Irrelevant if there is something contentious or not, it was editorialising. At least, people acknowledge when it is wrong.
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's Antitrust E-Book Case Enters Appeals, Outlook Good for Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Irrelevant if there is something contentious or not, it was editorialising. At least, people acknowledge when it is wrong.
Missing the point
My advice to you is never go into business as a supplier to Amazon, they'd eat you for breakfast.
Once Amazon eliminate competition (by selling below cost) there's nothing to stop them dictating to the publisher the wholesale price/availability. This is what the publishers fear. A monopoly can mean lower book prices for consumers, but it's certain to mean lower revenue for publishers and hence authors. Driving prices down is not always a benefit for the consumer, if quality suffers, no one wins.
Glad to see that the appeals court is at least recognising this aspect of the case.
My advice to you is never go into business as a supplier to Amazon, they'd eat you for breakfast.
Once Amazon eliminate competition (by selling below cost) there's nothing to stop them dictating to the publisher the wholesale price/availability. This is what the publishers fear. A monopoly can mean lower book prices for consumers, but it's certain to mean lower revenue for publishers and hence authors. Driving prices down is not always a benefit for the consumer, if quality suffers, no one wins.
Glad to see that the appeals court is at least recognising this aspect of the case.
Readers will often note these departures from responsible reporting, but MR won't acknowledge or fix them, and will not refrain from doing it again.
What part of it is irrelevant if they are contentious or not you don't understand?
The fact is that you tried ridiculing the OP talking about how to distinguish literal quoting from author's words and you were wrong, the OP quoted Macrumors words.
Will you accept being wrong?
Here's the thing though. What cmwade77 describes is "what is". What you're describing is "what could possibly happen" You can't indict a company for something they could do. If Amazon was to do as you describe, I'm sure that's when Amazon's monopoly (in this scenario) becomes illegal; since monopolies aren't inherently illegal. If Amazon continues to do what they have been doing then the publishers still get paid their standard fee. Amazon still sells some books below cost (a lot of people overlook that it's not all books), and consumers benefit by paying less for those books. Just because the publishers want to raise the perceived value of their product doesn't mean we want to pay more for them.
How does giving the publishers the ability to set the floor at $14.99 benefit consumers?
Perhaps he is not getting the original point, so here it is: The MR article stated Apple's contention not as their argument to the court, but in a way that made it sound like it is already a fact.
Last edited:
You have to learn a lot. If Apple has an appeal, they lost the case, and there is no chance to win the appeal. If for example Samsung has an appeal, then Apple's win was a travesty and justice against Apple will prevail in the appeal, no chance for Apple.
----------
News to me that any publishers were complaining about making less money selling through Apple.
I'm sorry, I've read it and reread it. The entire sentence is quite clear that it's a summary of Apple's request, and concludes with a direct quote.
The claim that Apple asked the court to overturn the ruling is a fact, the reason they gave is an opinion. The facts are written in the author's own words and the opinion is in quotes. The words thrown back at me are neither; they're just bits of a sentence that make no sense on their own.
Here's the thing though. What cmwade77 describes is "what is". What you're describing is "what could possibly happen" You can't indict a company for something they could do. If Amazon was to do as you describe, I'm sure that's when Amazon's monopoly (in this scenario) becomes illegal; since monopolies aren't inherently illegal. If Amazon continues to do what they have been doing then the publishers still get paid their standard fee. Amazon still sells some books below cost (a lot of people overlook that it's not all books), and consumers benefit by paying less for those books. Just because the publishers want to raise the perceived value of their product doesn't mean we want to pay more for them.
How does giving the publishers the ability to set the floor at $14.99 benefit consumers?
1. It's not a "what-if". Amazon has used its market power, removing Hachette books from its store and damaging the company to force them to change contracts.
2. Consumers benefit when publishers make enough money to attract decent authors and produce books of decent quality.
Here's the thing though. What cmwade77 describes is "what is". What you're describing is "what could possibly happen" You can't indict a company for something they could do. If Amazon was to do as you describe, I'm sure that's when Amazon's monopoly (in this scenario) becomes illegal; since monopolies aren't inherently illegal. If Amazon continues to do what they have been doing then the publishers still get paid their standard fee. Amazon still sells some books below cost (a lot of people overlook that it's not all books), and consumers benefit by paying less for those books. Just because the publishers want to raise the perceived value of their product doesn't mean we want to pay more for them.
How does giving the publishers the ability to set the floor at $14.99 benefit consumers?
So what you're saying is that Amazon would perhaps continue to sell at a loss to avoid an anti trust suit when it could easily force publishers to reduce their cost price. A bit naïve IMHO. Retail businesses commonly reduce prices to suppliers to force them to reduce their costs, but a drive for efficiency can lead to an inferior product. I don't think that would be a good result for the consumer.
A final point, a monopoly that is established by dumping falls foul of anti trust legislation, and is therefore illegal. Your point about not all books being sold at below cost doesn't excuse the fact that all bestselling books are.
Last edited:
You're reading it wrong. There's no editorial there. That's Apple's opinion of the original ruling.
No, it was just plain sloppy writing to use the word "as" to introduce Apple's contention. Using conjunctions to join unrelated concepts can easily change the meaning of a sentence. These sentences also tend to run on. This one does both.
Here's a way to say it clearly, without making it sound like the writer is taking sides:
----------
I read it right. It probably wasn't meant to sound editorial, but it was poorly written, so that is how it comes off.
