http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23259935
$170 million in restitution from the 5 settled publishers.
$170 million in restitution from the 5 settled publishers.
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
Setting a price in a store isn't a problem. Apple saying "You're going to sell it for this much in our store and you're not allowed to sell it cheaper anywhere else" was the problem.
You side stepped my question. Do you (and others) have no concerns with Amazon's price depression in light of it's extremely dominant ebook market position?
No, they agreed an an Agency model, which let's them set the price. The 12 and 14 dollar price points were examples of routine pricing....
Those ecstatic about Apple's entry into the music streaming business should take note. Apple corp does not compete in the marketplace, they bully the marketplace. And while their existence has created some excellent technology, you have to imagine what technology would be available to us from other innovators had this Goliath not have been wielding it's power.
Price fixing books. The portal to knowledge, and Apple felt it deserved an exorbitant cut AND to make the rules of how you and I receive information. Immoral, despicable - Apple.
Price fixing books. The portal to knowledge, and Apple felt it deserved an exorbitant cut AND to make the rules of how you and I receive information. Immoral, despicable - Apple.
Well that means Apple is in violation with relation to the music industry as well. They cant have it both ways...
Wow, couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent post on what really happened.
This was a market Apple had zero foothold in, they only had a few options.
Demand 30% and watch Amazon sell books for $4 - $5 less.
Sell the same as Amazon, relinquish their 30% Apple tax and have the other clients (music, apps) come at them for fairness.
Collude with an industry that was teetering and living off their old hardcover ways.
They colluded and got caught.
I don't even have a problem with that, just admit it, pay the penalty and move on.
Here's the DOJ slides with all their evidence
http://www.scribd.com/doc/145486131/U-S-v-Apple-Et-Al-Opening-Slides
http://www.scribd.com/doc/145486131/U-S-v-Apple-Et-Al-Opening-Slides
As a consumer - I care about getting the best price for what I want to buy. So no - I don't care that Amazon wants to take a hit sometimes. Do I want Amazon to be the only eBook seller. No. But they won't ever be. The market won't allow it. As soon as they have achieved "monopoly" and (as some fear) start jacking up prices - that's when competition can enter the marketplace and charge less - just like Amazon used to.
That's not what Apple said. "We sell it in our store for the price you tell us; if you want to sell it cheaper elsewhere then you'll have to offer us the same cheap price".
It is the definition of short sighted to pick cheaper today over a stable competitive market tomorrow. The government does it because they just have to please their masters and a salivating public today. An educated citizen should be worried about what his government is setting up for him and his children down the line.
So according to you I can only by Kindle books, no ePub books, until Amazon takes advantage of its monopoly status?
It is very, very hard to prove. It also just ends up screwing consumers. The whole argument is the consumer needs to pay more cause gosh darn they just are not paying enough cause the company is able to offer this great deal.
Also Apple was screwed. The case against them was solid. They should have settled.
This is going to be appealed and reversed in a higher court.
Cote showed she wasn't educated enough in this industry to preside over a case like this. She basically A) found Apple guilty before the trial and B) showed at the end that she didn't know much about the industry and needed to learn a lot. Right there, you cannot make a logical and correct decision if you are just learning the ins and outs.
Appealed and reversed...guaranteed.
In the meantime, I assume Amazon is going to be going to trial.
"Another companys alleged violation of antitrust laws is not an excuse for engaging in your own violations of law."
Cote showed she wasn't educated enough in this industry to preside over a case like this. She basically A) found Apple guilty before the trial and B) showed at the end that she didn't know much about the industry and needed to learn a lot. Right there, you cannot make a logical and correct decision if you are just learning the ins and outs.
Appealed and reversed...guaranteed.
In the meantime, I assume Amazon is going to be going to trial.
"Another companys alleged violation of antitrust laws is not an excuse for engaging in your own violations of law."
So why do we even have anti trust law if letting the market sort it out fixes everything? Because it doesn't, at least it hasn't in the past.
Actually, no. What Apple was trying to do for textbooks would have been a blessing for students who now have to fork over a hundred bucks for a hardcover book that they'll use once. I have a suspicion that there were other forces at work behind the scenes.
While I agree with the judgement in this case, Apple and the publishers were definitely in the wrong, I also echo the sentiments that others have posted about how this is not a positive outcome. The problem with the way that antitrust is dealt with these days is that monopoly laws are rarely enforced or if they are, they are only enforced at the bare minimum.
The real problem with eBooks was that Amazon ruined the market right from the get-go by coming out the door with eBooks that were sold at a loss. The effect is that eBooks were totally devalued in the eyes of the public. For Amazon, it made sense because it got people buying their Kindles which initially people were hesitant to do. Then when prices went up to more sustainable levels (albeit from industry collusion), people got upset. Ask any independent publisher and they can tell you, if you sell your eBook for more than a few bucks, it's doomed. Some will even say over 99¢ is the limit. Only A-list authors can sell for prices that are sustainable and this is because people don't value eBooks. Years can go into writing a book, but you have to sell a boatload of 99¢ copies to even make it worth your while.
And this problem happens everywhere. You get a big company or two that can afford to price everyone out of business until they have a monopoly or close to it. By that time the damage is done and people expect the low cost so quality goes down, manufacturing moves overseas and so on. When you have a market driven by price, you end up with quantity over quality. It's simple economics.
In Apple and the publisher's cases, their motives were far from altruistic. If they were trying to raise prices to help pay authors, it would be one thing, but they merely wanted their profits to stay high. They saw the writing on the wall that eBooks are the future of the industry and it's in their benefit to not have Amazon dictating industry pricing. It had nothing to do with the consumer.
The real problem with eBooks was that Amazon ruined the market right from the get-go by coming out the door with eBooks that were sold at a loss. The effect is that eBooks were totally devalued in the eyes of the public. For Amazon, it made sense because it got people buying their Kindles which initially people were hesitant to do. Then when prices went up to more sustainable levels (albeit from industry collusion), people got upset. Ask any independent publisher and they can tell you, if you sell your eBook for more than a few bucks, it's doomed. Some will even say over 99¢ is the limit. Only A-list authors can sell for prices that are sustainable and this is because people don't value eBooks. Years can go into writing a book, but you have to sell a boatload of 99¢ copies to even make it worth your while.
And this problem happens everywhere. You get a big company or two that can afford to price everyone out of business until they have a monopoly or close to it. By that time the damage is done and people expect the low cost so quality goes down, manufacturing moves overseas and so on. When you have a market driven by price, you end up with quantity over quality. It's simple economics.
In Apple and the publisher's cases, their motives were far from altruistic. If they were trying to raise prices to help pay authors, it would be one thing, but they merely wanted their profits to stay high. They saw the writing on the wall that eBooks are the future of the industry and it's in their benefit to not have Amazon dictating industry pricing. It had nothing to do with the consumer.
Win for Consumers of crapload served by amazon.
It takes apple to change the market. Remember online books before apple? How interactive were those?
I say this is a win for cheap ignorance.
This case reminds me of the case featuring 3 Priests accused of gambling . The Protestant priest silently prays for mercy and pleads Not Guilty. The R.C. priest does the same, the Rabbi stands up and demands, "With whom was I Gambling ? "
Apple must know this old joke methinks as the other 5 pleaded guilty ...lol
Apple must know this old joke methinks as the other 5 pleaded guilty ...lol
There was a reason behind them offering School Systems a 99 cent ebook if you bought their High Price IPADS while others companies couldn't.
Last edited: