Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I would, this week it's essential to stop a nuclear terror threat, next week it's to find your favourite pizza toppings.
This kind of access always escalates from "Just Once" to "Only in Specific, very rare circumstances" to "Needs a Court Order" to "Whenever we want".

Like with wiretaps? With wiretaps you have an activity which many would consider an invasion of privacy, yet when properly controlled through legislation, has not turned “only in specific, very rare circumstances” which need a court order to “Whenever we want.” And I can’t think of any similar type of activity which has. What happens with wiretaps is actually a good rough model for what should happen with cell phones and requests to crack them.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It could simple be a case where they thought that it would be that without Scalia, it would have been a 4-4 decision or they simply didn't want to address the issue with so many other things in front of them.

This is highly unlikely. It only takes 4 justices to agree to grant cert, which means at most only 3 current justices found significant merit in Apple’s argument. Assuming Scalia would have agreed with Apple, that would make it just 4 justices (at most) on Apple’s side. So, if Scalia had been there, at best Apple might have had its case heard, but, ultimately, it appears they still would have lost in the end.

[PatNY]

Judge Cote has been vindicated and deserves an apology from many, including some of the so-called legal experts in the media, who declared she was biased and didn’t know what she was doing in this case.

The cert denial also shows that all those who used Leegin as a rallying cry to defend Apple wrongly applied that case to Apple. Either they couldn’t see or refused to admit that Apple’s role was not really analogous to what Leegin did. While not exactly an apples & oranges difference, the roles and behavior of the two companies were sufficiently different to have separated them legally.

As for the monetary settlement, that’s of little importance to me, and I’ll probably only get a few dollars out of it. What’s important is to prevent the next big company from trying to manipulate market prices through widespread collusion with suppliers

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by PatNY

As for the monetary settlement, that’s of little importance to me, and I’ll probably only get a few dollars out of it. What’s important is to prevent the next big company from trying to manipulate market prices through widespread collusion with suppliers

Half a billion dollars is peanuts to Apple but most other companies would think twice. Indeed, Random House did.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Predatory pricing is about selling below cost (buying market share/power) and *then* raising prices. "Buying" market share with low prices and keeping them low is perfectly legal. And since Amazon did and does make money at ebooks, Apple could've matched them and still make money.

Bold mine: That is the problem there. Could Apple realistically have expected to match ALL prices and make money or at least break even? If they stay low with prices by price matching Amazon ad infinitum they can still end up losing money while Amazon makes money. Unless Apple turns into a part charity () they would have given up. They smartly said that they weren't trying to compete on prices since prices are going to be the same. They knew they didn't know how to compete on prices, because profit margin wouldn't have been guaranteed. And because they knew nothing (still don't) about selling books.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Half a billion dollars is peanuts to Apple but most other companies would think twice. Indeed, Random House did.

Agreed. I was speaking from a personal perspective in that paragraph.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Agreed. I was speaking from a personal perspective in that paragraph.

Half a billion dollars is of little importance to you? Wow, I think we can safely say that you're the richest MR member .

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Agreed. I was speaking from a personal perspective in that paragraph.

Can I borrow a cup of money (a very large cup)?

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Half a billion dollars is of little importance to you? Wow, I think we can safely say that you're the richest MR member .

LOL ... No, a few dollars is. At most, I will get just a few dollars out of it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by PatNY

LOL ... No, a few dollars is. At most, I will get just a few dollars out of it.

I'll get none.
I stopped buying BPH books when the conspiracy took effect.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Bold mine: That is the problem there. Could Apple realistically have expected to match ALL prices and make money or at least break even? If they stay low with prices by price matching Amazon ad infinitum they can still end up losing money while Amazon makes money. Unless Apple turns into a part charity () they would have given up. They smartly said that they weren't trying to compete on prices since prices are going to be the same. They knew they didn't know how to compete on prices, because profit margin wouldn't have been guaranteed. And because they knew nothing (still don't) about selling books.

IBooks isn't about making money off ebooks: it is about making money selling iPads. Which is why it took them years to put it on Macs and have never tried putting it elsewhere. If they were *really* serious about selling ebooks they would be trying to sell them to all comers, everywhere, like Amazon and Kobo. As is, when they were forced off Agency, they still managed to compete well enough to become the second biggest ebookstore despite that disinterest.

So yes, they could have easily matched Amazon pricing with no undue pain because they *have*. They simply chose not to.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Bold mine: That is the problem there. Could Apple realistically have expected to match ALL prices and make money or at least break even? If they stay low with prices by price matching Amazon ad infinitum they can still end up losing money while Amazon makes money. Unless Apple turns into a part charity () they would have given up. They smartly said that they weren't trying to compete on prices since prices are going to be the same. They knew they didn't know how to compete on prices, because profit margin wouldn't have been guaranteed. And because they knew nothing (still don't) about selling books.

I'm guessing overhead for selling ebooks can be very low, especially for a company like Apple which already had one of the world's best and largest, well-oiled eStores in place. So even if they simply sold eBooks at near cost, I doubt they would have lost money, especially if balanced by any incremental business they would have attained by being able to market their iPad as a great eBooks device.

I understand their desire to enter into the eBook market the way they did, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary to do it that way in order to ensure a viable eBooks operation. They could have done it in any number of ways, with varying degrees of profitability, but all without having to adopt a money-losing model.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'll get none.
I stopped buying BPH books when the conspiracy took effect.

I've never paid for an ebook. I'll buy audiobooks, but not ebooks.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I've never paid for an ebook. I'll buy audiobooks, but not ebooks.

Oh, I buy a lot of ebooks.
(Over a hundred a year. BAEN alone is 60-70 new ones.)
Just none from companies that break the law just to rip me off.

Only one pbook since 2010, though. And it was used.
I vote with my wallet.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by PatNY

They could have done it in any number of ways, with varying degrees of profitability, but all without having to adopt a money-losing model.

The Apple faithful are notoriously insensitive to price.
They didn't even have to match Amazon to succeed. Just preload the app.

Even ignoring the two biggest platforms on the planet they have done well without agency.
Even without a dedicated reading device, even with a $200(? That's the cheapest iPad, right?) minimum entry into iBooks-land, they still have a 12-15% market share.

Imagine if they really tried to compete...