They may not have complained, but they were making less money selling through the iBook store. At $14.99 retail, the publisher makes $10.49 with Apple. My understanding is that they were getting full retail price ($14.99) with Amazon. Perhaps the publishers weren't complaining because the $9.99 price had gone away, thus making physical books more competitive with ebooks.
Here's my two cents. I think Amazon was borderline guilty of predatory pricing (look it up). Apple rather than dealing with it in the courts (which people complain about) decided to work with publishers to break Amazon's grip.
They were successful, but to do this they colluded with each other and the end result was an immediate, substantial increase in the previously artificially depressed prices. That is a textbook description of what they were found guilty of.
From a moral perspective i can see how you could defend Apple. And maybe it was even the right thing to do. But from a black letter law perspective they clearly colluded and prices went up. They should have attacked Amazon with the DOJ instead of taking care of it themselves. This amounts to a two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course I have no idea what the appellate court will rule, but as much of an Apple fan as I am, I won't be surprised if the appeal is denied.
They were successful, but to do this they colluded with each other and the end result was an immediate, substantial increase in the previously artificially depressed prices. That is a textbook description of what they were found guilty of.
From a moral perspective i can see how you could defend Apple. And maybe it was even the right thing to do. But from a black letter law perspective they clearly colluded and prices went up. They should have attacked Amazon with the DOJ instead of taking care of it themselves. This amounts to a two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course I have no idea what the appellate court will rule, but as much of an Apple fan as I am, I won't be surprised if the appeal is denied.
Ok, I see the way you're reading it:
"The company appealed because the decision was a radical departure..."
I also disagree with the use of 'as', but I don't think the punctuation supports your version. It's not ambiguous, but I suppose easy to misread.
Amazon's full retail price wouldn't have been $14.99. Amazon used predatory pricing to drive companies like Borders out of business and create a monopoly. That wouldn't have worked with high prices.
Actually, we read the comments as often as we can and respond to the constructive criticism supplied by our readers. Sometimes we are too busy to keep an eye on the comments of a post, but you are ALWAYS welcome to send us an email to let us know if you see a mistake that you believe we should correct.
FYI, I have seen you comment before but I do not recall having received an email from you, which is the fastest way to get in touch with us. We always read and respond to emails, so rather than suggesting we don't acknowledge or fix issues, I'd recommend actually getting in touch with us to find out whether or not that is the case. Additionally, we ALWAYS take into account the feedback we read here on the forums and the feedback we receive via email and are mindful of it in future posts.
What I wrote may have been somewhat unclear due to the use of "as," but I will go ahead and disagree that it was a "[departure] from responsible reporting." I have reworded it in an attempt to get discussion in this thread back on track and oriented away from vocabulary choices.
If anything your post and your attempt to set up a straw man are more like Fox News.
The end result of that tiff is Hatchette gets to set the price of their e-books. Amazon also gives Hatchette better pricing if Hatchette keeps their e-book prices low. Amazon gets increased co-operative funding from Hatchette for marketing purposes. Sounds as if they reached the same general ground as before with small pluses and minuses on each side.
When has it ever been said publishers don't make enough money? The smaller independent houses may have an argument but the larger houses not so much. It was these larger houses that dealt with Apple. In the last complete year,2013, the top 5 publishers had revenues of $9 billion and profits of $1 billion. From a low point in 2009, when the economy was worse, their profit margin ran from 8.1% to 9.7%, 9.6%, 10.8%, and finally 10.9% in 2013. In case you're wondering, their profit margins land them right around the mid point of companies in the media category.
I don't begrudge them wanting to make more money. Hell every company wants to make more. But there's no direct correlation between publishers making more money and their ability to attract talent. It also doesn't mean that they would use that additional profit for authors. That additional profit could contribute to bonuses, new ventures, or war chests for leaner times. Anything really.
Last edited:
No, what I'm saying is you are engaging in supposition without facts to back it up. Making an accusation against a company for something they could do doesn't make it something they did. Basically let the crime happen first.
Nowhere in my comment did I suggest Amazon would do anything. I think you're applying your inner monologue to my comments and getting something completely different.
Your retail comparative is lacking. The quality of a book isn't determined by it's cost. You have to admit (well you don't have to do so
) that makes no sense whatsoever. So trying to make a comparison as if it's a decision between a polycarbonate widget and a carbon fiber widget is... well, that's just not how books work.Dumping? Again no. Dumping would be Amazon selling all of the books below market in an effort to get rid of their competition. They don't do that. The second shoe in that scenario is the raising of the book pricing. That hasn't happened. You keep making these declarations as if they are a foregone conclusion. It simply isn't true... until it is. But you can't make it be true by saying it could happen.
Not sure where you got I was trying to excuse anything (inner monologue again?) Best sellers do not constitute the majority of books available on Amazon. They may constitute the majority of sales (I honestly don't know) but not the majority of product available. So I think it is quite relevant that Amazon uses high visual (bestsellers) as loss leaders instead of every book as a loss leader.
BTW, they just signed a contract with Hatchette to allow them to control their e-book pricing. So there is that. As I said, let the crime happen first; then condemn. There's time.
And your source is... so trivial nobody has ever heard of it. I had to look it up. It's an organization dedicated to book reviews. Doesn't sound like a very good news source.
Anyways, couldn't Apple sue for damages if they win the appeal? Not saying that will or should (winning damages from the US government means you're just taking US tax money...)
Apple wouldn't do it because it would be an exercise in futility. This case would fall under governmental immunity umbrella. Punitive damages is one of the remedies from which the government is usually immune. Apologies for the structure of the preceding sentence. Wine.