The publishers aren't allowed to coordinate on such matters, that's a cartel of suppliers, and Apple isn't allowed to arrange such coordination between them.
> Apple isn't allowed to arrange such coordination between them.
But they coordinated without Apple anyway, it's also in the court decision that the executives had meetings among them before Apple even appeared on the e-book scene:
"On a fairly regular basis, roughly once a quarter, the CEOs of the Publishers held dinners in the private dining rooms of New York restaurants, without counsel or assistants present, in order to discuss the common challenges they faced, including most prominently Amazon’s pricing policies."
Apple made the iPad, with the reading experience up to then unmatched by anybody (no tablet with such characteristics existed before 2010), wanted to open the e-book store, gave the publishers the offer they liked, but definitely didn't invent that communication between the publishers.
What was Apple supposed to do, given that whatever coordination existed, it existed even before Apple approached the publishers? Apparently not a single publisher was satisfied with Amazon's (monopolist) terms. Of course Apple offered them different terms.
How was it a participant if it just opened its store under a different model from Amazon in order to attract the publishers? Even the model wasn't invented by Apple:
"Hachette and later HarperCollins surprised Apple with their suggestion that, instead of a wholesale model, Apple adopt an agency model for the distribution of e-books."
As far as I see, Apple just opened their own store and was able to win the publishers to sell there. The publishers did what they wanted to do, including communicating among themselves even before Apple appeared, insisting on higher prices, proposing the agency model and making their new deals with Amazon. I've quoted all the supporting parts from the court decision in my other posts.
I still don't see any argument under which Apple had to insist on the same terms that Amazon had. And Apple didn't have to insist on the same terms, and had the right to open their own store, what it actually did wrong?
Can anybody really say that Apple had to say "no we won't open the store if the prices aren't the same as at Amazon"?
Apple actually made the clause that their prices are allowed to be minimal of all other stores. And Apple didn't have the problem to sell items even for $0.99, that's how they started with the iTunes store years earlier.
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?
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.
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>
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.
> 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.
I am not pointing a mind control ray at you or threatening your family. I'm saying the evidence strongly suggests your opinion is not founded in reality.
"Evil" is not an interesting conversation here. "Legality" is another. Apple saw an opportunity to break the Google+Amazon pricing lock on the market. They realized this opportunity by working with publishers to beachhead a new model. They acknowledged that this explicitly raised prices for consumers, and would only work if the publishers all used Apple as the leverage.
I know you want to say this is in favor of competition. Apple sure does. But everyone agrees that it was illegal. You can't just say "Apple Happened To Be There™." They facilitated the entire process, and it was built on the back of their dominance in desktop computing, mobile and media reach.
And while no SINGLE slide tells that whole story in a single pithy quote, the ENTIRE linked deck certainly tells that story. You've been given a smoking gun and Eddy Cue's fingerprints and replied, "Gosh that sounds complex, why isn't this easier to search?"
> I am not pointing a mind control ray at you or threatening your family.
That's good. It would be really strange if you were. This is an internet conversation which I consider to be pretty casual. Most likely, only you and I will ever read this, and whoever else reads it will stop when they find it uninteresting.
> "Evil" is not an interesting conversation here.
That's subjective. I say it's interesting, you think it isn't. I have no problem with that.
> You can't just say "Apple Happened To Be There™."
I gave a summary of my take on the situation. Again, I see no problem with that.
It's hard for me to see Apple as a ring leader as the DOJ claims, or that publishers were convinced by Apple to pursue this course. They already had this plan together before Apple came to the table. Apple was more like the final piece to the puzzle than the ring leader. They asked Apple for a proposal and told Apple the terms under which they would agree, essentially creating the proposal themselves, yet having it come from Apple's mouth.
Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that I believe Apple ought to have known better about the risks of appearing like the master conspirator in this case. As I mentioned in another comment, Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.
> You've been given a smoking gun and Eddy Cue's fingerprints and replied, "Gosh that sounds complex, why isn't this easier to search?"
None of us are privy to all the details of this case. We get summaries, and I'm saying they are in a lousy format, unsearchable and low resolution. It's a side rant but relevant towards increasing transparency of our government. We all have limited time, and making things easier to read helps everyone. If you feel that's off topic, that's cool. My comment about the DOJ's awful document-creation skills is not the basis of my support of Apple. However, it does contribute to my theory that our government does not understand technology, and that we need more representatives who have technical knowledge like Ted Lieu.
Apple doesn't have to be a ring leader to be legally responsible for their actions. I don't know why you act like that is the case, but I can see you'd rather do anything other than admit Apple was guilty of any sort of wrongdoing here. You will talk about literally anything other than the simple naked fact they participated.
So please, respond as you like. But I'm filtering out your posts from now on. You're the exact kind of person I shouldn't engage with on HN.
> Apple doesn't have to be a ring leader to be legally responsible for their actions
It does make a difference in the ruling and applied punishment.
The 7th circuit's decision from Toys R Us vs. FTC decision states,
As TRU correctly points out, the critical question here is whether substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that there was a horizontal agreement among the toy manufacturers, with TRU in the center as the ringmaster, to boycott the warehouse clubs. [1]
The Toys R Us ruling was referenced in the 2nd circuit court of appeals ruling against Apple. Therefore, the above statement has bearing and Apple did need to be perceived as the ringleader to receive the brunt of the punishment.
> So please, respond as you like. But I'm filtering out your posts from now on. You're the exact kind of person I shouldn't engage with on HN.
That's your choice. I think I've been cordial. Feel free to point out anywhere I haven't been respectful. If disagreement is disrespectful to you, I don't know how else I can help.
> 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.
