Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 2:08:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jul 10, 2013 2:16:02 GMT -8
I don't think you can come to that conclusion so easily. Isn't Pegatron supposed to be the primary low-end iPhone assembler? Where are those revs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 2:19:08 GMT -8
I don't think you can come to that conclusion so easily. Isn't Pegatron supposed to be the primary low-end iPhone assembler? Where are those revs? Wouldn't it be a bit early for those to have been produced? Even less likely apple would have taken delivery and paid for them. More likely they would show up in August revenue numbers.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jul 10, 2013 2:26:38 GMT -8
I'm basing that on the number of parts leaks we've seen over the past month. We've seen far more for the low cost iPhone than the 5S.
I could be entirely wrong. It does seem early to me to just shut down the 4 and 4S lines if they haven't even started new production lines. Let's see how the market handles this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 2:33:28 GMT -8
I'm basing that on the number of parts leaks we've seen over the past month. We've seen far more for the low cost iPhone than the 5S. I could be entirely wrong. It does seem early to me to just shut down the 4 and 4S lines if they haven't even started new production lines. Let's see how the market handles this. I presume it takes quite a few weeks to change the production lines over for a new form factor. Probably no 5S leaks yet due to most parts being same as iPhone 5 - just a change in camera & SoC which visually look identical to previous generation. I've never seen the media or analysts ever report on the monthly pegatron numbers.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jul 10, 2013 2:45:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on Jul 10, 2013 3:18:07 GMT -8
So. When certain manufacturers money drops it's Apple's fault, but when another companies money rises, Apple isn't involved?
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jul 10, 2013 3:58:31 GMT -8
So. When certain manufacturers money drops it's Apple's fault, but when another companies money rises, Apple isn't involved? Duh! lol
|
|
|
Post by The Big Toe on Jul 10, 2013 5:15:21 GMT -8
Breaking news on Bloomberg that the judge has found that Apple violated antitrust law in ebook case. Could be a bumpy day.
Edit... No link, just a headline.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jul 10, 2013 5:21:41 GMT -8
World is conspiring against aapl it sometimes feels like. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jul 10, 2013 5:36:36 GMT -8
Breaking news on Bloomberg that the judge has found that Apple violated antitrust law in ebook case. Could be a bumpy day. Edit... No link, just a headline. from WSJIn a stern rebuke to Apple Inc.'s electronic books sales strategy, a federal judge found the company colluded with five major U.S. publishers to artificially drive up the prices of e-books in the months ahead of its entering the market in 2010. Over a three-week civil antitrust trial, the Justice Department argued that Apple agreed with the publishers in January 2010 to allow them set a higher price for best sellers and new releases in response to the publishers' "Amazon problem": a $9.99 price point for those books on Amazon.com Inc. Prices for e-book best sellers rose to $12.99 and $14.99 as a result, the government claimed in its lawsuit. The publishers have all since entered into settlements with the Justice Department, as well as in a separate lawsuit by a group of state attorneys general. But Apple refused to settle and decided to go to trial. ....... Because Apple was found liable for violating U.S. antitrust laws, a hearing will now take place in a separate lawsuit brought by state attorneys general, who are seeking to recover damages on behalf of consumers who paid higher prices for e-books.
Apple last year separately settled an antitrust case with the European Commission over e-book pricing but didn't admit any wrongdoing.IMHO: this is VERY troubling on many levels. I sure hope Apple appeals this decision to a higher court, perhaps ending with the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by terps530 on Jul 10, 2013 5:43:49 GMT -8
the stock doesn't seem to care about it right now
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 10, 2013 5:52:38 GMT -8
Breaking news on Bloomberg that the judge has found that Apple violated antitrust law in ebook case. Could be a bumpy day. Edit... No link, just a headline. from WSJIn a stern rebuke to Apple Inc.'s electronic books sales strategy, a federal judge found the company colluded with five major U.S. publishers to artificially drive up the prices of e-books in the months ahead of its entering the market in 2010. Over a three-week civil antitrust trial, the Justice Department argued that Apple agreed with the publishers in January 2010 to allow them set a higher price for best sellers and new releases in response to the publishers' "Amazon problem": a $9.99 price point for those books on Amazon.com Inc. Prices for e-book best sellers rose to $12.99 and $14.99 as a result, the government claimed in its lawsuit. The publishers have all since entered into settlements with the Justice Department, as well as in a separate lawsuit by a group of state attorneys general. But Apple refused to settle and decided to go to trial. ....... Because Apple was found liable for violating U.S. antitrust laws, a hearing will now take place in a separate lawsuit brought by state attorneys general, who are seeking to recover damages on behalf of consumers who paid higher prices for e-books.
