Doesn't matter if they have it right or wrong now does it. The fact is - Today, July 10th, 2013, Apple was found guilty of collusion.
And quite frankly - based on the evidence - I think it was the right verdict based on the evidence.
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
Doesn't matter if they have it right or wrong now does it. The fact is - Today, July 10th, 2013, Apple was found guilty of collusion.
And quite frankly - based on the evidence - I think it was the right verdict based on the evidence.
The mob cheers
What would think if a new Wal-Mart came to town: lower prices or loss of jobs where you are, and their substitution by subsistence wages with no benefits? An average of 20% of Wal-Mart employees need food stamps and Medicaid, but hell, prices are low. What Apple did was to force the Agency model on Amazon, just as Amazon had acceded to the music industry's demands as a way to screw Apple, which wanted to have music DRM-free AND to be able to keep fixed pricing at .99 a track. That little move meant that, a year later, Apple raied prices to $1.29. The lower cost tracks are strictly industry promotions. Yet I never heard a bit of protest over this.
Amazon has become a massive corporation, the NSA of corporations in terms of data kept about you, without ever telling you a thing. Their profits are low, sometimes non-existent-- yet some very persistent venture capitalists keep funding it. The stock price is huge, against all common sense. I think we'll rue the day when we gave pricing power to these people.
What would think if a new Wal-Mart came to town: lower prices or loss of jobs where you are, and their substitution by subsistence wages with no benefits? An average of 20% of Wal-Mart employees need food stamps and Medicaid, but hell, prices are low. What Apple did was to force the Agency model on Amazon, just as Amazon had acceded to the music industry's demands as a way to screw Apple, which wanted to have music DRM-free AND to be able to keep fixed pricing at .99 a track. That little move meant that, a year later, Apple raied prices to $1.29. The lower cost tracks are strictly industry promotions. Yet I never heard a bit of protest over this.
Amazon has become a massive corporation, the NSA of corporations in terms of data kept about you, without ever telling you a thing. Their profits are low, sometimes non-existent-- yet some very persistent venture capitalists keep funding it. The stock price is huge, against all common sense. I think we'll rue the day when we gave pricing power to these people.
I'm not cheering. I agree with the verdict - but that doesn't mean it excites me. I think the verdict was just.
That being said - you're not really going to compare Wal-Mart coming into a town and taking away jobs with Amazon v Apple as far as eBooks are concerned? Unless you want to throw this thread completely off topic - it's irrelevant.
Except that, if there were only a handful of major developers and they got together and decided that competition sucks and if they all raise their prices at the same time, consumers will have little choice but to pay up, there would be a bit of a difference.
There may be some wool over your eyes....
---
Anyway, I am glad Apple and the publishers cartel lost this one.
Unfortunately, it's too late for most of the small ebook retailers, who were driven out of the market once everyone had to sell at the same price and readers stopped shopping around.
Hope Apple and the publishers pay a hefty fine, so that the pain is remembered and serves as deterrent.
Amazon is a much smaller company than Apple, and I've seen nothing to indicate that they collect any more information than Apple does about its customers.
Moreover, Amazon is profitable. Amazon is successful because they negotiate hard with suppliers to offer lower prices for consumers, and they sell at such a high volume that it still works for them. Amazon sometimes uses completely legal but unorthodox techniques like selling an item at cost in an effort to profit in the long term. In the cases of books, Amazon was selling incredibly cheap books (sometimes at a loss) and they were still making money at the end because of the large volume. Apple doesn't do business like that. They have a customer base that is accustomed to paying much higher prices (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not) and they took advantage of it. They illegally colluded with publishers to screw consumers into paying higher prices than they otherwise would if the free market worked like it should.
Like it or not, you and everyone else pay a much higher price for digital books than you did before Apple entered the market. Remember, these are books that don't cost more based on how many are produced. There's no paper, no binding, no shipping to bookstores. The prices should have been lower than hardcover books, but thanks to Apple, prices for ebooks are essentially on par with hardcover copies.
