Apple fined for price fixing(mobile.itnews.com.au)
mobile.itnews.com.au
Apple fined for price fixing
http://mobile.itnews.com.au/Article.aspx?CIID=368523&type=News
68 comments
Given Google's staggeringly broad, global and interconnected reach (Android, Gmail, search, advertising etc.), I'm not sure if they're exactly the alternative worth rooting for. And they've been found indulging in as many, if not more, monopolistic or questionable business practices as Apple.
I'm also worried about their increasing move towards taking Android at least partially back proprietary. The original idea seemed to be an open-source platform, which is a nice way of spurring innovation. But they've slowly been replacing components with proprietary Google versions, which is making the core open-source OS less and less maintained. My guess is that the goal is to make it more like a Darwin/OSX situation, where the core OS is open source but lacks all the interface elements and is not really usable as-is by competitors. What would motivate that? One guess is that they're more worried nowadays about Kindle-type competitors than they used to be, devices that build on Android but hook into an alternative (non-Google) cloud ecosystem.
Some examples: Messenger seems to be in the process of being phased out in favor of Google Hangouts; Gallery and Photos duplicate functionality to such an extent that I suspect one of them will not last; even the main keyboard is no longer open source, as Google has more or less abandoned the default Android keyboard and is rolling all improvements into the default-on-Google-devices Google Keyboard app.
Some examples: Messenger seems to be in the process of being phased out in favor of Google Hangouts; Gallery and Photos duplicate functionality to such an extent that I suspect one of them will not last; even the main keyboard is no longer open source, as Google has more or less abandoned the default Android keyboard and is rolling all improvements into the default-on-Google-devices Google Keyboard app.
> What would motivate that?
The OEMs and carriers delaying updates. By moving as much code as possible out of the core OS and into apps that they can update via the Play Store, they managed to make an end run around the OEMs/carriers. Notice how no one is really complaining about not having KitKat - the majority of the important updates are available on all Android 4.x devices, since they're in the Play Store.
The OEMs and carriers delaying updates. By moving as much code as possible out of the core OS and into apps that they can update via the Play Store, they managed to make an end run around the OEMs/carriers. Notice how no one is really complaining about not having KitKat - the majority of the important updates are available on all Android 4.x devices, since they're in the Play Store.
So what? why cant these componets be open source?
If Google really cared, they could split them out into a separte service and still require them for official Android licensing.
I think this notion that they have to be closed source is a very strange redherring that people have bought for some reason.
If Google really cared, they could split them out into a separte service and still require them for official Android licensing.
I think this notion that they have to be closed source is a very strange redherring that people have bought for some reason.
Its not that people 'bought' anything. Its just the general population doesn't care. They just want something that works.
There's enough open source OS left for a rag-tag bunch of bikers ( http://cyngn.com/ ) to create an entirely independent open source mobile OS out of it.
> which is making the core open-source OS less and less maintained
Which parts of the "core open-source OS" are "less and less maintained"?
Which parts of the "core open-source OS" are "less and less maintained"?
Your concern is valid. But consider that Android is still open source far more than iOS, and any team is welcome to take that as a foundation.
Indeed. The ONLY guarantee against companies abusing their near-monopoly positions is to deny them those positions of power in the first place.
Not to trust them because they seem nice and "don't be evil"-ish.
Not to trust the government to stop them from abusing it (clearly).
But supporting competitors. Competition is the regular individual's best weapon.
And that is why, where possible, I strive to support underdogs wherever possible. I use a Windows Phone (with a Jolla on the way), read on a Nook e-reader, use duckduckgo for search, and avoid lock-in wherever possible (upload my music to your cloud? No thanks), etc.
And I encourage others to do so, or at least give it a try
Not to trust them because they seem nice and "don't be evil"-ish.
Not to trust the government to stop them from abusing it (clearly).
But supporting competitors. Competition is the regular individual's best weapon.
And that is why, where possible, I strive to support underdogs wherever possible. I use a Windows Phone (with a Jolla on the way), read on a Nook e-reader, use duckduckgo for search, and avoid lock-in wherever possible (upload my music to your cloud? No thanks), etc.
