Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
500m compared to Apple's cash reserves, is NOT the point. The point is that it is a massive fine for any company considering that Apple has not polluted thousands of miles of coastline with an oil spill costing 10's of billions. And if this sort of shenanigans were wilfully tried again then the 500m would just be a starting point for what would necessarily have to be a real deterrent.

What else can the govt. do, they can't start executing executives. Bottom line is that Apple have been shown that just because they make pretty devices they are not going to be allowed to rob the public with blatant price fixing.
 
No sweat, they'll use the 600 million Samsung owes them for stealing :p

Took only the first post to pull Samsung into Apple's criminal activities. That must be a record here. I guess next your going to blame Samsung for Apple's share decrease after releasing iPhone 5 or the reason why Apple tablet sales took a hit. Yup, peg it all on Samsung.
 
So, let's say the FEDGOV collects $500m in fines, for this and another $2B for other things, or from other folks.

When are they going to refund or credit the "harmed folks"?

This is a simple shake-down. Seriously. They are KEEPING THE MONEY!!!!!!!

Rocketman

Selective enforcement and monologue regulatory justice defined.

The net profits of the ENTIRE eBook market for years doesn't exceed the fines. Take note.

Every dollar Apple doesn't spend on fines, they spend on stock buybacks, dividends, infrastructure and buying skilled labor! Reverse fine Apple for $1T!! Force them to spend on those things as a restriction . . . .
 
Last edited:
But the problem is Amazon was paying $x amount to the publisher for each copy, that may have been more than what they would have gotten from Apple if they lowered the price on iBooks, so it was Apple forcing them to fix their prices.

So you would go full circle back to the issue: If Amazon was selling at a loss - was that predatory pricing?
 
Took only the first post to pull Samsung into Apple's criminal activities. That must be a record here. I guess next your going to blame Samsung for Apple's share decrease after releasing iPhone 5 or the reason why Apple tablet sales took a hit. Yup, peg it all on Samsung.

It's a joke. Get the chip off your shoulder.

Incidentally I've never seen you tell people to stop talking about Google or Samsung in threads that have nothing to do with them when people make fun of apple. Why's that?
 
Last edited:
So you would go full circle back to the issue: If Amazon was selling at a loss - was that predatory pricing?
Say what you will. It was loss leader pricing. Supported by their non-book product redistributions. Amazon manufactures NOTHING (at a profit).

The Apple / agency model makes perfect sense simply because the (book segment) manufacturer (owner) enforces price power.

The lawsuit did not take into consideration real-world, on-ground economics. Lawyers suck (good luck finding a contrary opinion on that).

Rocketman
 
Nah. Apple was really trying to scam us all into paying higher prices. It wasn't an accident that ebook prices went from a generally standard $10 to whatever the hell the publishers wanted when the iPad came around.

I completely disagree with you. If the idiots running the publishing houses want to charge more than let them. If they see no sales as a result then they eventually figure out that we're not interested in paying $20 for an ebook, but are more inclined to pay $9.99. Capitalism is supposed to be a free market... so we the buyers decide what we're willing to pay. And if you write a book that you think should sell for $20 a pop then that's your business, YOU OWN THE PROPERTY dude. You want to completely screw up a business just get the govt involved. I think this lawsuit was a load of BS.

But completely outside of your argument here is this. You don't need a publisher any more to write a book. I personally believe one reason publishing houses(not apple) were trying to raise prices was because they knew they might start running into trouble ... i.e.... fewer paper books sold (which required their services) which in most cases sell for more than what we pay for the average ebook. So... you raise the price of ebooks to try and make them less competitive against their paper counterparts... the parts they specialize in producing and mostly control.

