Yeah, tell that to the NFL, they have more money and lawyers than Apple, didn't really seem to help them out.
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.
Legal Experts Suggest Justice Department Unlikely to Win Antitrust Suit Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, tell that to the NFL, they have more money and lawyers than Apple, didn't really seem to help them out.
This is what too many people dont realize. It is legal for companies to set minimum retail prices. Heck apple does it. Even if the doj won this case ebook prices will not go down.
The only reason the publishers did not set minimum prices with amazon was lack of competition. If amazon did not sell them nobody would. Now with competition even if the agency model is scrapped publishers can still require amazon to sell their products for 14.99 if they want.
The only reason the publishers did not set minimum prices with amazon was lack of competition. If amazon did not sell them nobody would. Now with competition even if the agency model is scrapped publishers can still require amazon to sell their products for 14.99 if they want.
He was sending an email to a collection of major us publishers asking them by and large to go with apple's plan and withhold books from amazon (which is what they planned to do with apple's backing hence they are settling now for collusion before going to court most of them) and you are telling me it's a negotiation between a single buyer and a single supplier?
But who am I talking to the guy who claims first:
and then
When will people understand that "cheap" isn't always the best price.
You can only create quality content when you get paid appropriately.
You can only create quality content when you get paid appropriately.
I wish I had a list of all the people who can't wait to take everything said on a flipping forum seriously.
If it makes you feel better to shift focus away from your shortsighted comment by bringing up arguments that didn't exist in the original post then have at it; just know that you're really not fooling anyone with these tactics.
You said: People can choose to buy or not to buy a book, but people have no other choice than to buy gas and this is patently false. People, as a general group--the way in which you used the term, don't need gas. There are plenty of other choices if one chooses to see them.
From the quotes that you posted:
"Jobs’ own email to a publisher..."
and
"He wrote one of the publishers in an email..."
You are adapting the facts to fit your point of view.
And you do it again. There is a difference between "each" and "every". I understand my initial statement may have been unclear, but you don't get to decide what I actually meant.
If lots of people are having trouble affording gas, how can they afford a Hybrid or electric car? Also, not everyone lives in a city where there's public transportation to go everywhere you need to go, and many people work over 30 miles away from home. Apparently you live in a small town where people ride a bike to go places; well that's not the case everywhere. Therefore, your brilliant options are useless.
So it seems the shortsighted is definitely not me. Try thinking outside the cube, and you may see some light.
Why is this in any way relevant?
With both the Agency and the Wholesale models, the publisher picks how much THEY get.
If the publisher feels they need $5 to cover their costs and pay the author etc., then they should just set the wholesale price at $5.
If Amazon wants to sell it for less then that's going to be their decision (and loss). I understand that there are concerns about the "devaluation" of books over time, but it's been working for years with paper books, why shouldn't it work with ebooks?
Last edited:
Excellent point...like all other Americans, getting as much money as possible is the main goal.
But you could move to those places, or have had enough forsight to move closer to work..It's all about choices..
It's already happening.
Amazon Kindle Publishing Royalties:
$2.99 and above: 70%
under $2.99: 35%
Barnes & Noble Pubit Royalties:
$2.99 and above: 65%
under $2.99: 40%
Which mean a $2.99 book will result in $2.04 for the author (after Amazon's 30% cut and a small bandwidth charge). 50,000 ebooks sold at $2.99 pricing will generate $102,000 royalties for the author.
This blog has a list of 120+ authors who have sold more than 50,000 self-published ebooks. (aka they are their own publishers).
http://selfpublishingsuccessstories.blogspot.com/
There are several on the list who became millionaires by self-publishing their ebooks.
Last edited:
I would recommend everyone who haven't read it, to take 10-15 minutes of your time to read the DOJ complaint:
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1053857/e-books_complaint.pdf
You will LEARN a lot.
If you don't have time, then read the short version.
Analysis from The Verge
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2...k-price-fixing-case-against-apple-an-analysis
After you read it, you can decide for yourself if the DOJ has a case or not.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1053857/e-books_complaint.pdf
You will LEARN a lot.
If you don't have time, then read the short version.
Analysis from The Verge
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2...k-price-fixing-case-against-apple-an-analysis
After you read it, you can decide for yourself if the DOJ has a case or not.
I've read that corporate Apple (under SJ), as well as individual wealthy Apple employees, contributed 4X as much to the Democratic Party and individual Democratic politicians versus Republicans. Maybe this lawsuit will cool that off a bit. Biting the hand that feeds so to speak.
Let's see if those in Congress who've benefited have the stomach to oppose Apple publicly...especially since many legal scholars believe is not winnable by the DoJ.
Let's see if those in Congress who've benefited have the stomach to oppose Apple publicly...especially since many legal scholars believe is not winnable by the DoJ.
This is entirely incorrect. Publishers did not set minimum prices because under the wholesale model the retailer (in this case, Amazon) owns the goods by buying the books from the publisher. When you own something you can set your own price, which is what Amazon did. Look, the publishing industry had plenty of time to innovate and make money on ebooks. I am glad amazon finally did.
As for whether if the agency model is scrapped, can publishers require amazon to sell ebooks at a certain price point above 9.99, the answer may be NO, if the courts rule that a conspiracy to set prices is an illegal restraint on trade. And, the publishing industry wouldn't be in this mess, if they could force Amazon to sell ebooks for 14.99 without the conspiracy and, apparently, Apple's willingness to participate for ther own reasons.
If that was true, there would have been no need for the agency model. The fact that the publishers had to collude to bring in that model means its not the case.
I'm not sure why. If its correct that in some circumstances its legal to set minimum RP's, possibly that doesn't apply to ebooks, possibly because unless they did it en-masse, it would be ineffective and now that several of the publishers have agreed not to set these conditions for several years, that leaves the others out on a limb ?
Whatever the reason it cant be as simple as "we will now set minimum prices' (and IIRC the agreement the 3 companies already signed up to precludes that anyway)
EDIT: I see I am repeating techkidd4400's answer also
First, hybrid cars use a gasoline engine--you really can't even envision that people actually don't need gas, can you?
Second, the cost of hybrids and electric cars is very affordable for those who have the grey matter to do a little math, balancing out the higher initial cost of the investment against the savings of ever-increasing gas prices over the life of the vehicle. If I remember my research correctly the average ROI of a hybrid is about four years--and this was at last year's gas prices.
Third, if that were the only option you may have a point. You seem to think that societies were nonexistent until the day the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine was let loose on the world.
There you go again: attempting to obfuscate your failure by suddenly changing the argument; it didn't work last time and it won't work this time. I never claimed nor implied that everyone (nor "everyone", almost everyone, nor even lots of people) lives in a city--with public transit or not.
Thirty miles is a little less than 50 km, so an electric car would get said person to work and home again on a single charge. E-bikes and electric scooters will also work in this scenario, though they would, typically, need to be recharged for the trip home.
First you imply that I assume that everyone lives in a city, then you say I must live in a small town. And why is it apparent, to you, that I live in a small town? Could it simply be that you don't want to give up the convenience of gas and have therefore blinded yourself to the very real option of living without it?
(For the record, my location is given under my name and avatar--you know, like yours is.)
Well with logic like that you must be Vulcan!
There are many cities in China that make even the largest North American city look like a village of huts and yet, every day, millions of Chinese use bicycles as their main mode of transportation. Imagine that.
I used to vacation by riding my bicycle hundreds of kilometers to (and from) my cottage. I'd also ride to other cities. This was, of course, after using my bike as my daily-living transportation. Not to mention that with typical rush hour traffic (in my "small town" that is) it's often as fast, if not faster, to commute by bicycle, even from the suburbs.
Back in the Depression epoch people used to walk great distances to get to work (and many, even most, men would do it wearing a three-piece wool suit). Of course back then people had integrity and weren't full of entitlement like people tend to be today.
