Because Apple did something wrong before and they got caught? Simple is that...
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
Because Apple did something wrong before and they got caught? Simple is that...
This is an awesome decision. Apple should not be able to dictate the ability to put a link in your app that lets you buy products. How the hell can anyone argue that it's not anticompetitive when Apple can sell books in their app and keep all the revenue, whereas competitors selling books in their apps have to pay a 30% cut?
And I don't buy the "but it's apple's platform" argument. This would be the equivalent of Microsoft demanding a 30% cut of all music you buy from a Windows computer. It's ridiculous!
Stop defending Apple's anticompetitive behavior. It's so refreshing to see them getting slapped for this finally. Hopefully this opens the door for ALL apps to allow links to web-based stores, and maybe causes Apple to stop demanding such a ridiculously large cut of the revenue. 30% pretty much completely wipes out the profit margin in MANY product categories!
And I don't buy the "but it's apple's platform" argument. This would be the equivalent of Microsoft demanding a 30% cut of all music you buy from a Windows computer. It's ridiculous!
Stop defending Apple's anticompetitive behavior. It's so refreshing to see them getting slapped for this finally. Hopefully this opens the door for ALL apps to allow links to web-based stores, and maybe causes Apple to stop demanding such a ridiculously large cut of the revenue. 30% pretty much completely wipes out the profit margin in MANY product categories!
You would be right if Amazon sold all their books at lower prices. But they don't. And I doubt they will. Specifically because of the law you quoted and the fact that they still need to make money. I doubt even Amazon can afford to sell everything at a loss for the length of time it would take to drive everyone out of business. But if it were to happen (or if there is evidence they are doing so now) I'm sure someone (ie Apple) will be glad to point it out to the DoJ.
And I'm not sure they will get out of the business. They are restrained from entering into NEW agreements for 5 years. I read that to mean that the agreement made prior to the price fixing one can still stand, but I may be wrong here because I didn't read the entire finding. I doubt the DoJ is trying to put Apple out of the eBook business. If that does mean they must close the store then it will give Amazon a huge benefit. I don't think that specific part of the order would survive appeal. Simply makes no sense. I need to go read the whole thing.
Monopolies are not against the law. Monopolist practices are.
If monopolies were against the law, then Apple would have been in trouble long ago for their monopoly on Macs, Mac OS X and iOS
Well, yes. They were found guilty in a court of law, and you declaring that the court's judgement "rubbish" is exactly of zero consequence.
When it comes to eBooks - the biggest thing standing in Apple's way has been Apple.
1) They didn't have to take 30%
2) they are (as of current) guilty of collusion
3) they have not made iBooks available on any other platform other than their own.
That 3rd one is the clincher for many.
People might pay more for a book. But many won't pay (more) for a book that they can only use on specific devices.
I get why Apple doesn't offer their iBooks app on other platforms. I just think if they ever want to really make iBooks soar, they would need to.
1) They didn't have to take 30%
2) they are (as of current) guilty of collusion
3) they have not made iBooks available on any other platform other than their own.
That 3rd one is the clincher for many.
People might pay more for a book. But many won't pay (more) for a book that they can only use on specific devices.
I get why Apple doesn't offer their iBooks app on other platforms. I just think if they ever want to really make iBooks soar, they would need to.
As a side note - I shouldn't need to use iBooks (or Kindle) app to read the books I purchase on a platform of my choosing. That is why I refuse to buy DRM-protected eBooks. I only buy books on DRM-free ePUB format, and this way I can read them with any eReader app on any device or platform.
This is already the industry norm for music, now eBook industry needs to follow suit.
I've never understood why Apple thinks it deserves a 30% cut from big names like Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc. They're not getting anything from Apple that that they can't provide themselves. Its only because of Apple's policy, that they have to deal with Apple at all. And consumers know these companies already. Not only do they know them, they demand them (to the point that if iOS doesn't have them, then iOS would have less customers.) So why does Apple think they deserve a 30% cut?
I give up, yes, she even started to write the ruling when she was in her twenties
Have you always had such a disdain for the truth, or is this a new development? (Rhetorical question.)
I doubt it too, because ebooks are more a bonus for Apple, something they use to boost the appeal of their own platform, rather than a major source of revenue like it is for Amazon.
Though it would be nice having iBooks on my Windows PC, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything by not having it around. If I need to get something I'll want to access from multiple devices, like a manual or how-to book, I'll buy it through Kindle. Mostly I use iBooks for novels, short stories, and whatnot. Things I'd prefer reading on the iPad anyway.
It has nothing to do with Apple 'deserving' a 30% cut. It's simply the business model they picked. I'm sure they did a lot of number crunching to come up with a figure that would pay for the overhead of running the store and a tidy profit. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's worked out quite well for them so far.
Amazon, Netflix have agreed to Apple terms in order to get their app in the store because it benefits them to have access to iOS users. If they don't want to give Apple the cut Apple wants they simply do the workaround by not offering in-app purchases. Apple provided the workaround because they need the users.
I know some folks won't believe me but the vast majority of Apple idevice owners arent as rabid as the folks we tend to encounter here. I suspect that, for many people, not having access to the app would be a deal-breaker. I know it would be for me and my iPad. Too many other options out there.
Point of fact, they need each other. It's just business.
Why is DOJ wasting so much time on a minor issue like this when they should be going after BIG OIL for disconnecting pump prices from barrel prices?
THAT is a monopoly that impacts EVERYONE.
Remind again, why we pay THEIR salary!!!??
THAT is a monopoly that impacts EVERYONE.
Remind again, why we pay THEIR salary!!!??
Last edited:
That's exactly it, isn't it? This is like the government going after Netscape Navigator and insisting they provide a link in the browser named, "maybe you'd like to try Internet Explorer?".
It didn't have to be that way though. Like I wrote earlier - they just don't want to do what it takes to (legally) and seriously compete in the space.
Yeah and it's a shame too. I have a few books from the iBooks store and to be honest I really like the app, mush more than the kindle app. But not being cross platform is a deal breaker for me. Unless, of course I can't find a book on Anazon and Apple has it. But that hasn't happened so far.
Uhhh, you mean after she already reviewed a fair amount of the evidence? Did you even READ the article?
Those who don't read the thread or understand the article are doomed to ask the same inane questions.
Why would I want to pay more for a book then someone wants to sell it to me for? If person A wants to sell it to me for $6 and person B wants to sell it to me for $10, why do you honestly think it's bad to buy it for $6, and I should instead pay $10? Especially since both people already paid the publisher the amount they were required to pay.
Apple was found guilty of "facilitating a conspiracy" to fix prices in the ebook market in a federal district court.
They don't have a say in the matter. They chose to go to court rather than settle. They lost. They are now bound to whatever resolution the court deems to be acceptable (pending appeal, of course).
Your analogy is completely foolish and wrong, by the way. This is the equivalent of Apple launching an Android app for iBooks, and Amazon then forcing Apple to give Amazon a 30% cut of every iBooks sale on the Android iBooks app, and requiring anyone else who sells iBooks (like Apple themselves) to offer the same high price on every product, and then Amazon conspiring with all of the book publishers to raise prices and force that model onto Apple's store, and then sitting on that business model in bad faith for 2 years until forced by a court to relent and allow Apple to sell ebooks via their iBooks Android app for whatever price they want, and from within the app, and without paying Amazon 30% of every sale. That's the analogy you were looking for. And it shows just how absurdly defensive Apple apologists can be.
Amazon is "winning" right now because they have built up such an incredible infrastructure for real, physical books (and practically everything else) that people go to them like they go to wal-mart. Wal-mart has terrible prices sometimes for certain things (like cheese or milk, for example), but the people who shop there don't know that, because they don't shop anywhere else. Amazon has a lot going for it
If the walled garden philosophy works, then Apple's iBooks store should be able to compete with the Kindle store on iOS without stacking the deck. If you want to pay a 30% commission to Apple for every purchase, then that's your right. It's not Apple's right to dictate pricing for other companies on their own website, which is what the current policy effectively does.
Here we have the DOJ going after businesses, trying to make it difficult and creating backdoors to problems and security issues.
The government should fix Medicare and Medicaid. There's so much fraud going on there, wasting contributor's tax to support people who don't really need it while denying service to those in real need.
How about the gas monopoly? Everyone agrees to raise prices; OMG that's a conspiracy! Think of this: Why does gas obtained from other areas goes up in price when there's a problem in the Middle-East?
Most of the people here complaining about the verdict, and how the judge already made up her mind long before it came to trial, don't understand how an antitrust hearing works.
See, the government doesn't particularly like bringing their homegrown corporations to court. This is especially true of companies as large and successful as Apple. They're the darlings of the American tech industry. The DoJ isn't going to go after them for simple, biased reasons.
If it ever comes to the point where a company like Apple is standing before a judge defending themselves in an antitrust hearing, the facts have already been studied meticulously, and have been found to be quite damning. This is why the judge had already "made up her mind" before they went to court. She built the case herself. Seen the evidence. Read the reports. Heard all the various testimonies from the various parties involved.
An antitrust hearing is less "the state has to prove your guilt in the matter", and more "explain this to me...", with the occasional "what the hell were you thinking".
Call me when Apple appeals using this argument or other circuits use that "bias" to pull off the ruling.
Those who only read part of the article and ignore the rest of it as if it didn't magically happen so they can have a leg to stand on in their arguement are doomed to keep making the same ridiculous statements.
Not sure why you seem to want to believe the case hadn't begun. It did begin. She had already started reviewing the evidence. The only part that didn't begin was the part where Apple tried to get up in front of her and say, "No I didn't. Pay no attention to the email from Jobs which caught us red handed".
Seriously? Are you honestly just ignoring that fact?
1) The laws don't define a "percentage" of anti-competitive behavior for prosecution (iBooks is probably a very small percentage of Apple's total revenue). It wouldn't be unfathomable to think that iBooks makes up a similar percentage of Apple's total revenue as underpriced books do for Amazon. If we treat all anti-competitive behavior the same, Amazon should be investigated as well.
2) Amazon has other goods & services that can cover the loss from one line of business. That's how/ why predatory pricing works. Long-term overall losses make for a poor business strategy.
3) Law is hard, which is why I'm glad I'm not a lawyer or judge. But I do remember a little bit of Anti-Trust stuff from college. I don't know a lot about Amazon's operation, but it does seem to me like anti-competitive behavior (abusing monopoly power).
TFA said:
It sounds to me like they want to shut the iBookstore down for 5 years. If you terminate Apple's agreements, and don't allow them to make new ones, then Apple can't distribute books.
Come on people. Stop throwing out statements like this without taking a minute to look up what terms mean! Monopolies are not against the law! What is against the law is a company using it's monopoly (or near-monopoly) position to unfairly compete against other companies. For example, Microsoft telling PC makers years ago that if they offered computers without Windows (e.g. Linux), they'd be cut off from offering Windows on any computer, effectively shutting them down. These are anti-trust / competition laws.
A former CEO where I used to work actually pointed out (in his usual, bizarre, but correct way) that every company must be trying to be a monopoly. The logic is that if they're not, it means they must have some agreement with their competitors to not dominate them. This is collusion or price-fixing, which is illegal, and back to the point of the case against Apple.
And, speaking of mandating monopolies - there is lots of this. Most public utilities are legal, government-granted monopolies.
So, the only problem is when a company gets so big/powerful/dominant that it doesn't even have to compete any more since it is able to just stop its competitors. I don't see that happening here.