Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The gold standard is probably too recent because that implies the use of paper money. Bartering and pieces of eight would be closer to the mark, whatever existed before Adam Smith for sure. My question about the philosophical basis for pre-Adam Smith economics was a serious one, since he was the godfather of modern economics, and he goes back 250 years. I am genuinely curious to know how much further back into history you'd go to find no basis for concern about cartels and monopolies.

Yes, Adam Smith was the father of classical economics, and he goes back 250 years. But economics did not lag 250 years in the past with him. For all of his foresight, it turns out Smith was incorrect about some things, the exaggerated dangers of collusion among them.

Plenty of contemporary economists have refuted the neoclassical mercantilist ideas behind labor-union economics (although plenty more contemporary economists continue to advocate it!). You might read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt -- it's an accessible, succinct overview of fallacies in modern economics that you downloaded for free.
 
What does the 17th century have to do with anything? You might try addressing my arguments.

And not that an ideas date of conception has anything to do with its validity, but if you want to play that game: the labor-union economics you've been spouting is a marriage of 16th Century mercantilism and 19th Century Ludditism. And central tenets of these views precede mercantilism by centuries.

For the third time: You can go all the way back to Adam Smith and find that cartels and monopolies were recognized as imperfections in free market economic systems. So it seems to me that you'd have to go back even further to find a time when this was an unknown problem. Seems to me that you have a romantic attachment to something that never actually existed. This point of view is nothing new to me, actually, so I am not surprised to see you shrinking from the basic challenge.

Try responding to what I've actually said and asked. I know that's more difficult than inferring something I haven't said that is more convenient to your argument, but it makes for a more edifying discussion. Your choice.
 
Two: Does Apple's "Most Favored Nation" sales clause, which states that sellers agree not to sell their product elsewhere for less, in combination with the collusion alleged above constitute an Anti-Trust violation?


According to the complaint, it happened like this:

1 - Establish consistant pricing across the major publishers using Apple as the coordinating facilitator (so the publishers do not appear to be coluding)
2 - Once the price structure was established, declare Apple the MFN

If you (in the general sense) have a chance, read the complaint. It reads like a book. Almost no legalese at all.

----------

I don't understand how the DOJ believes...

If you don't understand, you should read the complaint. :) It is all clearly spelled out. If you still don't understand after reading the complaint, well then... :(
 
It's this "the government must be right" attitude that is dangerous in the long run. Remember, this is the same DOJ that ruled that drone attacks against US citizens is legal (not to mention waterboarding).

If Apple, with $100 billion in cash, is just going to cave when the DOJ makes an allegation, then why would anyone ever fight back.

You don't actually believe that do you? Apple will settle but at a later date. I'm not saying that no one can beat the government in the long run:rolleyes: but will it be worth it is the question? If there is even a chance that the chargers are true why would any company risk the wrath of the D.O.J?

Notice the bold type. No one is saying the government is always right and not to contest if your in the right. As much as ppl like to drool over Apples $100 billion stock pile thats nothing when you compare it to what the government can put out so why even mention it.
 
In the iOS App Store, the publishers of software are setting the prices. They have cut out the middle man.
WTF are you smoking? Is Apple's 30% cut a tip? Do you read what you type?

I don't understand the aggressive tone, toad.

As the Wikipedia notes, a middleman is either a wholesaler or a reseller. Apple's App Store model has eliminated that middleman. The creators of software put their product in the retail marketplace; the customers purchase the product in the retail marketplace.

Retailers always take a percentage cut of the retail price. In typical brick-and-mortar shops like bookstores, markup is typically far higher than 30%. For that 30%, Apple pays the credit card charges, delivery of software to customers, management of the App Store, and an Affiliate Program paying cash to individuals who refer customers to products in the App Store. They also provide free storage, management, and delivery of free apps in the App Store.
 
This has nothing to do with the President. This is about the Justice Department protecting consumers. But you can never be surprised by the WSJ putting this type of spin on a issue like this.

Nonsense. From the selection of the Attorney General to the decision of which cases to prosecute, the President has a huge impact on the Justice Department. Are you up to speed on this incident? Have you read this book? Can you name a single administration in the last 30 years that would have ignored this egregious incident the way that Obama/Holder did?

----------

Again, the agency model is not the issue. The issue are publishers colluding to fix prices abusing the agency model. Some quotes from The Verge analysis of the DoJ position, with emphasis mine:

Granted, this is the DoJ position, and as such biased. We'll see how the lawsuit will go. Still I'm not betting on Apple & co. on this.