And I encourage others to do so, or at least give it a try
Android is open source, and used by many non-Googler companies, from Amazon to ChinaKnocloffProducts Inc.
Did Google open source Google Play Services when I wasn't looking?
Google Play Services are not part of Android. It's a program written for Android. Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/.
Grandparent mentioned companies like Amazon or Ouya: These companies use Android, but they do not license Google Apps and they therefore do not have Google Play Services on their systems.
Shipping propritary applications with open source software is common and does not make the open source project any less open source.
Grandparent mentioned companies like Amazon or Ouya: These companies use Android, but they do not license Google Apps and they therefore do not have Google Play Services on their systems.
Shipping propritary applications with open source software is common and does not make the open source project any less open source.
Not just as Apple, but with Apple: the price fixing of technologist wages between the two, by promising not to poach employees.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24390480/judge-oks-cl...
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24390480/judge-oks-cl...
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html
I'm no fan of Google's practices, but any big competitor is better than a monopoly.
Note that the linked article didn't say Apple actually influenced the pricing up or down; they asked to review and approve the plans. I think there's a fair chance they were trying to prevent gouging.
> First there's that and then there is the eBook price fixing, and who else knows what we haven't found out about how Apple conducts business.
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Amazon is probably also fixing eBook prices at $9.99 and taking a loss to gain volume and market share. Apple probably wanted to break that monopoly. http://news.yahoo.com/potentially-damning-steve-jobs-email-d...
The way that cell phone subsidies work is completely different from how ebooks are priced. It's a disservice to conflate the two.
It could be argued that Google gives away Android to prop up its advertising revenue.
Apple, Google, Amazon have asymmetric business models and we are seeing them battle each other by trying to commoditize each others business.
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Amazon is probably also fixing eBook prices at $9.99 and taking a loss to gain volume and market share. Apple probably wanted to break that monopoly. http://news.yahoo.com/potentially-damning-steve-jobs-email-d...
The way that cell phone subsidies work is completely different from how ebooks are priced. It's a disservice to conflate the two.
It could be argued that Google gives away Android to prop up its advertising revenue.
Apple, Google, Amazon have asymmetric business models and we are seeing them battle each other by trying to commoditize each others business.
Well, the iBook "price fixing" thing was a total BS.
There was no iBook price fixing -- if anything the deals they made made ebooks cheaper.
There was no iBook price fixing -- if anything the deals they made made ebooks cheaper.
Honest question. Can someone explain to me what's wrong with this sort of "price fixing"?
The contract is attached to the iPhone, and Apple doesn't want the contract sold for less than $X. If the carrier doesn't want to do that, they can choose not to sell the phone. What's the issue?
The contract is attached to the iPhone, and Apple doesn't want the contract sold for less than $X. If the carrier doesn't want to do that, they can choose not to sell the phone. What's the issue?
Don't always assume that the goal is to prevent the phone from being sold cheaper. High demand items may also merit a higher price and Apple may want to keep the price artificially low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
"In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient. The anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and also results in a deadweight loss."
It also send invalid signals into the economy about the value of an item that may create bubbles or unreasonable expectations for low prices that are unsustainable (and therefore anti-competitive).
The Diamond trade is a very good example of price fixing where otherwise plentiful and cheap stones are controlled on the supply-side to keep prices artificially high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
"In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient. The anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and also results in a deadweight loss."
It also send invalid signals into the economy about the value of an item that may create bubbles or unreasonable expectations for low prices that are unsustainable (and therefore anti-competitive).
The Diamond trade is a very good example of price fixing where otherwise plentiful and cheap stones are controlled on the supply-side to keep prices artificially high.
Your examples are talking about something quite different - they would be relevant if we were talking about Apple and Samsung and Nokia sitting down and agreeing to set prices together. But we're not.
"The contract is attached to the iPhone"
This phrasing betrays a complete ignorance of how the mobile market works outside of the US. Most markets have decided that a device and the network connection are separate entities and a vast majority of the world's population buys their "device" and "sim card" separately.
