SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Apple Inc.


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: Lahcim Leinad4/14/2012 10:33:16 AM
1 Recommendation   of 177135
 
Will Apple's game plan beat the trustbusters? | Apple - CNET News

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (130831)4/14/2012 10:38:55 AM
From: Lahcim Leinad
1 Recommendation   of 177135
 
Thanks, as always!

Any thoughts on this?

Watching Apple (AAPL) to Gauge the Market

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Lahcim Leinad who wrote (130890)4/14/2012 11:04:39 AM
From: Sr K
   of 177135
 
The first part of this defense

Just as we've allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore," Apple declared.

is what lets 99 cent Apps have $99.99 in-App toys and extras.

If Apple wanted to protect customers, it could. But it has chosen to protect developers.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)


To: Sr K who wrote (130892)4/14/2012 11:07:47 AM
From: Lahcim Leinad
   of 177135
 
It is indeed abundantly clear now that AAPL is more important to Apple than customers. To me, anyway. Your milage may vary.

Not really surprising at my end, given it's now the 1000 pound gorilla in the stock market.

Still, wish they'd put us ahead of their APPL options.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: JP Sullivan who wrote (130863)4/14/2012 11:32:29 AM
From: slacker711
2 Recommendations   of 177135
 
-- dunno for sure, just guessing here. If that were true, the publisher gets the same amount from both resellers. Only difference is Amazon is selling at a loss.

Apple's agreement with the publishers guarantees two things. One is that they will get a 30% margin on the sale price of e-books and two is that the retail price in the iBook store will always match the lowest price found anywhere else.

So let's say that Amazon pays the publishers $12 for a best seller but sells it at $10. That means that the price that Apple will sell it will also be $10, but they still get their 30% cut. The publishers will only get $7.

Since all of the major publishers agreed to these terms, it was guaranteed that all of them would have to switch to the agency model (where the publishers set the price) with Amazon. They could no longer let Amazon set prices. If they had made this agreement among themselves, it would be an obvious anti-trust violation. I dont think that adding Apple in changes that fact.


Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: slacker711 who wrote (130772)4/14/2012 11:34:24 AM
From: Road Walker
6 Recommendations   of 177135
 
I am far more interested in this as a consumer than as an investor.


I'm more interested from a pragmatic/business ethics standpoint. Dealt with anti-trust nuances most of my life, and not sure that all the implications are helpful, in the long run, for the consumer. And they're all certainly not helpful for companies trying to make a profit and stay in business.


Should a company, publisher in this instance, be allowed to enforce the retail selling price of their product? Why not? The consumer will still provide the market discipline; if they price it too high it won't sell.If its worth a lot, people will pay the price. With a flat retail price structure, the Ma & Pa on line bookstore can compete with Amazon and iBooks. Without that flat retail price structure, Amazon will be ruthless and crush the competition. In fact mostly has, costing 1000's of jobs and destroying good companies. Is this ultimately good for the consumer, even if he has to pay a few $'s more in its absence?


In electronics, manufacturers use MAP (manufacturers advertised price) programs to set uniform retail prices, a loop hole in anti-trust. That's why you'll see everybody advertising the same model number for the same price (this includes Apple). It's never MSRP. I suspect Amazon was so big they took MAP out of play for the publishers.


We're a nation that worships price efficiency, and I'm not sure that it's a good thing for us in the long run. Yes we're squeezing the corporations, but we're also squeezing all the content creators and workers all along the cycle of bringing a product from ideas and raw materials into something tangible that we purchase. We're so constantly squeezing every nickle out of every product, so much so that each of us is constantly squeezing each other, until we all suffer lower wages or compensation for hard work well done.


I see both sides... and I don't think everyone does. Good guys/bad guys in anti-trust is really hard to pin down, and dependent on perspective. I think the laws are imperfect at best and not always in the general public interest... as non intuitive as that seems.


JMHO, thought about this crap a lot over the years.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Neal Guttenberg4/14/2012 12:14:25 PM
3 Recommendations   of 177135
 
Anecdotal and random thoughts

One thing that may be getting lost in this whole debate over iBooks and pricing is not only Amazon's monopoly over the ebook market and its pricing but also it increasing monopolistic hold over the whole book market. Amazon, I think but I may be wrong on this, controls a very large part of the physical book market in addition to the ebook market. It is the reason with theDOJ decision, one of the things that happened is that BKS share price dropped a fair amount(from what I was reading after the DOJ decision came out). Amazon, if books are part of the local tax holiday on internet purchases, may also have a built in advantage as well. Again, I may be wrong on this but it is a far more complex case with repercussions for the whole book market rather than just a price fixing issue related to ebooks and short term ebook prices for consumers. JMO on this though. Reasonable people can disagree.

Anecdotally, stopped into an Apple store this week for an airport express as well as some other accessories just before noon time at one of the local malls. The Apple store was moderately busy with all the sales associates with customers. Interesting that the busiest table was the setup and training tables as has been the case the past several visits to the Apple store. We were there for only about 15 minutes but saw at least 3 iPads being sold/set up as well as 1 iPhone and saw what looked like at least 3 laptops being setup. I was busy that day so I didn't take the time to ask about how sales were doing but from what I observed, things are still selling well for Apple. Even though it is all anecdotal, it looks like Apple's sales are still going along well and I would expect, despite the share price action noted this past week, that Apple will have some nice numbers not just for the past quarter but for the present quarter as well, as long as things continue from what I saw at the Apple store this past week.

Good luck out there.

Neal

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Road Walker who wrote (130895)4/14/2012 1:03:43 PM
From: slacker711
   of 177135
 
Should a company, publisher in this instance, be allowed to enforce the retail selling price of their product?


I think the answer is yes.

However, that is not what this case is about. The question is whether a company can collude with every other major player in the industry to enforce a retail selling price. I think the answer to that question is no.


Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Neal Guttenberg who wrote (130896)4/14/2012 1:05:09 PM
From: slacker711
   of 177135
 
One thing that may be getting lost in this whole debate over iBooks and pricing is not only Amazon's monopoly over the ebook market and its pricing but also it increasing monopolistic hold over the whole book market.


I very much doubt that Apple wants to go down this road. I doubt that the market share for Apple in digital music is much different than Amazon in e-books or that Apple's share in the overall music industry is much different than Amazon's in books.


Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Win-Lose-Draw4/14/2012 1:11:35 PM
   of 177135
 
One thing I noticed with our iTunes problem - the dude handling the issue is "overseas" - has a clearly sub-continental name and is only available late late night & early morning. IE, Bangalor time.

I seem to recall Apple making a big to-do a while back about keeping support for North America in North America...?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.