The link itself is the ad; if it were on any website Amazon would have to pay for each click.
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 E-Book Price Fixing Decision Could See Return of Direct Links from Kindle and Other Apps to Their Stores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The link itself is the ad; if it were on any website Amazon would have to pay for each click.
Apple doesn't deserve a referral fee either. People already know these companies. They want to use the services offered by these companies. Sure, Apple supplied the hardware and iOS, but they got money from consumers when we bought their gadgets. As for hosting the apps, thats the easiest job in the world, and any of the big names can host themselves, if allowed.
Last edited:
I can't believe people are actually defending Apple on this. This is a clear victory for consumers. Yes, us the consumers.
She isn't.
She is part of the Judicial branch of the government.
The DOJ is part of the Executive branch.
I'm pleased to know you're qualified to judge the competency of a person who has been on the federal bench close to 20 years.
20 years on the bench during a lifetime appointment. Well, at least I see your easy to satisfy. IMO, there are no noteworthy rulings in her history to date. If anything she demonstrates a disdain toward free enterprise, and saw Apple as a way to get her name in Bold Print. Her current ruling along with the preposterously proposed DOJ remedy effectively "Mandate" an Amazon Monopoly. Remedy alleged price fixing by creating a monopoly? Ok, I get it?
Oh, I forgot. She has 20 years in a Lifetime appointment. It's a no brainer.
Quite honestly, I believe given some of the comments made by Denise Cote during the trial, Apple has a strong case on appeal. I'm looking forward to it.
Oh, and thank you for the quickie on the Executive/Judicial Branches. As I stated before. Denise Cote thinks she is the DOJ. She needs to remember that she is NOT part of the Executive Branch.
You can 'side load' apps just as easily as you can in iOS.
Root Vs Jailbreak. Same difference.
looks like suing everyone is gonna cost apple, big time. it's always good to just mind your own business.
I can't believe this. So Apple set up a system so Amazon can make money and they take no share in it? Seems a little odd.
I didn't forget about weeks of preparation. Truth is, the legal costs associated with this trial would have been a fraction of what was paid in fines. But, the publishers knew they were guilty, so didn't want to end up with fines plus legal costs.
Well, one thing's for sure, Amazon's low cost eBook pricing certainly did not lead to that $7m loss because they were controlled by the agency model during last quarter. One could even argue they loss money due to not being able to sell eBooks at a loss. Less people going to amazon.com to buy cheap books = less website traffic.
But, I'll humor you anyways. Amazon sells books at a loss and as a result, they are losing money. So, if they keep this up, they'll go out of business like any other corporation in a capitalistic society. No more "monopoly". Why do you have a problem with this? Seems like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Amazon's agency contracts for eBooks ended with the approvals of the publishers settlements. Mostly back in December. No agency model 2Q 2013.
Sideloading does not require root. It's a check box to enable it.
No hacks and no worrying about software updates breaking your ability to install whatever you want.
Sideloading on iOS is a major PITA and don't even think about applying any OS updates. How long did it take for the iPhone 5 to get a proper untethered jailbreak? Oh yeah 5 months.
Sideloading does not require root. It's a check box to enable it.
No hacks and no worrying about software updates breaking your ability to install whatever you want.
Sideloading on iOS is a major PITA and don't even think about applying any OS updates. How long did it take for the iPhone 5 to get a proper untethered jailbreak? Oh yeah 5 months.
Amazon doesn't allow side loading without a hack. No check box.
Just to clarify, I don't have any issue with technology moving forward. The Ford Motor company had a superior product, process and business model. Being better at business isn't grounds for anti-trust. But if Ford and Chevy had gotten together in order to edge out buggy whip makers that's illegal.
If they wouldn't collude to price fix nobody would be forcing them to do so. This solution is designed to let the market reach the point it would have without Apple's illegal activity. That's why it's only temporary measure.
Apple lost the case, so of course they will be punished somehow. Expecting them to be treated like any company who didn't loose the case isn't really rational.
Last edited:
Actually I bought the Harry Potter books from Pottermore and it's offered on both the Kindle and iBooks. I put them on my grandson's iPad so he could read them.
I went back and read the whole 160 page document. You should too. It's good reading and very informative. It lays out the entire timeline of events and discusses each and every point (as only good legal finding should). It won't take you more than 30 mins. Perhaps it will do a better job of explaining why the judge made her decision. And, if you are really interested in the actual law it most certainly cites each and every case law applicable. Better than relying on articles and your own ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAXkinZs4Mk
What is that setting that is shown on minute 1:04 then?
----------
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/hunger-games-suzanne-collins/1100171585?ean=9780545229937
http://www.kobobooks.com/ebook/The-...OG0Jw/page1.html?s=wZuXFQgKfEOUMHSMm9rlpQ&r=2
Try again
I guess he meant that if the court agrees with the DoJ's requests, Apple would not be able to reject the app based on the "no links" clause in its guidelines because these links would be specifically allowed by the sentence.
----------
Non necessarily disagreeing in general, but in the specific case you have to take into account the tremendous strenght of the Harry Potter brand. Ms Rowling was able to leverage it an pull off his Pottermore plan with the specific goal of avoiding any type of control, but other authors with less contractual strenght would most likely have been less lucky.