Hence a device manufacturer trying to set the price of a related but distinct product (the network connectivity) is something like -- to pick a favorite American analogy -- Ford not only dictating what brand of gasoline you'd put in the car, but also dictating the price you'd pay for that gas.
This phrasing betrays a complete ignorance of how the mobile market works outside of the US. Most markets have decided that a device and the network connection are separate entities and a vast majority of the world's population buys their "device" and "sim card" separately.
Hence a device manufacturer trying to set the price of a related but distinct product (the network connectivity) is something like -- to pick a favorite American analogy -- Ford not only dictating what brand of gasoline you'd put in the car, but also dictating the price you'd pay for that gas.
Can you provide examples of where this is true? I ask because you seem to think that the US is the only market where subsidised phones exist. I know for a fact that in the UK and France mobile contracts work in a similar way. I'd go as far as suggesting that most, if not all European networks operate in this manner.
>Can you provide examples of where this is true? I ask because you seem to think that the US is the only market where subsidised phones exist. I know for a fact that in the UK and France mobile contracts work in a similar way. I'd go as far as suggesting that most, if not all European networks operate in this manner.
That is incorrect.
It is similar to the US in the UK, but not at all elsewhere. There are some contract deals in EU that go along with a carrier locked phone (like in the US), but most are not. The unlocked phone is the mainstream case.
Here is a relevant article with the different practices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
That is incorrect.
It is similar to the US in the UK, but not at all elsewhere. There are some contract deals in EU that go along with a carrier locked phone (like in the US), but most are not. The unlocked phone is the mainstream case.
Here is a relevant article with the different practices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
"The unlocked phone is the mainstream case." Nope. Certainly not in 'Western' economies anyway. The link you provided says as much. I know for a fact that it is the same in France, as I have recently lived there and bought a mobile phone. I know that it's the same in Switzerland, as I have family there and have discussed it at length with them.
I'm not sure we're reading the same thing. Certainly yes in Europe. I'm not a visitor, I live in the European union, and work, travel and use mobile phones extensively there.
That you bought a carrier-locked phone in France is not really relevant, as I didn't say there are not carrier-locked phones in Europe, just that the carrier system is not as it is in the US, and having unlocked phones, pre-paid cards, and even mandatory unlocking is (and has been) the norm since mid-nineties.
In France, for example, the law (in effect since 1998) states clearly that even if they sell it locked, the carrier must unlock your phone after 6 months. That's the reason the iPhone had to be sold unlocked in France even back in 2007, when there was no such option in the US.
Heck, the US didn't even have SIM cards and GSM phones until quite recently (late '00s).
That you bought a carrier-locked phone in France is not really relevant, as I didn't say there are not carrier-locked phones in Europe, just that the carrier system is not as it is in the US, and having unlocked phones, pre-paid cards, and even mandatory unlocking is (and has been) the norm since mid-nineties.
In France, for example, the law (in effect since 1998) states clearly that even if they sell it locked, the carrier must unlock your phone after 6 months. That's the reason the iPhone had to be sold unlocked in France even back in 2007, when there was no such option in the US.
Heck, the US didn't even have SIM cards and GSM phones until quite recently (late '00s).
"...having unlocked phones, pre-paid cards, and even mandatory unlocking is (and has been) the norm since mid-nineties." This is what I am disputing from experience. It is categorically not the norm. Phones are sold locked to contracts. Pay-as-you-go is possibly marginally more popular, but the phones are subsidised and locked. Yes they can be unlocked and normally for a fee. The French law you allude to is out of date and falls foul of Directive 2005/29/EC (see the entry on Belgium in the wiki link). There is no law in France or most other EC territories as illustrated in your link.
Phones sold, in France on pay-as-you-go (forfait bloqué) and monthly deals (forfait) come with a locked phone. Yes, they may be unlocked at any time (http://assistance.orange.fr/desimlocker-votre-mobile-2839.ph... and http://assistance.sfr.fr/mobile_forfait/mobile/desimlocker-m...), much like the can in the UK (http://service.o2.co.uk/IQ/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=Co...) or indeed in Germany (http://www.t-mobile.de/sim-lock-entsperren/0,20638,23789-_,0...). The end user must still pay the remainder of their contract even if they choose to use another provider. SIM only deals; either 30 day, PAYG or 12 month contracts, are commonplace. Suggesting that in anyway they are the norm is incorrect.
EDIT: Funnily enough one of my parents, a resident of France, has had an iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4s and 5s on contract with Orange. Not one was sold unlocked with their contract.
Phones sold, in France on pay-as-you-go (forfait bloqué) and monthly deals (forfait) come with a locked phone. Yes, they may be unlocked at any time (http://assistance.orange.fr/desimlocker-votre-mobile-2839.ph... and http://assistance.sfr.fr/mobile_forfait/mobile/desimlocker-m...), much like the can in the UK (http://service.o2.co.uk/IQ/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=Co...) or indeed in Germany (http://www.t-mobile.de/sim-lock-entsperren/0,20638,23789-_,0...). The end user must still pay the remainder of their contract even if they choose to use another provider. SIM only deals; either 30 day, PAYG or 12 month contracts, are commonplace. Suggesting that in anyway they are the norm is incorrect.
EDIT: Funnily enough one of my parents, a resident of France, has had an iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4s and 5s on contract with Orange. Not one was sold unlocked with their contract.
I agree - I was under the impression that you could have a clause in a contract with a retailer/distributor restricting the price they could charge for your product - I thought it was generally only illegal if you're conspiring with competitors to change prices across the market.
Certainly not in the EU. If you sell it yourself you can charge what you like and there may be agency models where you pay distributors to deliver to retailers at agreed prices but I think in those cases you probably have to own the stock until sold. If you sell to a distributor they can sell a whatever price they like.
You mean like requiring your approval for each of the three major carriers pricing, as done here?
This is starting to become sort of trend with Apple.
In what way ? Way too many people seemed to have rewritten the last 10 years of Apple's history.
They have done a ridiculous amount of dodgy, illegal and anti-user things before, during and after Job's reign. They aren't perfect nor should any sane person expect 100K+ people to be. Just like Google, Microsoft, IBM etc.
They have done a ridiculous amount of dodgy, illegal and anti-user things before, during and after Job's reign. They aren't perfect nor should any sane person expect 100K+ people to be. Just like Google, Microsoft, IBM etc.
Become? Not really, now that they're bigger its just getting more attention. Apple has always tightly controlled prices of their product.
Apple's usual strategy to "fix" prices is to not give retailers any room to work with. If they can't buy an iPad for much less than $499, they can't put it on much of a sale. Why sell it at all if the margins are so bad? Accessories and warranties!
This strategy doesn't work very well with iPhones, since there is a lot of excess carrier profit in the 24-month subsidies, above the $700 or so cost of the iPhone.
This strategy doesn't work very well with iPhones, since there is a lot of excess carrier profit in the 24-month subsidies, above the $700 or so cost of the iPhone.
There's not as much profit as you'd think. And a lot less than lower priced phones from other manufacturers. Plus, the carriers have to assume a ton of risk by agreeing to buy millions of iPhones whether they sell or not. Verizon had an estimated shorfall of $12-14 billion dollars as of July of iPhones they'd have to buy even though they didn't have the sales to warrant it. Not sure how that would up.
That shortfall was predicted by one analyst and it never occurred:
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/12/15/shameless-carriers/
http://www.verizon.com/investor/secfiling.htm
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/12/15/shameless-carriers/
http://www.verizon.com/investor/secfiling.htm
Ah, thanks. Wasn't aware of that.
I was thinking more like this...
Currently, AT&T charges you $199 for an iPhone 5S, then has to cover $19 of subsidy over the 24 months of the $80/month contract.
