You're right, it's much better to give Apple total control, because Apple doesn't have absurd markups on all of its products or anything like 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 Found Guilty of Conspiring to Fix Prices in E-Book Trial [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're right, it's much better to give Apple total control, because Apple doesn't have absurd markups on all of its products or anything like that.
It is illegal for Apple to act as a hub, enabling and encouraging a cartel of spokes to conspire to restrain trade. As the hub, Apple needed to ensure that a critical mass of cartel members would agree to the scheme.
That is the reason for Apple's announcement: to let the co-conspirators know that they could safely sign, as there would be a critical mass and that therefore, the cartel would succeed.
In a different context, the announcement would not have been illegal.
Last edited:
http://paidcontent.org/2013/07/10/a...-pricing-case-for-consumers-not-much-changes/
Judge Cote came down on the side of the U.S. government, arguing in her 160-page ruling that the publishers — all of whom settled — conspired with each other to raise ebook prices and that “Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy. Without Apple’s orchestration of this conspiracy, it would not have succeeded as it did in the Spring of 2010.”
Judge Cote also says that Apple and the publishers “shared one overarching interest — that there be no price competition at the retail level,” especially from Amazon, and thus enacted agency pricing. “Apple seized the moment and brilliantly played its hand,” Cote writes, providing publishers “with the vision, the format, the timetable, and the coordination that they needed to raise ebook prices.” Thus “through the vehicle of the Apple agency agreements, the prices in the nascent ebook industry shifted upward, in some cases 50% or more for an individual title. Virtually overnight, Apple got an attractive, additional feature for its iPad and a guaranteed new revenue stream, and the Publisher Defendants removed Amazon’s ability to price their ebooks at $9.99.”
Judge Cote came down on the side of the U.S. government, arguing in her 160-page ruling that the publishers — all of whom settled — conspired with each other to raise ebook prices and that “Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy. Without Apple’s orchestration of this conspiracy, it would not have succeeded as it did in the Spring of 2010.”
Judge Cote also says that Apple and the publishers “shared one overarching interest — that there be no price competition at the retail level,” especially from Amazon, and thus enacted agency pricing. “Apple seized the moment and brilliantly played its hand,” Cote writes, providing publishers “with the vision, the format, the timetable, and the coordination that they needed to raise ebook prices.” Thus “through the vehicle of the Apple agency agreements, the prices in the nascent ebook industry shifted upward, in some cases 50% or more for an individual title. Virtually overnight, Apple got an attractive, additional feature for its iPad and a guaranteed new revenue stream, and the Publisher Defendants removed Amazon’s ability to price their ebooks at $9.99.”
I'm really enjoying seeing 
fanboys feathers get all ruffled up LOL
If this was Google or Samsung you know what you would be reading here
**** YAH!
Down with Google/Samsung they s***!
Good job DOJ!
Google/Samsung were harming the market!
They don't care about competition!
They were trying to fix prices to suit them!
fanboys feathers get all ruffled up LOLIf this was Google or Samsung you know what you would be reading here
**** YAH!
Down with Google/Samsung they s***!
Good job DOJ!
Google/Samsung were harming the market!
They don't care about competition!
They were trying to fix prices to suit them!
Examples. Cause I have been buying ebooks for a while and rarely have I seen the same title more expensive in iBooks outside of a brief sale on Amazon. If anything that has been anti customer is that Amazon has deals to keep some books only on their service. And some of them are major titles like the Hunger Games. Even Harry Potter which could have just been sold ePub off her site is on Amazon but not any other service. Sure Amazon claims no 'guilt' because they just route you to her site but still there's no iBook format, no nook or kobo. Vanilla Ebook or kindle. Why not just have done the Ebook and let kindle update to handle that? Because amazon wanted that Prime member loan deal and likely refused to mention the books otherwise. And if anyone else wants to rent/loan books they will get a no cause Amazon likely has an exclusive deal.
Conversely Apple did collude and was found guilty. Again - this case isn't about Amazon. It's about what Apple and the publishers did
No - 90% is not legally a monopoly. Just because YOU think it is doesn't make it so. And how come Apple is innocent until proven guilty but Amazon is guilty until proven innocent.
Fact: Apple was found guilty of collusion. True or not - they were found guilty.
Fact: Amazon is not a monopoly
Fact: Amazon has not been found guilty of any wrong doing in regards to their pricing structure.
Clear?
----------
that's a monopoly!!!
----------
So much speculation. so little facts.
You are the one that doesn't understand. The courts have shown time and again that 100% control is not needed for a company to be a monopoly, just an overwhelming majority. But they also differential between a monopoly that develops naturally and one that does via illegal tricks and games. Apple had a monopoly on tablets a couple of years ago but that was fine because it was simply because no one else had released anything or the other offerings just weren't selling. Compare this to Microsoft being tried for gaining a monopoly by copying Apple's IP via the whole GUI stuff.
They also look at what you do with your monopoly, example Microsoft in the whole browser thing.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing
Look like the DOJ used Steve Jobs "THE PRICE WILL BE THE SAME" against him.
