PCWorld Forums: Apple Claims Us Government Sides With Monopoly In E-book Case - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Apple Claims US Government Sides With Monopoly in E-book Case here

Apple, Limits??? Seriously Steve Jobs said that Apple does not limit anything, really, He said that with a straight face????? ROFLMAO

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The reason I didn't buy an IPad was that I didn't want to be chained to ITunes to get content. I bought an Android tablet and I can purchase content anywhere across the web.

A monopoly is not illegal, it is just when a monopoly abuses its power that it can take actions that are illegal. So saying that Amazon was or is a monopoly does not justify Apple's own actions if they were illegal.

And the reason Amazon was close to a monopoly with 90% of the ebook market a few years back is that it was the first to really take advantage of that market. Very similar to the way Apple had a near monopoly in online music because they were the first to really do it right.

Again nothing illegal in that. Nor was it illegal for Amazon to price bestselling ebooks below cost as a loss leader to bring people to its ebook ecosystem.

And the publishers in this case were definitely acting as a cartel or oligopoly which is simply a group of companies that act in concert to form a kind of monopoly. And so the question is not which side is the government on, the question is which side broke the law.

I wonder what Apple is trying to accomplish by pursuing the defense against this lawsuit. Since 3 out of 5 publishers have now settled, Apple has effectively lost the control of ebook pricing that this was all about (the remaining 2 publishers make up only 17% of the book market). Amazon will start discounting again and Apple will either have to compete on price or on quality.

So why not just settle and put this behind them sooner rather than later. The best case is they win and continue to be able to avoid price competition on a small percentage of bestselling ebooks. The worst case scenario is they lose the case having spent tons of money and damaged their reputation. Settling means they can just start today creating a new business model that works for them, without admitting any guilt.

Apple complaining about anti-competitive practices? That's rich.

Even Apple feels they can do know wrong.

Amazon had a natural monopoly as did ATT because they create a product no one had or was avail in small markets. The Feds broke up ATT bec they abused their power.

Apple, if you wanted to be competitive then why not sell your stuff equal or less? That is how you compete. You should only charge more only if you are giving more. If you are selling an eBook for 12.00 and I can buy that same book for 9.99 on Amazon and its the EXACT SAME BOOK, how are you being competitive exactly?

Yes I am aware products that are exactlky the same at various retailers aren't aways the same price. Most retailers like Wal-Mart, negotiate prices to give customers a BETTER dela, not charge them more. Thus Wal-Mart killed off most retailers pretty fast. Those other stores that way offer only smaller variations of the same items, lets say Walgreens, may sell the same item more expensive because they arent trying ot compete on price, they are competing basedon having more store avail to get thre product you may want.

Apple was just being greedy. The Feds have your ass. Jiust shut up, fess up and be prepared to pay. Apple was investigated for possible anti-trust violations before which is why they changed their stance on tools used to make iOS apps.

Apple you're just as greedy and evil as any other corp. Why act like you're some angel?

Hey Apple you got caught because you were competing wrong...LMAO.