It's hilarious every time you fuck that chicken. John.
3:11 am — Monday, 3 July 2017
Apple took 92% of smartphone industry profits in Q4 2016.
Is Apple getting too big?
5:34 am — Monday, 3 July 2017
profits and market share are quite different. Android has 85% of the market split through multiple OEM's.
If OEM's want to starve themselves to death by playing "race to the bottom" then its up to them. Nothing illegal in being stupid.
10:07 am — Monday, 3 July 2017
Gruber the Booger:
>Looks like it’s time for the Department of Justice to open another investigation of Apple’s e-book business.
Looks like it's time for Gruber to understand why Apple conspiring with publishers to raise ebook prices was illegal and bad for consumers.
Is he really that dense?
2:14 pm — Monday, 3 July 2017
piece of kit:
He has a point on this one. I appreciated this snark.
4:27 pm — Monday, 3 July 2017
> Nothing illegal in being stupid.
There's nothing illegal about being successful, either. At least not yet. Betteridge's law applies.
5:15 pm — Monday, 3 July 2017
"Looks like it's time for Gruber to understand why Apple conspiring with publishers to raise ebook prices was illegal and bad for consumers."
The question is: "is colluding to maintain price better than having one supplier control the price?"
Both are potentially bad for the consumer and we can see in industries like the coffee trade, very few suppliers can be terrible for producers (in this case writers and publishers).
The rule protecting customers against price fixing has, in this case also meant customers now have a monopolist to deal with.
Sometimes principals can be the death of you...
I think if the DOJ sanctioned Apple and limited Amazon's ability to monopolize the market then that would have been a sufficient response. But they just dealt with one part of the issue. Which makes there claim of protecting customers from being abused look kind of weak.
5:26 pm — Monday, 3 July 2017
Amazon just has the potential to damage customers with its legitimately gained success. Apple already actively hurt customers by conspiring to raise prices with the major book publishers. This isn't hard to understand unless you are willfully thick.
8:39 pm — Monday, 3 July 2017
Gruber the Booger:
>The question is: "is colluding to maintain price better than having one supplier control the price?"
That's a good and fair question.
Amazon offers consumers products and services for purchase at the prices and convenience consumers are willing to pay.
Amazon has also grown to a size where they can either buy the competition or replicate the competition with their own product.
I'm not defending Amazon here. But what is clear in the ebooks case specifically is that it was a conspiracy between Apple and the publishers to raise prices on consumers.
Markets shift, and abuses need to be examined. I am not disputing that.
For your coffee example that created a market for "fair trade" coffee.
Amazon is walking a tight rope here. They know if they jack up prices once they have little or no competition the DOJ's of the world will be crawling up their ass.
When the Apple ebooks case happened Amazon sold 90% of ebooks. Today Amazon sells 75% of ebooks.
Apple got caught colluding and raising prices.
Compare that to Apple throwing their weight around with iTunes/iPods and selling single songs for $0.99. That was fantastic for consumers and got millions of people to once again pay for music.
The music industry was nearly apoplectic at the time but knew all too well that people would continue to pirate if not given a decent pricing model.
Now we pay a monthly fee to stream millions of songs that we never own.
The markets shift. You just have to do it right.
So far, Amazon has walked the tight rope. Apple in the ebooks case did it wrong.
9:03 pm — Monday, 3 July 2017
@Gruber the booger
"The markets shift. You just have to do it right.
So far, Amazon has walked the tight rope. Apple in the ebooks case did it wrong."
I like that sentence. Bezo's is just smarter at walking that rope than others. And I cant really argue with the fact that amazon would rather hurt the producer than the consumer. So on the whole the DOJ probably got it right.
10:47 am — Tuesday, 4 July 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment,
install the Safari extension!