4 ms·

The wider context around the specific issues can still be useful in deciding what's "best" (distinct from "right"). EG: look at the antitrust case Apple lost ov

The wider context around the specific issues can still be useful in deciding what's "best" (distinct from "right"). EG: look at the antitrust case Apple lost over eBook pricing. The rules said they should lose in order to ensure a fair market for eBooks, a minute's consideration of the wider context said that if they lost Amazon would suck up the entire market. Which it did. The net result, even if narrowly within the rules, was a loss for consumers and for competition

stefan_ 6y ago
No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal. The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise prices for consumers across all platforms. It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't remotely that greedy.
- valuearb 6y ago
  That’s the silliest perspective on this case you could have. Apple gave publishers the right to set their own prices, but in return required they don’t undercut those prices on other platforms. Apple had only a a small market share at the time. Publishers could have said, nah, we are happy with Amazon, and refused to agree to Apple’s terms. This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust issue shows how crazytown antitrust law has become. This was attractive to Publishers because they were terrified of an Amazon monopoly. Amazon selling ebooks at cost did nothing for Publishers long term because it was killing other ebook competitors. This offered a viable competitor to be an ebook outlet. Instead the misguided Justice department and a judge made Apple back down and what do we have now? Exactly what publishers feared, an Amazon monopoly.
  - rebelos 6y ago
    "It's awful that a $2 trillion tech company's price fixing conspiracy flatlined and consumers in 2020 pay really low ebook prices. What is American justice coming to?"
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Do we, though? I feel like most ebooks on Amazon are priced similarly to their paperback counterparts, or at least not significantly lower to the point that it reflects the fact that they don't have to manufacture a physical good or get someone to drive a truck to bring it to me.
      - moate 6y ago
        I mean you’re tying value to cost which is weird for art (which is the majority of e-books, novels) This is like complaining a painting is too expensive because the canvas and paint only cost 100 dollars. The major value of a book, to a consumer, is the words it contains not the paper it’s printed on.
        austhrow743 6y ago
        Forget art, they're a software developer working for a software company that produces software for other software developers. Zero physical items created. Sit around all day getting paid great money to produce nothing tangible and then thinks something dodgy must be happening for ebooks to be close to physical books in price. Very odd.
        Nullabillity 6y ago
        Price = value of art + distribution cost The art itself hasn't changed, so it makes sense to demand that the price follows when the distribution cost approaches zero. As for whether that would actually happen...
        valuearb 6y ago
        From the Department of Justices perspective value is tied to price. They wanted to stop Apple from asking for price parity with other outlets because it would drive prices up. And what happened after their victory is that prices didn’t go down, they look like they went up. Of course this has little to do with the artists, they typically don’t get to price their novels, and only get a royalty that’s not likely impacted much either way. Higher prices are higher royalties per unit, sure, but if they lead to lower unit sales it’s not likely better.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust issue shows how crazytown antitrust law has become." It has nothing to do with platform prix fixing, it has to do with de-facto monopoly over a portion of US mobile devices, or rather, an oligarchy between Google and Apple. The same issues existed with oil, electricity and telephone networks - there were claims of 'choice' but really there was not.
- TYPE_FASTER 6y ago
  Royalties for self publishing an ebook on Amazon top out at 70%. https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210 https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210
  - eecc 6y ago
    Are you suggesting someone other than Apple is making extortionate margins? /s
traib 6y ago
"Best" for whom? Any action has the potential to be either good or bad, depending on who you ask. But if it has a positive impact on society as a whole - that's probably good enough. And striving to do the right thing, upholding important beliefs like fair access to justice and freedom of speech, these certainly fall in that category. If a smaller company, or even one of us on HN had sued Apple would that suddenly make it okay? Apple's actions haven't changed, why should the identity of the plaintiff matter? Regarding your specific example - if Amazon is doing something wrong, then an antitrust case should be brought against them too. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) give anyone the right to continue doing something unethical and illegal.

stefan_ 6y ago

No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal. The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise prices for consumers across all platforms. It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't remotely that greedy.

valuearb 6y ago
That’s the silliest perspective on this case you could have. Apple gave publishers the right to set their own prices, but in return required they don’t undercut those prices on other platforms. Apple had only a a small market share at the time. Publishers could have said, nah, we are happy with Amazon, and refused to agree to Apple’s terms. This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust issue shows how crazytown antitrust law has become. This was attractive to Publishers because they were terrified of an Amazon monopoly. Amazon selling ebooks at cost did nothing for Publishers long term because it was killing other ebook competitors. This offered a viable competitor to be an ebook outlet. Instead the misguided Justice department and a judge made Apple back down and what do we have now? Exactly what publishers feared, an Amazon monopoly.
- rebelos 6y ago
  "It's awful that a $2 trillion tech company's price fixing conspiracy flatlined and consumers in 2020 pay really low ebook prices. What is American justice coming to?"
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Do we, though? I feel like most ebooks on Amazon are priced similarly to their paperback counterparts, or at least not significantly lower to the point that it reflects the fact that they don't have to manufacture a physical good or get someone to drive a truck to bring it to me.
    - moate 6y ago
      I mean you’re tying value to cost which is weird for art (which is the majority of e-books, novels) This is like complaining a painting is too expensive because the canvas and paint only cost 100 dollars. The major value of a book, to a consumer, is the words it contains not the paper it’s printed on.
      - austhrow743 6y ago
        Forget art, they're a software developer working for a software company that produces software for other software developers. Zero physical items created. Sit around all day getting paid great money to produce nothing tangible and then thinks something dodgy must be happening for ebooks to be close to physical books in price. Very odd.
      - Nullabillity 6y ago
        Price = value of art + distribution cost The art itself hasn't changed, so it makes sense to demand that the price follows when the distribution cost approaches zero. As for whether that would actually happen...
      - valuearb 6y ago
        From the Department of Justices perspective value is tied to price. They wanted to stop Apple from asking for price parity with other outlets because it would drive prices up. And what happened after their victory is that prices didn’t go down, they look like they went up. Of course this has little to do with the artists, they typically don’t get to price their novels, and only get a royalty that’s not likely impacted much either way. Higher prices are higher royalties per unit, sure, but if they lead to lower unit sales it’s not likely better.
- jariel 6y ago
  "This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust issue shows how crazytown antitrust law has become." It has nothing to do with platform prix fixing, it has to do with de-facto monopoly over a portion of US mobile devices, or rather, an oligarchy between Google and Apple. The same issues existed with oil, electricity and telephone networks - there were claims of 'choice' but really there was not.
TYPE_FASTER 6y ago
Royalties for self publishing an ebook on Amazon top out at 70%. https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210 https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210
- eecc 6y ago
  Are you suggesting someone other than Apple is making extortionate margins? /s

traib 6y ago

"Best" for whom? Any action has the potential to be either good or bad, depending on who you ask. But if it has a positive impact on society as a whole - that's probably good enough. And striving to do the right thing, upholding important beliefs like fair access to justice and freedom of speech, these certainly fall in that category. If a smaller company, or even one of us on HN had sued Apple would that suddenly make it okay? Apple's actions haven't changed, why should the identity of the plaintiff matter? Regarding your specific example - if Amazon is doing something wrong, then an antitrust case should be brought against them too. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) give anyone the right to continue doing something unethical and illegal.