5 ms·

The publishers aren't allowed to coordinate on such matters, that's a cartel of suppliers, and Apple isn't allowed to arrange such coordination between them.

acqq 11y ago
> Apple isn't allowed to arrange such coordination between them. But they coordinated without Apple anyway, it's also in the court decision that the executives had meetings among them before Apple even appeared on the e-book scene: http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on-Price-Fixing.pdf http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi... "On a fairly regular basis, roughly once a quarter, the CEOs of the Publishers held dinners in the private dining rooms of New York restaurants, without counsel or assistants present, in order to discuss the common challenges they faced, including most prominently Amazon’s pricing policies." Apple made the iPad, with the reading experience up to then unmatched by anybody (no tablet with such characteristics existed before 2010), wanted to open the e-book store, gave the publishers the offer they liked, but definitely didn't invent that communication between the publishers. What was Apple supposed to do, given that whatever coordination existed, it existed even before Apple approached the publishers? Apparently not a single publisher was satisfied with Amazon's (monopolist) terms. Of course Apple offered them different terms.
- readams 11y ago
  Apple was a participant in the conspiracy. The publishers all settled a long time ago though.
  - acqq 11y ago
    How was it a participant if it just opened its store under a different model from Amazon in order to attract the publishers? Even the model wasn't invented by Apple: "Hachette and later HarperCollins surprised Apple with their suggestion that, instead of a wholesale model, Apple adopt an agency model for the distribution of e-books." It sounds like http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm (They "conspired" because we call them "participants.") It doesn't actually prove anything.
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      It participated by being the definition of a participant. It designed a marketplace around appealing to the publishers who were eager to fix prices. A fact that the publishers decided not to contest.
      - acqq 11y ago
        As far as I see, Apple just opened their own store and was able to win the publishers to sell there. The publishers did what they wanted to do, including communicating among themselves even before Apple appeared, insisting on higher prices, proposing the agency model and making their new deals with Amazon. I've quoted all the supporting parts from the court decision in my other posts. I still don't see any argument under which Apple had to insist on the same terms that Amazon had. And Apple didn't have to insist on the same terms, and had the right to open their own store, what it actually did wrong? Can anybody really say that Apple had to say "no we won't open the store if the prices aren't the same as at Amazon"? Apple actually made the clause that their prices are allowed to be minimal of all other stores. And Apple didn't have the problem to sell items even for $0.99, that's how they started with the iTunes store years earlier.
        KirinDave 11y ago
        It doesn't matter if the publishers were looking for a partner to fix prices with even without Apple. Apple was the one to provide the service, and ultimately enabled it. How can you possibly suggest that leaves Apple blameless?
        acqq 11y ago
        It's just the store that Apple opened, and Apple didn't fix the prices. It had working mechanisms to sell even for $0.99, like they did with songs. It didn't enable fixing, it just became the competition to Amazon. The publishers used their leverage to negotiate new deals with Amazon. Until then they weren't able, it was Amazon that was effectively a monopoly. What was Apple supposed to do, in your opinion, as it wanted to open its e-book store?

acqq 11y ago

> Apple isn't allowed to arrange such coordination between them. But they coordinated without Apple anyway, it's also in the court decision that the executives had meetings among them before Apple even appeared on the e-book scene: http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on-Price-Fixing.pdf http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi... "On a fairly regular basis, roughly once a quarter, the CEOs of the Publishers held dinners in the private dining rooms of New York restaurants, without counsel or assistants present, in order to discuss the common challenges they faced, including most prominently Amazon’s pricing policies." Apple made the iPad, with the reading experience up to then unmatched by anybody (no tablet with such characteristics existed before 2010), wanted to open the e-book store, gave the publishers the offer they liked, but definitely didn't invent that communication between the publishers. What was Apple supposed to do, given that whatever coordination existed, it existed even before Apple approached the publishers? Apparently not a single publisher was satisfied with Amazon's (monopolist) terms. Of course Apple offered them different terms.

readams 11y ago
Apple was a participant in the conspiracy. The publishers all settled a long time ago though.
- acqq 11y ago
  How was it a participant if it just opened its store under a different model from Amazon in order to attract the publishers? Even the model wasn't invented by Apple: "Hachette and later HarperCollins surprised Apple with their suggestion that, instead of a wholesale model, Apple adopt an agency model for the distribution of e-books." It sounds like http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm (They "conspired" because we call them "participants.") It doesn't actually prove anything.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    It participated by being the definition of a participant. It designed a marketplace around appealing to the publishers who were eager to fix prices. A fact that the publishers decided not to contest.
    - acqq 11y ago
      As far as I see, Apple just opened their own store and was able to win the publishers to sell there. The publishers did what they wanted to do, including communicating among themselves even before Apple appeared, insisting on higher prices, proposing the agency model and making their new deals with Amazon. I've quoted all the supporting parts from the court decision in my other posts. I still don't see any argument under which Apple had to insist on the same terms that Amazon had. And Apple didn't have to insist on the same terms, and had the right to open their own store, what it actually did wrong? Can anybody really say that Apple had to say "no we won't open the store if the prices aren't the same as at Amazon"? Apple actually made the clause that their prices are allowed to be minimal of all other stores. And Apple didn't have the problem to sell items even for $0.99, that's how they started with the iTunes store years earlier.
      - KirinDave 11y ago
        It doesn't matter if the publishers were looking for a partner to fix prices with even without Apple. Apple was the one to provide the service, and ultimately enabled it. How can you possibly suggest that leaves Apple blameless?
        acqq 11y ago
        It's just the store that Apple opened, and Apple didn't fix the prices. It had working mechanisms to sell even for $0.99, like they did with songs. It didn't enable fixing, it just became the competition to Amazon. The publishers used their leverage to negotiate new deals with Amazon. Until then they weren't able, it was Amazon that was effectively a monopoly. What was Apple supposed to do, in your opinion, as it wanted to open its e-book store?