Apple last year separately settled an antitrust case with the European Commission over e-book pricing but didn't admit any wrongdoing.IMHO: this is VERY troubling on many levels. I sure hope Apple appeals this decision to a higher court, perhaps ending with the Supreme Court. I suspect this is going up the appeals chain. The current Supreme Court might well look at this quite differently. This is not a market moving event. Today IMHO....it's just money...
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jul 10, 2013 6:30:19 GMT -8
Aapl is moving very oddly today.
|
|
|
Post by qualitywte on Jul 10, 2013 6:45:36 GMT -8
I suspect this is going up the appeals chain. The current Supreme Court might well look at this quite differently. This is not a market moving event. Today IMHO....it's just money... Apple has already announced they will appeal. I think they knew they would lose this round and had already planned to run it up the chain.
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on Jul 10, 2013 7:27:48 GMT -8
IMHO: this is VERY troubling on many levels. I sure hope Apple appeals this decision to a higher court, perhaps ending with the Supreme Court. I agree, apart from the many states that want to grab money from Apple for this ruling, it probably bangs a huge hole into the whole of Apple's iTunes holdings. The agreements made by the publishers were the same as the ones for all the labels and programmers in the iTunes store. If left to stand watch the packs of raptors attempt to tear the iTunes Store apart...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 7:39:23 GMT -8
Judge Cote is a relative lightweight. One notable case, no awards nor associations. There's a good chance the Supreme Court overturns. Moving along....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 7:58:46 GMT -8
Judge Cote is a relative lightweight. One notable case, no awards nor associations. There's a good chance the Supreme Court overturns. Moving along.... Federal judgeship or no, Cote, during the trial, seemed more like the nephew that got the job. My biggest problem with this whole is this: Amazon had the overwhelming majority of eBook sales. Amazon was selling eBooks BELOW cost. In order for a new entrant to establish itself it would have to sell below cost. In what industry is it not a violation of Sherman to 1/ have a monopoly and, 2/ sell at prices that new entrants cannot financially survive on. At some point Amazon could decide to raise the artificially low prices that consumers had become used to. Would that be viewed as an anti-trust violation because consumers were now paying higher prices, or would it be viewed as a return to business sanity?
|
|
|
Post by chobbes on Jul 10, 2013 8:09:33 GMT -8
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but they conspired to raise prices. How this doesn't bother you guys is unbelievable. They screwed up. Just pay the damn fine and move on and don't pull this stuff on people any more.
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on Jul 10, 2013 8:15:18 GMT -8
Judge Cote is a relative lightweight. One notable case, no awards nor associations. There's a good chance the Supreme Court overturns. Moving along.... Federal judgeship or no, Cote, during the trial, seemed more like the nephew that got the job. I think she confused fixing prices with raising prices. Her logic seemed to be: Did Apple and the publishers all reach an agreement? Yes. Did prices go up? Yes therefore, guilty. I view the law as saying that producers are not allowed to conspire to FIX prices. With that interpretation, Apple did the opposite, they acted to CREATE competition with the agency model after AMAZON fixed prices. There may be a conspiracy among the book sellers to fix prices at 14.99, but I don't see how Apple has anything to do with that. This type of miscarriage of justice saddens me because it shows how vulnerable our freedoms are to incompetent judges. Let's hope clearer minds prevail in the appeal process.
|
|
|
Post by chobbes on Jul 10, 2013 8:26:51 GMT -8
Jobs was part of the conspiracy to fix prices.
