4 ms·

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

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?
- revelation 11y ago
  You probably want to read the original case material before conjectring any further, which quotes extensively from emails at the highest levels of Apple and participating publishers. Start with the opening presentation: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - studentrob 11y ago
    What is it about the DOJ that makes them produce unsearchable, low-resolution PDF documents? I spent 5-10 minutes looking through that document and can't find anything that makes Apple look bad. I see the publishers telling each other to "double delete" each other's emails. That looks bad. But it isn't obvious to me that Apple is engaging in any illegal behavior based on the email quotes in that document. It seems more like consumers and government were accustomed to Amazon's pricing model, in which they sometimes take a loss. Then, when publishers wanted to set their own prices, they sought a service that would allow them to do that and found Apple. I'm a consumer and don't like high prices, but I can also understand how a publisher might like to decide how to price their books. It's beyond me why that should be deemed illegal. <rant> If the DOJ or FBI get an increased budget I hope some of that goes towards increasing their transparency by not only making information available, but also making it searchable. And why do I need to pay for C-Span transcripts? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all read and search through what our representatives are saying? </rant>
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      The first slide after the coversheet. The deck is a narrative of illegal activity best processed in order. It's not a dense document. At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public. Apple did this on the principle that they should have the right to collude with the industry and increase prices to the consumer. That's what the company did. Its partners in this process all agreed to settle. The only people who continued to protest this characterization were at Apple. And they just lost a massive court case over it. I dunno what more you want.
      - studentrob 11y ago
        > At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public. Hi Kirin, I'm a different commenter with my own opinion. Increasing transparency of government actions is something I care about. I also believe in competitive markets. The first slide isn't evidence showing Apple knowingly conspired to do evil, in my opinion, and nor is the rest of the deck. Before Amazon started selling eBooks, publishers were able to sell hardcover books, i.e. new releases, for a higher price point. Then Amazon, being the only ebook retailer, was able to very quickly undercut the publishers' in-store new-release prices on a global scale due to the nature of digital products and their position as a monopoly in the ebook retailer market. This cost the publishers money. Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay. Regardless of this court decision, I imagine we'll see more agency model pricing in the future when more options open up for publishers. It's perfectly fine if you disagree. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just sharing my opinion. This case was in court for years. If it were so cut and dry as you proclaim, the case would have been over much sooner.
        Oletros 11y ago
        > Before Amazon started selling eBooks, publishers were able to sell hardcover books, i.e. new releases, for a higher price point. Then Amazon, being the only ebook retailer, was able to very quickly undercut the publishers' in-store new-release prices on a global scale due to the nature of digital products and their position as a monopoly in the ebook retailer market. This cost the publishers money. What? Apart that Amazon paid full price for the ebooks to publishers, there was a time window before the hard cover release and the ebook release. > Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay. You strangely forgot the part about the publishers forcing the agency model to all the stores.

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?

revelation 11y ago
You probably want to read the original case material before conjectring any further, which quotes extensively from emails at the highest levels of Apple and participating publishers. Start with the opening presentation: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- studentrob 11y ago
  What is it about the DOJ that makes them produce unsearchable, low-resolution PDF documents? I spent 5-10 minutes looking through that document and can't find anything that makes Apple look bad. I see the publishers telling each other to "double delete" each other's emails. That looks bad. But it isn't obvious to me that Apple is engaging in any illegal behavior based on the email quotes in that document. It seems more like consumers and government were accustomed to Amazon's pricing model, in which they sometimes take a loss. Then, when publishers wanted to set their own prices, they sought a service that would allow them to do that and found Apple. I'm a consumer and don't like high prices, but I can also understand how a publisher might like to decide how to price their books. It's beyond me why that should be deemed illegal. <rant> If the DOJ or FBI get an increased budget I hope some of that goes towards increasing their transparency by not only making information available, but also making it searchable. And why do I need to pay for C-Span transcripts? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all read and search through what our representatives are saying? </rant>
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    The first slide after the coversheet. The deck is a narrative of illegal activity best processed in order. It's not a dense document. At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public. Apple did this on the principle that they should have the right to collude with the industry and increase prices to the consumer. That's what the company did. Its partners in this process all agreed to settle. The only people who continued to protest this characterization were at Apple. And they just lost a massive court case over it. I dunno what more you want.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      > At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public. Hi Kirin, I'm a different commenter with my own opinion. Increasing transparency of government actions is something I care about. I also believe in competitive markets. The first slide isn't evidence showing Apple knowingly conspired to do evil, in my opinion, and nor is the rest of the deck. Before Amazon started selling eBooks, publishers were able to sell hardcover books, i.e. new releases, for a higher price point. Then Amazon, being the only ebook retailer, was able to very quickly undercut the publishers' in-store new-release prices on a global scale due to the nature of digital products and their position as a monopoly in the ebook retailer market. This cost the publishers money. Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay. Regardless of this court decision, I imagine we'll see more agency model pricing in the future when more options open up for publishers. It's perfectly fine if you disagree. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just sharing my opinion. This case was in court for years. If it were so cut and dry as you proclaim, the case would have been over much sooner.
      - Oletros 11y ago
        > Before Amazon started selling eBooks, publishers were able to sell hardcover books, i.e. new releases, for a higher price point. Then Amazon, being the only ebook retailer, was able to very quickly undercut the publishers' in-store new-release prices on a global scale due to the nature of digital products and their position as a monopoly in the ebook retailer market. This cost the publishers money. What? Apart that Amazon paid full price for the ebooks to publishers, there was a time window before the hard cover release and the ebook release. > Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay. You strangely forgot the part about the publishers forcing the agency model to all the stores.