4 Replies Latest reply on Mar 10, 2016 12:39 PM by Omnigeek
      • Re: Apple will pay $450 million after Supreme Court denies ebooks price-fixing appeal
        MacMcK1957

        BN and Amazon issued the credits years ago.  I wonder how much it cost Apple to keep fighting a losing battle.

         

        I realize Jobs could never admit he was wrong, but couldn't the company concede and move on once he was gone?

          • Re: Apple will pay $450 million after Supreme Court denies ebooks price-fixing appeal
            roustabout

            When the criminal acts underlying the fine occurred, the price fixing was seen as critical to Apple's future revenue.

             

            It's a bad ereader, and many of us have forgotten what it was that Jobs sold it as at first, but initially the iPad was going to be a Kindle killing ereading beast.  The profit structure Apple arrived at was going to mean that in addition to killing the Kindle on usability, Apple was going to kill Amazon on ebook profit.

             

            I think that paying the fine - and admitting the wrongdoing - may have some risk for the way that iTunes music pricing and possibly even app pricing behaves.  At one point music, books and software had a lot of similarity in how the revenue was divvied up.

              • Re: Apple will pay $450 million after Supreme Court denies ebooks price-fixing appeal
                MacMcK1957

                Funny thing about that.  Both my wife and I have iPads but neither of us use them much for reading. If I'm reading something with enhanced content I use my Samsung 7" nook, and my wife has the equivalent Kindle Fire that she uses when not using her e-ink Kindle.

                  • Re: Apple will pay $450 million after Supreme Court denies ebooks price-fixing appeal
                    Omnigeek

                    My mother uses her iPad for reading all the time but that's partially because she doesn't like carrying more than one device.  She uses the iPad for other things so it's her ereader too.

                    I suspect Apple continued to fight it because the DOJ's case inherently made no sense -- Apple proposed a business model where the publishers got to control the price of their product, not much different from the way Tesla sells cars or Omega sells their watches.  It's also possible they saw a link to their iTunes business model as roustabout suggests.

                    On the other hand, I'm not surprised the Supreme Court refused to hear the case as there really isn't a huge Constitutional issue at play here.  The DOJ has been interfering in private commerce well beyond the bounds of the Interstate Commerce Clause for quite some time and the only textualist on the Court is no longer with us.