Exactly, why should Firefox or Chrome be allowed to be installed on Mac OS X or Windows.
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
Exactly, why should Firefox or Chrome be allowed to be installed on Mac OS X or Windows.
If by "bottom line" you mean the stock price of AMZN, it makes sense. The "bottom line" as in profits is negative, because Amazon has been operating at a loss for several quarters, and they just gave surprising guidance for an even bigger loss next quarter. This missed the last quarter, and gave lousy guidance, and on that basis, the next day, the stock made new highs over $310. Wheeeee!
One doesn't have much to do with the other except power plays.
Apple could have entered the market by pricing the same way as Amazon does and just lowering their 30% take.
There is no LAW that Apple has to take 30% - that's their own internal figure that they don't want to change.
Would that mean less profit - maybe very little or even none on SOME books - yes. But they could have successfully entered the market.
No different that Amazon setting up a booth in Wal Mart. That too would be convenient.
LOL, are you for real? This is a pretrial audience where the judge has seen part of the evidence and it was a bench trial so she was the only people that has to read it.
Really, can't you read what you link?
When Apple uses that pre trial declaration as part of the appeal, call me. Until then and reading what Apple lawyers said it means that it is nothing strange
----------
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf
Page 9
You're missing one thing: Apple wanted 30% of the cut which led to the raising of the prices and insisted on a no "most favoured nations" clause which prevented Amazon reducing its prices. That's the illegal part....
Regarding free infrastructure, Amazon has to pay Apple a whopping annual $99 fee for Apple to provide marketing, hosting, and bandwidth. So yeah, it's basically free infrastructure to further the Amazon platform.
I'm not trying to make Apple a victim, because those are the rules Apple decided to implement with free apps. But, Amazon shouldn't act like they are being harmed.
As to ebooks, sure, you can access their platform in a host of other locations. That is very smart on their part. However, you are still tied to that platform. Are their books still not wrapped in proprietary DRM? It certainly isn't like I can take all of my Amazon stuff and handle it how I see fit.
Just to be clear, I'm not bashing Amazon. I'm a long-time Kindle user and rarely use the iBookstore.
Ok, and did you actually READ the article you linked to? Doesn't seem like it. The article basically confirms exactly what I said in my post. Apple spends very little for lobbying especially considering their cash supply, and they're VERY selective about what they want to support.
Even with doubling, that would bring the total to a measly 4 million, which is still nothing compared to Googles or even Amazons.
And keep in mind, the reason they are doubling it in the first place is for reasons like this. Its making them a bigger target in the govt because they're getting mad Apple doesn't spend more money in politics.
Last edited:
Are you kidding? Even the publishers didn't protest the fines because thy knew the DoJ had Jobs red-handed. This wasn't some close call. Apple was guilty as were the publishers of price-fixing and collusion. That's blatantly against the law. I don't even see why Apple thought they might win. This case was a slam-dunk for the DoJ and the publishers knew it, hence they simply paid up and are moving on.
Exactly, why should Firefox or Chrome be allowed to be installed on Mac OS X or Windows.
That's not an equal comparison. Apple is the sole gateway for mobile apps, not so on OS X. Apple has to host, market, and provide bandwidth for Amazon's app - all for $99/year. The point is, what would be Apple's motivation to make it easier for people/companies to bypass Apple revenue streams? Especially when Amazon isn't providing any real monetary considerations.
Are you saying that Apple has somehow been a game changer in the eBook category? If so, how have they moved the game along?
My goodness. You are for real. Here's what the article says:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/24/apple-ebooks-antitrust-judge/
Asked during a preliminary hearing Thursday to share her thoughts about the Department of Justice's case against Apple (AAPL) in the long-awaited e-book antitrust trial, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said this, according to Reuters:
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that."
Here's the thing: The trial doesn't begin until June 3. Also, there's no jury, so Judge Cote's decision is final, and she says she's already begun writing a draft of it.
Which in a way is kind of correct.
But not how they are trying to do it. They are canceling contracts with one retailer, thus removing tons of items from that store by law. They are demanding that the retailer be the one that determines what terms they will follow and what pricing and the publishers have to bend over and brace themselves. Saying no deal won't be an option at least for the next couple of years because Amazon etc will make sure the 'punishment' is written that way.
What the DOJ needs to do is require that all OS systems, computer and mobile, be required to carry any book store type app if the store chooses to support that system (thus Apple doesn't have to create iBooks for Android but if they choose to Google etc can't bar it from their ecosystem) however let the system have whatever rules they want so long as they are consistent with the rules for other apps (ie they can't negate the no outside links rule cause it is the same for all apps).
Then have the DOJ set rules such as
ebooks and their contracts are independent of other formats, and no retailer can yank other formats as tools to get the terms they want
that they can be any terms that both sides agree to however there can be no deals that bar titles from other stores to create exclusive offerings that force customers to one single store
any MFN only applies to items more than six months old or items that have been 'on sale' more than a set period. I said 4 weeks earlier but I think 2 might be more like it. However this will exclude pre-order periods. Clock only starts after the book is released. Pre-order deals must be on agreement between retailer and publisher however once released those sales are in the hands of the retailer. however any agency style cut will be off the publisher price if the retailer drops the price without talking to the publisher. In other words Apple and I agree to pre-order my book which will be $15 at $10 as a special early bird deal. My cut is based on $10 but I said once the book goes on sale it will be $15 but Apple overrides and keeps it at $10 for two more weeks. I don't agree to this so I still get based off $15 and they eat the discount they offered.
Retailers are allowed to offer sales on their own but only for limited periods (this is already done in the real world) and with publisher agreement how low the pricing can go. If publishers aren't agreement about putting the items on sale they get any cut off the full price same as the preorder scenario.