Look like the DOJ used Steve Jobs "THE PRICE WILL BE THE SAME" against him.
I'm happy with the outcome as well. As someone who is married to a person obsessed with ebooks I see the aggravation this has been.
Exactly, just ask your married partner.
I was buying ebooks a lot, then Apple came along and right after I noticed the prices jumped!
It was obvious then what Apple and the publishers were doing.
It felt wrong that you were finally paying the market rate instead of an artificially low rate subsidized by the rest of Amazon's commerce and designed to leverage a vertical monopoly to undercut any potential competition?
If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.
One book is not a trend. Particularly when this could be a limited time price due to a special deal. They do happen.
WRONG. No need for subsidy from the rest of Amazon's ecommerce. EBOOK is profitable for Amazon. Loss Leader on some books doesn't mean Amazon lose money overall on ebook.
According to the DOJ,
They sell best sellers at breakeven/loss as loss leaders and make up for it with other titles. Overall result: profits from selling ebooks
It's a virtual slam dunk because anti-trust law is screwed up in this country. At the end of the day, it's a matter of what companies the DOJ wants to go after. I didn't like it when the DOJ went after Microsoft and I didn't like it when they went after Apple. At least when they went after Microsoft they went after a company who had a virtual monopoly. Here, they went after the newcomer who was attempting to break the virtual stranglehold of the dominant player.
To me, it made no sense for the government to take this case. They essentially decided that it was better for Amazon to force the wholesale model on the market than for the publishers to come together to force a switch to the agency model. eBooks are a nascent market, and arguably Amazon was attempting to leverage its dominant position to take control of it before others could get in.
As for looking foolish, the market has pretty much snoozed over this one. Chances are the judgment isn't going to be that significant (if the judge decides to "send a message" it will likely be shot down by an appellate court).
Of course Apple was trying to "fix" book pricing. But was this "price-fixing" or "resale price maintenance?"
The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all sellers but may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied.
Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers. The purpose is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit of the traders. For example, manufacturers and retailers may conspire to sell at a common "retail" price; set a common minimum sales price, where sellers agree not to discount the sales price below the agreed-to minimum price; buy the product from a supplier at a specified maximum price; adhere to a price book or list price; engage in cooperative price advertising; standardize financial credit terms offered to purchasers; use uniform trade-in allowances; limit discounts; discontinue a free service or fix the price of one component of an overall service; adhere uniformly to previously-announced prices and terms of sale; establish uniform costs and markups; impose mandatory surcharges; purposefully reduce output or sales in order to charge higher prices; or purposefully share or pool markets, territories, or customers.
Price fixing is permitted in some markets but not others; where allowed, it is often known as resale price maintenance or retail price maintenance. Wikipedia
Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers. The purpose is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit of the traders. For example, manufacturers and retailers may conspire to sell at a common "retail" price; set a common minimum sales price, where sellers agree not to discount the sales price below the agreed-to minimum price; buy the product from a supplier at a specified maximum price; adhere to a price book or list price; engage in cooperative price advertising; standardize financial credit terms offered to purchasers; use uniform trade-in allowances; limit discounts; discontinue a free service or fix the price of one component of an overall service; adhere uniformly to previously-announced prices and terms of sale; establish uniform costs and markups; impose mandatory surcharges; purposefully reduce output or sales in order to charge higher prices; or purposefully share or pool markets, territories, or customers.
Price fixing is permitted in some markets but not others; where allowed, it is often known as resale price maintenance or retail price maintenance. Wikipedia
Selling a few hot SKUs below cost seems to be profitable overall. But you knew that already.
Because they are
What would really add to this conversation is if you could repeat this 3 or 10 more times.
"I come to an Apple enthusiast site to mock the people who support Apple." The only thing worse than a fanboy is a fanboy troll.
Again - Amazon hasn't been found of doing anything illegal. Apple has been found guilty. Whether or not Amazon has a monopoly is irrelevant. Especially since they, in the legal definition do not nor have they been found guilty of anything relating to anti-trust violations.
You can hate on Amazon all you want. But that doesn't change the facts.
She said back in the beginning the government was likely to prove its case. In general anti-trust law is pretty arbitrary, and it's easy for the DOJ to find "collusion" when they want to. The publishers all folded since they couldn't afford to fight, and then once they did the writing was on the wall that Apple would lose. For whatever reason they decided to go to trial, perhaps so that they could make their case in the court of public opinion. At the end of the day, it seems silly that a newcomer would be attacked by the government for "conspiring" against the party with 90% market share who was arguably setting artificially low prices to keep others out of the market.
Since Apple has entered the market, competition in the eBook market has flourished. More books are available, and more publishers and resellers operate in it. Regardless of the letter of antitrust law, the fact is that Apple and the publishers managed to open up a market that was being stifled before. The DOJ didn't need to take this case. Even Senator Chuck Schumer, far from a "free market conservative" argued that the DOJ should drop the suit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577527211023581798.html
Good, so we'll have a lot of Harry Potters, Twilights and 50 Shades of Grey. Western culture thanks you.
No, she said that they the government can prove the case after looking at the evidence.