5 ms·
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
by 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 agoWeren'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 agoIf 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 agoCan 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 agohttps://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 agoIf 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.
- aljones 11y agoActually there are not. Reasonable people have been disagreeing about this all along.