Publishers are allowed to set a limit on how low retailers under wholesale terms can go with their pricing and for what periods of time. Such as generally they can only go as far as 70% of the wholesale price but they can drop that to 50% for a period of one week up to 4 times a year.
Under agency, retailers can limit how high a price can go but must have equitable limits that apply fairly to all sources.
Both sides have the power to say no to terms which will be for periods of no more than 3 years at a time to allow for adjustments due to market trend. If an agreement can not be reached then the items will not be offered. However talks can be initiated at any time by either party to attempt again with no prejudice by either party.
What so and so did or is doing is confidential and there is to be no mention of terms for other deals with or without names given. Each talk must be independent and ground zero. Terms for physical items can be referenced as tools or starting points but such deals are again independent
Things like that will get us back to a simpler time when the rules of play were basically the same for all parties but without the predatory BS Amazon started pulling.
What part of "she reviewed the evidence" don't you understand?
Really, do you know how the legal system of your country works? It is a bench trial, the judge reviews the evidence and in a hearing she commented about the evidence she already saw.
Apple lawyers were not surprised when she did those comments, they only disagreed with them.
I disagree. The judge was not biased. The rules are biased to presume a regulator, any regulator is automagically correct unless you can first prove they are arbitrary and capricious. Apple failed to make it about the regulator so lost the case.
The rules and system is biased against any form of justice whatsoever in the regulatory world. The judge was just ruling on the system as he finds it.
Rocketman
cite arbitrary and capricious:
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/0...ent-of-justice-remedy-draconian-and-punitive/
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf
Last edited:
Federal Gov't: "As punishment for anti-competitive behavior, and conspiring to fix eBook prices, we are granting another company (the one who complained in the first place) a monopoly on eBooks."
Everyone else: "WTF?"
Remember, monopolies are bad unless they're sanctioned by the government.
No, the truly illegal part were all the parties involved colluding to fix prices. A most favored nation clause is perfectly legal.
Perhaps you should read something about the actual incident and why this was a slam dunk for the DoJ. There was nothing remotely legal with the way Jobs went about it. And are you implying that Apple is not in the eBook market?
"In a note to a publishing executive nervous about sticking it to Amazon (AMZN), Jobs wrote:
As I see it, [Conspiring Publisher] has the following choices:
1. Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream ebooks market at $12.99 and $14.99.
2. Keep going with Amazon at $9.99. You will make a bit more money in the short term, but in the medium term Amazon will tell you they will be paying you 70% of $9.99. They have shareholders too.
3. Hold back your books from Amazon. Without a way for customers to buy your ebooks, they will steal them. This will be the start of piracy and once started, there will be no stopping it. Trust me, I've seen this happen with my own eyes.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any other alternatives. Do you?
Good stuff. But as several readers have pointed out, Jobs telegraphed all this in a brief on-camera exchange with the Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg at the launch of the original iPad in January 2010, more than two years before the government's antitrust lawyers caught up to the alleged conspiracy.
It's in the AllThingsD video here. You can skip Kara Swisher's irritating preamble and go straight to the Steve Jobs part, which starts at the 1:40 mark. Mossberg asks Jobs why customers would pay $14.99 for an iBook when they could get the same title from Amazon for $9.99.
"The prices will be the same," Jobs assures him. "The publishers are actually going to withhold their books from Amazon.""
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05...ly-going-to-withhold-their-books-from-amazon/
The Agency model use by Apple is fundamentally different from the Wholesale model used by Amazon.
Amazon doesn't take a percentage cut. They bought the ebook rights in bulk at wholesale rates and sold at any price they wanted. The issue was that Amazon was the selling books at a loss which drove down the market value for eBooks in general. This allowed Amazon to pay even less at wholesale in the next round because the market value was lower. This cycle was used drive down the actual value of eBooks.
Apple stepped in and allowed the publisher to submit a book at any price they wanted and Apple kept a cut. The whole issue is that the published talked to each other about the price they wanted to sell at (and Apple was found to be aware of these discussions).
30% or 0% cut. It doesn't make any difference.
Amazons beef in all of this is that all the work they did to lower their cost for wholesale pricing was lost as the market value of eBooks began to rise.
As if the US government didn't have more important things to worry about.
You don't get it.
Apple got too big so now the government has to take them down a peg or two.
In other news it seems interesting how Bezos and Schmidt are chummy with Obama and yet their unfair practices have yet to be investigated in any
substantial manner except for slaps on the wrist.
Progressives being progressives.
But you like Apple driving the price of eBooks up higher than they should be?
Bottom line is Amazon's eBook experience is substantially better than iBooks, here's why:
Buy once, read on ANY device, this includes: Desktop, Kindle, Linux, iPad, iPhone, Android device and anything else that can go online.
Similarly, if you turn on markup and annotation backup on all devices, they will be synced across all devices.
Many of the Kindles have text to speech, allowing you to listen to your books. Will it replace Audiobooks? No, but it's good when you are driving down the road and want to continue reading a book.
And they have all of the features that iBooks offers, so all in all I won't buy from iBooks, mostly because I am limited as to where I can read the books at.
Also, this idea gives more power to Barnes & Noble's eBooks as well, which they desperately need in order to keep themselves from ending up in the company of Walden Books, Borders, etc.
BTW, The illegal part is saying that the publishers could not allow the books to be sold for less anywhere else.
And in Switzerland, the politicians wanted to keep the price fixed (no competition) so that the price stays high enough for the writers (keep a broad variety of different writers, not just the bestseller ones), but I think that the law didn't come through though.