Sidebar Sidebar
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]

maelstromr said:
Isn't it early for you to be back at this?

As I have said, over and over, if "good for consumers" means "cheaper books today" then sure, it's "good for consumers."

However, I do not believe "cheaper books today" should be the goal of a free market place when "cheaper books today" is driving out competition and all but guaranteeing crappy products for higher prices once competition is driven out.

I take into account the costs of creating such material, of building viable marketplaces, of having competition that improves quality AND price. I believe the pressures created by Apple's actions here, whatever their legal (as opposed to right or wrong as some of you seem to think all things that are "illegal" are also "bad") status, were more beneficial than detrimental in the long term. I believe Amazon benefits from this ruling to the long term detriment of the consumer. I believe those who are just excited about cheaper products are exactly the kind of voters that get us into stupid regulatory messes all the time.
Click to expand...

You're wrongly assuming that "less competition" is the result of a free market and/or cheaper products. According to that theory there wouldn't be any competition right now for most products. Clearly there is.

People seem to have hysterical paranoia about Amazon or whatever successful company (except Apple on this forum, since it's their designated home it seems). It just doesn't have any basis in fact. Apple beat MS against all odds, and countless other examples which makes this sort of thinking utterly wrong.
 
BaldiMac said:
Temporarily that's fine, but long term it destroys the value on their product.

That's exactly the publishers problem with Amazon and why they tried to undermine them.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly one of the reasons Judge Cote cited when she found Apple guilty of violating antitrust laws. You may not like how certain situation plays out but you're not allow to break the law to make it "right." If you don't like the current laws, the only legal way to address that is to get those laws changed and not to try to circumvent them.
 
vinyl313 said:
Yea, in fact, I read an interview recently with a woman wrote her first book, a medical/self help book that sold amazingly well and she made almost nothing from it as, like you said, the publishers got most of the money.

She self published her following books and has done very well for herself. This must have the publishers crapping their pants. One thing she did say was especially for first time writers, publishers are a necessary evil to get the writers names out there. ****** system.
Click to expand...

I've become quite interested in Pubslush, as I've investigated writing a book with my father. Sort of a kickstarter for books, but not a ton of audience. Amazon has amazing self publishing tools once you write the book. even fair pricing on printing it. You just have to get the word out unless you magically have connections
 
Konrad9 said:
Prove to me why I should believe Amazon would not sell ebooks as cheaply as they sell literally every single other product they offer.

Also, "the judge was an amazon prime member".... so bloody what!? He's probably got an iPhone and an iPad like damn near every other moderately wealthy person in the US. You are grasping at pathetically empty straws.
Click to expand...

Educate yourself:
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/07/apple-amazon-book-prices/

----------
AppleScruff1 said:
And trying to create their own monopoly?
Click to expand...

Understand:
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/07/apple-amazon-book-prices/
 
Glideslope said:
Understand:
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/07/apple-amazon-book-prices/
Click to expand...

Regrettably, that article appers to have been written by someone who doesn't appreciate how the law works- the Judge plainly and justly found what Apple did was against the law. Apple attempted to raise exactly the defence argued in the article, but the Judge was rightly not buying it, as can be easily seen from the Opinion. The Judge plainly and expressly said what the recourse was if anyone felt Amazon was doing what the article is arguing- a complaint to the appropriate agency or a civil suit or both- raising that as a defence or arguing that raising prices and eliminating free market is pro-competition is just plain nonsence and the Court wasn't buying any of that!..

The article you point out is but a bunch of supposition, speculation and pure guesswork without a shred of evidence. Cf. the judgment of the Court, which is based purely on law and evidence before it. Trust me, no judge wants to be overruled on appeal, or worse have their objectivity questioned by a superiour court!..
 