Thoughtful message. Thank you.

I suppose you have seen this article and rebuttal from John Sargent of Macmillan and the quote he relayed:

I hope you will agree with our stance, and with Scott Turow, the president of the Author’s Guild, who stated, “The irony of this bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition. This would be tragic for all of us who value books and the culture they support”.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
For the third time: You can go all the way back to Adam Smith and find that cartels and monopolies were recognized as imperfections in free market economic systems. So it seems to me that you'd have to go back even further to find a time when this was an unknown problem. Seems to me that you have a romantic attachment to something that never actually existed. This point of view is nothing new to me, actually, so I am not surprised to see you shrinking from the basic challenge.

Try responding to what I've actually said and asked. I know that's more difficult than inferring something I haven't said that is more convenient to your argument, but it makes for a more edifying discussion. Your choice.

I didn't answer your question because it's pointless. Valid reasoning that occurred in a hunter-gatherer society is just as valid as today, and as such I'm not interested in date chasing. Economics is a deductive science, but you seem to want to discuss anthropology.

Your question is also trivial. That collusion or monopolies can be economically undesirable has never been controversial. I'd imagine that fact was understood as early as the first turf war between neanderthal tribes. The problem is that the anti-trust laws are based on exaggerated fears about the consequences of legalized private cartels (public cartels are more powerful than ever, of course). The fact is, for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post, cartels are not sustainable and fall apart under pressure of market forces. And anti-trust laws are far more harmful than the worst business cartel. Fighting collusion with anti-trust regulations is like treating a common cold with chemotherapy.

And while Smith did argue that cartels are an imperfection inherent to capitalism (*no one* argues capitalism is flawless), it doesn't follow that he would endorse the ridiculous anti-trust legislation you're defending. And misappropriating Smith into your camp doesn't do much for your argument: Ludwig von Mises and others have soundly refuted the fallacies underpinning anti-trust legislation in the time since Adam Smith.
 
No one is saying the government is always right and not to contest if your in the right. As much as ppl like to drool over Apples $100 billion stock pile thats nothing when you compare it to what the government can put out so why even mention it.

If you want to compare what Apple can afford to pay for lawyers and what the government can afford to pay for lawyers, I wouldn't bet against Apple. Government spending is limited by their responsibility not to waste tax payers' money.

But looking at this case, firstly it is obvious that the deal that Apple offered book publishers is exactly the same deal that Apple has offered the music industry for many years, and the exact same deal that Apple has been offering software developers for a few years. It would seem quite natural to offer the same deal to book publishers. And for music, it is well known that Apple offers exactly the same deal to _every_ record company, no matter how big or how little (for small record companies that means that they get the same deal as the one that the very expensive lawyers of the big record companies negotiated with Apple). Apple is free to offer anyone any deal, and if the deal Apple offers to book publishers is better than the one that Amazon offers, then it would be just natural that the publishers accept this deal. Apple is also free to accept the retail prices that the publishers suggest. Accepting what the publishers suggest is not the same as colluding with them over prices. Actually, collusion is not something that would happen between a publisher and a retailer because they are not competitors - it would happen between competing publishers, or between competing retailers.

The next step is that publishers re-negotiated their contracts with Amazon after getting a better deal from Apple. That would be a natural thing to do as well. Once publishers found that they can get a good deal from Apple, why should they accept a deal that is much worse from Amazon? Some simple maths would justify that by selling only through Apple with a good contract that pays well they would make more money than by selling through Amazon.

Now quite obviously Amazon is not happy about all this. And no doubt that what Apple is doing is costing Amazon money, and no doubt that this is Apple's intent. But that is competition: It is absolutely fine and dandy to hurt your competitors where it hurts them most. Amazon is free to offer the publishers a better deal than Apple does and reverse the situation.

And even if the DoJ were able to prove that there was collusion between the book publishers and agreement on pricing strategies, that would still not mean that Apple has been doing anything wrong. It would depend on the exact terms of their contracts. This is like a retailer saying to Samsung "we are quite happy to sell your TVs in our store and make some money, but if you charge us more per TV than you charge our competitors then the deal is off". Nothing wrong with that.
 
