3 ms·

I mean...that is what's going on here. That's not supposed to be possible. (And I say this as an unapologetic Apple fan.) When Apple's products are never avail

I mean...that is what's going on here. That's not supposed to be possible. (And I say this as an unapologetic Apple fan.) When Apple's products are never available (barring certain rare sales) for significantly less than Apple themselves retails them, that's an indication that some kind of price fixing is going on. Yes, it's price fixing for the products of a single supplier, which means that there's a lot less to do, and a lot less benefit to be gained (ie, the least you're going to be able to sell it for without taking a loss is Apple's wholesale price), but it's still illegal.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> That's not supposed to be possible. It happens to me all the time with non-Apple products. Always the same price, down to the penny. Pricing agreements between the manufacturer and their resellers seem to be pretty common. If we're suddenly going to decide that's illegal, it will have a huge impact on the market.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> That's not supposed to be possible. Why not? Apple isn't under any obligation to sell to anyone at a wholesale price, and can apply conditions via a contract when they do so. Arizona iced tea even prints the price on the cans to prevent people from fucking with it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- milderworkacc 4y ago
  In perfectly competitive markets, producers are price takers. That includes at a wholesale distribution level. Being able to pick and choose your customers (and apply conditions to any sale that favour Apple and disadvantage the customer) is a perfect indication of the level of market power that apple possesses. Most businesses in competitive industries don’t get to do that.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Tesla?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Arizona iced tea even prints the price on the cans to prevent people from fucking with it. Any number of products print the MSRP on the packaging. You'll notice it if you peel off the label showing the price you bought the thing for.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
It is definitely price-fixing. But vertical price-fixing (which is what occurs when a manufacturer tries to control the price of its product at retail) is not a per se violation of US anti-trust law. ref. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/522/3.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/522/3.html

rootusrootus 4y ago

> That's not supposed to be possible. It happens to me all the time with non-Apple products. Always the same price, down to the penny. Pricing agreements between the manufacturer and their resellers seem to be pretty common. If we're suddenly going to decide that's illegal, it will have a huge impact on the market.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> That's not supposed to be possible. Why not? Apple isn't under any obligation to sell to anyone at a wholesale price, and can apply conditions via a contract when they do so. Arizona iced tea even prints the price on the cans to prevent people from fucking with it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
milderworkacc 4y ago
In perfectly competitive markets, producers are price takers. That includes at a wholesale distribution level. Being able to pick and choose your customers (and apply conditions to any sale that favour Apple and disadvantage the customer) is a perfect indication of the level of market power that apple possesses. Most businesses in competitive industries don’t get to do that.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Tesla?
pessimizer 4y ago
> Arizona iced tea even prints the price on the cans to prevent people from fucking with it. Any number of products print the MSRP on the packaging. You'll notice it if you peel off the label showing the price you bought the thing for.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

It is definitely price-fixing. But vertical price-fixing (which is what occurs when a manufacturer tries to control the price of its product at retail) is not a per se violation of US anti-trust law. ref. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/522/3.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/522/3.html