"Evidence in the case included emails from Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs to News Corp executive James Murdoch that the government said reflected Jobs' desire to boost prices and "create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."
I am not really here to argue with you guys, but it was ruled that Apple broke the law. They have enough money that they don't need to pull this kind of crap. It makes them look greedy and small.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 8:31:04 GMT -8
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but they conspired to raise prices. How this doesn't bother you guys is unbelievable. They screwed up. Just pay the damn fine and move on and don't pull this stuff on people any more. Oh give me a break! What complete, utter nonsense. Are you a lawyer? Obviously your trust in Amazon supersedes the benefits of better prices/products from market competition. Amazon's predatory pricing practices will hurt all consumers, including you. In fact, Amazon is now raising prices on certain books. Amazon ain't your friend and its "vendor-partners" hate it (but don't have a choice sadly given its market dominance).
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Jul 10, 2013 8:34:37 GMT -8
Jobs was part of the conspiracy to fix prices. "Evidence in the case included emails from Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs to News Corp executive James Murdoch that the government said reflected Jobs' desire to boost prices and "create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99." I am not really here to argue with you guys, but it was ruled that Apple broke the law. They have enough money that they don't need to pull this kind of crap. It makes them look greedy and small. Go away and stop trolling.
|
|
|
Post by chobbes on Jul 10, 2013 8:35:02 GMT -8
I don't have to be a lawyer to read that Apple was found guilty. And do you really think Apple should sink to Amazons level and screw customers?
|
|
|
Post by moltenfire on Jul 10, 2013 8:35:39 GMT -8
Is it true that the act of colluding and price fixing, whether or not at a higher price than competitors, is against the law? If so, then whether or not Amazon has the majority share of the market has no bearing on the case's outcome.
|
|
|
Post by chobbes on Jul 10, 2013 8:40:52 GMT -8
lol, trolling. For months on end you guys complain about unfair practices of other companies, but when it's Apple you have no problems. Most reasonable people would like to think that corporations should not break the law, and if they do, should be held accountable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 8:42:22 GMT -8
Jobs was part of the conspiracy to fix prices. "Evidence in the case included emails from Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs to News Corp executive James Murdoch that the government said reflected Jobs' desire to boost prices and "create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99." I am not really here to argue with you guys, but it was ruled that Apple broke the law. They have enough money that they don't need to pull this kind of crap. It makes them look greedy and small. Go away and stop trolling. Yeah, I just noted his 4 posts. My bad for even responding.
|
|
|
Post by chobbes on Jul 10, 2013 8:45:31 GMT -8
Yes, because my 4 posts makes my point irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jul 10, 2013 8:47:13 GMT -8
I don't have to be a lawyer to read that Apple was found guilty. And do you really think Apple should sink to Amazons level and screw customers? You are confused. Amazon was selling ebooks below cost. The publishers were making money on their sale to Amazon. What the publishers did not foresee was the negative impact on sales of hard bound and soft back books due to Amazon's predatory pricing. I mean really, would anyone, in this case the publishers expect Amazon to sell at a loss to squeeze out competition and not be sued for violating antitrust laws? What Apple did was offer an alternative that is used everywhere in innumerable industries. If this ruling stands the vulture lawyers will be suing all companies using the agency model. The Supreme Court will overturn this dimwitted ruling. edit: for clarity, not all lawyers are vultures, just enough to make life a little less pleasant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:00:00 GMT -8
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but they conspired to raise prices. How this doesn't bother you guys is unbelievable. They screwed up. Just pay the damn fine and move on and don't pull this stuff on people any more. Oh give me a break! What complete, utter nonsense. Are you a lawyer? Obviously your trust in Amazon supersedes the benefits of better prices/products from market competition. Amazon's predatory pricing practices will hurt all consumers, including you. In fact, Amazon is now raising prices on certain books. Amazon ain't your friend and its "vendor-partners" hate it (but don't have a choice sadly given its market dominance). Isn't this similar to how Apple's "vendors/partners" hate iTunes and it's mandatory pricing of 99 cents/song but are forced to do because of Apple's market dominance.
|
|