It is strange that the book, music, and video industry are still charging prices set when the industry had to cover material costs, shipping, warehousing, and retail costs . Now, renting/owning boils down to a downloading a digital copy of a "master" media file. There are none of the old costs.

Yet the pricing models haven't changed much at all despite elimination of all the costs associated with physical media. For example, to rent/buy a movie on iTunes costs about the same (or more) as what you'd pay the old local video store. Same thing with iTunes "album" costs vs old CD costs. And the cost of an eBook is the same or higher than to buy a real book. Something is not right.

The book, music, and film companies are dinosaurs and are charging dinosaur pricing. They are ripe to fall....and when it comes...they will be gone in the blink of an eye. And it will because of their own greed. The revolution that happened with Apps resulted in MUCH lower prices for Apps but the good App companies ended up making MORE money, not less. A similar revolution needed to happen with media and media pricing, but did not.

Art really boils down to the content creators (artists) and content consumers (the public/fans). There is no longer any value added by having legions of parasitic middle men who add nothing to the equation except the cost to "live in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed".

I say .... good riddance and the sooner the better.

You've forgotten the costs for promoting those books, music and film. Not to mention the costs to create the thing in the first place and paying all the people involved. I'm willing to bet the cost to make the physical thing to sell is a tiny part of the big picture so selling it in digital form only becomes profitable after all those costs are met, same as for physical media. You sound like the people who think all they have to do is throw a website up and they'll start selling things instantly. You also sound a tad like a pirate since their big justification is the copy they steal "doesn't cost anything". Of course, this is bogus because the value in the creative arts is the EXPERIENCE, not the bits and bytes.
 
Time to invest in alternative energy then. Agreed?

Speculation is speculation, much as tech analyst predictions, except big oil has friends in congress.

Big Oil has friends everywhere, however they are some of the most screwed over companies in exsitance. They pay royalties to every level of Government. That tax "break" they get is the three percent break that all manufacturing companies. I am not saying that they are not evil nor involved in any conspiracies. (Don't get me started, please). But they also directly and indirectly employ many millions of people.

Which would raise Amazon MP3 price from $0.99 to $1.29



Amazon would makes a bigger profit (margin) on each sale.

But customers would lose out, paying $0.30 more for each MP3.

No, Amazon sells lesser quality MP3 tracks, while tracks purchased on iTunes are higher quality 256kbs ACC.

Customers lose out buy purchasing the Amazon MP3. (Personally, I still buy CDs and rip them to a lossless format.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple only has 40-45 of that 100 billion here in the US. What would really be sad is if they showed them who was boss and pulled out of the US and went to Ireland (kind of like Cisco did, except for different reasons). I don't understand why socialis... I mean liberals can't look at the big picture.

I don't think that's even a thought in apples mind. Where else can you go and get away with all the things big corporations get away with in this country.
 
If you want to compare what Apple can afford to pay for lawyers and what the government can afford to pay for lawyers, I wouldn't bet against Apple. Government spending is limited by their responsibility not to waste tax payers' money.

But looking at this case, firstly it is obvious that the deal that Apple offered book publishers is exactly the same deal that Apple has offered the music industry for many years, and the exact same deal that Apple has been offering software developers for a few years. It would seem quite natural to offer the same deal to book publishers. And for music, it is well known that Apple offers exactly the same deal to _every_ record company, no matter how big or how little (for small record companies that means that they get the same deal as the one that the very expensive lawyers of the big record companies negotiated with Apple). Apple is free to offer anyone any deal, and if the deal Apple offers to book publishers is better than the one that Amazon offers, then it would be just natural that the publishers accept this deal. Apple is also free to accept the retail prices that the publishers suggest. Accepting what the publishers suggest is not the same as colluding with them over prices. Actually, collusion is not something that would happen between a publisher and a retailer because they are not competitors - it would happen between competing publishers, or between competing retailers.

The next step is that publishers re-negotiated their contracts with Amazon after getting a better deal from Apple. That would be a natural thing to do as well. Once publishers found that they can get a good deal from Apple, why should they accept a deal that is much worse from Amazon? Some simple maths would justify that by selling only through Apple with a good contract that pays well they would make more money than by selling through Amazon.

Now quite obviously Amazon is not happy about all this. And no doubt that what Apple is doing is costing Amazon money, and no doubt that this is Apple's intent. But that is competition: It is absolutely fine and dandy to hurt your competitors where it hurts them most. Amazon is free to offer the publishers a better deal than Apple does and reverse the situation.

