Quote:
Originally Posted by crich70
I think that smacks of something nasty myself. Basically if they can't get what they want they won't provide what the customer wants to buy. Or at least that's how that sounds to me. It's like someone is selling lemonade at .50 a cup and expects their neighbor (who is also selling lemonade) to not sell it at .10 a cup even though in the long run the neighbor will make more profit than they will. The customer isn't there for the seller, the seller is there for the customer. Sure they have to make a profit so they can pay their own bills and stay in business, but saying they 'won't provide' as opposed to 'we can't provide' smells to me of just plain greed.
|
The publishers admitted that the conspiracy to window the release of ebooks was doomed to failure because some of the publishers recognized that it would only cause an increase in piracy. I agree that was every bit as disturbing as the price fixing and that should also be recognized as an antitrust violation.
Eddie Cue also admitted that Apple (Steve Jobs) was considering making a deal with Amazon to divide the market. He would offer Amazon that if they stay out of the music business then Apple would stay out of the ebook business. They obviously didn't think that antitrust laws applied to them. The claim that they did nothing wrong is laughable.