0x0x0x0 said:
Regrettably, that article appers to have been written by someone who doesn't appreciate how the law works- the Judge plainly and justly found what Apple did was against the law. Apple attempted to raise exactly the defence argued in the article, but the Judge was rightly not buying it, as can be easily seen from the Opinion. The Judge plainly and expressly said what the recourse was if anyone felt Amazon was doing what the article is arguing- a complaint to the appropriate agency or a civil suit or both- raising that as a defence or arguing that raising prices and eliminating free market is pro-competition is just plain nonsence and the Court wasn't buying any of that!..

The article you point out is but a bunch of supposition, speculation and pure guesswork without a shred of evidence. Cf. the judgment of the Court, which is based purely on law and evidence before it. Trust me, no judge wants to be overruled on appeal, or worse have their objectivity questioned by a superiour court!..
Click to expand...

Yes. "Supposition, speculation, and pure guesswork." A very accurate description of Denise Cote. :apple:
 
Glideslope said:
Yes. "Supposition, speculation, and pure guesswork." A very accurate description of Denise Cote. :apple:
Click to expand...

The previous poster is pretty spot on. You don't have to look further than the headline to see that the entire article is speculation.

Here. Let me help you... Apple’s Court Loss Could End the Book as We Know It

Note that it doesn't say WILL.

p.s. The judge was able to view evidence. The author of this article is going on 2nd hand information.
 
someone wrote this on another forum:

Say Amazon really wanted to get more share of the mp3 business. So they call the 3 major music labels Sony, Warner, Universal ect... and they say hey we will sell your songs for $1.99 a song, but all other stores have to sell your songs for $1.99.

Is that legal?



p.s. Itunes selling music using wholesale model, not agency.
Amazon and Google also sell digital music using wholesale model. They and the publishers agree on a wholesale price and the retailers can set whatever price they want.

For example, Lady Gaga album was sold for $0.99 by AmazonMP3 when it first came out.
 
http://business.time.com/2013/07/12...marks-digital-power-shift-in-book-publishing/

“The settlement had the effect of breaking up the conspiracy and introducing price competition back into the market,” said Lemley. Over the last year, the average price for best-selling e-books has declined by nearly 50%, according to Jeremy Greenfield, editorial director at Digital Book World, a leading trade publication covering the e-book and digital publishing business.
Click to expand...

As a consumer, do you want price competition in the market?
 
0x0x0x0 said:
Regrettably, that article appers to have been written by someone who doesn't appreciate how the law works- the Judge plainly and justly found what Apple did was against the law. Apple attempted to raise exactly the defence argued in the article, but the Judge was rightly not buying it, as can be easily seen from the Opinion. The Judge plainly and expressly said what the recourse was if anyone felt Amazon was doing what the article is arguing- a complaint to the appropriate agency or a civil suit or both- raising that as a defence or arguing that raising prices and eliminating free market is pro-competition is just plain nonsence and the Court wasn't buying any of that!..

The article you point out is but a bunch of supposition, speculation and pure guesswork without a shred of evidence. Cf. the judgment of the Court, which is based purely on law and evidence before it. Trust me, no judge wants to be overruled on appeal, or worse have their objectivity questioned by a superiour court!..
Click to expand...

True, but we need to consider for a moment at least that Apple may have complained to the Antitrust Division (or the FTC) about Amazon's market behavior and gotten nowhere. If that's the case, Apple may have felt justified in conspiring with the publishers to break Amazon's hammerlock on pricing in the ebook market. Usually these narratives are more complicated than what we see. Tip of the iceberg.
 
charlituna said:
And a major part of that was Amazon's long time MFN, plus exclusivity deals, which let them undercut everyone else because they could afford to take a loss on ebooks AND prevent others from having the title at any cost.

But no one saw the legal wrong in any of this and still doesn't. Because its not Apple doing it. Same as their tax situation, use of Chinese labor etc.
Click to expand...

It goes way beyond any deals Amazon may have though. You snipped out my argument and setup a straw man to attack. Thanks.