And even if the DoJ were able to prove that there was collusion between the book publishers and agreement on pricing strategies, that would still not mean that Apple has been doing anything wrong. It would depend on the exact terms of their contracts. This is like a retailer saying to Samsung "we are quite happy to sell your TVs in our store and make some money, but if you charge us more per TV than you charge our competitors then the deal is off". Nothing wrong with that.

Nice post. Makes sense to me. I think Apple only gets in trouble if it knowingly and actively participated in discussions with publishers in which it helped them collude to fix prices. The DOJ's complaint is devoid of any such allegation. If no such evidence exists, kudos to Apple for not giving into bullying by the DOJ.
 
Honestly, I don't see the collusion simple by letting publishers set the price. Apple is basically just providing a storefront and doesn't seem to care what the prices are as long as it get its 30% cut. This is exactly the same thing as how the pricing model in the app store works.

The problem is that Apple/publishers forced Amazon, B&N, Google Play to adopt the same pricing.

If Apple and publishers agree on 30%. That's fine. Apple will just sell books at a higher price. Amazon, B&N will sell ebooks using the wholesale model. Which mean they can offer discount if they want.


Imagine this real life scenario. Itunes sell songs at $1.29. Amazon MP3 sell these same songs at $0.99 (this is the reality right now).

Somebody that I used to know ---$0.99 on Amazon - $1.29 on Itunes
We Are Young - $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Glad You Came -$0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Call Me Maybe - $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Wild Ones (Feat. Sia) $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes

etc...


Now Itunes meet up with the record labels and tell them to force Amazon to increase these MP3 to $1.29. If they don't, these record labels will not supply music to Amazon anymore.

This is exactly what happened with ebooks. You're saying that it is perfectly legal?
 
The losers in this will be the consumers and the winners will be the corrupt politicians, DOJ bureaucrats and Amazon.

The US government is ready to hand over a monopoly to Amazon apparently.
 
That article conveniently omits any reference to Apple insisting that publishers are not allowed to let rival retailers sell the same book at a lower price.

THAT clause is straight up Apple and straight up wrong. But saying Apple has to use a wholesale model is a different game and frankly the DOJ needs to butt out on that point. Let each store offer the terms they want. That should be between store and publisher. If the publishers like Apple's way better and tell Amazon etc that they will only resigned their contracts if they get the same terms, that's not Apple's issue. If Amazon etc want to keep the books, they will agree to the terms. If not, that's their call. As it should be.

Yes it is perhaps lame that ebooks cost what they do, but the publishers as the copyright controllers have the legal right to set the prices. If we consumers don't like the price we vote by not paying it. We buy the paper book, or even check it from the library (in either form) and that's that. But it is a hell of an overstep for one state agency, lawyer or even the DOJ to claim the right to decide what is a fair price and what is overpricing. After all this isn't like produce where you rigged the scale to add an extra half ounce to every pound.

What next, they decide the fair price for cars, computers, clothes, liquors, plane tickets etc
 
Amazon had the singular position in e-book retail industry until Apples' entry into the market. It could be argued that Amazon engaged in predatory pricing practice to create a barrier of entry for competition.

And where was the DOJ. No where it seems.

It looks like they only got interested when Apple was a factor.

Certainly if they were doing anything no one cares to write about it
 
But looking at this case, firstly it is obvious that the deal that Apple offered book publishers is exactly the same deal that Apple has offered the music industry for many years, and the exact same deal that Apple has been offering software developers for a few years. .

True for apps but not true for digital music or digital movie rental.

Under agency model, Amazon MP3, Google Play have to sell MP3 and movie rental at the EXACT same price as Itunes.

We all know this is not the case.

Somebody that I used to know ---$0.99 on Amazon - $1.29 on Itunes
We Are Young - $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Glad You Came -$0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Call Me Maybe - $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Wild Ones (Feat. Sia) $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes

GooglePlay recently priced these movies at $0.25 (and Amazon price matched)

Puncture - $0.25
Inglourious Basterds - $0.25
Vicky Cristina Barcelona - $0.25
American Psycho - 0.25
Crash - 0.25
Sunshine Cleaning -0.25
Reservoir Dogs -0.25


Digital Music = wholesale
Digital Movie rental = wholesale
digital book = wholesale (until apple decided to go agency and forced publishers to force Amazon/Google/B&N to accept it too)

----------
 
Digital Music: wholesale (Amazon selling a lot of best selling MP3 at $0.99 compare to $1.29 on Itunes....under agency pricing, this is forbidden because price has to be the same everywhere).

