How did the clauses themselves make the prices go up? Publishers determined the price to sell their books at.
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 Files Brief Calling Department of Justice Remedy 'Draconian' and 'Punitive'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How did the clauses themselves make the prices go up? Publishers determined the price to sell their books at.
Get over it
you were caught fixing prices, deal with the aftermath.
The only thing I would have to agree with Apple is that back when I bought paper books, ALL book prices in ALL bookstores cost the same, they had the price printed on the actual cover of the book. I mean, I think price fixing is just part of the book industry, period.
In the meantime I've noticed that the cost of movies on iTunes have dropped, most likely to avoid price fixing lawsuits there. For years an HD movies cost $24.99, now suddenly many new releases are all $14.99? So something good came out of calling out Apple on their iTunes pricing.
you were caught fixing prices, deal with the aftermath.
The only thing I would have to agree with Apple is that back when I bought paper books, ALL book prices in ALL bookstores cost the same, they had the price printed on the actual cover of the book. I mean, I think price fixing is just part of the book industry, period.
In the meantime I've noticed that the cost of movies on iTunes have dropped, most likely to avoid price fixing lawsuits there. For years an HD movies cost $24.99, now suddenly many new releases are all $14.99? So something good came out of calling out Apple on their iTunes pricing.
What the DoJ [rp[pses has all to do with what Apple did
Why the DoJ has to force anything to Amazon? Can you post where they have been found guilty of any wrongdoing?
And those idiots at congress try to encourage business to stay in US OF A.
What freaking morons.
Doj should be sued for harming US economy!
Draconian is an understatement... Such is life with our present administration.
What freaking morons.
Doj should be sued for harming US economy!
Draconian is an understatement... Such is life with our present administration.
Surely you can see I was being tongue in cheek with my first comment
I'm sorry - I can't engage in this conversation with you because you don't understand the case at all - something which is clear by the comments you've made.
I say this again. Why should Apple be able to sell books in their app without giving up a 30% cut, while other companies like Amazon cannot?
It's unfair, and that's one of the key issues here. It's equivalent to Microsoft demanding a 30% cut of all music purchases made on a PC.
Apple's iOS has dominance in the market, and Apple is using this dominance to engage in monopolistic behavior, doing things like ACTIVELY blocking other companies from even *linking* to their stores in their apps.
This decision is awesome and a complete win for consumers.
It's unfair, and that's one of the key issues here. It's equivalent to Microsoft demanding a 30% cut of all music purchases made on a PC.
Apple's iOS has dominance in the market, and Apple is using this dominance to engage in monopolistic behavior, doing things like ACTIVELY blocking other companies from even *linking* to their stores in their apps.
This decision is awesome and a complete win for consumers.
Some folks at doj must really dislike apple. I wonder about some unsavory paid or revenge motives?
Enlighten me then. You clearly must be a lawyer since you have such a firm grasp on what is happening.
Does anyone really think that
a) Consumer prices are the only way to judge fair business practice?
b) Allowing an Amazon monopoly will insure Amazon keeps artificially low prices forever?
Makes you wonder about the theory of Apple not playing enough "moneyball" with Washington. Don't forget this whole case started at the request of Amazon, not the request of consumers. And Amazon knows enough to pay their politicians. Apple has never plaid that game to the hilt (which may be a good thing) and sometimes that seems to come at a cost: not enough friends bought in Washington.
Having ONE single, trusted way for users to spend money within apps is also a win for consumers. (Let the web be the Wild West.)
a) Consumer prices are the only way to judge fair business practice?
b) Allowing an Amazon monopoly will insure Amazon keeps artificially low prices forever?
Makes you wonder about the theory of Apple not playing enough "moneyball" with Washington. Don't forget this whole case started at the request of Amazon, not the request of consumers. And Amazon knows enough to pay their politicians. Apple has never plaid that game to the hilt (which may be a good thing) and sometimes that seems to come at a cost: not enough friends bought in Washington.
Having ONE single, trusted way for users to spend money within apps is also a win for consumers. (Let the web be the Wild West.)
Last edited:
Apple should relocate business away from USA. Perhaps Korea? Here in the USA we do the best we can to give a foreign company the upper hand (samedung), the most in your face book monopoly a jail free card (AMA-givemeyourmoney-zone), and the world best tech company a shot in the right arm (app-show every one how is done then we take it away from you-le).
But yes, consumers win.
Not.
----------
Or maybe Apple really is guilty of wrongdoing? Nahhhh couldn't be that
You agree that doj proposal is fair, don't you?
You appear to be confused. I can still buy ebooks on my iPad from Amazon (or other places) without paying Apple 30%, it's called Safari. No different to buying music on a PC.
Look at the settlement amounts (over 100M$ combined). I'm sorry, but at those levels it wasn't a case of "financial logic". They knew they couldn't win, they knew they colluted to increase prices artificially, with the help of Apple to save their printed book business.
If Amazon could sell books at 9.99$, others could. They had an advantage in the market because they were first movers in it. Apple could have competed in that model, they just decided the margins were good enough and it was likely very "convenient" to find publishers who also wanted the prices to go up.
Well part of the penalty should be to pay back customers... Not just Apple's customers, everyone's customers who ended up paying more as a result of this cartel.
Another part of it needs to make sure the guilty parties don't start over again... whatever for that takes it needs to be somewhat restrictive. Disallowing an agency model coupled with a MFN clause is one thing, allowing others to openly compete is another. Doesn't sound that unfair on the face of it (to judge a penalty you must first, objectively accept the validity of the guilty verdict though... just try....)
All the big problems are solved
I am actually quite pleased to see that the government is able to focus on such a critical item in our economy and business. This would indicate that all of the really big problems that impact our society are solved such that these minuscule items can get their needed focus.
I am actually quite pleased to see that the government is able to focus on such a critical item in our economy and business. This would indicate that all of the really big problems that impact our society are solved such that these minuscule items can get their needed focus.
So you think Amazon is foreign company? So you think in US soil, doesn't matter about fairness, only US companies can win? If so, can you tell me ONE simple reason, why should foreign company invest in US?
Actually, yes, but not back to the point that they were at before Apple's interference in a system that worked very well and kept eBook prices a lot lower than they are now.
I actually think that the recommendations don't go far enough, instead Apple should have to pay out to anyone that purchased an eBook since they started their iBooks business. It should be equal to at least double the estimated price difference if they had not started doing this. I believe the estimate is currently that eBooks are 60% higher than they would have been had Apple not come along. So, I think they should have to subtract 60% from the prices paid, then double that amount and pay to each customer that bought ebooks. Yes, it should be double so that other companies think twice before engaging in similar illegal activities.
Oh, and of course the measures should be punitive.
Yes, eventually it will lower prices for consumers.
Apple and the major publishers singlehandedly disrupted the ebook market and by fixing prices for all, effectively removed any incentives for consumers to shop around.
Which then led t the demise of independent ebook sellers, who did not have their own hardware to tie their shops to.
It also led to sometimes dramatic increases in ebook prices - for instance, when I purchased Updike's "Rabbit Run" it was $5.99 from an independent seller (Amazon's price was about $7 or $8, if I remember), while now EVERY seller lists it at $11.99.
So, yeah, I think the DOJ's push is hardly "draconian" and I'd be thrilled to see the walled gardens the handful of major ereader monopolies have created, busted wide open.
It will be a win for consumers and it will create a real market, as opposed to one controlled by five players.
No, in the USA we have laws that protects people from companies doing exactly what Apple did, this is part of the American justice system.
That wasn't the point.
Artificially? Amazon seemed to think that eBook best sellers were worth $12.50 when they bought them wholesale. $12.99 to $14.99 doesn't seem to be "artificial" to me.
Evidence? Amazon could leverage their profits in other industries to finance the infrastructure and take advantage of their sales tax exemption.
Again, same claim with no evidence. Apple operates the iTunes Store with minimal profit on 30% gross margins. How do you think they could have been profitable with Amazon's gross margins and no market share?