|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 10, 2013 9:01:39 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. I completely agree. While everyone can pick out a choice word or turn of phrase by Jobs or others that they can tie on to and go: "oh, see....price fixing"....this ruling will not stand up on appeal IMHO. The agency model is not per se violative....if it were found so, much of American wholesale/retail would be taken to the woodshed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:04:33 GMT -8
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. Apple saved the music industry. And there's plenty of competition to iTunes (Amazon for one). Finally, prices were raised some time ago: Most are now $1.29
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 10, 2013 9:05:22 GMT -8
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. This is an interesting point...and while it may be true that some of the vendors/partners would prefer that the Itunes model pay them more net, remember the state of the music industry at the time of the Itunes revolution. Music publishers were on their knees, album sales were cratering...bootleg, ripped, illegal music was becoming ubiquitous. Itunes provided a legal revenue stream that kept the music publishing business functional...yeah, they might want "more", but the realities are they might have ended up with far "less" without Itunes.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jul 10, 2013 9:18:33 GMT -8
I don't know why you all are bothering replying to him. Isn't he the same guy who said Apple was done forever if they didn't release a new product category in the fall?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:20:01 GMT -8
I don't know why you all are bothering replying to him. Isn't he the same guy who said Apple was done forever if they didn't release a new product category in the fall? Are you talking about me?
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jul 10, 2013 9:22:03 GMT -8
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. Just a note that the price that Apple charges was not an agency model as Amazon undercut Apple's price for an extended period and I believe still does for much of Amazon's library of music. I bought quite a few songs from Amazon for 69¢ when Apple was charging 99¢ and more.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jul 10, 2013 9:23:39 GMT -8
Fed Day. Watch out for whipsaws.
TA types, please see my post/chart in technicals Daily Charts thread. Note Fast Sto.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jul 10, 2013 9:28:29 GMT -8
I don't know why you all are bothering replying to him. Isn't he the same guy who said Apple was done forever if they didn't release a new product category in the fall? Are you talking about me? No. This chobbes guy. I read his name as someone else though. Not the same person.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 10, 2013 9:32:13 GMT -8
It may be useful to point out that the broader mkts look to be holding their collective breath right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:32:19 GMT -8
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. This is an interesting point...and while it may be true that some of the vendors/partners would prefer that the Itunes model pay them more net, remember the state of the music industry at the time of the Itunes revolution. Music publishers were on their knees, album sales were cratering...bootleg, ripped, illegal music was becoming ubiquitous. Itunes provided a legal revenue stream that kept the music publishing business functional...yeah, they might want "more", but the realities are they might have ended up with far "less" without Itunes. Agreed, I'm just playing Devils Advocate...Apple has dominant positions in a lot of areas, just like Amazon does. Apple uses this domiant position to secure better prices from suppliers, better deals from App and Content Publishers than anyone else can get. Many tablet competitors were unable to make money because Apple was able to get such great deals on their components that they were unable to sell tablets for a profit. As an investor in AAPL, I think it's great what Apple is doing...but I also like shopping at Amazon and find it way cheaper. I'm all for eBooks being as cheap as possible and if Amazon is cheaper than going through iTunes, that's the way I'll go. I don't care if it's a loss leader or not fair to other retailers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:36:02 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. I don't have anybody (that still posts anyways) on IGNORE. Now I do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:38:23 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. Come on people. I've now had to wade through about 10 posts covering this nonsense. Please drop it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:45:18 GMT -8
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. Yep. But in the case of the music industry, most would be bankrupt right now if allowed to continue on their 80 year path. Amazon's model was undercutting the value of publisher's hardcover books by offering eBooks for less than cost. Further the agency model made far more titles available to the consumer at a lower AVERAGE cost than before. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Nevyn on Jul 10, 2013 9:53:41 GMT -8
Fed Day. Watch out for whipsaws. TA types, please see my post/chart in technicals Daily Charts thread. Note Fast Sto. Sorry for being dense, but it seems like you and Mav see the possibility of drop down to $400ish based on a head shoulders pattern and the fizzling of this current "rally"?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 10, 2013 10:03:08 GMT -8
No. AAPL has currently invalidated that older H&S pattern simply because it's a safe distance from the formation.
