Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses DOJ of Wanting Amazon to Have 'Significant Competitive Advantage'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But what exactly are they guilty of
Wanting to make a profit
Gathering together the publishers to screw amazon
Or
Simply accidentally creating an environment where the outcome could be seen as anti-competition etc if someone selectively looks at the evidence out of context as the DOJ did
Apple is right to be appealing all of this given the selectivity of the DOJ and the likely bias by the Judge. Particularly when there was zero proof that Apple demanded that the publishers change terms for any other retailer, neither MFNs or Agency terms are illegal and so on
That said, on the flip side I'm happy this all happened if only to highlight a need to change the rules of play for all parties. Not just Apple but Amazon also. Limits should be put down on how high pricing can go, when and how long something can be exclusive to one service (limiting it to very short periods to protect consumer choice) and so on. Retailers should be allowed limited allowance to make certain reductions without the publishers approval for the purpose of special sales with rules about length and degree, including waivers on MFNs kicking in and who eats the lost money. For example, The publisher wants book x to be $14.99. Amazon would be allowed to mark it down to $9.99 for the first week of sales but has to pay the publisher based off the $14.99 price because the publisher didn't approve the price change. But again the key is all players on the same rules
By the same token, the DOJ ruling doesn't nix music etc contracts (frankly if don't think even book contracts should be cut since nothing in the terms was deemed illegal). But similar rules about price limits, requiring things like credit for episodes bought against season sets, or buying up quality. Required parity between physical and digital offerings. And so on.
----------
Which is part of why Apple is appealing. The question of bias needs to be addressed. As does the question of the DOJ overstepping with forcing the cutting of contracts, barring new ones for such a long length of time, trying to include forms of media not involved in the suit etc.
Book prices were raised when Apple colluded with all of the publishers. How is this good for consumers and why would every company settle? (except Apple of course). I understand this is a fan boy site but I expect even the most ignorant fan boys to stay away from this one ha!
Apple rarely does wrong in my opinion but they missed this one by a mile. Now I do not agree with having to link the bookstores but I do agree they are in the wrong on this case and they deserve to lose.
Umm.... Wal Mart sells iPads, but I don't have to buy my apps from Wal Mart. So, Wal Mart does sell a product that links to a store outside of Wal Mart.
I can buy a magazine at Wal Mart that comes with a subscription card that goes direct to the publisher, Wal Mart doesn't get a dime.
I can buy an XBox and then buy XBox games online, Wal Mart doesn't make any money there.
These examples are more accurate for allowing Amazon to link directly to its own store.
The publishers have been told that their contracts are nixed by their settlements. No one has said they have to contract with anyone. So the publishers can say screw it, and go direct sales only. They sell it they pick the pricing, the format. If even one major publisher goes that route it will hurt.
And forget pricing, what about choice. Not everyone likes the Kindle format.
Because at this point if they pull the other book apps the DOJ will slap them down saying they did it just to hurt competition
Sorry but no. Those two, especially Borders were dead in the water way before Apple came in the picture. Because Amazon could afford to loss leader ebooks and due to lack of overhead basically the same on physical books. It just took a bit longer for them to realize they were dead and turn off the life support, especially with their ebooks
----------
No they wouldn't. Because the DOJ is trying to cut contracts that would let Apple sell titles and then bar them for several years. So there won't be any iBooks to buy
----------
If they disallow the MFN (which even Amazon has in their contracts) it means that they could be undercut by other stores, thus destroying fair competition which is what the DOJ claims is the issue with what Apple was doing. Although MFNs are legal, as are Agency terms.
As well as 'hurting consumers' but really we aren't talking about life vital items here. We don't need digital books to live. It's our choice to buy them so we can choose not to and the publishers will get the message and lower the prices
First mistake.
That doesn't even make sense. Obama frequently brings up Apple as a icon of American success, frequently meets with Tim Cook, and the Obama administration vetoed the ITC ban of several iPhones.
This position just doesn't have any evidence behind it.
I think the law suit was premature tbqh. Thhere wasnt any collusion here and no one has been able to prove there was. The DOJ is trying to rewite the part of historywhen there was very few books in the ibooks store and only a couple of publishers. It wasnt until much much later that theothers joined the ibooks store. The government needs to stay out. They filed this suit way too soon and they are trying to punish Apple more for doing something Apple doesnt believe is wrong on any level. Theyve really only been able to deliberately take things out of context to even have weak circumstantial evidence at best. Now the government is trying to punish apple even more than if Apple had settled the suit. Thats nuts.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter if Apple thinks it's wrong or not. What matters here is if their actions are illegal according to antitrust laws.
