4 ms·

It sounds like the stumbling block was a horizontal monopoly in retail held (or nearly held)[1] by Amazon. You can argue whether or not Amazon is participating

• smackfu 13y ago
  You can't break the law just because you think someone else is breaking the law. The judge doesn't have the option of deciding that Apple was not guilty because Amazon deserved it.
  • dak1 13y ago
    The fact that this could very well prove to be a Pyrrhic victory I think is actually extremely relevant to this case, since the fundamental guiding principle here is "is this in consumer's best interest."
    • gamblor956 13y ago
      Paying more for eBooks because Apple didn't want to compete on price is not in the consumer's best interest. The fundamental import of Apple's actions was that it significantly increased prices for eBooks without fundmentally altering the value proposition (i.e., eBooks before Apple's price-fixing are no different than eBooks post-price-fixing). The difference in price is the "harm" that consumers have suffered--it represents the increased prices they have to pay over the prices they would have paid had Apple not colluded to artificially increase prices in a way the market did not support.
      • abalone 13y ago
        >eBooks before Apple's price-fixing are no different than eBooks post-price-fixing That's not true. Apple eliminated windowing. I.e. pre-Apple some ebooks were being delayed for some time after their print releases. Apple's scheme guaranteed they'd be released at the same time. That's a major difference and a major value-add.
        • newbie300 13y ago
          That's not entirely accurate; the publishers already knew windowing was stupid and a short term measure. Not every publisher was using windowing. You can read about it on page 25 of the Judje's report.
• tracker1 13y ago
  You mean like Apple did with music?
  • frogpelt 13y ago
    Not really. Apple was going in the other direction with music. They would make a list of demands to each music publisher like requiring them to offer music on a per-track basis with $0.99 being the standard price. The music publishers were balking at offering their music at such low prices while also giving Apple a cut. In this ebook deal, Apple was negotiating the prices up with multiple parties so that they could get their cut and the publishers would still make the same or more than they did from Amazon. The difference is, if you are in negotiations with multiple publishers (read: conspiring) to raise prices, that's bad for consumers. As an analogy, imagine if Exxon, Shell, BP, Total, et al. somehow colluded to sell gas for 50 cents more per gallon. If all the major oil companies did it, none of them would lose very much business. The only part I'm missing is how this is as bad as my analogy, because consumers could still choose to buy from Amazon. There are even Kindle apps for almost every device including iOS devices. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that part.
    • tracker1 13y ago
      I meant that what Amazon did with books wasn't much different from Apple with music.
      • lke 13y ago
        No because Amazon didn't force plublisher to change price. They used reduced their own margin do be able to sell at that price.