3 ms·

As I understand it: So let's say there's 6 major publishers because I'm too lazy to look up the correct number. If apple had approached one of them individual

by ambrice 11y ago

As I understand it: So let's say there's 6 major publishers because I'm too lazy to look up the correct number. If apple had approached one of them individually and offered them the same deal and they had agreed everything would have been fine. But individually it looks pretty bad. The result would be that on Amazon (where 90% of the sales come from) the one publishers books would be available for $12.99 and 5 other publishers books would be available for $9.99 and they wouldn't compete. So individually the publishers would have turned them down. The illegal part comes in where Apple tells the publisher "Don't worry, we have talked to all the other publishers and they've agreed to the same deal so you won't have to worry about competing." Just like it would be illegal for all the CEOs to get together and agree on one price. It's not suddenly legal just because a third party is facilitating the price fixing.

vonklaus 11y ago
Look, im not making the claim it was a shining moment of free market triumph. However, prices are just information and witnout enough data, you don't know what the price is. So you have amazon selling at 9.99 and a fragmented group trying to compete. They owned, by their own calculatoions, 70-80% AFTER the ipad launched. So you have a single supply channel dictating price. Apple exploited it the other way, increasing prices collectively so amazon didnt blacklist phblishers. Its not black and white. You have a monopoly and the kartel formed to fight it. It is pretty laughable that they were fined 450m being anticompetitive, when they actually introduced competition. So both companies were acting in their iwn best interest. I would almost argue thus is pure capitLism because the only way to offset a monopoly is collude or you will get blacklisted. This is gametheory, and while the optimal societal outcome of this situation may have been Apple accepting a lower price, if you garuntee cooperation you get higher value. Obviously, the optinal societal utility would be many many distributers giving markets the ability to dictate price instead of the opposite, Given the situation, they had no choice, and frankly society ended up bettet off as eventually more player were able to compete (although the market would be different with many players and it will necer have that )
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > You have a monopoly and the kartel formed to fight it.It is pretty laughable that they were fined 450m being anticompetitive, when they actually introduced competition 1. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse monopoly status. When Amazon gets around to abusing their monopoly, the DoJ will act. Accusing of future abuse now is just pre-crime. 2. Apple were free to compete by legal means. They got smacked-down because they chose to break laws, not because they were "fighting a monopoly" It really is in black and white, as affirmed by Apple losing at every court the case was heard.
- ambrice 11y ago
  No, the capitalist way to fight a monopoly is to provide a better product and/or a better price, not to force your competitor to raise their prices to a point where you can compete with them through collusion.

by ambrice 11y ago

vonklaus 11y ago

Look, im not making the claim it was a shining moment of free market triumph. However, prices are just information and witnout enough data, you don't know what the price is. So you have amazon selling at 9.99 and a fragmented group trying to compete. They owned, by their own calculatoions, 70-80% AFTER the ipad launched. So you have a single supply channel dictating price. Apple exploited it the other way, increasing prices collectively so amazon didnt blacklist phblishers. Its not black and white. You have a monopoly and the kartel formed to fight it. It is pretty laughable that they were fined 450m being anticompetitive, when they actually introduced competition. So both companies were acting in their iwn best interest. I would almost argue thus is pure capitLism because the only way to offset a monopoly is collude or you will get blacklisted. This is gametheory, and while the optimal societal outcome of this situation may have been Apple accepting a lower price, if you garuntee cooperation you get higher value. Obviously, the optinal societal utility would be many many distributers giving markets the ability to dictate price instead of the opposite, Given the situation, they had no choice, and frankly society ended up bettet off as eventually more player were able to compete (although the market would be different with many players and it will necer have that )

sangnoir 11y ago
> You have a monopoly and the kartel formed to fight it.It is pretty laughable that they were fined 450m being anticompetitive, when they actually introduced competition 1. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse monopoly status. When Amazon gets around to abusing their monopoly, the DoJ will act. Accusing of future abuse now is just pre-crime. 2. Apple were free to compete by legal means. They got smacked-down because they chose to break laws, not because they were "fighting a monopoly" It really is in black and white, as affirmed by Apple losing at every court the case was heard.
ambrice 11y ago
No, the capitalist way to fight a monopoly is to provide a better product and/or a better price, not to force your competitor to raise their prices to a point where you can compete with them through collusion.