I'd toss out this analogy for you.... it's like a horse whip maker trying to petition the govt to stop making roads to try and make the auto industry fail. Okay... maybe it's a bad analogy but the publishers are eventually going to loose out here. Who wins? We do.... we get more selection and better prices... we also get a much greater opportunity to publish our own work w/o the necessity of a middle man (publishers). Just thought of this (don't know why I didn't think of this eons ago), but it's similar to how the mainstream media (big networks and advertising agencies) have had some part in keeping online advertising rates so low. It's about perception. ABC/CBS/NBC or whomever wants to keep the perception going that they are where big companies should be spending their ad dollars, and that they still have some kind of perceived clout that they really no longer possess. I could be wrong here of course, but I watch like NO TV any more. It's boring and I hate how it makes you feel like you're turning into a freaking zombie when it sets your brain in alpha mode. I suppose that starts a whole new argument here though so I'll leave it at that.

Price fixing in no good period. At least in iTunes you can price an ebook for 99 cents... all the way up to whatever, or give it away. Amazon did help nip the price gouging a la publishing companies in the bud so that was our initial saving grace to stem the pricing issues. But that's true free market capitalism... instead of "Crony Capitalism" behind idiotic products like electric cars(Volt). So long as there's a choice not controlled by the govt, someone will want to bring something to market that's cheaper or a lot better (apple products)... and we ,the customer, determine the direction of things.... i.e... have the real control.
 
Apple Could Owe $500 Million After Being Found Guilty in E-Book Antitrust Case


It was actually "Apple could pay nearly $500 million in ebook case"

But MacRumors can't be bothered with modifiers. What's 9.5 million dollars anyway?


About the story, If that's what it takes to break into the eBooks market then it was worth it.
If any money goes to the US Government, it can come from the money they are hiding offshore.
If any money goes to customers, than great, they can buy more eBooks
 
Last edited:
Wow how grand is our government? They fine Apple for 500 Million for price fixing yet they cant do the same to the oil companies?
 
$500 mil? That comes out of their petty cash probably. I can see Tim now as he searches through the couches at HQ for change.

I hate ignorant posts like this. $500m is a lot of money. They are accountable to the shareholder for every $1 they spend, make or lose so you don't simply willingly pay it and not worry about it.
 
I think some people (not you) are forgetting that the publisher never lost a dime on a sale from Amazon. Amazon took the hit for lower prices. The publisher still got 100% what they were supposed to. In fact - with the new model - they were making less in many cases.

Publishers didn't like Amazon's pricing model - not because it wasn't profitable - but because it lowered the perception of what PHYSICAL books should cost.

An unsold e-book costs the publisher nothing. An unsold physical book has cost the publisher printing, shipping, etc.

I believe the publishers cared more about the future of printed books than the cost of eBooks. It would explain why they were OK losing money going with the agency model and not having Amazon lowering the value of their product.

I completely disagree with you. If the idiots running the publishing houses want to charge more than let them. If they see no sales as a result then they eventually figure out that we're not interested in paying $20 for an ebook, but are more inclined to pay $9.99. Capitalism is supposed to be a free market... so we the buyers decide what we're willing to pay. And if you write a book that you think should sell for $20 a pop then that's your business, YOU OWN THE PROPERTY dude. You want to completely screw up a business just get the govt involved. I think this lawsuit was a load of BS.

But completely outside of your argument here is this. You don't need a publisher any more to write a book. I personally believe one reason publishing houses(not apple) were trying to raise prices was because they knew they might start running into trouble ... i.e.... fewer paper books sold (which required their services) which in most cases sell for more than what we pay for the average ebook. So... you raise the price of ebooks to try and make them less competitive against their paper counterparts... the parts they specialize in producing and mostly control.

I'd toss out this analogy for you.... it's like a horse whip maker trying to petition the govt to stop making roads to try and make the auto industry fail. Okay... maybe it's a bad analogy but the publishers are eventually going to loose out here. Who wins? We do.... we get more selection and better prices... we also get a much greater opportunity to publish our own work w/o the necessity of a middle man (publishers). Just thought of this (don't know why I didn't think of this eons ago), but it's similar to how the mainstream media (big networks and advertising agencies) have had some part in keeping online advertising rates so low. It's about perception. ABC/CBS/NBC or whomever wants to keep the perception going that they are where big companies should be spending their ad dollars, and that they still have some kind of perceived clout that they really no longer possess. I could be wrong here of course, but I watch like NO TV any more. It's boring and I hate how it makes you feel like you're turning into a freaking zombie when it sets your brain in alpha mode. I suppose that starts a whole new argument here though so I'll leave it at that.

