View Single Post
Old 11-05-2017, 05:03 PM   #69
Cinisajoy
Just a Yellow Smiley.
Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Cinisajoy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Cinisajoy's Avatar
 
Posts: 19,161
Karma: 83862859
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Texas
Device: K4, K5, fire, kobo, galaxy
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
Here is the specific quote

" ...
So in February 2010 Amazon posed as the victim, and associate general counsel David Zapolsky submitted a confidential white paper to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice's antitrust division on "the collective nature of the publishers' action to take control of digital book pricing."

DoJ then picked up Amazon's legal argument and used it to sue Apple. DoJ claims that the iPad and the publishers' acceptance of Apple's new arrangement "forced" Amazon to flip to the agency model and thus higher (albeit temporary) consumer prices.
... "

No ambiguity or personal prejudices here. They name the specific person at Amazon who submitted the white paper to the Fed. Government and explicitly said that the Federal Government used the white paper as the basis of their case. This is not how such things normally work. Normally, a company will file a complaint, not submit a white paper. The article is, of course, an op-ed, i.e. opinion/editorial, but that doesn't change the facts they are talking about.

If the situation was as you describe, then Amazon would have been named as part the suit. Instead, all this was hidden until after the judgement was made.

Why would Apple's entry be good for competition? Well, for one thing, Amazon controlled 90% of the market at the time. Any entry into the market would have been good for competition and someone with deep pockets who could withstand Amazon using loss leaders would have been even better. In addition Apple had many of the same advantages that Amazon had with regards to ease of use, purchasing and downloading.

Would Apple have been effective competition? We have no real way of knowing. Amazon didn't turn out to be particularly effective competition for Apple's music store, so size isn't everything.
Apple ipod Amazon ereader. Who has the best device for which medium?
I haven't seen an Amazon based music player or an Apple based ereader.
Cinisajoy is offline   Reply With Quote