I took it as a high level description of what the MFN clause was all about. I dont think anyone can look into much of a casual interview though without proper context - hell even a disposition. The interpretation can be taken to mean so many different things that we just dont know what without Steve himself providing the necessary context.
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
I took it as a high level description of what the MFN clause was all about. I dont think anyone can look into much of a casual interview though without proper context - hell even a disposition. The interpretation can be taken to mean so many different things that we just dont know what without Steve himself providing the necessary context.
Welcome to capitalism. Whoever has something to sell sets the price. You can buy it or leave it. Usually the price is set to maximise profits. If prices are set improperly, companies can go bankrupt - either because nobody buys at the high price, or because everybody buys at the low price, but no profit is made.
That's how it works. So what are you complaining about?
Paying more for a collection of bits...
It's interesting that they used Apple to help them fight Amazon. Seems Apple came in just in the nick of time...
There still seems to be something hinky with that whole thing. I mean, if the publishers didn't want to sell through Amazon, and get what Amazon was willing to pay them, they should have said 'Hope, not going to sell you any more stuff'. Instead, they all get with Apple, and Apple sets them on its knee and tells them that they should get more money, while Apple gets more money, and next thing you know, we all have to pay more.
If not for Apple, would the publishers have done more than bitch about Amazon?
Would you gladly pay physical CD prices for a download? It would seem to me that the lower prices of 'ebooks' is a natural progression, and the publishers aren't happy with it.
The value to readers in a book isn't primarily in the collection of bits or the ink and paper. It's in the creative work. Reading a great novel isn't worth less to me because the format has changed.
And then there's the issue that eBook generally do cost less than physical books.
That is all good. The publisher's set the price, Amazon paid it.
But then the publishers (and Apple) then wanted to tell Amazon what to charge the consumer for it.
And, again, that's what agency pricing is. Judge Cote confirmed it as a legal business strategy. It's basically another form of direct sale. The publishers set the price that they sell the ebook at. The retailer acts as an agent of the publishers and gets a commission on each sale.