Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Lee, do you work for Apple?

Nah.. Just a fanboy..

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Nah.. Just a fanboy..

Never know if you don't ask......and sometimes not even then.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Lee, do you work for Apple?

No, I just understand basic capitalism, supply and demand. I like Amazon, I'm a customer. I buy more from Amazon than I do from Apple. I'm a Prime member. But it's been obvious that Amazon was using predatory pricing to buy up marketshare and drive Barnes and Noble, Borders and everyone else out of business if they can.

I think Amazon has the next best tablet after Apple's. I never thought the eInk devices were worth the money until they dropped near $100...but by then I already had an iPad. Which I use to read books I buy from Amazon.

Price windowing has been how books are sold as long as I can remember. I never paid $25 for hard back books. But that meant I couldn't read them until a year later when the paper back would be released. I always understood this was about demand pricing....not selling the cheaper version during the high demand period.

I'd have expected ebooks to be windowed rather than continue to be sold so cheaply during the hard back high demand pricing window. That publishers couldn't do this is -- all by itself -- testimony to the outsized power that Amazon already had over them.

Apple simply had the market power to give the publishers the courage that they wouldn't lose their business entirely if Amazon stopped selling their ebooks. And we witnessed first hand Amazon's willingness to stop selling the PAPER books to punish a publisher for not allowing the loss leading pricing.

Apple is going to win this case, but that won't change anyone's mind. It wouldn't change my mind if Apple lost.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by leebase

No, I just understand basic capitalism, supply and demand. I like Amazon, I'm a customer. I buy more from Amazon than I do from Apple. I'm a Prime member. But it's been obvious that Amazon was using predatory pricing to buy up marketshare and drive Barnes and Noble, Borders and everyone else out of business if they can.

I think Amazon has the next best tablet after Apple's. .....

Apple simply had the market power to give the publishers the courage that they wouldn't lose their business entirely if Amazon stopped selling their ebooks. ....


Apple is going to win this case,...

Uh, no, you really don't get it at all. You are clearly biased, thus the question.
Amazon played completely by the rules, the loss-leader rules that every friggin' company has used for the last century. Apple on the other hand attempted to conspire to FIX THE PRICES.

The iPad is overpriced, like every other apple product and only works within the walled garden. This was exactly what Apple was attempting to do, force both the purchase and the pricing to be within that garden at at a level that created profits for both publishers and apple. And forced any other booksellers to go along thus creating a false equivalence. This has been clearly established.

Yes Apple has the power and a legion of followers that lap up whatever Jobs anointed. Fortunately Amazon and other booksellers made sure the DOJ became aware of it in the beginning so the damage was limited.

No, Apple will not win this one, they clearly were at the core of a conspiracy and the court's finding will state that. They don't have a leg to stand on as was clear in their summary.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Uh, no, you really don't get it at all. You are clearly biased, thus the question.
Amazon played completely by the rules, the loss-leader rules that every friggin' company has used for the last century. Apple on the other hand attempted to conspire to FIX THE PRICES.

The iPad is overpriced, like every other apple product and only works within the walled garden. This was exactly what Apple was attempting to do, force both the purchase and the pricing to be within that garden at at a level that created profits for both publishers and apple. And forced any other booksellers to go along thus creating a false equivalence. This has been clearly established.

Yes Apple has the power and a legion of followers that lap up whatever Jobs anointed. Fortunately Amazon and other booksellers made sure the DOJ became aware of it in the beginning so the damage was limited.

No, Apple will not win this one, they clearly were at the core of a conspiracy and the court's finding will state that. They don't have a leg to stand on as was clear in their summary.

You are aware that a B&N exec testified in the trial that they were negotiating agent pricing with the publishers well before Apple ever got into the market? Contrary to those who are looking for any stick to beat Apple with, it's pretty obvious that in the book business, ever since Amazon took off, it's been Amazon vs everyone else. Amazon has 60+ percent of the market currently, Apple has 20 percent. Amazon is what is driving B&N out of business, not Apple.

[leebase]

Loss leader or predatory pricing? The effect of Amazon's actions was to drive out competition. With 90% of the ebook market....they had succeeded.

Regardless, the publishers did not have to stand by and let their distributor harm their business. So it was going to be the Agency model or windowing.

I find it odd that those who lament 6 big publishers are favoring 1 large retailer. The only participant in this drama even remotely a monopolist is Amazon.

