4 ms·

Their power to negotiate came from the collusion that Apple orchestrated. This makes it very clear: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-ju

by dilemma 11y ago

Their power to negotiate came from the collusion that Apple orchestrated. This makes it very clear: 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...

acqq 11y ago
The fact that the prices raised doesn't prove anything to me (that's the only thing I see in the article). Of course the publishers got more power with the new store. Of course they wanted to sell at higher prices even before Apple appeared, but couldn't, because Amazon didn't have real competition. What was Apple supposed to do? To open the exact same store as Amazon? Why? And how was Apple doing anything what the publishers didn't do themselves? The CEO's had their meetings without Apple, even before, as I've already quoted. And after the meetings with Cue, they continued. Cue didn't organize them: "After Young had met with Apple but before S&S had its meeting, Young could not resist calling Reidy to share the wonderful news that the “Top Man” at Apple opposed $9.99 pricing. He hesitated to say more because S&S would be meeting with Apple the following day, and he did not want to “spoil [the] fun.”" It's obvious the publishers communicated, but I don't see Apple's guilt. All my quotes here and in other posts here are from the court decision.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Have you read Steve's email[0]? He was colluding with other players to set prices in plain text. [0] http://allthingsd.com/20130515/heres-that-steve-jobs-e-book-email-to-james-murdoch/ http://allthingsd.com/20130515/heres-that-steve-jobs-e-book-...
  - acqq 11y ago
    Like the author of that text, I find the context (publishers wanting different pricing for best-sellers even before Apple and the entrance of Apple to the market that breaks the Amazon's monopoly, Apple be willing to sell the way the publishers prefer) actually important.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      "Our proposal does set the upper limit for ebook retail pricing..." It's like it was written as an admission.
- takeda 11y ago
  Here is explanation how it worked: 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... If that still did not convince you, then I don't see the point discussing it further. Note that antitrust laws are there to protect consumers.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > All my quotes here and in other posts here are from the court decision. All of your quotes here and in other posts are cherry picking form the court decision to much your beliefs. Read the 160 pages of the ruling and then post. But it seems that nothing will change your views

by dilemma 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

The fact that the prices raised doesn't prove anything to me (that's the only thing I see in the article). Of course the publishers got more power with the new store. Of course they wanted to sell at higher prices even before Apple appeared, but couldn't, because Amazon didn't have real competition. What was Apple supposed to do? To open the exact same store as Amazon? Why? And how was Apple doing anything what the publishers didn't do themselves? The CEO's had their meetings without Apple, even before, as I've already quoted. And after the meetings with Cue, they continued. Cue didn't organize them: "After Young had met with Apple but before S&S had its meeting, Young could not resist calling Reidy to share the wonderful news that the “Top Man” at Apple opposed $9.99 pricing. He hesitated to say more because S&S would be meeting with Apple the following day, and he did not want to “spoil [the] fun.”" It's obvious the publishers communicated, but I don't see Apple's guilt. All my quotes here and in other posts here are from the court decision.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Have you read Steve's email[0]? He was colluding with other players to set prices in plain text. [0] http://allthingsd.com/20130515/heres-that-steve-jobs-e-book-email-to-james-murdoch/ http://allthingsd.com/20130515/heres-that-steve-jobs-e-book-...
- acqq 11y ago
  Like the author of that text, I find the context (publishers wanting different pricing for best-sellers even before Apple and the entrance of Apple to the market that breaks the Amazon's monopoly, Apple be willing to sell the way the publishers prefer) actually important.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    "Our proposal does set the upper limit for ebook retail pricing..." It's like it was written as an admission.
takeda 11y ago
Here is explanation how it worked: 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... If that still did not convince you, then I don't see the point discussing it further. Note that antitrust laws are there to protect consumers.
Oletros 11y ago
> All my quotes here and in other posts here are from the court decision. All of your quotes here and in other posts are cherry picking form the court decision to much your beliefs. Read the 160 pages of the ruling and then post. But it seems that nothing will change your views