No-one has suggested that Amazon did act illegally.

No-one has suggested that either Apple or the publishers did not act illegally.

I don't think the publishers unhappiness necessarily was down to greed, because Amazon were selling content for less than they were paying for it, and so the publishers concern that that would artificially undermine the value of the content was perhaps justified.

Imagine you have a product worth £10. Imagine I buy it from you for £10. Imagine I then sell that product of hours for £5. I don't mind selling it for less than I paid for it, because I'm selling it as a loss leader on another product I can more than make the money on.

You would probably have every right to be concerned that I was undermining the value of your product.



But, to be clear, that does not condone what they or Apple then did.

What is the point of saying this? Did you not read the part where I said "Amazon did not act illegally" and "Apple and the publishers took the law into their own hands"?

Why are you just re-writing what I already said?

I'm sure they are although I suppose they wonder why apple supporters need to bring other companies wrong doing into it. It's as if it mitigates their behaviour very very strange.

Yes they were, odd But I had already said that. The point was though that apple motivated them to take action something completely different and nothing to do with your statement. Funny how your very selective language avoids the point.

Fact remains nothing to do with Amazon other than these companies bringing them into it as justification for their crimes. If you think that a company acting legally should have anything to do with a case of criminal behaviour because the guilty blame them, well that sums you up totally.

This point is irrelevant as Amazon did not have market dominance across Europe. Market share is a significant indicator of dominance and Amazon was not in control of the market in that respect. It was the publishers who entered into a concerted practice and exercised their combined dominance to distort the market in their favour, to the detriment of Amazon.

Had Amazon been the market leader, you may have had a valid argument in stating this, but they weren't, which is why they were not seen to be acting illegally in any way. These publishers can't have it all. They can't use "concern" as an excuse when they are holding larger portions of market share and were attempting to use illegal practices to maintain those shares.

Nope - justification is your word. No-one else's.

The point here wasn't about whether or not Amazon were acting illegally.

That Amazon were not acting illegally is not in dispute.

The point there was in reply to your comment about the publishers being motivated by greed. Their motivation did not seem to be to increase the price of their product, but to prevent it from being, arguably, (artificially) devalued.

It should go without saying that the above does not condone what either Apple or the publishers then did with regards price fixing.

Greed is relevant especially considering that they were far more dominant in the market than Amazon.

The smart thing to do would have been to let Amazon continue on until they reached a dominant position then report Amazon to the EU Commission where they would have been heavily fined for breaching Article 102 TFEU.

The fact that the publishers followed Apple into some silly vigilante plan shows that they were more motivated about maintaining their profits and market share than the value of the product. In doing so, they unwittingly allowed Amazon to get away with what was effectively predatory pricing because they acted long before Amazon reached any kind of dominance.

"Concern" is not a strong enough defence for illegal activity, especially since Apple and the publishers showed no intention of trying to add value to their products to offset Amazon. They were far more motivated by greed.

You do live on another planet Mr Sword, one called "putting words into other people's mouths".

Let's try the following.

The reason I choose my iPhone over my HTC One for my primary use is -

1. Performance
2. Camera
3. Battery
4. Size

These are all pretty significant factors, nothing to do with brand. And I make this choice not on the basis of playing for 5 minutes with a mate's iPhone/Android phone but on constant day to day use side by side.

I don't know that market dominance is a factor.

The publishers felt that their product had a value, and that that value was being undermined by Amazon's practise of selling it at lower cost.

I'm sure they did want to maintain their profits, but presumably they wanted to do that by making sure the product retained the value that they felt it was worth. I don't think you can say it was about profit rather than the value of the product because the two are directly linked. And I don't know that it was about market share as the publishers and Amazon were not really competitors - the publishers were a supplier to Amazon.

You're right - "concern" is not a defence for illegal activity, but no-one has suggested that it is. In fact I've said a few times that the whole thing of who and who didn't break any law is not in question.

All better served by a non apple phone, as you pointed out in your original post.

However your original point was specifically not about "geeks on here" was it. So don't be saying one thing only to try and disprove it with the very thing you dismissed.

Of course it is a factor. Just because Amazon entered into vertical agreements with the publishers does not mean that they are not directly competing. If market dominance was irrelevant, Amazon would have gone down with Apple and the publishers for predatory pricing, but the fact is that Apple and the publishers as a collective were far more dominant and (potentially unknowingly) offset Amazon's behaviour through their own concerted practice.

The publishers were of course concerned with market share. Amazon was not the only company they were supplying. Apple was also in vertical agreements with publishers, and the publishers of course expressed "concern" about Amazon's market practice, which was Apple's signal to use that to their own advantage.

You are confusing two different segments of the market here, the eBooks supply segment and the eBooks sale segment. The publishers compete against each other in the supply segment, and also in the sales segment where Amazon and Apple also compete, knowing that neither produce their own content in this market.

And once again, these disclaimer style lines you keep putting in are superfluous as I don't need someone to "suggest" something for me to state it. I'm saying that the publishers acted illegally regardless of whether anyone suggested they were or were not.

Personally I have an iPhone because before it I had iPods, which were by far the easiest to use MP3 players on the market. Apple in my experience designs its software to just get out of the way of what you're trying to do. Sometimes that means they compromise on features to achieve that aim, but with regards to hardware I honestly couldn't care less if X phone has more RAM or Y phone has an octo-core processor. It's my phone, not my primary computer.