A new carrier could charge $99 for an iPhone 5S, and make a huge splash. That would require another $4 of subsidy per month, but it would be pretty easy to just raise their plan to $85. Since they aren't just a retailer selling a single product once, it's much easier to move costs around. Similar to how a car dealer can play games with funding to make a car cost less but not really cost any profit.
Currently, AT&T charges you $199 for an iPhone 5S, then has to cover $19 of subsidy over the 24 months of the $80/month contract.
A new carrier could charge $99 for an iPhone 5S, and make a huge splash. That would require another $4 of subsidy per month, but it would be pretty easy to just raise their plan to $85. Since they aren't just a retailer selling a single product once, it's much easier to move costs around. Similar to how a car dealer can play games with funding to make a car cost less but not really cost any profit.
IANAL and have always wondered why this practice is allowed in the U.S.
The article doesn't go in to great detail, but based on the information given, I would say that this specific practice is already prohibited in the U.S.. The relevant excerpt:
"Apple Asia ... required carriers to obtain its permission before setting contract prices on iPhones..."
This sounds like Apple Asia explicitly approved contract prices, but it depends on how you interpret "setting contract prices". If that literally means setting the price that the customer will pay, then this is not (to my knowledge) the exact mechanism used in the U.S., because the manufacturers cannot approve or deny the actual selling price. Instead, manufacturers rely on a loophole.
Rather than saying, "You can't sell an iPhone for less than $199 with contract," Apple says, "You can't advertise an iPhone for less than $1xx with contract." The actual number isn't $199, as we regularly see advertisements for iPhones at discounts from retail, but not much lower. We haven't seen the agreements, so we don't know the actual terms. It may be that Apple has the ability to approve/deny all advertised prices individually.
Keep in mind that a retailer is free to sell an iPhone at whatever price point they'd like. The problem is that they have no incentive to do so. Sale prices are a means to get customers in to the store. Imagine a ridiculous hypothetical situation where Walmart advertised the iPhone 5S at $99; that would draw in a lot of customers. However, their reseller terms prevent them from doing so, therefore there is far less incentive to do so. If they can't advertise the crazy sale price, then they can't draw in the number of customers required to meet their ROI requirements for an iPhone loss-leader. The inability to advertise props up the iPhone selling price.
Apple doesn't do this just with iPhones, and this is not the only mechanism Apple uses to prop up their prices. We don't know the specific margins retailers make on Apple products, but everyone I know who has worked in the retail industry tells me that the margin on Apple products is much lower than every other PC manufacturer. I can't speak for mobile devices, as I don't know anyone in that industry.
It's also worth noting that Apple isn't the only company who employs these practices. There are a number of "high-value" brands that support their pricing this way. Tempurpedic and Rolex come to mind immediately, but I'm certain there are many more.
"Apple Asia ... required carriers to obtain its permission before setting contract prices on iPhones..."
This sounds like Apple Asia explicitly approved contract prices, but it depends on how you interpret "setting contract prices". If that literally means setting the price that the customer will pay, then this is not (to my knowledge) the exact mechanism used in the U.S., because the manufacturers cannot approve or deny the actual selling price. Instead, manufacturers rely on a loophole.
Rather than saying, "You can't sell an iPhone for less than $199 with contract," Apple says, "You can't advertise an iPhone for less than $1xx with contract." The actual number isn't $199, as we regularly see advertisements for iPhones at discounts from retail, but not much lower. We haven't seen the agreements, so we don't know the actual terms. It may be that Apple has the ability to approve/deny all advertised prices individually.
Keep in mind that a retailer is free to sell an iPhone at whatever price point they'd like. The problem is that they have no incentive to do so. Sale prices are a means to get customers in to the store. Imagine a ridiculous hypothetical situation where Walmart advertised the iPhone 5S at $99; that would draw in a lot of customers. However, their reseller terms prevent them from doing so, therefore there is far less incentive to do so. If they can't advertise the crazy sale price, then they can't draw in the number of customers required to meet their ROI requirements for an iPhone loss-leader. The inability to advertise props up the iPhone selling price.
Apple doesn't do this just with iPhones, and this is not the only mechanism Apple uses to prop up their prices. We don't know the specific margins retailers make on Apple products, but everyone I know who has worked in the retail industry tells me that the margin on Apple products is much lower than every other PC manufacturer. I can't speak for mobile devices, as I don't know anyone in that industry.
It's also worth noting that Apple isn't the only company who employs these practices. There are a number of "high-value" brands that support their pricing this way. Tempurpedic and Rolex come to mind immediately, but I'm certain there are many more.
This is exactly the type of response I was hoping to get, thank you.
companies are allowed to give terms stating how their products are sold. presumably the same laws that allow Apple to say that in-store displays must meet certain standards (i.e. no broken/smashed devices etc)
But presumably there are some restrictions as to what those terms can be. If Apple said resellers can only sell iphones to white people that would probably not be legal.
Because if Apple said that, it would be requiring its resellers to do something they are not legally permitted to do . A contract to break a law is illegal and unenforceable. Refusing to sell phones to people because they aren't white would break the law. Selling a phone for $150, $200, or $250 is not breaking a law. So while the law may not permit Apple to require specific prices in its contracts, it's for an entirely different reason than why Apple can't tell the reseller to illegally commit racial discrimination.
And much like that Apple telling retailers they must sell at a specific price prevents those retailers from potentially competing with each other (not that they were likely to vary the price much due to the low margins left to them). The effect of Apple fixing prices like this is not different than if the retailers were colluding.
Yes, the practice benefits the retailers and Apple, but its effect on consumers is commonly believed to be negative hence it is prohibited in some markets.
Yes, the practice benefits the retailers and Apple, but its effect on consumers is commonly believed to be negative hence it is prohibited in some markets.
Illegal for a completely different reasons though. Discrimination vs. fair trade.
you mean a hardware vendor like Apple not allowing mobile carriers to set any price for its own handsets? why exactly is this bad?
Because it drastically limits competition that would otherwise put a downwards pressure on the price of these devices.
Surely android phones put downward pressure on these devices?
The idea is that putting a lower price floor on iOS devices differentiates them as a premium product, so that lay people aren't inclined to think that an Android Phone with a lower price is "as good as" an iPhone.
I believe the understanding is that Apple is charging the carrier directly for each handset they obtain from Apple. However for market reasons, carriers normally futz with prices at their own will. Apple is preventing this, because it's in their interest to control the market price for iProducts. Not just that, but Apple is also making demands on the price window for the plans as well thus forcefully molding the kind of demographic that could be owning an iPhone.
and again, why is this bad? marketing 101, price shapes the perceived value of a product. lots of examples here on HN were elasticity, etc have been discussed. locking down re-sellers should be perfectly fine.
Of course it's in Apple's interests to control prices, the question is whether it's in the public's interests. I'm undecided.
Apple can always control prices by being the exclusive seller of their products, that would be a valid way to do it. By selling it to a third party they, I think (again, am undecided) they give up the right to say how much it can be sold for. In the same way they can't stop you from selling your iPhone to a friend for cheap.
What they can do is not to sell to retailers who they feel are damaging their brand. In effect, this is exactly what they are doing, however they are doing it through written agreements rather than through observation.
Apple can always control prices by being the exclusive seller of their products, that would be a valid way to do it. By selling it to a third party they, I think (again, am undecided) they give up the right to say how much it can be sold for. In the same way they can't stop you from selling your iPhone to a friend for cheap.
What they can do is not to sell to retailers who they feel are damaging their brand. In effect, this is exactly what they are doing, however they are doing it through written agreements rather than through observation.
> Of course it's in Apple's interests to control prices, the question is whether it's in the public's interests. I'm undecided.
Whether it is or not, I'm not sure that the fines are the way to go. If "the public" thinks that these practices are anticompetitive, why not simply declare that contract provisions to that effect won't be enforced in their jurisdiction?
Whether it is or not, I'm not sure that the fines are the way to go. If "the public" thinks that these practices are anticompetitive, why not simply declare that contract provisions to that effect won't be enforced in their jurisdiction?
It's bad because it's anti consumer. People in the US seem to have forgotten the fact that the whole capitalist system ostensibly exists to make things better for the consumer.
I cannot understand people who champion anticompetitive actions like Apple's ebook conspiracy with stupid logic like "They can afford an extra dollar for an ebook if it makes the market fair".
I cannot understand people who champion anticompetitive actions like Apple's ebook conspiracy with stupid logic like "They can afford an extra dollar for an ebook if it makes the market fair".
Really ? I though that capitalism was an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy.
Clearly I need to phone up the Oxford dictionary as they say nothing about the consumer or market fairness so they must have gotten it wrong all these years...
Clearly I need to phone up the Oxford dictionary as they say nothing about the consumer or market fairness so they must have gotten it wrong all these years...
That's highly subjective. I'd claim that by being allowed to lower prices, the carriers will probably sell more iPads, putting more people in the hands of an abusive company like Apple.
That's probably the short-term effect, however, a potential longer-term effect is hurting the iPad brand image as an elite product and status symbol, depressing demand for the particular brand.
Another potential effect is less outlets selling the iPad, because if there is the potential for others to undercut the price on the same product, it becomes less valuable item in the lineup.
Another potential effect is less sales through Apple's own retail channels if some other outlets are selling below Apple's price but Apple tries to maintain it, which could mean more sales but still less money going to Apple.
Another potential effect is less outlets selling the iPad, because if there is the potential for others to undercut the price on the same product, it becomes less valuable item in the lineup.
Another potential effect is less sales through Apple's own retail channels if some other outlets are selling below Apple's price but Apple tries to maintain it, which could mean more sales but still less money going to Apple.
So existing customers will have their possessions depreciated and new costumers will have less places where to buy iPads.
> People in the US seem to have forgotten the fact that the whole capitalist system ostensibly exists to make things better for the consumer.
No, it exists to make things better for the capitalist, which is why the socialists who named the system called it "capitalism" -- the entire system revolves around the interests of capital.
Its true that part of the sales pitch that capitalists use to the masses (who significantly outnumber them, and without whose complacency capitalism could not stand) is that it has the effect of making things better for the consumer, but that's not the purpose of capitalism at all.
No, it exists to make things better for the capitalist, which is why the socialists who named the system called it "capitalism" -- the entire system revolves around the interests of capital.
Its true that part of the sales pitch that capitalists use to the masses (who significantly outnumber them, and without whose complacency capitalism could not stand) is that it has the effect of making things better for the consumer, but that's not the purpose of capitalism at all.
Capitalism does not exist "for the benefit of the consumer" no more so than apples exist for the benefit of human consumption.
Free markets need not have capitalism, and vice versa, but capitalism will likely arise in any free market.
If Bob produces X, and he wants to sell X for Y dollars, how is it immoral or bad to allow others to sell X for Y dollars, but no less?
This is like saying it's "price fixing" when an app developer charges the same for his product on the play store and the App Store.
Apple did not collude with HTC; they set the price for their product.
Free markets need not have capitalism, and vice versa, but capitalism will likely arise in any free market.
If Bob produces X, and he wants to sell X for Y dollars, how is it immoral or bad to allow others to sell X for Y dollars, but no less?
This is like saying it's "price fixing" when an app developer charges the same for his product on the play store and the App Store.
Apple did not collude with HTC; they set the price for their product.
[deleted]
I wonder if they meant to fine them the number of the beast as a way of sending a strong message.
If they wanted to send a message like that they would have fined them $444 000.
Sweet, Apple will make that amount of money in ~146 seconds. That will certainly show them.
This fine is surely smaller than the ill-gotten gains. If the court is ruling that Apple was behaving with nefarious intent, shouldn't there be meaningful punitive damages?
$666k is a rounding error for Apple.
[deleted]
I, for one, am thankful that Android rose to keep Apple in check, because a world where Apple would be a monopoly frightens me about as much, if not more, that when it was Microsoft pulling the same kind of dirty and illegal tricks.