It's interesting that the publishers admitted their guilt but Apple continued to be defiant and went on trial. Regardless of what Amazon were doing it was within the law. What Apple and the publishers did was illegal.
Agreed. Whilst the publishers knew the overwhelming evidence was against them and that they would loose if it went to court. So to cut further losses and legal costs they settled with the DOJ.
Apple take "we are always right" attitude even if they know they are wrong. They are quite happy to spend a fortune on legal costs and have the financial backing to do it.
Apple will probably get a large fine but it will be pocket money to them. So at the end of the day they won't care.
To be honest, I'm still not sure what some posters are trying to argue. Various other posters have already affirmed that Amazon has zero blame in this incident, hence why they managed to escape any serious sanctions.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about lowering prices if it is possible for the company to do so. The publishers and authors still have to get a predetermined cut of sales (so in actual fact Amazon may have been under pressure to sell more to fulfil those figures) and consumers will benefit from lower prices.
Amazon can't be blamed for the fact that the competition is unwilling to compete with their prices. Amazon's actions were not harming the consumer or the market as a whole at all. It's not as if they were selling everything at below £1, as that then would have been cause for the Competition Commission to intervene.
The only parties at fault here are Apple and the publishers for conspiring to raise prices solely to achieve a higher profit margin. This directly and negatively affected consumers, therefore action had to be taken against them.
There is no argument whatsoever that "oh they were doing it for the good of the market in the long term, what about fair pricing" blah blah, that was never in their minds when they resorted to this. That is pretty evident and is the reason why Apple have been rightly punished, and Amazon have not. There isn't a positive argument to support their actions within this market, they were only seeking to gain profits at the expense of the overall market.
To be honest, I'm still not sure what some posters are trying to argue. Various other posters have already affirmed that Amazon has zero blame in this incident, hence why they managed to escape any serious sanctions.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about lowering prices if it is possible for the company to do so. The publishers and authors still have to get a predetermined cut of sales (so in actual fact Amazon may have been under pressure to sell more to fulfil those figures) and consumers will benefit from lower prices.
Amazon can't be blamed for the fact that the competition is unwilling to compete with their prices. Amazon's actions were not harming the consumer or the market as a whole at all. It's not as if they were selling everything at below £1, as that then would have been cause for the Competition Commission to intervene.
The only parties at fault here are Apple and the publishers for conspiring to raise prices solely to achieve a higher profit margin. This directly and negatively affected consumers, therefore action had to be taken against them.
There is no argument whatsoever that "oh they were doing it for the good of the market in the long term, what about fair pricing" blah blah, that was never in their minds when they resorted to this. That is pretty evident and is the reason why Apple have been rightly punished, and Amazon have not. There isn't a positive argument to support their actions within this market, they were only seeking to gain profits at the expense of the overall market.
Nothing illegal about Amazon lowering prices. Immoral or unethical in lowering prices... well I'd need to know more. If Amazon are cutting writers and publishers royalties as part of that (which they have done in the past with some app developers), then I'd argue that is a pretty unpleasant business practice.
In an ideal world, would I like paper vs ebook to be the same price? Yes, absolutely, and as I've pointed out a page or so back, I'd also like the VAT exemption on books to cover ebooks as well. But all that said, the convenience of ebooks outweighs the slightly higher prices for me because I really don't want to go back to carrying around paperbacks!
But that's exactly the problem we are discussing. Ebooks are artificially high exactly because people are willing to pay for them for all the reasons you give, not because they reflect a fair price all around. In principle there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if everyone is competing on the same terms, i do not think the added value is worth it at all but each to their own, what we don't need is Apple illegally fixing prices to rip off the customer even more.
If you weren't going to comment on any of my post, there probably wasn't any need to quote it in full.
I didn't see the point in focusing on amazon's strategy in my reply because I'm well aware of their business model. As I have said in previous posts they use the same model in the physical book market. As I said before regardless of what Amazon were doing, what Apple did was illegal no matter how you try and spin it.
Obviously there was some degree of dodgy dealings, but I'm not sure its totally clear cut ........................
Which of the above are you disagreeing with or think is nonsense? Or is somehow defending Apple?
Because as far as I can tell, its a fair enough summary.
That Apple would have entered the market, and as a business made some money doesn't really contradict any of that. That a company sought to enter a market and make some money is neither shocking nor controversial.
(Unless, for some people, for some reason, the company is Apple.)
I don't think the article is biased - the fact is that Amazon set a price point lower than the the price they paid, created an artificially low price point, and arguably the publisher's concerns that this would devalue their product were entirely valid.
I linked to this article, because it confirmed what I said earlier about the Amazon's price being artificially low, and confirmed what I said about them doing so as a loss leader, both of which were dismissed by you.
Yes, there are any number of news sites which reported the fact that Apple were found guilty, but this article goes more into the background that led to the trial in the first place.
That you consider the article favourable to Apple does not automatically or magically invalidate what it says.
If you do consider it biased, and factually incorrect, perhaps you could explain which parts of it you take issue with.
And no - you didn't ignore this one, but you've asked me other things in other threads, and then ignored my answers.
It is clear cut a judge has decided it was clear cut and found apple guilty.
You see your trawling of the web to find some obscure pro apple website that has the same crazy love for apple as you doesn't change the simple facts of the case. I do worry about you when you view is so skewed you cannot see the wood for the trees with things like this.
Amazon were for some major titles reducing the price of their ebooks, you make out every book they sold was for pennies which was not the case. The same as every other company in the world does to entice you into their store and buy other items etc.
In any event the above has nothing to do with the reasoning behind apples decision to act illegally in this matter and cheat their customers.
The Judge said:
"Apple and the publisher defendants shared one overarching interest – that there be no price competition at the retail level. Apple did not want to compete with Amazon (or any other ebook retailer) on price; and the publisher defendants wanted to end Amazon's $9.99 pricing and increase significantly the prevailing price point for ebooks. With a full appreciation of each other's interests, Apple and the publisher defendants agreed to work together to eliminate retail price competition in the ebook market and raise the price of ebooks above $9.99."
So it is crystal clear they just wanted to rip off their loyal customers such as you in order to make more money for themselves. They don't want to compete they feel that is beneath them and simply feel they should be able to dictate prices people pay even if they do it illegally. With people like you defending their actions you will only encourage them to continue to behave like the scoundrels they are knowing they have the full support of the faithful ... shocking.
I already said that Yes, there are any number of news sites which reported the fact that Apple were found guilty, but this article goes more into the background that led to the trial in the first place.
So I'm not sure what value there is in posting several sites reporting the same fact that Apple were found guilty. We already know that. No-one is disputing or questioning that fact.
As I said above, I linked to this article, because it confirmed what I said earlier about the Amazon's price being artificially low, and confirmed what I said about them doing so as a loss leader, both of which were dismissed by you.
We know that they colluded to raise prices above $9.99. But I'm still not sure that's the same as ripping people off, if $9.99 is an artificially low price.
If Amazon priced them at a price point which was lower than the price they were paying for them, then its entirely arguable that that was the case.
If you want to keep ignoring anything other than "Apple were found guilty", then I'm not sure its really adding much to the discussion.
Appreciating some of the background which led to the case really isn't the same as defending them. That's just how you choose to interpret it through your tinted spectacles.
I haven't said anything that has anything to do with "crazy love for Apple".
Neither of you have really said which parts of the article you disagree with. All you've done is repeat what we already know, i.e. that Apple were found guilty of price fixing.
I haven't said anything that has anything to do with "crazy love for Apple".
Neither of you have really said which parts of the article you disagree with. All you've done is repeat what we already know, i.e. that Apple were found guilty of price fixing.
You have mentioned two separate issues and linked them as some justification for apples actions which is not the case. Amazon seeking to provide low cost for consumers for some big title books in no way gives any justification whatsoever for apple making prices artificially and illegally high.