Amazon wasn't even the first to market with the Kindle, but Sony had no clue whatsoever how to leverage their early advantage. B&N was way too late to the game with hardware that was buggy which tanks confidence in their ability to deliver. Amazon was the only one who actually took the time to setup an ecosystem of any kind around the Kindle, and advertise what value they had to offer the customer. And it worked.

The thing is, there is no legal wrong in MFN and exclusivity deals. Is it beneficial to free markets? That's debatable, and I'd agree that there's harm caused by them. Is there a legal wrong there? No.

EbookReader said:
WRONG.

According to the DOJ, Amazon has been overall profitable from the beginning in selling ebooks.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about Amazon as a whole. However, point taken as there are other ways Amazon itself can return to profitability, but Amazon plays with such thin margins, it's really hard to say how feasible their loss leading as a way of life (not just with e-books) can be in the long term. Especially when they keep promising "larger profits" to shareholders.

However, if Amazon is profitable while taking a loss on e-books alone (which I think the DOJ really said that the e-book division was profitable)... that's leveraging strength in one market to create a monopoly in another, which Microsoft got slapped on the wrist for as well. So I doubt Amazon's overall profitability matters in this case, only what Amazon is doing in e-books.
 
EbookReader said:
someone wrote this on another forum:

Say Amazon really wanted to get more share of the mp3 business. So they call the 3 major music labels Sony, Warner, Universal ect... and they say hey we will sell your songs for $1.99 a song, but all other stores have to sell your songs for $1.99.

Is that legal?

p.s. Itunes selling music using wholesale model, not agency.
Amazon and Google also sell digital music using wholesale model. They and the publishers agree on a wholesale price and the retailers can set whatever price they want.
Click to expand...

I think the studios can set their prices, but dictating to the resellers their profit margins and sales price seems wrong. There is a difference between MSFP and what the dealers charge, right?
 
Glideslope said:
Educate yourself:
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/07/apple-amazon-book-prices/

----------



Understand:
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/07/apple-amazon-book-prices/
Click to expand...




That article has literally zero evidence to back up any of its claims.

You have not shown me any reason to believe Amazon will not price ebooks as low as it prices literally *every single other item it sells*.

If you asked me to choose between a company that sells EVERYTHING on its entire site at a competitive price and a company that sells EVERYTHING (sans one item) with a huge markup... I'm going to go with the company that has the better prices.

By the way, I've got an iPhone and a Mac Mini, so please don't try to accuse me of being an anti-apple fanboy. I'm just able to see things without the extreme pro-apple tint that you do.
 
Konrad9 said:
That article has literally zero evidence to back up any of its claims.

You have not shown me any reason to believe Amazon will not price ebooks as low as it prices literally *every single other item it sells*.

If you asked me to choose between a company that sells EVERYTHING on its entire site at a competitive price and a company that sells EVERYTHING (sans one item) with a huge markup... I'm going to go with the company that has the better prices.

By the way, I've got an iPhone and a Mac Mini, so please don't try to accuse me of being an anti-apple fanboy. I'm just able to see things without the extreme pro-apple tint that you do.
Click to expand...

If you can't see what is coming with this defeat, I can't help you.
I'm sorry. :apple:
 
Glideslope said:
If you can't see what is coming with this defeat, I can't help you.
I'm sorry. :apple:
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to be sorry. Since you can't see what's coming either. I'd say we're all in the same boat. Only some of us are going to go on with our lives as normal and others are seemingly going to live in fear that the next boo they buy will be after they mortgage their house :rolleyes:
 
samcraig said:
I don't think you need to be sorry. Since you can't see what's coming either. I'd say we're all in the same boat. Only some of us are going to go on with our lives as normal and others are seemingly going to live in fear that the next boo they buy will be after they mortgage their house :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I do not do not live in fear. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Steve wanted to take a slice out of Amazon for several reasons. Over the next 2 years people will see the outcome of this court decision. This lawsuit was about 5-10 years down the road. But I'm done with it. As for the DOJ's role all I can say is: "Trust the Government. It worked for the Indians."

