Evil Apple in trouble again

In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

yet two publishers and apple are not pleading guilty.

No Apple are pleading not guilty and the other two are arguing about the
penalty.

http://us.macmillan.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=28237

Let me start by saying that Macmillan did not act illegally.
Macmillan did not collude.
....
It is also hard to settle a lawsuit when you know you have done no
wrong.

sure looks like he's saying 'not guilty' to me.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

Even I saw the US DoJ stating they were intending to prosecute Apple
for
this on, so I think I am informed.

intending to prosecute does not mean winning. the latest reports about
the lawsuit say the doj is likely to lose.

Sure Eric Holder knows nothing about the law, that is why he is Attorney
General of the USA!

and your point is what?

I doubt he thinks the DoJ is likely to lose.


Sadly a number of publishers [apparently including [sadly] UK's Harper
Collins) have already settled, but in reality they were snared by
Apple
insisting on them paying $$$ if they wanted to sell on the Apple
platform.
If they publishers want to cover their costs then they have to add 50%
to
the customer price so that Apple can take their 30% cut.

nonsense.

TRUE!

if you agree it's nonsense, why did you write it?

"Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon and Schuster have already settled."

they did, but we don't know why they settled. maybe they did collude
among themselves, or maybe they didn't but couldn't justify the expense
of litigation.

Harper Collins can afford littigation - even in the USA.


I love the irony of Apple blasting another maker for "monopolistic
practices"!

why?

amazon had a monopoly on ebooks with 90% of the market and was pricing
ebooks below cost to keep out the competition. if it weren't for apple,
they'd still have a monopoly.

You confuse the Apple / IBM model with the MS / Amazon / Dell model.

In the former you aim for high margin and lock in and in the latter you aim
for commoditisation, volume and low margin. Of course an iPad can be used
as a book reader, so why the 50% price hike?

Who says Kindles are below cost (although they probably are), Motorola did a
mobile phone with an e-ink display for developing countries for around $20
UN-subsidised.


BTW Macmillan's statement implies they accept they are wrong in
principle but are haggling over the quantum.

it doesn't imply any such thing.

It is very difficult to plead not guilty to conspiracy when your fellow
conspirators have already put their hands up and presumably split lots of
beans.

yet two publishers and apple are not pleading guilty.

it's also very difficult to be guilty of conspiracy when you weren't in
attendance at the meetings where the alleged conspiracy took place.

They can all be in a conspiracy with Apple, but not necessarily with each
other.

For example a crook emails a armourer, some robbers, a bent bank clerk and a
getaway driver to set up a bank robbery - they are all guilty of conspiracy
even though the guy who sets it up will be very keen to make sure that they
don't meet each other.

In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

Of course an iPad can be used
as a book reader, so why the 50% price hike?

what price hike?

Who says Kindles are below cost (although they probably are),

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...re_virtual_tea
rdown_puts_cost_at_209.63_about_10_above_retail

Motorola did a
mobile phone with an e-ink display for developing countries for around $20
UN-subsidised.

and look how well that worked out for them.

nospam wrote:
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

Of course an iPad can be used
as a book reader, so why the 50% price hike?

what price hike?

Who says Kindles are below cost (although they probably are),

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...re_virtual_tea
rdown_puts_cost_at_209.63_about_10_above_retail

Motorola did a
mobile phone with an e-ink display for developing countries for around $20
UN-subsidised.

and look how well that worked out for them.

It was slim, had long battery life, fairly tough, dust and dirt
resistant, had a good loudspeaker for free listening and talking,
the cheapest cell phone in several countries and ubiquitous
in Mexico. It also offered a speaking menu. You wouldn't want
it for texting, but for 'just talking' it was good.

Yep, I have an F3.

-Wolfgang

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

Motorola did a
mobile phone with an e-ink display for developing countries for around $20
UN-subsidised.

and look how well that worked out for them.

It was slim, had long battery life, fairly tough, dust and dirt
resistant, had a good loudspeaker for free listening and talking,
the cheapest cell phone in several countries and ubiquitous
in Mexico. It also offered a speaking menu. You wouldn't want
it for texting, but for 'just talking' it was good.

like i said, look how well that worked out for them. motorola is losing
money. apple and samsung are making money.

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

Motorola did a
mobile phone with an e-ink display for developing countries for around $20
UN-subsidised.

and look how well that worked out for them.

It was slim, had long battery life, fairly tough, dust and dirt
resistant, had a good loudspeaker for free listening and talking,
the cheapest cell phone in several countries and ubiquitous
in Mexico. It also offered a speaking menu. You wouldn't want
it for texting, but for 'just talking' it was good.

like i said, look how well that worked out for them. motorola is losing
money. apple and samsung are making money.

Motorola just made this one phone and nothing else, so the result
of that phone can be directly applied to Motorola's success
or failure.

How many iPhones are being sold to people where the value of
the iPhone is several months' wages?

-Wolfgang