That article you link to and indeed yourself are implying that apple were acting in the best interest of the consumer which is ludicrous. We can all find some tenuous justification for any actions doesn't make them any less wrong I'm afraid.
You have mentioned two separate issues and linked them as some justification for apples actions which is not the case. Amazon seeking to provide low cost for consumers for some big title books in no way gives any justification whatsoever for apple making prices artificially and illegally high.
That article you link to and indeed yourself are implying that apple were acting in the best interest of the consumer which is ludicrous. We can all find some tenuous justification for any actions doesn't make them any less wrong I'm afraid.
I don't think there's any point trying to suggest otherwise. Various posters have already given logical and fact based reasons as to why there isn't really an excuse for Apple's behaviour, but it seems some posters are unwilling to take that into account.
It was never a question of Amazon making prices "artificially low" but it was always a question of Apple making prices "artificially high" and higher than they should be. Any other arguments about Amazon damaging the market or whatever are totally beside the point and irrelevant.
This thread is about Apple and their blatant attempt to abuse and manipulate the market to their advantage, so trying to suggest Amazon was also acting wrongly as some guise to make Apple appear less wrong, just isn't going to work.
"“When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry.”"
It was never a question of Amazon making prices "artificially low" but it was always a question of Apple making prices "artificially high" and higher than they should be. Any other arguments about Amazon damaging the market or whatever are totally beside the point and irrelevant.
This is the salient point here. When Apple and the publishers colluded to raise the price of ebooks, the price was artificially high. It doesn't matter if that price is $10 or $50, how it compares to the RRP of the physical book, or what a person thinks is a fair price for the product.
You have mentioned two separate issues and linked them as some justification for apples actions which is not the case. Amazon seeking to provide low cost for consumers for some big title books in no way gives any justification whatsoever for apple making prices artificially and illegally high.
That article you link to and indeed yourself are implying that apple were acting in the best interest of the consumer which is ludicrous. We can all find some tenuous justification for any actions doesn't make them any less wrong I'm afraid.
I haven't tried to justify anything, I've just been prepared to look at the background which preceded the case.
This is the salient point here. When Apple and the publishers colluded to raise the price of ebooks, the price was artificially high. It doesn't matter if that price is $10 or $50, how it compares to the RRP of the physical book, or what a person thinks is a fair price for the product.
I'm not so sure.
The publishers valued the product at x that they sold it to Amazon for. Due to Amazon's position they sold that product for less than they paid for it. Something which they were only doing on the gamble of it being a loss leader to tie people in.
Regardless of anything else, I think the publishers had every right to view that price as artificially low.
The publishers valued the product at x that they sold it to Amazon for. Due to Amazon's position they sold that product for less than they paid for it. Something which they were only doing on the gamble of it being a loss leader to tie people in.
Regardless of anything else, I think the publishers had every right to view that price as artificially low.
Why should it matter to the publishers what price Amazon sells the product for, and what they do to try and keep hold of customers? You said yourself that the publishers valued the product at the price for which they sold it to Amazon. So they make that money regardless of what Amazon then does with it.
Why should it matter to the publishers what price Amazon sells the product for, and what they do to try and keep hold of customers? You said yourself that the publishers valued the product at the price for which they sold it to Amazon. So they make that money regardless of what Amazon then does with it.
Exactly, the publishers will have already agreed predetermined profits, so the pressure would have been on Amazon to sell to remain within that agreement. I highly doubt that the publishers would have cared if Amazon lowered the prices as long as the product sold well, which would be more likely at a lower price.
There is absolutely no weight to suggesting a price could be "artificially low" in this case. It's not harming or damaging anything. In fact, it more than likely increased sales and encouraged consumers to buy other related products due to the lower price points.
I haven't tried to justify anything, I've just been prepared to look at the background which preceded the case.
And as stated the background whatever that might be is irrelevant as to whether apple acted illegally in ripping of customers with artificially high prices.
So if you are not trying to justify anything you agree apple acted illegally and should be punished.
Why should it matter to the publishers what price Amazon sells the product for, and what they do to try and keep hold of customers? You said yourself that the publishers valued the product at the price for which they sold it to Amazon. So they make that money regardless of what Amazon then does with it.
In the short term it may not matter so much, but longer term it could certainly have driven that price down.
Surely by definition, if you are selling something for less than you paid for it, that price is artificially low.
Because your profit is determined by something other than the price / value of the product.
And as stated the background whatever that might be is irrelevant as to whether apple acted illegally in ripping of customers with artificially high prices.
So if you are not trying to justify anything you agree apple acted illegally and should be punished.
I've already agreed with that.
As I said originally, I just thought this case was interesting because unlike most oligopolies, the goal wasn't to keep prices artificially high.
Apple and the publishers are certainly guilty of price fixing, but it's open to debate as to whether Amazon's price was artificially low, or Apple and the publishers price was artificially high.
Given that Amazon were apparently selling them at a loss, that supports the former IMO.
As I said originally, I just thought this case was interesting because unlike most oligopolies, the goal wasn't to keep prices artificially high.
Apple and the publishers are certainly guilty of price fixing, but it's open to debate as to whether Amazon's price was artificially low, or Apple and the publishers price was artificially high.
Given that Amazon were apparently selling them at a loss, that supports the former IMO.
They are found guilty of price fixing but you still debate whether the price is artificially high, I think there is little point in debating this with you as clearly you have no perspective at all in relation to apple.
They are found guilty of price fixing but you still debate whether the price is artificially high, I think there is little point in debating this with you as clearly you have no perspective at all in relation to apple.
re BIB - correct. That's precisely what makes it an interesting case.
And it has nothing to do with my perspective in relation to Apple.
You can ignore the background, and the fact that Amazon set the price lower than they paid, but that won't change those facts.
If you want to cite any other examples of price fixing where one party set the price point lower than they paid for it, then I'd think the exact same thing.
Just to be clear, are you saying that if a company sells a product for less than they paid for it, as a loss leader, you don't consider that price to be artificially low?
As I said above, I'd have thought that any loss leader is priced at an artificially low price point, as its being sold for less than it would otherwise be worth.
For example, if a tin of beans is normally 30p, and a supermarket decides to sell them for 3p as a loss leader, then clearly the price of 3p is artificially low.
If the bean producers then thought that might devalue their products, and went with other supermarkets at an agreed price of 20p, then yes, they'd be guilty of price fixing.
But it would be difficult to argue that 20p was an artificially high price, rather than argue that 3p was an artificially low price.
Comments
Agreed. Whilst the publishers knew the overwhelming evidence was against them and that they would loose if it went to court. So to cut further losses and legal costs they settled with the DOJ.
Apple take "we are always right" attitude even if they know they are wrong. They are quite happy to spend a fortune on legal costs and have the financial backing to do it.
Apple will probably get a large fine but it will be pocket money to them. So at the end of the day they won't care.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about lowering prices if it is possible for the company to do so. The publishers and authors still have to get a predetermined cut of sales (so in actual fact Amazon may have been under pressure to sell more to fulfil those figures) and consumers will benefit from lower prices.
Amazon can't be blamed for the fact that the competition is unwilling to compete with their prices. Amazon's actions were not harming the consumer or the market as a whole at all. It's not as if they were selling everything at below £1, as that then would have been cause for the Competition Commission to intervene.
The only parties at fault here are Apple and the publishers for conspiring to raise prices solely to achieve a higher profit margin. This directly and negatively affected consumers, therefore action had to be taken against them.
There is no argument whatsoever that "oh they were doing it for the good of the market in the long term, what about fair pricing" blah blah, that was never in their minds when they resorted to this. That is pretty evident and is the reason why Apple have been rightly punished, and Amazon have not. There isn't a positive argument to support their actions within this market, they were only seeking to gain profits at the expense of the overall market.
But that's exactly the problem we are discussing. Ebooks are artificially high exactly because people are willing to pay for them for all the reasons you give, not because they reflect a fair price all around. In principle there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if everyone is competing on the same terms, i do not think the added value is worth it at all but each to their own, what we don't need is Apple illegally fixing prices to rip off the customer even more.
I didn't see the point in focusing on amazon's strategy in my reply because I'm well aware of their business model. As I have said in previous posts they use the same model in the physical book market. As I said before regardless of what Amazon were doing, what Apple did was illegal no matter how you try and spin it.
It is clear cut a judge has decided it was clear cut and found apple guilty.
Here are a few articles on this taken at random:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/07/10/apple-found-guilty-in-ebook-pricing-conspiracy
http://news.sky.com/story/1114060/apple-guilty-of-e-book-price-rise-conspiracy
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/antitrust-apple-plot-publishers-ebook
You see your trawling of the web to find some obscure pro apple website that has the same crazy love for apple as you doesn't change the simple facts of the case. I do worry about you when you view is so skewed you cannot see the wood for the trees with things like this.
Amazon were for some major titles reducing the price of their ebooks, you make out every book they sold was for pennies which was not the case. The same as every other company in the world does to entice you into their store and buy other items etc.
In any event the above has nothing to do with the reasoning behind apples decision to act illegally in this matter and cheat their customers.
The Judge said:
"Apple and the publisher defendants shared one overarching interest – that there be no price competition at the retail level. Apple did not want to compete with Amazon (or any other ebook retailer) on price; and the publisher defendants wanted to end Amazon's $9.99 pricing and increase significantly the prevailing price point for ebooks. With a full appreciation of each other's interests, Apple and the publisher defendants agreed to work together to eliminate retail price competition in the ebook market and raise the price of ebooks above $9.99."
So it is crystal clear they just wanted to rip off their loyal customers such as you in order to make more money for themselves. They don't want to compete they feel that is beneath them and simply feel they should be able to dictate prices people pay even if they do it illegally. With people like you defending their actions you will only encourage them to continue to behave like the scoundrels they are knowing they have the full support of the faithful ... shocking.
So I'm not sure what value there is in posting several sites reporting the same fact that Apple were found guilty. We already know that. No-one is disputing or questioning that fact.
As I said above, I linked to this article, because it confirmed what I said earlier about the Amazon's price being artificially low, and confirmed what I said about them doing so as a loss leader, both of which were dismissed by you.
We know that they colluded to raise prices above $9.99. But I'm still not sure that's the same as ripping people off, if $9.99 is an artificially low price.
If Amazon priced them at a price point which was lower than the price they were paying for them, then its entirely arguable that that was the case.
If you want to keep ignoring anything other than "Apple were found guilty", then I'm not sure its really adding much to the discussion.
Appreciating some of the background which led to the case really isn't the same as defending them. That's just how you choose to interpret it through your tinted spectacles.
And no - I didn't "trawl the web" either.
That is just how it is with this iconic heavily marketed brand.
I haven't said anything that has anything to do with "crazy love for Apple".
Neither of you have really said which parts of the article you disagree with. All you've done is repeat what we already know, i.e. that Apple were found guilty of price fixing.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-best-perceived-brands-of-2012--apples-not-one-of-them-2013-1?op=1
Obviously Amazon will rank far lower here but Google and Apple both slipping certainly means both judgements and negative marketing has an affect.
The UK corporate tax situation here will make all 3 look like 'evil doers' so the above can be taken with a pinch of salt.
You have mentioned two separate issues and linked them as some justification for apples actions which is not the case. Amazon seeking to provide low cost for consumers for some big title books in no way gives any justification whatsoever for apple making prices artificially and illegally high.
That article you link to and indeed yourself are implying that apple were acting in the best interest of the consumer which is ludicrous. We can all find some tenuous justification for any actions doesn't make them any less wrong I'm afraid.
I don't think there's any point trying to suggest otherwise. Various posters have already given logical and fact based reasons as to why there isn't really an excuse for Apple's behaviour, but it seems some posters are unwilling to take that into account.
It was never a question of Amazon making prices "artificially low" but it was always a question of Apple making prices "artificially high" and higher than they should be. Any other arguments about Amazon damaging the market or whatever are totally beside the point and irrelevant.
This thread is about Apple and their blatant attempt to abuse and manipulate the market to their advantage, so trying to suggest Amazon was also acting wrongly as some guise to make Apple appear less wrong, just isn't going to work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/technology/judge-rules-against-apple-in-e-books-trial.html?ref=technology&_r=0
"“When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry.”"
A semi-surreal reality as ever.
This is the salient point here. When Apple and the publishers colluded to raise the price of ebooks, the price was artificially high. It doesn't matter if that price is $10 or $50, how it compares to the RRP of the physical book, or what a person thinks is a fair price for the product.
Amazon's price on new stuff tended to be $10 so an Apple price of $13 meant publishers kept a full $10, assuming 30% of $10 pre mark-up went to Apple.
I haven't tried to justify anything, I've just been prepared to look at the background which preceded the case.
I'm not so sure.
The publishers valued the product at x that they sold it to Amazon for. Due to Amazon's position they sold that product for less than they paid for it. Something which they were only doing on the gamble of it being a loss leader to tie people in.
Regardless of anything else, I think the publishers had every right to view that price as artificially low.
Why should it matter to the publishers what price Amazon sells the product for, and what they do to try and keep hold of customers? You said yourself that the publishers valued the product at the price for which they sold it to Amazon. So they make that money regardless of what Amazon then does with it.
Exactly, the publishers will have already agreed predetermined profits, so the pressure would have been on Amazon to sell to remain within that agreement. I highly doubt that the publishers would have cared if Amazon lowered the prices as long as the product sold well, which would be more likely at a lower price.
There is absolutely no weight to suggesting a price could be "artificially low" in this case. It's not harming or damaging anything. In fact, it more than likely increased sales and encouraged consumers to buy other related products due to the lower price points.
And as stated the background whatever that might be is irrelevant as to whether apple acted illegally in ripping of customers with artificially high prices.
So if you are not trying to justify anything you agree apple acted illegally and should be punished.
In the short term it may not matter so much, but longer term it could certainly have driven that price down.
Surely by definition, if you are selling something for less than you paid for it, that price is artificially low.
Because your profit is determined by something other than the price / value of the product.
I've already agreed with that.
As I said originally, I just thought this case was interesting because unlike most oligopolies, the goal wasn't to keep prices artificially high.
Apple and the publishers are certainly guilty of price fixing, but it's open to debate as to whether Amazon's price was artificially low, or Apple and the publishers price was artificially high.
Given that Amazon were apparently selling them at a loss, that supports the former IMO.
re BIB - correct. That's precisely what makes it an interesting case.
And it has nothing to do with my perspective in relation to Apple.
You can ignore the background, and the fact that Amazon set the price lower than they paid, but that won't change those facts.
If you want to cite any other examples of price fixing where one party set the price point lower than they paid for it, then I'd think the exact same thing.
Just to be clear, are you saying that if a company sells a product for less than they paid for it, as a loss leader, you don't consider that price to be artificially low?
As I said above, I'd have thought that any loss leader is priced at an artificially low price point, as its being sold for less than it would otherwise be worth.
For example, if a tin of beans is normally 30p, and a supermarket decides to sell them for 3p as a loss leader, then clearly the price of 3p is artificially low.
If the bean producers then thought that might devalue their products, and went with other supermarkets at an agreed price of 20p, then yes, they'd be guilty of price fixing.
But it would be difficult to argue that 20p was an artificially high price, rather than argue that 3p was an artificially low price.