Apple's relationship with the press, customers, and dealers
tliet
– March 20, 2008 05:34AM
Although we don't live in the Apple is beleaguered times anymore, there's still enough to be said about them...
Transplanted once again...
The Gay Blade - 05:54pm Mar 31, 2000 EST
The Blade will attempt to transplant yet another rhetorical sapling here
on the Spork boards by copping a page from the delightful Brian Miller,
writing eloquently on the superannuated boards of yesteryear:
Brian Miller - 03:07pm Sep 30, 1999 PT
The man with a plan
My recent PowerBook G3 fiasco notwithstanding, I am beginning to wonder if
Apple is planning on abandoning "small fry customers." Consider the
evidence:
1) Apple's war with the Macintosh press;
2) Apple's slashing and burning of small local dealers, who often provided
the best service "in a pinch";
3) Apple's continued horrendous customer service breaches (individual Apple
Store orders cancelled in favour of large educaction/business orders).
Pulling all this evidence together and analysing it makes me feel far more
"worried" about Apple's future than any time under Amelio. Consider, for
instance, what all of those resources spent on lawyers threatening tiny Mac
sites could do in customer service and relations.
Before we consider Apple's "invasion" into the Fortune 1000 enterprise to
be ready, we have to focus on Apple's status in its own current markets. In
my view, there's a lot of "retrenching" to do before they're ready. They
can start by ceasing their intimidation of Mac publishers, letting the damn
Mac rags publish OS 8.6 on their cover disks, and spending a bit more time,
effort, and energy on a "satisfy the customer at all costs throughout the
organisation" policy. These are all core competencies they'll need before
they can even THINK of invading the big-enterprise space.
[/quote]
Tony Leggett
(Moderator)
– April 11, 2012 04:49PM
Price fixing is price fixing and their behaviour is no better than Enron (re Electricity prices) in this regard.
John Willoughby
– April 11, 2012 04:51PM
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius
Did Apple fix prices? They said, "Sell the books at whatever price you want, we'll take 30%. Oh, and you can't sell cheaper elsewhere." I'm pretty sure that the latter statement is part of a lot of marketing deals.
El Jeffe
– April 11, 2012 04:56PM
What a journey.
regarding the books, shrug.
But I still for the life of me can't understand how Apple can practically (as well as Nintendo et al) hold retail prices to be the same.
Tony Leggett
(Moderator)
– April 11, 2012 05:57PM
Quote
They said, "Sell the books at whatever price you want, we'll take 30%. Oh, and you can't sell cheaper elsewhere."
Um, I think it's going to be argued that they
didn't say that.
They said something more like: "Sell the books at whatever price you want (as long as it's over $10), we'll take 30%. Oh, and you can't sell cheaper elsewhere."
Cloudscout
– April 11, 2012 05:58PM
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ
A look at the math shows that this did almost nothing for the publishers aside from protect their eroding physical book sales for a little while.
Apple was desperate to keep spreading their 30% margin across the entire ecosystem.
Now they need to choose between their straight margins or competitive pricing.
johnny k
– April 11, 2012 06:32PM
"Competitive pricing" will mean losing money, as Amazon was willing to do before this.
Tony Leggett
(Moderator)
– April 11, 2012 06:36PM
Tony Leggett
(Moderator)
– April 11, 2012 06:39PM
DPBD!
In short, the publishers need to be sued by the DOJ for conspiring to fix prices and Amazon needs sued by the DOJ for abusing its monopoly market power...
Cloudscout
– April 11, 2012 07:55PM
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ
What monopoly power was Amazon abusing?
Remember, simply having a monopoly isn't illegal.
Microsoft didn't get in trouble because they owned the OS market... they got in trouble because they used that market power to take over the web browser market as well.
Amazon wasn't losing money across the board on ebooks. They chose to take a loss on some titles, though, just like all retailers do for various products from time-to-time.
John Willoughby
– April 11, 2012 08:38PM
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius
Quote
Tony Leggett
Quote
They said, "Sell the books at whatever price you want, we'll take 30%. Oh, and you can't sell cheaper elsewhere."
Um, I think it's going to be argued that they
didn't say that.