Price fixing in no good period. At least in iTunes you can price an ebook for 99 cents... all the way up to whatever, or give it away. Amazon did help nip the price gouging a la publishing companies in the bud so that was our initial saving grace to stem the pricing issues. But that's true free market capitalism... instead of "Crony Capitalism" behind idiotic products like electric cars(Volt). So long as there's a choice not controlled by the govt, someone will want to bring something to market that's cheaper or a lot better (apple products)... and we ,the customer, determine the direction of things.... i.e... have the real control.
 
Apple is a business. Everything is about money.

:rolleyes: It's all about context. The post that I replied to claimed the money is irrelevant.

Those following the case might know. I would argue that the average joe only sees that Apple was found guilty of colluding.

Good enough. Though I'd argue the "average joe" doesn't even know that this trial occurred. :)

Not all that strange. Agency pricing is actually just going away and I doubt that existing contracts are affected.

The agency contracts were canceled when the publishers' settlements were approved in the end of 2012 (except for Macmillan which was in February.)

http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/10/what-the-doj-settlement-means-for-ebook-prices-now/

In addition, the smaller competitors were forced out of the marked, once agency pricing eliminated the need for consumers to price-shop.

Source? Everything I've seen shows the exact opposite. Smaller competitors were no longer forced to compete with below cost pricing on best sellers.

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.

Amazon immediately move back to their pre-Apple pricing.

Uhm, an agreement may be either explicit or implicit and it may be evidenced by conduct.

So, not sure what is so puzzling here.

Sure. But, in my opinion, the judge's ruling doesn't leave room for any way that Apple could have successfully entered the market without competing below cost on best sellers.
 
No, there is no trepidation, those laws apply to Amazon.

I didn't mean whether Amazon was above the law, I believe that Amazon's pricing habits are absolutely predatory, but some people think that it's up for debate and that's what I was referring to.
 
Good enough. Though I'd argue the "average joe" doesn't even know that this trial occurred. :)

"All I know is what I read in the papers." - Will Rogers. And headlines these days are typically the only thing that get read (unfortunately). It's evident even on this site when you see people post ignorantly (and I mean that by definition not as an insult) when it's obvious they haven't read the article but JUST the headline based on their responses.
 
Can you cite the legal decision where Amazon was proved innocent by the DOJ of every meaning of the term "predatory pricing"?

If you're interested you will find what the DoJ found in the case documents.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf

But if you're looking for a trial, you know perfectly that there was none because the DoJ didn't find anything illegal to continue.

If you still think that they are engaged in predatory pricing, you can sue them. Until then, they are innocent of any wrongdoing, just like Apple was innocent until the ruling was made.
 
If you're interested you will find what the DoJ found in the case documents.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf

But if you're looking for a trial, you know perfectly that there was none because the DoJ didn't find anything illegal to continue.

So, again, what you really meant was that, in the DOJ's opinion, there was not enough evidence to pursue an antitrust charge for predatory pricing under current US law.

If you still think that they are engaged in predatory pricing, you can sue them.

Good one.

Until then, they are innocent of any wrongdoing, just like Apple was innocent until the ruling was made.

This isn't a criminal charge. There is no "innocent until proven guilty". OJ was not found guilty. He was still a murderer.
 
If you're interested you will find what the DoJ found in the case documents.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf

But if you're looking for a trial, you know perfectly that there was none because the DoJ didn't find anything illegal to continue.

If you still think that they are engaged in predatory pricing, you can sue them. Until then, they are innocent of any wrongdoing, just like Apple was innocent until the ruling was made.

Funny you said "DOJ proved they weren't" (your words not mine)

Very nice backtrack though, that was impressive.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.