3 ms·
They didn't just offer a different pricing model, they colluded to get the whole market to raise ebook prices in all venues. The case has been argued or review
by jonknee 11y ago
They didn't just offer a different pricing model, they colluded to get the whole market to raise ebook prices in all venues.
The case has been argued or reviewed by every level of the Justice system and Apple has lost every time. They simply violated the Sherman act and the result was noticeably higher prices for the customer. Interestingly there are no apparent winners in the case because Apple hasn't had success selling ebooks and the new higher prices resulted in significantly less sales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.
- gwright 11y ago> They didn't just offer a different pricing model, they colluded to get the whole market to raise ebook prices in all venues. Really? I'm pleading ignorance here but, for example, how could Apple's actions be considered collusion with Amazon (by itself a huge part of the market).
- jacalata 11y agoI believe they meant the publisher market. I'm not aware of Amazon being accused of collusion in this matter at all.
- sangnoir 11y ago> Really? I'm pleading ignorance here but, for example, how could Apple's actions be considered collusion with Amazon They colluded with Amazon's suppliers. To use your soda example: it's as if 7-11 were growing tired of Walmart door-busting with 1-dime sodas. So they collude with Coke and Pepsi and change the contract for all soda retailers to say "you can't sell soda at a price that you (the retailer) wants. You will sell the soda on our behalf at a price we want"