Because you're looking at it logically, and not with the "I'm entitled to (insert need here)" mentality that unfortunately is pervasive in this country....
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
Because you're looking at it logically, and not with the "I'm entitled to (insert need here)" mentality that unfortunately is pervasive in this country....
I agree. But it's almost seems as though Jobs wouldn't have even considered opening up the/an iBookstore unless Apple was able to make these "arrangements."
So this is the end of companies being able to hammer out deals behind the scenes. I guess companies collaborating is going to be a thing of the past
No, competitors simply cannot hammer out behind the scenes deals that involve how they price their products to consumers. That's been the case since the early 1900s with the first wave of anti-trust legislation, and it will continue to be so. This is not a particularly profound or precedent-setting case.
no offense man - the difference is APPLE telling you raise your price to FORCE the same prices across all platforms - to match other developers that sell the sames apps on other platforms so apple can make its ridiculous 30%. IMHO!!!
If Apple jumped in to MATCH amazon which is what market usually does to BE Competitive - or if higher justifying by added value - then there is no issue. The publishers would not be willing to allow apple to take 30% to match amazon and therefore have less of a cut that amazon would get.
Last edited:
Competition causes prices to go up?
Please keep kind mine that anti-trust in the United States is meant to protect the consumer, not ensure a healthy number of competitors. It's why a merger between Sirius and XM is allowed to happen, because it was more about keeping both companies afloat.
So Amazon can dump books at a loss and kill all competitors, because no other competitor can afford to sell $14.99 books for $9.99. And everyone stands up and cheers for them. Wow.
(Bias disclosure: I am a heavy Kindle user and a long time Amazon Prime customer. I love my 3G wireless kindle and I almost never buy Apple ebooks, preferring to use the Kindle app on my iOS devices, and synching pages with my kindle for outdoor and gym reading).
(Bias disclosure: I am a heavy Kindle user and a long time Amazon Prime customer. I love my 3G wireless kindle and I almost never buy Apple ebooks, preferring to use the Kindle app on my iOS devices, and synching pages with my kindle for outdoor and gym reading).
You can keep typing the same comment over and over. But the entire scenario as it played out is not at all the same.
That wasn't happening here.
The Publishers could set the price at $4.99 if they wanted.
I think this is more of a problem with how the legal system currently deals with corporate entities in general. Fines are not enough incentive to discourage companies when the fines themselves are small relative to profits. So by default, the risk of a company crossing a legal line is a financial risk and nothing more. It can be calculated in.
So yeah, corporate slaps on the wrist don't really change anything, and it's an actual issue with how we deal with corporations that break the law. Not just Apple, but any of them.
Although to be fair, Amazon does currently have what I believe is the best eBook platform taken as a whole on the market right now. Sony stood still as Amazon entered and dominated the market, and B&N failed to really catch up and provide a hook for folks to try them out. Amazon's place at the head of the table is as much due to the incompetence of their competitors as it is their practices.
The real problem here is that I don't think Amazon can continue to sustainably run so many loss-leaders in their store, eBook or otherwise. They are continuing to operate at a loss, and may be forced to cut back on this sort of behavior before they have a total grasp on the eBook market, although I suspect they already do have it.
If that's the case, Apple gambled on needing to do something about Amazon and lost. Possibly with no net benefit to themselves if Amazon's pricing does re-adjust anyway.
Exactly. Publishers would have found a way to raise prices with or without Apple. Apple was easier because of their huge marketshare but they could have easily made the same deal with another company. Publishers decided to **** Apple when they're the ones who wanted higher prices, and Apple essentially forced more market availability (no holding back before print) and a lower higher price (publishers wanted $15 or $16.99)
They don't need to get together. Any Publishers could set the price of their book however they wanted. The $12 and $14 prices were general price points, not hard and fast rules.
That's why I'm wondering what this case will get us, the consumer. If all the publishers 'settled' with the government, why did we not see prices go back down to 'before collusion' prices?
And why shouldn't it be this way?
This is what's rubbed me wrong about this whole trial. I feel that things ended up the way they should have been in the first place.
If Apple and the publishers did illegal things to get there, ok, that's a separate issue. They do have to follow the laws and should be punished for whichever ones they broke to get to their goal. But as for the goal itself, I found it entirely reasonable.
No - Apple was simply asking that if you sell the book elsewhere it had to be the same price as in the App store. Apple did not set prices - the book sellers did. You could make an argument that perhaps the publishers colluded to raise prices (which they did and settled) - but it's asinine to hurt the messenger. Apple didn't tell publishers what price to set.
Authors can't be happy about this. This certifies Amazon's potential monopoly and gives them the future power to suddenly cut the price they pay to authors once their monopoly is completed.