I'll never understand this fanboy mentality. I want to buy certain things, sometimes books, and if I buy an ebook then it's going to be the same no matter who I buy it from. Apple is going from industry to industry making sure that consumers pay more than they otherwise would and people here are tripping over themselves trying to defend those illegal and unethical practices.
LOL. You'll be paying $19.99 for the Green Eggs and Ham ebook from Amazon if Apple looses at the appellate level.
You obviously have no idea how massive Amazon is becoming, and what will happen once they completely dominate this market as they did before. Apple was trying to prevent an Amazon Monopoly in ebooks.
Apple will have this overturned. The Judge was an Amazon Prime Member, and had a reputation as a "Super Saver Shipping" bundler. This will go on for quite a while longer.
Or, we can all Trust the Government. It work for the Indians, eh?
Man, the amount of fanboy blinders on in this thread is unbearable. Apple is a corporation, they dont really give a crap about any of you, and they're most definitely guilty under the letter of the law. The gusto with which people will defend them despite all logic is truly mind boggling sometimes...
How is it "corrected"?? Apple gets away with conspiracy against the consumer, makes multi-millions, pays an inconsequential fine, and e-book prices stay high forevermore. Nothing was corrected. Apple and their co-conspirators got away with illegal activity in the name of profits.
Same old story.
You were betting Apple to win this case, it seems. I hope you did not bet anything of value on "overturn" bet.
By me, Apple got what they deserved. It is pretty humiliating for the execs and their legal council. They got served for their incompetence, arrogance and ignorance. Guilty as charged!!!
Last edited:
what makes you say that?
No they didn't- read what the Court said based on the evidence before it- essentially Apple didn't want to compete with Amazon and they wanted to make $$$ on ebooks from day one, they knew publishers' fears and wants, and played on them.
In the end it would appear that Apple ********* over both consumers (in that they had to pay higher prices) and the publishers (in that they got fewer sales and got less $ from each title) while making itself a nice profit....
BTW: I have an iPad, iMac, MacPro, two MacBook Pros and two Powerbooks, and spend thousands "in" iTunes Store, before anyone starts accusing me of being anti-Apple/MS-fanboy or anything else to that effect...
It is staggering to see how so many people here do not know what a monopoly is:
mo·nop·o·ly [muh-nop-uh-lee]
noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
The fact that Amazon has a large percentage of the ebook market does not make them a monopoly.
If on the other hand they were to buy Barns & Noble and other ebook retailers to kill all competition, then they would be a monopoly.
Just because they have the ability to sell some ebooks at a loss while others can't doesn't mean that it's illegal. Amazon is simply aggressive in driving business to their site and on their devices. Every large retailer has a loss leader. Something that they sell at a loss to attract customers so they can try to sell them other products. Sears, Macy's, P.C.Richards, Best Buy et al...they all do it but somehow Amazon is evil for being aggressive and smart. I really don't understand the thinking and logic around here.
Apple got caught doing something illegal, period. A US judge found them to be guilty based on facts presented at trial. It's really fairly straightforward.
mo·nop·o·ly [muh-nop-uh-lee]
noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
The fact that Amazon has a large percentage of the ebook market does not make them a monopoly.
If on the other hand they were to buy Barns & Noble and other ebook retailers to kill all competition, then they would be a monopoly.
Just because they have the ability to sell some ebooks at a loss while others can't doesn't mean that it's illegal. Amazon is simply aggressive in driving business to their site and on their devices. Every large retailer has a loss leader. Something that they sell at a loss to attract customers so they can try to sell them other products. Sears, Macy's, P.C.Richards, Best Buy et al...they all do it but somehow Amazon is evil for being aggressive and smart. I really don't understand the thinking and logic around here.
Apple got caught doing something illegal, period. A US judge found them to be guilty based on facts presented at trial. It's really fairly straightforward.
Learn these terms before you use them. Predatory undercutting is not the same thing as price fixing.
On top of that, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly, its conduct only becomes proscribed if a monopoly abuses its position...
Further, as the Judge said:
Nothing is decided until the appellate review is complete. If this Judge is upheld then a another trial starts over damages. Apple then sends the damage award to the appellate level.
