Amazon can be the big bully, but until now they don't have done anything illegal .
When someone sue them and lose a case you can say anything about them.
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.
Eddy Cue Speaks About iBooks Price-Fixing Case: 'We Feel We Have to Fight for the Truth'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When someone sue them and lose a case you can say anything about them.
It's kinda funny he's saying ANYTHING with the trial stuff still going on/starting.
Whatever you say can and will be used against you.
("can and WILL be used against you"? Never thought about that before. I guess you can never say anything that will be used FOR you.)
Are you joking??
Scott was fired because nobody could work with him and then he arrogantly refused to sign a public apology that Tim asked him to sign. He wasn't being a team player.
And I don't know much about Craig, but CEOs are responsible for a lot more than just being charming during keynote presentations.
Cue is bending the truth here, but oddly he’s bending in favor of Amazon not Apple. He’s talking about best sellers going for $9.99 before Apple stepped in. Maybe that’s because most books sold are best sellers.
But most book titles were more expensive or as expensive in digital as hard cover before Apple started selling digital books and LESS expensive than the hard cover of the same title after Apple entered the market. It was a very noticeable effect at the time. When Apple entered the market the average price of a digital book (by titles available rather than units sold) went down rather dramatically.
But most book titles were more expensive or as expensive in digital as hard cover before Apple started selling digital books and LESS expensive than the hard cover of the same title after Apple entered the market. It was a very noticeable effect at the time. When Apple entered the market the average price of a digital book (by titles available rather than units sold) went down rather dramatically.
Apple colluded with suppliers to raise consumer pricing so they could get into a market at a much higher level of profitability than anyone in that market had been enjoying and succeeded at doing just that. They hurt consumers and competitors to line their own pockets. It's pretty hard to spin that positively.
I've never been a fan of Apples content model, so I've tended to buy from them only what I couldn't get elsewhere. I don't like being locked into one platform. I have no regrets doing that and this only strengthens that conviction. As a result I'm free to transition between various personal computer and mobile device platforms without loosing my investments in media.
It seems Apple has ongoing court battles for other things in this area and it will be interesting to see how all that turns out.
I've never been a fan of Apples content model, so I've tended to buy from them only what I couldn't get elsewhere. I don't like being locked into one platform. I have no regrets doing that and this only strengthens that conviction. As a result I'm free to transition between various personal computer and mobile device platforms without loosing my investments in media.
It seems Apple has ongoing court battles for other things in this area and it will be interesting to see how all that turns out.
While ebook prices are still too high, at least Amazon is trying to help consumers by lowering them.
Steve Jobs (Apple) on the other hand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...book-prices-this-chart-shows-how-they-did-it/
"The result: a sudden spike in e-book prices. The five publishers labeled A through E signed deals with Apple in January 2010, and by April all of them had forced Amazon to accept prices that were $2 to $4 more than they had been previously. The largest publisher, Random House, did not cut a deal with Apple (and, therefore, wouldn't be charged with antitrust violations), and its e-books didn't get more expensive in early 2010. Smaller publishers also didn't see a sudden price increase in the spring of 2010."
Irrelevant for the case, the average price of a digital book from the accused publishers went up rather dramatically
The agency model isn't really the bad guy, it's the most favored nations clause. Imagine if I create a game and sell it through various retailers. Now let's say Retail A says they ill give me 80% of the sales while retailer B will only give me 60% of the sales. Obviously, I am going to want to set my price higher for Retailer B. Now Retailer B comes to me and says no, you can't allow anyone else to sell your game for less than what I am selling it for, I am going to lower your price.
This obviously won't work.
This obviously won't work.
They are fighting because Amazon ran around and locked in ebook rates as add-one to Normal books... I.e. Amazon wouldn't sell a palate of real books unless publishers allowed Amazon to UNILATERALLY SET THE PRICE OF EBOOKS too. Amazon was selling OTHER PEOPLE's IP at a loss and it had to stop.
Any way around it, the industry needed new rules that everybody would play by for Enooks and Apple's rules were the best for ALL PLAYERS... Including paper book sellers. Amazon was a rouge and Apple and the MARKET banded together to stop it.
Whether or not the agency model ended up making more money in the long run has absolutely nothing to do with whether the negotiations and philosophy behind them were sound.
Heck, you are basically even supporting Apple saying that... because if after doing the agreement with Apple they made less money, how was that harmful to consumers?
Where the hell was THAT advice before I plunged as deep as I have into iBooks ... oh, if only I could start over again.
What has to do having less revenue with being harmful or not to consumers?
That was harmful to consumers because they killed competition and raised the prices even if they got less per book.
Question: If Amazon is the only one selling ebooks.... and they are doing so at a loss (to draw market share).... and the publishing industry decides they do not want to continue selling digital copies, because they do not feel that they are making any money.... there would end up with no digital books. And since nothing illegal has happened.... are you okay with that? That's an acceptable end result for you?
----------
True.... but i highly doubt that saying you believe you are in the right, and intend to see the litigation through to the end is in any way something that could be used against you. Sides, as someone else pointed out... highly unlikely he will be saying anything that the legal department has not already signed off on!
It is not the case
It is not the case
It is not the case
Are you saying that publishers don't sell ebooks? Well, it is their prerogative