On the subject of buying choice by brand, even if people do buy a product (and I mean any product, not specifically Apple) because of the brand, then I would think it likely that its not literally because of the brand per se, but because of people's positive experience with that brand.

I own an iPhone. Guilty. But I've owned Apple products since 2004, and always had good experiences. I like the design of the hardware and most of the software - so shoot me, but its a legitimate preference. I like that everything syncs well across different devices. Have Apple become unbelievably big and successful? Yes they have, but I'm still inclined that their ethics and environmental policies are as good as any large company. I have always found their customer services excellent when things do go wrong - I had issues with a laptop which they replaced. I've had a new LCD panel replaced for free which was over a year out of warranty.

Do I buy Apple products because of the brand? Very possibly, but not because of the logo on the back, but because of a combination of numerous factors to do with that brand.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather go through life enjoying stuff than bitching and moaning about how crap everything is.

I expect they do that when people bring up that Apple have done something bad. They just point out other companies have done bad as well.

I don't think it's to mitigate it - just show other companies are not moral guardians either.

Why would you ever buy something because of the brand? Surely you buy what you find best fits your needs?

That would depend on whether I was buying something literally just for the logo, or whether I thought products by a particular brand did fit my needs.

Which I thought was reasonably covered by the majority of my post that you snipped.

It's when someone slags off Apple for doing something bad then immediately praises another company, one that's also done something bad, that you realise you're talking to someone who just hates Apple. Whilst I don't doubt that there are some Apple fanbois out there genuinely would purchase the mythical iTurd and rave about it, there are others who would just as predictably boycott iCureforcancer and rant to the world about how only iSheep would consider it.

When it comes to it they're just another company. They do good stuff, they do bad stuff, they're in it for profit.

Because people just do! Same with clothes, cars and loads of other things. Even where you travel, or choose to eat.

Not everyone does it, obviously. In many respects, someone that buys ordinary, but cheap, clothes or would buy a simple mobile phone would be looked upon as poor - when they are simply choosing to buy something that fits their needs and not pay a hefty surcharge for a brand.

I doubt that will ever change, but Apple needs to make sure it can maintain its brand and not mess up - as that's what it has that puts it above the rest (and why Samsung has been so desperate to become the next Apple).

Go to any press event and it will be 95% MacBooks, and a large number of tech journalists who write about phones, tablets, computers will have an iPhone or iPad. That is slowly changing, mind.

I switched to Apple around 2004, and now have lots of kit (Apple TV, iMac, some old Mac minis, MacBook Air, iPod touch) but the iPhone doesn't suit my needs, which includes the freedom that you get on Android (and indeed on OSX compared to iOS). If iOS got widgets, changeable keyboards, browsers, camera apps and all the other flexibility of Android, I'd then consider them seriously. Oh, but only if a new phone had a bigger screen!

What's quite funny is that you now see articles that seem to be talking about Android as if that writer has never really used it properly before, but had still gone years comparing the two, and favouring the iPhone. Now all of a sudden, they've discovered this new OS and it's really rather good after all.

But getting back on topic. Apple and Samsung are indeed as bad as each other, albeit for slightly different reasons. Only the fanboys would side exclusively with one side and ignore that fact. Step back and it's as clear as rain, and any company in business would do the same given half a chance.

Not at all. You said you possibly do buy an Apple product because of the brand.

Buying because you like features of a device I can understand but buying just because it’s a particular brand I can’t.

I think you misunderstand what CP was saying. He was saying that brand potentially influences him because of positive experiences in the past leading him to believe that he will have positive experiences in the future. There's nothing irrational about this. There are plenty of things people buy because they associate the brand with quality and expect to get a good experience.

Then you have completely misunderstood what I said.

There is a world of difference between buying a product because of the brand per se, simply and literally because you like the logo, or think its trendy, or whatever...

...and buying a product because of the brand because you have had good experiences with that brand, because you like the design of that brand's products, because you believe the products made by the brand to be well built and likely to last well. Basically all sorts of things.

Or, in your words, because a brand best fits your needs and/or preferences.

Features wise, they are much of a muchness to be honest - I certainly don't feel as though I'm missing out on any killer must have feature by owning an iPhone rather than any other phone. In which case it will come down to design of both hardware and software.

If people buy Fairy Liquid washing up liquid, they very likely are buying it because of the brand. But its more likely because they believe that brand's product is good quality and will out last Tesco's economy washing up liquid, rather than because of the logo.

I know people like to believe and perpetuate the myth that people buy Apple products for the most shallow of reasons - it must just be a happy coincidence that Apple products do tend to be well made, well designed and intuitive to use. Maybe some people do, but I suspect its not that many. Because as the saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

Similarly, the idea of people buying Apple products because their mates have them. If Apple weren't involved, that would more reasonably be known as buying a product on a friend's recommendation. Word it like that, and suddenly it doesn't seem such an unreasonable thing for people to do.

It seems you think tdenson is completely wrong in his previous assumptions then about people's buying habits, good to hear that at least. First time I have seen you pair disagree so thinks maybe looking up.

I haven't got a clue what you are talking about

Are we? Are you sure?

I'm disagreeing with whatever you are trying to make out tdenson said.

But as far as I can tell am pretty much agreeing with what he actually said.

What do you think tdenson?