All the drama here by the folks incensed at the publishers....show in their own actions (refusing to buy books from the Agency publishers) that the market is working. There has been no shortage of books available at ALL pricing levels.

No one has to buy a $14.99 ebook

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You are aware that a B&N exec testified in the trial that they were negotiating agent pricing with the publishers well before Apple ever got into the market? Contrary to those who are looking for any stick to beat Apple with, it's pretty obvious that in the book business, ever since Amazon took off, it's been Amazon vs everyone else. Amazon has 60+ percent of the market currently, Apple has 20 percent. Amazon is what is driving B&N out of business, not Apple.

So that makes creating a price-fixing conspiracy okay.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by leebase

Loss leader or predatory pricing? The effect of Amazon's actions was to drive out competition. With 90% of the ebook market....they had succeeded.

Regardless, the publishers did not have to stand by and let their distributor harm their business. So it was going to be the Agency model or windowing.

I find it odd that those who lament 6 big publishers are favoring 1 large retailer. The only participant in this drama even remotely a monopolist is Amazon.

All the drama here by the folks incensed at the publishers....show in their own actions (refusing to buy books from the Agency publishers) that the market is working. There has been no shortage of books available at ALL pricing levels.

No one has to buy a $14.99 ebook

Well, you have an opinion, the judge will as well.

and it's only the judge's opinion that matters.

[leebase]

Price fixing would be the publishers agreeing on a specific price. I don't think the publishers would have lost the court battle either. We'll never know as they settled without admitting guilt.

Neither the agency model nor Most Favored Nation provisions are illegal either.

[kennyc]

Collusion and conspiracy to set prices is. As I said you don't really seem to understand the issue and are/or are simply playing apologist. Only the judge's opinion matters.

BTW I'm done with you on this, we'll see what the result is soon. I'm betting you are wrong, Apple will be found guilty. And the publishers would have too. They already admitted their guilt by accepting the plea deal.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by leebase

The Most Favored Nation clause means that no matter WHAT the publishers and Amazon do - Apple can offer the same prices. Steve Jobs didn't NEED to know anything about what was going to happen with Amazon to make his statement.

The publishers did not need Amazon to go with the Agency model. They would have withheld the ebooks, "windowing" them -- just as they do with the paperback versions.

They debated for a long time in the trial over a piece of evidence where Steve Jobs wrote a draft email that stated:

"I can live with this as long as they move Amazon to the agent model too for new releases for the first year. If not, I'm not sure we can be competitive..."

Apple was arguing that Steve was confused and Eddie Cue would have corrected him if he had actually sent the email. They also argue that he fixed it in a later revision (that was dated earlier). My point was that the Walt Mossberg video clearly shows Steve Jobs telling Walt that the publishers will be forcing Amazon to the the agency model and this was before the publishers actually met with Amazon. I don't know why the DoJ didn't try to present it as evidence or bring Walt Mossberg into to testify.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by leebase

That's funny. So it's not the company with 90% (pre Agency) market share that must be dealt with....but Apple who now has 20%?

Uh-huh.
High market share is no more illegal than (honest) Agency Agreements.
Serving as the hub for a conspiracy to take (steal?) market share from everybody *but* Amazon needs to be dealt with.

The problem with the whole "it's all about Amazon!" is that Amazon never lost any market share because of the conspiracy and is now far more dominant in ebooks and ereaders than they were in 2009.

Consumers, on the other hand, have lost money and *choice* as indie ebookstores have closed because of the conspiracy and ereader vendors bowed out of the business because of the near-cost pricing fostered by the added revenue from the price hikes.

So, yes; it would serve the greater good of humanity if the legal system were to reiterate that conspiring to force competitors to raise prices is not to be tolerated.

If I had my way, Apple would be ordered to divest itself of its ill-gotten market share gains, spinning iBooks off to sink or swim on its own.
Most likely they'll get a slap on the wrist fine worth maybe a half hor of iPhone revenues.

The world runs as it wills.
But if I ever get to be planetary dictator...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, you have an opinion, the judge will as well.

and it's only the judge's opinion that matters.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Lee, do you work for Apple?

Don't ask me if I work for Banana Republic

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Don't ask me if I work for Banana Republic

I already KNOW about you and your hairy paws and prehensile tail!!!!