Really?! I need to think "outside the cube" because you think it's impossible for people to walk? Or to ride a bike for a couple of hours? Or to do some basic math and realize that a new car would actually save them money over the status quo? You don't consider yourself to be shortsighted when you imply that people can't do what millions of people actually do every day?
Talk about entitlement.
The danger in any outcome is that Amazon outbids the traditional publishers and starts to publish both print and ebook versions of titles. Amazon can do that because it has loads of money and can offer authors (an albeit forced) deal that others would not be able to offer.
Amazon sold ebooks cheaply to encourage sales of its Kindle bookreaders -- the fact that you must have Kindle-compatible books on Kindles should have generated at least as much debate and hot air as iPods & iTunes.
Amazon sold ebooks cheaply to encourage sales of its Kindle bookreaders -- the fact that you must have Kindle-compatible books on Kindles should have generated at least as much debate and hot air as iPods & iTunes.
Does Amazon really want to get in the business of being a book publisher? I'm sure Amazon can easily handle the promotion aspect of a publishing house ... it's in their wheelhouse. Do they want to get into the business of editing books and dealing with photographers (for covers) and researchers (for non-fiction) and such? Or would they leave that stuff for the authors to handle?
Perhaps those functions would be outsourced to a low-cost labor force ... India, China, etc.
Yeah smart guy, try walking to work or ride your bike under 90ºF on a high humidity day, or under a severe thunderstorm.
Your Canada is just a small part of the world, you know. You should get out more often. Leave you crystal bubble every once in a while, and get to know the real world.
Electric cars won't get you far here. Hybrids are the best option at this time, but not everyone can afford it.
Just ask in this forum how many people have a hybrid car, and you'll see.
You may ride your bike on vacation, but understand (if you can) that people don't vacation all year long, nor have cottages. For real life use, a bicycle is useless here, unless you work nearby.
And yes, most of the people living in the cities around mine (yes, millions of people) do need to have a car, and not all of them have electric cars or hybrids.
And you can't be any more dumb by trying to compare a city in China to a city in the western part of the world.
I'm not going to reply to any of your senseless posts, as I have already confirm that you have a very narrow way of thinking, and I'm not wasting any more time discussing with you what is obvious. So get lost already!
Do you break down like this every time someone disagrees with you or is it only when you lose an argument? And if bringing in arguments that have never existed in this thread didn't work the first two times you tried, why continue to do so? Please point out where I've suggested or implied anything that would support your "crystal bubble" theory--especially considering that in my previous post I specifically mentioned another country. You remember, I called you out for ignorantly stating that people can't do what millions of people actually do every day.
Your statement above seems to suggest that you don't know anything about Canadian weather thus I suggest you take your own advice. A normal summer's day in Toronto is around 32°C without humidity. We often reach 40°+ with humidity. And many people still ride and walk.
The last time I rode to my cottage there was a thunderstorm through the middle portion of the journey.
And the point is what, exactly?
And there's the problem: you think a bike is useless for anything more than "nearby".
No, they don't all need a car.
So people transporting themselves across land from point A to point B is drastically different? I've lived in China, Europe, Canada, and the U.S. and I'm fairly sure that bikes and roads were all pretty much the same. But you could be right, of course; I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why riding a bike in China is so different to riding a bike "in the western .... world". Please elucidate this concept and why it's dumb.
But you already have.
It is obvious that "people" don't require gas. If it all dried up tomorrow we'd have to adjust, for sure, but the world wouldn't fall into ruin. People like you may not survive, but the rest would move on.
It really does seem that you cannot handle it when people don't simply accept your way without question.
Out of curiousity, which companies have successfully defended themselves from DOJ antitrust litigation?
I didn't think it was possible for a human being to be so dense as to fail to get this extremely broad and obvious joke. Thanks for surprising me! You have given me new respect for the intelligence of my pet cat.