Incorrect. Agency pricing is merely the system that the store acts as a sales agent and gets a cut of the price that the publisher sets. Same as an actor is the final decision maker on his price to be in a movie and his agent gets a cut of that salary.

Favored nation is the clause that sets the equality rule. It can work by saying no one can go lower (for a good) or higher (for a salary).

The two can exist independently
 
No, Amazon sells lesser quality MP3 tracks, while tracks purchased on iTunes are higher quality 256kbs ACC.

Customers lose out buy purchasing the Amazon MP3. (Personally, I still buy CDs and rip them to a lossless format.)

Amazon MP3 tracks are at 256kbs. Most people can't distinguish the sound quality between Amazon MP3 256kbs and Itunes's ACC.

I know I couldn't.

Why would customers lose out by paying $0.99 instead of $1.29 for a MP3/ACC? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Customers save money because AmazonMP3 sold music at a discount?

You said that you only buy CDs, how would you know that Itunes ACC is superior in sound compare to 256kbs MP3?



Must read for everyone:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2...k-price-fixing-case-against-apple-an-analysis

To persuade other publishers, Steve Jobs himself had to get involved. He wrote an email to one publishing CEO saying that the only existing choices were to "keep going with Amazon at $9.99" or "hold back your books." He then offered a third choice: "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream ebooks market at $12.99 and $14.99."

[ . . .. ]

And, of course, ebook prices have now risen — most Amazon Kindle books now start at $12.99, just as the publishers wanted.
 
Actually it's quite different. Microsoft forced the browser on users by bundling it with their OS. )

Actually the issue was that they forced their browser on the OEMs and banned putting on anything else.

Then they cut off all info to companies like Netscape bd tried to sue hem for reverse engineering Windows to get the info they needed

----------

How electronic books can be priced the same (or higher) than physical products which incur greater manufacture and delivery costs is beyond me.

Not an Apple issue. They don't set the price. The publishers do
 
Incorrect. Agency pricing is merely the system that the store acts as a sales agent and gets a cut of the price that the publisher sets. Same as an actor is the final decision maker on his price to be in a movie and his agent gets a cut of that salary.

Favored nation is the clause that sets the equality rule. It can work by saying no one can go lower (for a good) or higher (for a salary).

The two can exist independently

True. But in the case of ebooks, they didn't exist independently. Apple forced Amazon to raise its price (through the publishers) with that equality rule.


eBook X - $14.99 at Apple ---it must be $14.99 at Amazon too.
eBook Y - $12.99 at Apple ---it must be $12.99 at Amazon too.



If Apple does the same thing with digital music, then all these songs will be forced to raise to $1.29 (same as Itunes).

Somebody that I used to know ---$0.99 on Amazon - $1.29 on Itunes
We Are Young - $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Glad You Came -$0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Call Me Maybe - $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Wild Ones (Feat. Sia) $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes


Which is good for consumers?

$1.29 for a digital track or $0.99?



it-dropped-that-terrible-idea-quickly-and-decided-to-look-at-the-e-book-market-the-only-problem-was-that-amazons-999-pricing-model-wouldnt-work-for-apple-amazon-was-losing-money-on-every-book-sold.jpg
 
Last edited:
I didn't answer your question because it's pointless.

Ah, the argument form of the losing side of a debate. In other words, you have no argument to counter with so you just opt-out and label it ridiculous. From where I sit, you appear to be another shill for the right-wing agenda in this country, namely to put us back in the Dark Ages where the ultra-rich control everything. Things like anti-trust laws stand in your way since they seek to promote competition rather than collusion. I'm sure you're against anti-lobbying efforts or any measure designed to return power to the people of this country rather than the minority ruling oligarchy.

Fighting collusion with anti-trust regulations is like treating a common cold with chemotherapy.

Given there is no known cure for the common cold, your comparison is pretty darn apt. You replace a ridiculous treatment with no treatment at all. Or perhaps you prefer the current pharmaceutical arrangements whereby huge profits are made treating symptoms rather than seeking a cure since there is little profit in cures. Controlled disease management is vastly preferred whereby you keep paying to keep something under control (e.g. AIDS drugs) rather than cure it or prevent it with a vaccine.

