I may not always reply to negative comments, this will not necessarily mean that I concede the point.
AppleMark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 09:53 AM   #123
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by zin View Post
Yeah, trying to protect the consumer is pretty stupid, I agree.
I was talking about picking a witness that undermines their case.
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 AM.

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

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