They said something more like: "Sell the books at whatever price you want (as long as it's over $10), we'll take 30%. Oh, and you can't sell cheaper elsewhere."
I haven't read that anywhere. Where did you see that?
John Willoughby
– April 12, 2012 07:27AM
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius
James DeBenedetti
– April 12, 2012 08:37AM
This lawsuit just goes to show how completely fucked up our government (and its CEO, Obama) really is. The DOJ goes after a new market entrant (Apple) because of its perfectly legal use of a common contract provision (most favored nation status), in order to benefit a monopolist (Amazon) that engages in predatory pricing (selling below cost).
Meanwhile, the greatest wave of financial fraud ever experienced in US history flies completely under the DOJ's radar, without a single criminal conviction even attempted, let alone completed.
Cloudscout
– April 12, 2012 11:13AM
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ
Wait, they're basing their market analysis on their own research numbers from TWENTY-SIX MONTHS AGO?
Regardless, I don't see how this case is centered around MFN provisions. If that was all Apple had pursued when it contacted the publishers, the DOJ wouldn't have a case. Instead, Apple effectively formed an illegal cartel whose Agency model was designed to manipulate and control prices in the ebook market from top-to-bottom.
Cloudscout
– April 12, 2012 11:41AM
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ
CNet seems to be the Fox News of technology reporting these days.
Other news outlets seem to think the opposite of what CNet's story says.
Time Magazine, for example.
ddt
– April 12, 2012 12:15PM
Dude, I used to write product reviews for CNet. They'd ask me to review a Win-only piece of 3D software; I told them I didn't have a Windows box and knew nothing of 3D. "Come on in, we'll set you up on a PC, can you do it in two hours?" True story.
ddt
Cloudscout
– April 12, 2012 01:23PM
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ
Yes, it used to be that way. Today, it's the opposite. Their coverage of Apple seems to be extremely sugar-coated.
Cloudscout
– April 12, 2012 01:29PM
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ
Quote
John Willoughby
Quote
Tony Leggett
Quote
They said, "Sell the books at whatever price you want, we'll take 30%. Oh, and you can't sell cheaper elsewhere."
Um, I think it's going to be argued that they
didn't say that.
They said something more like: "Sell the books at whatever price you want (as long as it's over $10), we'll take 30%. Oh, and you can't sell cheaper elsewhere."
I haven't read that anywhere. Where did you see that?
Is this the quote that you're looking for?:
Quote
Jobs also told one of the execs that he should, "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."
Doesn't get much clearer than that.
ddt
– April 12, 2012 03:10PM
There's nothing necessarily collusive nor manipulative there. Imagine if someone said "I bet we can make a market for a $100,000 watch". What you left out is the quote about "value perception". Now, we can debate fruitlessly over what that marketingspeak really means, but I bet the key is something to do with creating value for users -- this could mean making a better product, for example.
And, as someone who got zero residuals on a book I wrote, I don't mind someone not trying to lowball authors.
ddt
Cloudscout
– April 12, 2012 03:40PM
˙pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuıɥʇǝɯos sı ǝɹǝɥʇ ʞuıɥʇ ı ?ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ ɥʇıʍ ǝɯ dlǝɥ ǝuoǝɯos uɐɔ
The authors weren't involved in this at all. This was Apple and the publishers. And it was the dictionary definition of collusion. Apple acted in concert with five major publishers to artificially fix prices for their products at a mutually agreed upon amount.
Can you find a clearer example of illegal price fixing?
John Willoughby
– April 12, 2012 03:48PM
Homo Sapiens Sedentarius
One reason lies in the Justice Department's 36-page complaint, which recounts how publishers met over breakfast in a London hotel and dinners at Manhattan's posh Picholine restaurant, which boasts a "Best of Award of Excellence" from Wine Spectator magazine. The key point is that Apple wasn't present.
...the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that pricing arrangements among competitors are not automatically considered to be violations of antitrust law, and that the setting of minimum retail pricing by manufacturers is a permitted policy.
From
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/12/legal-experts-suggest-justice-department-unlikely-to-win-antitrust-suit-against-apple/
(Cites original CNet experts, so no an independent confirmation of CNet's position.)