A tiny micro one may be forming today, but you get all kinds of potential signals all the time, for me I try to pick out the "obvious" ones because I'm a simple person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 10:03:38 GMT -8
Apple uses this domiant position to secure better prices from suppliers. Many tablet competitors were unable to make money because Apple was able to get such great deals on their components that they were unable to sell tablets for a profit. Component pricing acted to INCREASE Apple's profits. They did not act to lower competitor profits. The competition produces inferior hardware powered by crap software with a copied interface. Their collective strategy isn't to provide better, its to provide cheaper. It is that strategy that is denying them profits. App and content publishers set their own prices. Apple takes 30% of that. Whatever one may say against the 30%, one must keep in mind that that 30% buys exposure on the #1 app store in the world. How much is that exposure worth? I'll bet a very strong case can be made that its worth far more, especially considering the total lack of distribution costs associated with packaged software sales (where the retailer took 30% as well).
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jul 10, 2013 10:16:28 GMT -8
Will someone comment on this please. I'm not much of an analyst. 3mo ending Jun-2013 Rev($M) EPS($) ------------------- ------- ------ Deagol estimates 41,175 10.17 Analysts consensus 39,340 9.08 Apple guide (est.) 39,000 8.95 (implied 38% GM) link - aaplmodel.blogspot.com/
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 10, 2013 10:18:08 GMT -8
That was from April...
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jul 10, 2013 10:50:45 GMT -8
Puking on the 5m candle...
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jul 10, 2013 10:52:52 GMT -8
OK. Got ya.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jul 10, 2013 11:21:28 GMT -8
Apple now @ the 11 spot on Selling on Strength list. Selling On StrengthNevermind, must have been a mirage Apple isn't there. Maybe a cached version was loaded or I'm just getting senile.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 10, 2013 12:00:01 GMT -8
Doesn't feel like there's any edge in the markets today.
Mostly cash again, waiting to see what happens next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 12:00:05 GMT -8
I agree with the judges view that Apple and the book publishers actions raised the retail prices of e-books, but I disagree with the judges interpretation that it broke any laws. Will be interesting to see what happens on appeal.
Anyone know approximately how many million books did apple sell while operating under the agency model? 1 million? 10 million? It doesn't seem like damages would be very high even if apple lost the appeals case. It would however probably cause massive ripples to other industries using the same model.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Jul 10, 2013 12:09:47 GMT -8
Anyone know approximately how many million books did apple sell while operating under the agency model? Are they now operating under a different model? This sounds like past tense.
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on Jul 10, 2013 12:19:32 GMT -8
It doesn't seem like damages would be very high even if apple lost the appeals case. It would however probably cause massive ripples to other industries using the same model. The problem Apple have is that all the different States have chimed in with their own damages figures. Unfortunately if left as is it could be a significant figure.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 10, 2013 12:20:29 GMT -8
Considering I don't read a lot of e-books, I really could care less about all this. Apple's top selling e-book was probably Isaacson's. And what, is Apple somehow gonna be on the hook for megabillions when e-book sales are probably quite small? Let's assume $500M in book sales. Presto, $5B damages! Uh huh. Eddy Cue can't be happy about this, but I'm sure he suspected the judge wouldn't go Apple's way early on: tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/07/10/apple-ebook-verdict-appeal/ Oh well, let Amazon continue its virtual e-book monopoly. Apple has better things to do.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 10, 2013 12:29:38 GMT -8
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 10, 2013 12:56:28 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 13:32:02 GMT -8
Anyone know approximately how many million books did apple sell while operating under the agency model? Are they now operating under a different model? This sounds like past tense. I thought everything changed when the publishers settled?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 13:39:30 GMT -8
Assuming the new mid-priced cheaper iPhone is released, I think we could see "triple digit hypergowth" in shipments compared to apples previous entry level product (the iPhone 4). But not of the entire iPhone line. So if someone hypothetically estimates that iPhone 4 sells 50 million units this financial year - its possible that next financial year the entry level product (the new cheap iPhone) sells 100 million+ units. But the premium iPhones in that situation maybe only see growth of 10-20%.
|
|