You're depending on a false dilemma.
There are ebook sources other than Amazon and Apple. And other pricing structures, for that matter.
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 Could Owe $500 Million After Being Found Guilty in E-Book Antitrust Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're depending on a false dilemma.
There are ebook sources other than Amazon and Apple. And other pricing structures, for that matter.
Well, what is the anti-dumping duty based on? What a funny comment!
The difference is that Apple isn't the one who sets the prices in this model. And, instead of asking the publishers to disallow others selling at a lower price, what Apple asked was the rights to intervene and to match the lowest price on the market.
I think creative people deserve to be treated and paid better, apple was aware of that and wanted to make sure amazon could no longer take the piss. I think it's a bit of a crime that it's illegal to sell a book for a reasonable price vs someone like amazon just shilling everyone to sell books on a crappy system at a loss. It was a great move for the industry the same way apple saved the music industry with itunes.
It's such a kick in the teeth to do the right thing and get ****ed for it. Ironically people don't know the real cost of anything and will pay what ever they think is ok to pay.
It's such a kick in the teeth to do the right thing and get ****ed for it. Ironically people don't know the real cost of anything and will pay what ever they think is ok to pay.
Honest question. Outside of the money, why is the guilty verdict significant? The contracts were already eliminated by the publishers settlements.
I believe the judge ruled that they could not bring this up at trial.
It went as expected with the judge passing the decision to an appeals court. I believe eventually it will reach the supreme court who may or may not decide to hear the case. What this means is that nobody will be suing Apple for the money for some time.
In Apple's model it is not Apple that sets the price of the e-books, but each individual publishers.
Times like these we need a public letter like what Steve did with Adobe Flash. At least we will see exactly what motivated Apple to not settle. Claiming they are greedy doesn't stand when they could of just settled and save a bucket load of cash in fines.
I don't think Tim is up to the task of such a letter, another CEO I been admiring as of late is Elon Musk, he's never hesitated to come out publicly and speak his mind. In my opinion he may be the new Steve Jobs, not in computing but in terms of leading a company.
I don't think Tim is up to the task of such a letter, another CEO I been admiring as of late is Elon Musk, he's never hesitated to come out publicly and speak his mind. In my opinion he may be the new Steve Jobs, not in computing but in terms of leading a company.
Because if they (no matter who it was) weren't found guilty - then, in theory, the same thing could occur in the future. Not to say it couldn't now. But it's less likely Apple (in this case) would engage in the same behavior.
As a consumer - a guilty verdict is also, for some, validation, that their concerns were not unjustified.
Maybe. But that's where the odd (to me) logic in the judge's decision comes in. Everything Apple actually did (agency pricing, MFN, price caps) was legal. According to the judge, it was Apple's knowledge that the publishers would use the agreement to raise prices that was illegal. But then, everybody knew that the publishers hated Amazon's pricing and wanted higher pricing. So I'm not sure how a guilty verdict helps them "un-know" it.
It seems like the judge expects a new competitor who wants to compete selling "best sellers" to engage in below cost price competition. Which is ridiculous.
Any other strategy that would have any significant success against Amazon would give the publishers leverage over Amazon and result in higher prices.
The question was "Ouside of the money..."
Apple is a business. Everything is about money.
----------
The judge said she thought Apple was guilty before the trial even started. The finally guilty ruling was a way to pass the trial onto an appeals court without pissing off the department of justice (when was the last time you saw the department of justice lose a case in the initial trial ?) . The department of justice loses happen rarely but do so in the appeals court or supreme court.
Those following the case might know. I would argue that the average joe only sees that Apple was found guilty of colluding.
Glad to hear it was brought up.
But even if Amazon's below cost pricing hadn't yet risen to the point of being illegally anti-competitive there was still a point to be hammered on, and that is that it's highly unlikely Amazon was going to sell below cost indefinitely. So prices were going to go up sooner or later.
Lawyers and government fines. Consumers will get very little back.
Excellent response to a lot of points. Concerning just the one above, I wasn't suggesting that Apple's defense that it had done nothing wrong be "but Amazon was doing wrong", rather that one of the items of evidence brought up to support the claim that there was price fixing is that the price of ebooks went up. They went up because they were artificially low because Amazon was selling them below cost.
Apple saved the music industry? The music industry is in the toilet. Bands don't make any money from records these days. They make all their money from live performances which is why ticket prices for concerts are so high now. I don't mind. It means cheaper records. So I'm happy but I don't think many recording artists are.
I think you missed the point of this case. It's very clear. Apple made all the publishers sign a deal that they would set the end prices BUT Apple stipulated that when they did that the publishers couldn't sell that eBook at a lower price anywhere else. That meant that all the other online eBook sellers including Amazon were forced to increase their eBook prices. That my friend is clearly against the law. A law that is there to protect consumers from corporate price collusion and monopolistic practices.
The end result will be cheaper eBook prices so millions of consumers will benefit.
Not all that strange. Agency pricing is actually just going away and I doubt that existing contracts are affected.
In addition, the smaller competitors were forced out of the marked, once agency pricing eliminated the need for consumers to price-shop.
The market has accepted the higher prices, as there was no choice after the collusion and since the main. It will take a long while for new players to enter again and disrupt the pricing structure.
Nice. Might as well add on a few hundred million extra to help out with the sequester.
Uhm, an agreement may be either explicit or implicit and it may be evidenced by conduct.
So, not sure what is so puzzling here.
All which, even if true, is moot. You can not use 'but the other guy' as a defense.
Even if they were sold below cost, the prices went up. The claim is that this was due to collusion. Apple could have been guilty and the prices stayed the same. Or the prices could have gone up because the publishers colluded and used Apple behind its back etc. But all of this must be judged on its own merits.
if folks want to go after Amazon for what they did then that's a different case