If the award is upheld Apple Pays the damages from offshore funds sometime in 2015/2016.
In the grand scheme, by that time it will be meaningless.
----------
"Trust the Government. It worked for the Indians."
You make a valid point, but not a great one; a switching barrier does not have to be absolutely ironclad to be effective, it only needs to add friction. So even if there is a DRM-free workaround possible, it forces market participants to play by rules set by Amazon, rather than ones set by the market.
But Kindle is just an example; Amazon's huge market share will surely give them many opportunities to create switching barriers for consumers, as well as entry barriers for competitors.
But I'm more intrigued by your other comment, "your post has many flaws." Please do elucidate.
BTW, apparently many observers are as concerned about Amazon's dominance, and the effect of this ruling, as I am.
I'm sympathetic to this user, but I hope that someday people realize the real crime here was Amazon buying E-books from publishers and selling them below their cost. (The legal 'loss leader' principal employed by large chain stores because they can). E-book consumers got acclimated to a false (and unsustainable) economy which Apple attempted to correct for the future good of the E-book medium.
How would it hurt the industry?
Example: The industry sell the best seller book to Amazon for $11.99. THEY GOT PAID $11.99 per book sold. Amazon wanted to use these best sellers as LOSS LEADER and sell it at $9.99.
Amazon lose $2 per every loss leader sold.
And these books would sell better at $9.99 than $14.99. If you sell a book to Amazon for $11.99, you would wish Amazon to discount it so that more people would buy it. You get paid $11.99 no matter what.
Amazon already put Borders out business and all the small bookstores around here. Barnes and Noble looks to be next because they just let people go here. BAM opened second hand stores to try diversify but it's struggling as well. Once competition goes away amazon can hold the publishers and the consumers over the barrel.
LOL. You'll be paying $19.99 for the Green Eggs and Ham ebook from Amazon if Apple looses at the appellate level.
You obviously have no idea how massive Amazon is becoming, and what will happen once they completely dominate this market as they did before. Apple was trying to prevent an Amazon Monopoly in ebooks.
Apple will have this overturned. The Judge was an Amazon Prime Member, and had a reputation as a "Super Saver Shipping" bundler. This will go on for quite a while longer.
Or, we can all Trust the Government. It work for the Indians, eh?
And trying to create their own monopoly?
YES because we have learned if you have a lot of MONEY you can never be guilty right?
Just ask OJS.
Just ask OJS.
Temporary gain, for longterm pain. AMAZON aren't the 'Knights' you think they are.
Precisely.
Many people are acutely aware of the long-term harm such policies do to the marketplace, but unfortunately as consumer laws stand at this time, such policies are legally not considered to be predatory.
AMAZON, to the chagrin of publishers, has forced book prices down to the point that you'd be hard pressed to find any independent bookstores left. Most have gone out of business due to AMAZON's super aggressive loss-leader pricing tactics. Of course, consumers weren't complaining, but let there be no doubt that AMAZON has destroyed a healthy competitive marketplace for books, the same way WALMART has killed small independent stores. Try to find a small mom & pop store, that's not a restaurant, within 50 miles of a WALMART.
Let no one be fooled into thinking that AMAZON's motives are a healthy marketplace for books, or any other goods for that matter. Their unabashed goal is to run everyone else out of town, after which they are free to charge whatever they want.
There certainly appears to be a lot more price diversity between publishers, than before April 2010. Apple knew they were threading on thin ice here, with their agency model initiative, and granted, they wanted their 30% cut on the iBook store. Also admittedly, they were anxious to break up AMAZON's stranglehold on book sales, but in addition to that, I believe they also wanted a healthier overall marketplace for books, where not only they, but also authors as well as publishers could thrive. AMAZON clearly had no interest in the long term interests of either publishers or authors. And in my mind, that is the defining difference between AMAZON and APPLE's policies.
For that reason, I find it hard to find any joy in this ruling. If the SC decides to hear an appeal, maybe, just maybe, some common sense will enter into the picture.
Last edited:
