• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
Apple seeks $40 Per 'infringing' handset againt Samsung
<<
<
2 of 14
>>
>
Roush
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“Yes illegal activity, price fixing, to which they were found guilty of. All companies are dodgy we all know that but Apple take it to another level.”

Yes, quite right. Price fixing is illegal.

Samsung guilty of LCD display price fixing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20910299

Samsung guilty of DRAM price fixing: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...005/212002.htm
Stiggles
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by Roush:
“Yes, quite right. Price fixing is illegal.

Samsung guilty of LCD display price fixing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20910299

Samsung guilty of DRAM price fixing: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...005/212002.htm”

Indeed it is:-

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/1/536...ebooks-lawsuit

EDIT: in relation to the first link you posted, do you not mean Samsung, LG and others. Not just chucking it on Samsung....

Everyone price fixes at some point. They always get caught and it's not right, but they all do it.
swordman
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by Roush:
“Yes, quite right. Price fixing is illegal.

Samsung guilty of LCD display price fixing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20910299

Samsung guilty of DRAM price fixing: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...005/212002.htm”

Yep agree, slightly different criteria - but in any event does Samsung acting illegally somehow lessen what Apple did, just wondering what other reason you would have for mentioning this
calico_pie
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“I'm gonna use one of your sayings, and say the cost is a red herring. Most people get phones on contracts, so cost really isn't a problem for most.

Brand and OS are i would say a bigger part than cost.”

Are you agreeing or disagreeing that cost is a factor?

I must admit I usually buy a phone outright because I prefer not to be on a contract, but aren't the contract rates for the high end phones more than for other phones?

I had always thought that a high end phone like a 5S, S5 or HTC One would cost more per month on a contract than cheaper phones. Is that not the case?
alan1302
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“Yep agree, slightly different criteria - but in any event does Samsung acting illegally somehow lessen what Apple did, just wondering what other reason you would have for mentioning this ”

It doesn't lessen it - it makes them as bad as each other.

If Samsung was in Apples position they would be the ones taking Apple to court.

Most companies are just interested in making money and nothing else - which is why it's funny when people stick up for certain companies when they are all as bad as each other.
swordman
10-04-2014
Not sure I would agree totally

but yes very funny people seem so eager to defend apple for some inexplicable reason
calico_pie
10-04-2014
Although, to be fair, that probably depends on whether or not you have misinterpreted anything anyone said.
Stiggles
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Are you agreeing or disagreeing that cost is a factor?”

Disagree for the most part.

Quote:
“I must admit I usually buy a phone outright because I prefer not to be on a contract, but aren't the contract rates for the high end phones more than for other phones?”

I do the same. I just use 3's 3-2-1 plan as i don't use my phone very much, so i see it needless to be on a contract.

Quote:
“I had always thought that a high end phone like a 5S, S5 or HTC One would cost more per month on a contract than cheaper phones. Is that not the case?”

They can be yes, but you can also stump up say £150 - £200 upfront for the phone which lowers the contract price.
Stiggles
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by alan1302:
“It doesn't lessen it - it makes them as bad as each other.

If Samsung was in Apples position they would be the ones taking Apple to court.

Most companies are just interested in making money and nothing else - which is why it's funny when people stick up for certain companies when they are all as bad as each other.”

Have to agree with this.

Although i do think apple are milking this a bit much now.
swordman
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Although, to be fair, that probably depends on whether or not you have misinterpreted anything anyone said.”

It does I suppose but at least we have had an iphone user admitting they are bought for the badge, so we got somewhere today
edEx
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“yes true but profits have fallen consistently quarter after quarter.

How can fixing ebook prices have nothing to do with smartphones it was nothing to do with Amazon, this is the pro apple stance we have heard before. It was about not wishing to compete fairly and making excessive profit and the expense of you and me.”

I'm sorry, but the case was everything to do with Amazon. The publishers that admitted their collusion with Apple said so much in court. They didn't want to have one dominant supplier controlling the eBook market and able to dictate prices to publishers, so they and Apple got together and fixed prices of eBooks in order to build Apple up as a competitor and cut Amazon out of the deal. That's why Amazon went to the US Department of Justice and asked for the investigation that led to the prosecution in the first place.

As for what it's got to do with smartphones, do you read eBooks on your smartphone? I've yet to meet anyone that does, even those people that have those big screen phablets. People mostly read eBooks on Kindles and tablets.
IvanIV
10-04-2014
Are we doing Amazon already?
Stiggles
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by edEx:
“
As for what it's got to do with smartphones, do you read eBooks on your smartphone? I've yet to meet anyone that does, even those people that have those big screen phablets. People mostly read eBooks on Kindles and tablets.”

I did once but never again. It was a book by Karl Pilkington about the Idiot Abroad series. I was laughing so much i dropped the phone and left a nice mark in the side!
daleski75
10-04-2014
Apple and Samsung are both as bad as each other.
swordman
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by edEx:
“I'm sorry, but the case was everything to do with Amazon. The publishers that admitted their collusion with Apple said so much in court. They didn't want to have one dominant supplier controlling the eBook market and able to dictate prices to publishers, so they and Apple got together and fixed prices of eBooks in order to build Apple up as a competitor and cut Amazon out of the deal. That's why Amazon went to the US Department of Justice and asked for the investigation that led to the prosecution in the first place.

As for what it's got to do with smartphones, do you read eBooks on your smartphone? I've yet to meet anyone that does, even those people that have those big screen phablets. People mostly read eBooks on Kindles and tablets.”

huge thread already on this so last post on ebooks.
Publishers were unhappy with Amazon agreed, Apple used this unhappiness to become "ringleaders" in this conspiracy to fix prices. The DOJ/Judge branded Apple ringleaders, they also used alternate measures to force those publishers who had cold feet into going through with the deal. Apple could care less about Amazon they wanted this for the ipad launch and wanted a preferential deal off publishers so they made more money from ebooks than anyone else and not just by raising the price overnight.