And hey, wouldn't you know it...price fixing and collusion is actually pretty illegal. I mean far be it from me to interrupt yet another Obama The Socialist Boogeyman paranoia thread with sound logic and levelheadedness, but the government generally doesn't go after their beloved corporations unless they believe they have damn good reasons to do so. They're not gonna punish Apple just because the DOJ bought a bunch of Android phones the day before the hearing.
Or like when I purchase pet supplies from Walmart and inside the box there's a small paper catalog or printed URL so I can buy the supplies directly from the manufacturer in the future at a reduced cost?
Nope. More like Walmart having to post the prices for every other store in the area with a phone number to call and order from them.
In each of your examples Wal Mart does make money though. With the purchase of the entry product Walmart gets a portion of the sale price whether its the sale of that first magazine or the sale of the Xbox.
In the AppStore, however, Apple does not get money on the entry product since the app is downloaded as a free app. If you remove the requirement that books sold within the free app have to use the In App Purchase system, you completely eliminate Apple's ability to make any money from carrying the product. So it would be more like Wal Mart giving you the Xbox for free. What incentive is there for Walmart to incur the cost of carrying it.
There was a trial. Evidence was presented. The evidence proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Apple in fact did collude. I read the evidence enough to see the truth. Trust me Apple is guilty.
The only thing left in question is what the punishment should.
Also from a lot of the comments here I think people are misinterpreting one thing. The DOJ doesn't want links to other stores inside of iBooks store. It wants the Kindle app to have links to their own store. Or any other bookstore that has an app like B&N and others.
----------
No!! The person you quoted is actually correct
The DOJ is simply ridiculous here. I cannot wait for the appeal.
To propose that Apple introduced in-app purchase restrictions as part of an anti-competitive attempt against eBook sellers without presenting that in court during the trial, without offering any evidence, but simply to state it like its a matter of fact in their proposed remedy just shows how wrong this whole case is. I cannot wait for the appeal.
What Apple did was identical to what B&N and what Google were negotiating with the same publishers at the same time. Yet, because Apple won the contract, they were guilty of collusion because they could have easily guessed that the publishers were colluding.
At worst, Apple was complacent and did not report the suspected misconduct of the publishers. But what business reports suspected misconduct of its partners without proof.
To propose that Apple introduced in-app purchase restrictions as part of an anti-competitive attempt against eBook sellers without presenting that in court during the trial, without offering any evidence, but simply to state it like its a matter of fact in their proposed remedy just shows how wrong this whole case is. I cannot wait for the appeal.
What Apple did was identical to what B&N and what Google were negotiating with the same publishers at the same time. Yet, because Apple won the contract, they were guilty of collusion because they could have easily guessed that the publishers were colluding.
At worst, Apple was complacent and did not report the suspected misconduct of the publishers. But what business reports suspected misconduct of its partners without proof.
And that's completely Apple's fault. If they want to make money off of service apps, then they should charge for them. Once it's off the app store and on the springboard, Apple doesn't deserve a cut of the profits.
edit: I'll add a modifier to my statement. Apple doesn't deserve a cut if they don't host the bandwidth or help with the upkeep of the service the app is providing.
The reason that Apple would not settle is because Apple was not doing the colluding. At worst, Apple was guilty of strongly suspecting the publishers were talking to each other and colluding (as Steve Jobs emails and comments showed), but it does not mean that they were also colluding. Apple simply did not report the publishers, but Apple did not sit down and collude with them. B&N and Google were negotiating contracts that were nearly identical to what Apple negotiated -- MFN clause and all. Apple just won the contract first.
No not true. The developer pays $99 per year to be able to include their app in the store.
Technically, Wal Mart is making profit from the iPad, Magazine, and xBox.
What I don't get is why I can buy shoes on Zappos, memory on Newegg, and ink on Staples all through their iOS apps and Apple does not take a cut, yet on Amazon, B&N, etc Apple wants a cut. Same goes for Dropbox, MS Office, etc. Is it because it is directly used on the iPhone?
As an Apple user, why should I have to go to Amazon.com to purchase a book, sync it to my iPhone, to finally be able to read it. That involves a lot more steps. Maybe I like Kindle eBooks better or already have a large library of them and don't want to switch to iBooks.
Apple needs to remove these restrictions.
Yeah, it's pretty arbitrary. I could buy tons of ebooks on Amazon and download them to the Kindle app on my iPad, and Apple doesn't get a dime. But if I want to do the same thing through the app, Apple charges developers and services a 30% cut.
It doesn't make any sense. How is buying through an app any different than getting it off the webpage?
Doesn't allowing retailers to place links makes more convenient to purchase books (or get more customers), not makes easier to compare prices.
If they wanted to make it easier to compare prices, just allow Amazon, B&N, etc to list prices in their apps.
.
No, they aren't.
----------
BOLD!
Bold?!
----------
+ 1 x 10^6