5 ms·

So is opening the store based on an agency model illegal? Is illegal being willing to sell the stuff in the own store for a higher price? By which laws? What wa

by acqq 11y ago

So is opening the store based on an agency model illegal? Is illegal being willing to sell the stuff in the own store for a higher price? By which laws? What was the actual illegal step in the process of opening their new store that Apple have made? Why shouldn't they be able to offer a different deal to the publishers than what Amazon have offered? > The agency model has something called "most favored nation" "Most Favored Nation" clause, as stated in the court document: http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on-Price-Fixing.pdf http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi... "The MFN guaranteed that the e-books in Apple’s e-bookstore would be sold for the lowest retail price available in the marketplace." Why shouldn't be Apple able to propose that in its contract? It's on publishers to accept it or not. It was obviously the opposite of "raising prices" it was a protection for the Apple book store to remain competitive. Why should Apple be responsible for what the publishers do with their own contracts to Amazon once the Apple's store opens? Of course the existence of Apple's store changes the market conditions, and why shouldn't it?

dilemma 11y ago
Apple set a specific price ($16.99 or so) for iBooks, then used MFN to make sure that that was the "lowest" price, effectively increasing prices elsewhere from say $9.99 to the same $16.99. That is, they fixes the price at a higher level than before.
- acqq 11y ago
  Weren't the publishers those that set the price? Apple just agreed not to insist on low prices like Amazon (it's in the court decision). As far as I understand, the publishers weren't able to increase the prices by Amazon until they renegotiated their deals with Amazon. Why should Apple be guilty that the publishers made new, what they saw as better for them deals with Amazon once the Apple's store opened? It's the Amazon that got the competition at that moment, not that Apple behaved anti-competitive. Amazon effectively haven't had any competition before. Once it had, the publishers wee able to renegotiate.
  - dilemma 11y ago
    If you really want to know, there's enough articles available on Google from the past several years to make it crystal clear. My above is the condensed version. None of the things you bring up are correct.
    - acqq 11y ago
      Can you please quote anything specific? I'm actually reading and quoting the 2013 court decision and I can't find the logic of it. See my other comments here for examples. I can also quote the parts that prove that your interpretation doesn't hold -- Apple didn't "fix" the prices, just agreed to sell for the prices that the publishers preferred. Even the agency model was a suggestion from the publishers that Apple accepted, but why shouldn't they? "Every Publisher with whom Apple met lamented Amazon’s pricing New Releases and NYT Bestsellers at $9.99. Several of them made clear that they were actively searching for a way to gain more control over pricing and were implementing tactics they did not enjoy, like windowing." "As Apple had expressed to the Publishers, it strongly believed that withholding content would interfere with the growth of the digital market and was inconsistent with its business goals and practices. Apple thus embraced the model that Hachette and HarperCollins had proposed -– the agency model. Apple was already familiar with this model since it used the agency model to sell apps through its App Store." Edit: just posting a link to some newspaper article doesn't prove anything. Under "specific" I mean a "specific proof" that somehow negates the quotes from the court decision I've presented or shows them in completely new light.
      - dilemma 11y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-judge-says-apple-fixed-e-book-prices-this-chart-shows-how-they-did-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-jud...
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        If you want to know, then here's a starting point: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo... - it demonstrates clear and specific proof of the leading role that Apple played in proposing the collusion and actually bringing it about. See my other comment in this thread, where I highlight some of the illustrative quotes from the principals involved.
studentrob 11y ago
> So is opening the store based on an agency model illegal? I don't think it is. There's an opportunity for some store to do that. For what it's worth, I agree with you that it isn't so cut and dry that Apple set out to fix prices or do evil here. They were simply one gateway to higher prices desired by publishers. Selling electronic goods is sufficiently different from selling tangible goods to warrant additional consideration beyond existing case law. I think the DOJ/government finds Apple difficult to work with. During the encryption congressional hearing, Trey Gowdy was begging Apple to lobby for legislation, or come up with their own new legislation. It was disgusting. The DOJ and our Congress do not understand technology and it hurts the industry.

by acqq 11y ago

dilemma 11y ago

Apple set a specific price ($16.99 or so) for iBooks, then used MFN to make sure that that was the "lowest" price, effectively increasing prices elsewhere from say $9.99 to the same $16.99. That is, they fixes the price at a higher level than before.

acqq 11y ago
Weren't the publishers those that set the price? Apple just agreed not to insist on low prices like Amazon (it's in the court decision). As far as I understand, the publishers weren't able to increase the prices by Amazon until they renegotiated their deals with Amazon. Why should Apple be guilty that the publishers made new, what they saw as better for them deals with Amazon once the Apple's store opened? It's the Amazon that got the competition at that moment, not that Apple behaved anti-competitive. Amazon effectively haven't had any competition before. Once it had, the publishers wee able to renegotiate.
- dilemma 11y ago
  If you really want to know, there's enough articles available on Google from the past several years to make it crystal clear. My above is the condensed version. None of the things you bring up are correct.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Can you please quote anything specific? I'm actually reading and quoting the 2013 court decision and I can't find the logic of it. See my other comments here for examples. I can also quote the parts that prove that your interpretation doesn't hold -- Apple didn't "fix" the prices, just agreed to sell for the prices that the publishers preferred. Even the agency model was a suggestion from the publishers that Apple accepted, but why shouldn't they? "Every Publisher with whom Apple met lamented Amazon’s pricing New Releases and NYT Bestsellers at $9.99. Several of them made clear that they were actively searching for a way to gain more control over pricing and were implementing tactics they did not enjoy, like windowing." "As Apple had expressed to the Publishers, it strongly believed that withholding content would interfere with the growth of the digital market and was inconsistent with its business goals and practices. Apple thus embraced the model that Hachette and HarperCollins had proposed -– the agency model. Apple was already familiar with this model since it used the agency model to sell apps through its App Store." Edit: just posting a link to some newspaper article doesn't prove anything. Under "specific" I mean a "specific proof" that somehow negates the quotes from the court decision I've presented or shows them in completely new light.
    - dilemma 11y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-judge-says-apple-fixed-e-book-prices-this-chart-shows-how-they-did-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-jud...
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      If you want to know, then here's a starting point: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo... - it demonstrates clear and specific proof of the leading role that Apple played in proposing the collusion and actually bringing it about. See my other comment in this thread, where I highlight some of the illustrative quotes from the principals involved.

studentrob 11y ago

> So is opening the store based on an agency model illegal? I don't think it is. There's an opportunity for some store to do that. For what it's worth, I agree with you that it isn't so cut and dry that Apple set out to fix prices or do evil here. They were simply one gateway to higher prices desired by publishers. Selling electronic goods is sufficiently different from selling tangible goods to warrant additional consideration beyond existing case law. I think the DOJ/government finds Apple difficult to work with. During the encryption congressional hearing, Trey Gowdy was begging Apple to lobby for legislation, or come up with their own new legislation. It was disgusting. The DOJ and our Congress do not understand technology and it hurts the industry.