So it had nothing to do with Amazon because they were not breaking the law, apple and publishers used them as an excuse for their actions as have several apple apologists including on here.

lastly yes I do often, done a study on these reading habits have you!! because I really want to carry a tablet out to read a book. Perhaps you should get out more or look at phones capable of properly reading ebooks on them
calico_pie
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“huge thread already on this so last post on ebooks.
Publishers were unhappy with Amazon agreed,”

Why are you blaming Anazon?

Why are you defending Apple?

Quote:
“So it had nothing to do with Amazon because they were not breaking the law, apple and publishers used them as an excuse for their actions as have several apple apologists including on here.”

Of course it had something to do with Amazon!

Amazon's relationship with the publishers was what motivated the publishers to do something about it.

In case it isn't clear - that is not the same as blaming Amazon for what Apple and the publishers then did.
swordman
10-04-2014
No idea what your on about first part of post !!

Amazon acting within law as I said previously they were used as excuse, irrelevant to criminal activity when they are operating legally.

Umm no it was Apple who motivated the publishers to do something about it, they were the "ringleaders" (using publishers unhappiness with Amazon as motivation).

So in case it isn't clear Apple pushed the publishers into this illegal activity purely so Apple could benefit above everyone else. The facts of the case are available for all to see and any other interpretation merely further compounds long held belief.

Full stop
edEx
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“lastly yes I do often, done a study on these reading habits have you!! because I really want to carry a tablet out to read a book. Perhaps you should get out more or look at phones capable of properly reading ebooks on them ”

Or use a Kindle, like everyone else....
swordman
10-04-2014
Prefer to avoid locked down proprietary systems myself.

I have more than capable equipment that allows me to carry just one device wherever I go, you may experience that in about 5 months.
calico_pie
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“No idea what your on about first part of post !!

Amazon acting within law as I said previously they were used as excuse, irrelevant to criminal activity when they are operating legally.

Umm no it was Apple who motivated the publishers to do something about it, they were the "ringleaders" (using publishers unhappiness with Amazon as motivation).

So in case it isn't clear Apple pushed the publishers into this illegal activity purely so Apple could benefit above everyone else. The facts of the case are available for all to see and any other interpretation merely further compounds long held belief.

Full stop”

Sorry - typo in the first bit. I meant Amazon.

Failing that, check for irony.

Um no, the publishers were unhappy with Amazon before Apple did anything.

To be clear that is not to blame Amazon for what Apple and the publishers then did.
Zack06
10-04-2014
Only Apple and the publishers acted illegally in the Amazon case. The publishers could be "unhappy" all they like, but Amazon was acting within the law, or they would have been reported long ago.

I don't really see how it's relevant in this case as Apple paid the price for trying to take the law into their own hands.

This Samsung case is a different scenario. Apple is trying their luck by demanding $40 a handset as they know that they are a US company in a US court with the US legal system handling this against a foreign company. They haven't been as able to get away with what they want abroad, particularly in the EU where they were investigated and later fined for their behavior in the eBooks market.
alan1302
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by swordman:
“Not sure I would agree totally

but yes very funny people seem so eager to defend apple for some inexplicable reason”

And funny that some people are happy to gloss over any bad that Samsung may do...
alan1302
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Have to agree with this.

Although i do think apple are milking this a bit much now.”

Now that I do agree with - I don't think they look at the tarnishing of their reputation it causes.
calico_pie
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by Zack06:
“Only Apple and the publishers acted illegally in the Amazon case. The publishers could be "unhappy" all they like, but Amazon was acting within the law, or they would have been reported long ago.

I don't really see how it's relevant in this case as Apple paid the price for trying to take the law into their own hands.

This Samsung case is a different scenario. Apple is trying their luck by demanding $40 a handset as they know that they are a US company in a US court with the US legal system handling this against a foreign company. They haven't been as able to get away with what they want abroad, particularly in the EU where they were investigated and later fined for their behavior in the eBooks market.”

"Having something to do with it" and "acting illegally" are not mutually exclusive things.

Clearly the relationship between Amazon and the publishers had something to do with it, as it was that relationship the publishers were unhappy with, that caused the publishers to do something about that relationship, and gave Apple the opportunity to exploit the situation to their benefit.

In case it's still not clear none of the above either blames Amazon, or defends Apple or the publishers for their actions.
Zack06
10-04-2014
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“"Having something to do with it" and "acting illegally" are not mutually exclusive things.

Clearly the relationship between Amazon and the publishers had something to do with it, as it was that relationship the publishers were unhappy with, that caused the publishers to do something about that relationship, and gave Apple the opportunity to exploit the situation to their benefit.

In case it's still not clear none of the above either blames Amazon, or defends Apple or the publishers for their actions.”

I didn't use the phrase "having something to do with it". I simply said that Amazon weren't acting illegally. It was entirely Apple and the publishers prerogatives to then decide to take the law into their own hands. I'm neither blaming Apple nor excluding Amazon from the discussion, but the fact of the matter is, Apple and the publishers acted illegally and Amazon didn't.

That fact alone holds a lot of weight in the argument, but like I said, this Samsung case is something different from the Amazon one. The publishers unhappiness was likely down to greed more than anything else, as Amazon was not in a dominant enough position to cause the publishing group and Apple damage. They may have been threatened, but the facts speak for themselves, which is why their plans were ultimately halted.
<<
<
2 of 14
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map