A better comparison would indeed be to treat cancer with cell-destroying chemo rather than an actual cure because the weakened immune system ensure the cancer will likely come back in a few month to years and you can charge them all over again (at least until they die; a cure means you couldn't charge them again ever and it would probably not be expensive enough to generate a real profit in the first place). And PROFIT is what the health care industry is all about. People don't become doctors or lawyers these days to help other people. They do it to help themselves (to your money).

And while Smith did argue that cartels are an imperfection inherent to capitalism (*no one* argues capitalism is flawless), it doesn't follow that he would endorse the ridiculous anti-trust legislation you're defending.

Exactly what is ridiculous about anti-trust law? You keep throwing around big words and telling people you won't respond to their arguments because it's "pointless", but you fail to make a cogent argument of your own other than let the rich get richer. You mention market forces being a stabilizing force yet you neglect to mention how exactly a market force (let alone your average citizen who is at the mercy of whatever price the "cartel" is pushing) is supposed to counter a complete monopoly, for example.

A good example are electricity suppliers that have been deregulated. Competition was the argument for deregulation, yet everywhere I've ever looked, the prices went UP as soon as they were deregulated because now they are looking at operating for potentially limitless profits, rather than regulated rates designed to protect the consumer from gouging. Sure, you see all kinds of suppliers that are supposed to be competing for your dollar, but there are only one set of transmission lines and that supplier gets a huge share regardless. In fact, the difference between the actual power rates are miniscule and often made nullified by hidden fees.

Look at Allied Waste & Waste Management. Between the two of them, they control over 30% of the country where they are the sole supplier for that area due to buying out all the competition. 1/3 the country has NO CHOICE WHAT-SO-EVER for waste removal. So it shouldn't be any shock that Allied Waste (previously another company until bought out 6 months after moving here) raised my rate 3x a year (every billing cycle of 4 months here) since I moved into this house over 7 years ago. I went from a reasonable rate of $15 a month to $24 a month. The CEO was quoted as saying they will continue to raise rates because while they may lose a few customers, most customers have no choice and will have to pay up. Their profits have since gone through the roof.

Your methodology is that market forces will fix that problem. But exactly what forces are those? They control all the dumps in those areas, licenses can take years to set up and therefore no further competition is forth-coming. Without government intervention, they will continue to buy out and steam-roll over what's left until they finally merge as 1 single monopoly over most of the country and can set any rate they deem fit.

The problem is that left unchecked, corporations will do what they're designed to do to the nth degree, which is to make money at any cost. A corporation is not really a person. It has no ethics. It has no conscience. If anything, it's an excuse for those running it to place the blame on someone else (the shareholder demanding profits). With no regulations (be they safety, environmental or competition-based), it becomes an unfeeling BEAST that devours everything in its path.

This idea that it's a GOOD thing is based on nothing more than the sheer GREED of those making that argument for they have absolutely no other motive to base their arguments on. They want MORE MONEY. And it will never be enough. Billionares like Steve Jobs or the Walton Family were/are never satiated. There is always MORE money to be made. Never mind if they could never spend a fraction of it in a lifetime. It's about power, control, influence and status. Who cares about the people hurt along the way? It's not their concern. But if people don't take responsibility for their actions, who will? They better hope there isn't a God out there waiting to judge their actions in the end because I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in their shoes trying to explain it all away as "Just Business". :eek:

OTOH, a person cannot be what he is not. Many consider this a "dog eat dog" world and they, having mostly an animalistic nature themselves, figure they better screw the other guy over before he screws them. They never consider the "golden rule" philosophy of treating others as you would have them treat you. I mean who cares? There's more people where that guy that died due to no safety standards came from, right? He's expendable! Stop getting in the way of business with safety regulations! It costs money and therefore jobs since we will send them overseas instead! :rolleyes:

Of course, that's a little like moving a garbage barge down river to the next city instead. It doesn't really get rid of the garbage. It just makes it someone else's problem.
 
True. But in the case of ebooks, they didn't exist independently. Apple forced Amazon to raise its price (through the publishers) with that equality rule.


eBook X - $14.99 at Apple ---it must be $14.99 at Amazon too.
eBook Y - $12.99 at Apple ---it must be $12.99 at Amazon too.

Which has nothing to do With using agency pricing. The 'must' is the favored nation clause and only that.

They could drop that clause and publishers would very possibly still set the prices the sale
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.