It's just cool to kick Apple these days for everything from iPhones to parents not supervising their children making in app purchases on iPads, and I'm sick of it. (not you Sam)

Apple is searching for a new soul now. The next 12m will determine the future. Steve could see the future. You can't hire for that.

I'm just glad I still enjoy the feeling of paper as I turn the page. :apple:
 
Glideslope said:
If you can't see what is coming with this defeat, I can't help you.
I'm sorry. :apple:
Click to expand...

Like I said previously (maybe in this thread, maybe in another), this case had no bearing on Amazon whatsoever. It doesn't give them carte blanche to do as they please and run other resellers out of business using blatant anticompetitive means. If things get out of hand, Amazon will very quickly find themselves in (yet another) DoJ hearing. After this, all eyes are now upon them. They don't have much room for any potentially illegal maneuvering.

This case was simply about punishing Apple and the publishers for engaging in anticompetitive tactics. Because it was in response to an alleged anticompetitive threat doesn't make it any more legal, or any better for the consumers.
 
maelstromr said:
Anti-trust is to protect COMPETITION, which in turn protects the consumers. It is not the government's job to get you a cheaper book, it is their job to make sure companies are competing fairly, which will result in you getting a book at a fair market price. The DoJ's actions don't help you in the long run, they help Amazon, and THAT is not the point of anti-trust law in the US.
Click to expand...

Hey, you are absolutely spouting solid reasoning and common sense here.

Be warned that this is against the spirit of MacRumors forum discussions.
 
Solomani said:
Hey, you are absolutely spouting solid reasoning and common sense here.

Be warned that this is against the spirit of MacRumors forum discussions.
Click to expand...

Well, "Anti-trust is to protect COMPETITION, which in turn protects the consumers. It is not the government's job to get you a cheaper book, it is their job to make sure companies are competing fairly, which will result in you getting a book at a fair market price."

If you're talking about that part, yes, it is solid reasoning and common sense

But this part:

"The DoJ's actions don't help you in the long run, they help Amazon, and THAT is not the point of anti-trust law in the US."

It is just opinion. And, by the way if an anti trust ruling helps some company, it doesn't go against the point of that law
 
genovelle said:
They are so greedy. How dare them refuse to lose money to enter a market.
Click to expand...

lose money? how so? Apple can be profitable selling ebooks. It's just won't be at 30% margin but at low margin instead.

The DOJ found that:

"When Amazon launched its Kindle device, it offered newly released and bestselling e-books to consumers for $9.99. At that time, Publisher Defendants routinely wholesaled those e-books for about that same price, which typically was less than the wholesale price of the hardcover versions of the same titles, reflecting publisher cost savings associated with the electronic format. From the time of its launch, Amazon's e-book distribution business has been consistently profitable, even when substantially discounting some newly released and bestselling titles."
Click to expand...




This pretty much sum up Apple motive:

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/07/2013/the-e-book-conspiracy-comes-to-a-close/

PG was interested in the professor’s quote:

Otherwise, Picker said, it’s not clear how Apple could have behaved differently, since it “needed to get a bunch of books for the bookstore and it needed to make sure it wasn’t going to face a price disadvantage” against Amazon.
Click to expand...

How about competing with Amazon on price? Did that ever occur to Apple?

But that’s not Apple’s style. As the court’s opinion stated, Apple wanted to get into a new business – selling ebooks – but it didn’t want to lose any money in the process. That’s a great way of starting a business if you can get it – all profit and no loss.

Apple seems to have a sense of entitlement about profits, even to the point of violating the law to protect them. Amazon doesn’t.

Which one do you think provides better deals for consumers?
Click to expand...




Apple want to gain market share against Amazon in ebook. It has two options

1) compete with Amazon on price = very low margin
2) eliminate pricing competition with Amazon = same price everywhere = high margin

Apple chose option 2 and in order to get there, it broke the law to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back