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
So Amazon drives out competition by undercutting everyone else but that is completely fine. Whatever happened to "let the market sort it out"
Gee, Apple can't seem to win anything these days.
Very sad to see the courts side with Amazon on this one. Amazon wants to sell books below cost to kick competition out of the market, while forcing publishers, writers to have prices dictated to them by Amazon. I don't see how that is not price fixing.
Very sad to see the courts side with Amazon on this one. Amazon wants to sell books below cost to kick competition out of the market, while forcing publishers, writers to have prices dictated to them by Amazon. I don't see how that is not price fixing.
A publisher setting the price for an eBook in the iBookstore is no different than me, as a developer, setting the price for my app in the App Store.
I'm shocked that the government was able to side against a corporation.
But then again Apple does almost no lobbying, so I guess there's a causal relationship going on.
But then again Apple does almost no lobbying, so I guess there's a causal relationship going on.
Yes I was in the same exact boat as you.
----------
Maybe it scored them no points because what they did was WRONG?
DUH!
A publisher setting the price for an eBook in the iBookstore is no different than me, as a developer, setting the price for my app in the App Store.
----------
Except that no one is arguing that prices didn't go up.....
Sorry - not going to engage further. We all know where it will end. Likely with both of us being in a time out for frivolous posting or going off topic.
I agree with the court decision - regardless of whether I think Amazon is evil or not. Because, as it would appear, Apple broke the law. For the "good" of the industry or not - they, according to the courts were guilty of breaking the law.
As per the front page: The question in this case has always been a narrow one: whether Apple participated in a price-fixing scheme in violation of this countrys antitrust laws. Apple is liable here for facilitating and encouraging the Publisher Defendants collective, illegal restraint of trade. Through their conspiracy they forced Amazon (and other resellers) to relinquish retail pricing authority and then they raised retail e-book prices. Those higher prices were not the result of regular market forces but of a scheme in which Apple was a full participant.
agreed. This is like all the other oil companies of the world coming together behind, let's say, FedEx, as a cartel to fix the price of home delivered petrol, to compete against Exxon/Mobil, who has cornered the market in home delivery of gasoline, making no profit, but driving all the corner gas stations out of business.
The price fixing is an anti-trust issue for sure, but in 10 years, when there is Only ExxonMobil (and FedEx, who still ships everything else, including stuff for Amazon) survives, and now can 'benevolently' start raising prices on the oil, so it's stockholders can get a dividend of this long pull strategy of pricing siege. Oh, and ExxonMobil's own trucking fleet now starts to deliver packages that FedEx can deliver...
====
Don't get me wrong, Amazon is absolutely amazing at showing almost no pricing friction between product and my doorstep. just like iTunes and Appstore does for my iDevices.
The question will be can Apple deliver an Amazing Reading Experience without this agency pricing model? I think so. But I think new pricing models(buying books by chapters (say for iTunes University), book rental (ala libraries), etc will be pushed out several years now.
Exactly. VERY short-sighted to think consumer benefits in the long run with Amazon being the only game in town. Apple went about this the wrong way though, they should have opened the iBookstore and actively encouraged publishers to think about the business model with a dose of modesty as to their position.
I get the ruling, but then again I don't. Regardless of apple, or anyone else, if each publisher was offered the same deal, and accepted it, how is that price fixing? Apple encouraging publishers to keep their prices competitive while still making them more money doesn't really sound illegal. Considering the # of calls and meetings between publishers, it seems like Apple set the terms, proposed them individually to the companies, and they accepted it.
App store developers are offered the exact same deal of apple taking 30%, of course they can set their own price.
Regardless of if it was Apple or Google, or Enron, this doesn't sound illegal to me, a layperson, who understands that writers/publishers need to make money to some extent.
App store developers are offered the exact same deal of apple taking 30%, of course they can set their own price.
Regardless of if it was Apple or Google, or Enron, this doesn't sound illegal to me, a layperson, who understands that writers/publishers need to make money to some extent.
I don't get this decision.
Of course I didn't see every detail, just what was posted here on macrumors, but I couldn't see where it would be possible to come to this conclusion without having roped amazon or other distributors into the scheme.
As far as I understood it, the MFN clause in apples contract required publishers to offer apple the lowest price that it offered to other distributors, not raise other distributors prices to the level of apple.
Amazon was selling books below its cost but was paying a price set by the publishers. It's price was determined by no one other than amazon.
Apple would sell books at two price points, well above the price of amazon. Unless amazon raised its prices, apples prices would have been uncompetitive, not anti competitive.
If Apple had been successful in its agency model, perhaps amazon would have raised the price point of its books, but it is equally likely that Amazon would have still priced significantly below apple because of the desire to draw customers into its ecosystem and to sell many other products besides books. Books are amazons loss leader to draw customers into kindle and into the store. Amazon losing this loss leader makes kindle less interesting and controlling the amazon store experience less accessible.
It seems to me that apples approach was, as apple said, consistent with its earlier distribution deals (and if so, why were these not deemed anti competitive, and banned, long ago?), where Apple could avoid running a dumping business model like amazon, and instead earn its 30% profit, and avoid pricing do high as to be uncompetitive against paper and ink copies.
In other words, it seemed to me that apple was playing a middle ground in order to leverage its platform in a sustainable way both good for apple (profitable) and for the customer (cheaper and more convenient than paper).
It will be interesting to read the judges decision and to see the appeal (which I think apple has to do to defend its generic model.)
I'd be very interested to see critiques/corrections of what I've written above.
Of course I didn't see every detail, just what was posted here on macrumors, but I couldn't see where it would be possible to come to this conclusion without having roped amazon or other distributors into the scheme.
As far as I understood it, the MFN clause in apples contract required publishers to offer apple the lowest price that it offered to other distributors, not raise other distributors prices to the level of apple.
Amazon was selling books below its cost but was paying a price set by the publishers. It's price was determined by no one other than amazon.
Apple would sell books at two price points, well above the price of amazon. Unless amazon raised its prices, apples prices would have been uncompetitive, not anti competitive.
If Apple had been successful in its agency model, perhaps amazon would have raised the price point of its books, but it is equally likely that Amazon would have still priced significantly below apple because of the desire to draw customers into its ecosystem and to sell many other products besides books. Books are amazons loss leader to draw customers into kindle and into the store. Amazon losing this loss leader makes kindle less interesting and controlling the amazon store experience less accessible.
It seems to me that apples approach was, as apple said, consistent with its earlier distribution deals (and if so, why were these not deemed anti competitive, and banned, long ago?), where Apple could avoid running a dumping business model like amazon, and instead earn its 30% profit, and avoid pricing do high as to be uncompetitive against paper and ink copies.
In other words, it seemed to me that apple was playing a middle ground in order to leverage its platform in a sustainable way both good for apple (profitable) and for the customer (cheaper and more convenient than paper).
It will be interesting to read the judges decision and to see the appeal (which I think apple has to do to defend its generic model.)
I'd be very interested to see critiques/corrections of what I've written above.
Billions. This was an obvious one. Apple will appeal it to the SC I'm sure, get a bunch of bad press then make a huge payout.
Of course they can afford it I guess.
And if publishers independently decided to break their agreements with Amazon and do that then fine. But it's pretty clear it was a coordinated effort and since they are the 6 largest publishers with huge marketshare, that's a clear no-no.
Funny, what I see is an artificially constrained pipeline having been broken up and diversified into real competition at an actual competitive/market price...
In providing cheaper ebooks to consumers? OH NO.
I guess I forgot that in your eyes Apple "dominating" the world is good, but some other company like Amazon that doesn't price gouge the ever loving hell out of every product it sells is just pure evil.