Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Why is Apple not a "good" company?
Posts
It kindof equals out because of having to pack in a giant battery for the giant screen.
The size also makes a difference for simple functions not related to the power; I don't read a lot on my iPhone, but the iPad is supposedly an e-reader competitor.
I would much rather have 4x the battery life, truth be told.
Also, I'm not sure why we need something 4 times more powerful than this in this form factor:
All in real time
Edit: 16 states have joined in on the suit -
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/04/16-states-join-doj-in-suing-apple-e-book-publishers-over-alleged-price-fixing.ars
I'm amazed how many people are cheering on Amazon.
It's like the Wal-Mart parallels here completely fly over people's heads.
Sorry, no. Amazon was trying to drag publishers into the 21st century. Then Apple illegally gave them an out.
Just remember that Apple is the bad guy here no matter what, and it all makes sense.
Before Agency, Amazon was both birthing AND strangling the mainstream ebook market by running a system that all but guaranteed their buying power would allow them to have the cheapest price on any book, at the expense of the publisher who had to resign to a lower profit line if they wanted their book on the biggest store. A price they could not afford to give to other stores.
No, Amazon was trying to push their own products by using the publishers' products as a loss-leader. And they can get away with it because they are (or rather, were) a monopsony in the e-book business.
It's the EXACT same practices Wal-Mart uses to push around their suppliers. Like, literally 100% exact. And the results for the suppliers are the same.
Infinity Blade is pretty rad, but it uses so much power that it will drain your battery even if plugged into a charger while you play it.
I mean, not quickly, but still . . .
Also it makes my phone hot.
You're obviously holding it wrong.[/stevejobs]
Everyone knows that you're supposed to buy a case for those things to prevent that.[/stevejobs]
Never did a mistake pair so well with an oaky cabernet.
Actually no, the only titles that they took losses on were the new releases, because they were trying to push a $9.99 price point for new releases. Overall, their sales of ebooks were profitable.
What we are seeing is a bunch of middlemen realizing that they were no longer needed, and reacting poorly to that realization.
For whom?
The whole purpose of this was to increase Kindle adoption by using e-books as a loss leader. Surprisingly, the people who make ebooks were not keen on making less money and devaluing their product in the eyes of consumers.
This is the exact same tactic wal-mart uses. "We will sell this product of yours for this much. Don't like it? Hahahaha, we control the whole market bitch!".
It's really funny because monopsony is exactly the same as price fixing. It's just you don't even need to bother conspiring with your competitors because you have none.
Publishers are middle-men now? Do you understand how the publishing business works?
Then technology came and made them no longer necessary. Which is really what terrifies them.
Amazon is red herring. Price fixing is illegal, has been for eons, and will continue to be. As a piece of consumer protection law, it is in serious dispute by no one. Not taking into account the shocking revalation of its existence to many internet commenters today.
If politics are not a part of the equation, there's never a reason for DoJ to ignore price fixing.
I loved that one of Apple's first thoughts was to try to divvy up the electronic media markets with Amazon.
And by loved, I mean horrified and livid.
Well, what Apple does is sell an image. The problem is, the facade is starting to slip some.
And in a global market, companies want to enjoy success everywhere. Apple is a lot less successful selling that same image in some places than others.
Sometimes they have the magic touch, and sometimes they're just weirdos who sell lots of simple white stuff that doesn't manage to be quite as sexy or sophisticated as the black stuff its competing with. Honestly, it's not a new thing--look at Apple in the 90s, when they were starting to really lean on the style of their own in some markets. No company's perfect.
It's astonishing how people are trying to portray Apple as the little guy fighting back against the big bad meanie Amazon. Market cap, anyone?
The Wal-Mart comparison is especially hilarious. Amazon doesn't have an advantage because they're too big, they have an advantage because they were the first to market with a compelling product that captured the public interest, and content providers have to go where the consumers want to go.
Does nobody remember fucking history? Apple wasn't the first company to sell MP3s, but they were the first to market with a compelling MP3 player that captured the public interest, and music labels had to go where the consumers wanted to go. Apple wasn't the first company to sell smartphones, but they were the first one to market a compelling smartphone that captured public interest, and the revenue for apps followed. Apple wasn't the first company to produce tablets, but they were the first one to market a compelling tablet that captured public interest and, once again, the content revenue followed.
Amazon has the most compelling dedicated eReader and suddenly it's in everyone's best interest in Apple just goes ahead and colludes with publishers to break into the market with an illegal advantage. I get the argument that publishers are taking hit on their profits with the Kindle, but if you think that record labels are making the same margins on iTunes downloads as they did on CDs back in the 90s you're a moron. Apple's requisite 30% profit did more to distort the music industry than piracy ever has.
It's almost as though Apple might not actually make the best product on the market, they've just been really, really good at being one step ahead of everyone else. Until, suddenly, they aren't. The mental contortions people will go through to justify outright illegal business practices is unbelievable.
when the indigo children come
The DoJ's filing is worth reading, especially because it's quite clear and concise. It also doesn't help Apple's case that Jobs pretty much admitted to the whole scheme in his biography, as well as in public when the first iPad launched.
The thing is, Apple and the publishers needed each other - without Apple and the clout of the iPad's immediate userbase on release, the publishers' threats to cut Amazon off would have lost a lot of credibility; and without the publishers guaranteeing Apple their 30%, they would have found themselves having to compete in a low margin market, which is not their strength.
But what really terrifies the publishers about Amazon isn't that they were trying to push the price point of new ebooks down to $9.99. No, what really keeps them awake at night is that Amazon is more than happy to say to a new author "Hey, you want to sell your ebook? Just send us the formatted file, and we'll sell it for you. 70/30 split. And if you follow our pricing guidelines, you get the 70." Technology has made them unnecessary, and they have NOT handled that well.
And Apple could wind up facing a double whammy, which is why they're probably fighting. See, it used to be that the competing ebook apps on iOS allowed you to buy books through them. Then Apple said that all in-app purchases had to be split 70/30 with Apple, which in effect meant that all competing bookstores either would have to sell above the iBook price (since with the agency model, it would mean that at the base price, they would be left with no money), or (as they all did) just get rid of their in-app bookstores, which gives iBook, with it's integration with the iTunes Store, a significant competitive advantage.
Oh come on, be fair. He said "I’m not sure what to think about this.". Which translated from Gruberese into English means he thinks Apple is second only to Satan and/or Google on his scale of evil.
This is so weak.
Indeed. I don't really like the OS but the mobile ecosystem is outstanding.
Apple is doing better than it's ever done. It's already passed the $600 billion market value mark, one might almost be forgiven for thinking that Steve Jobs biting it actually helped the company.
I think a fair argument which a lot of free market types will make is that the Sherman Act is bad and monopolies will naturally topple under their own weight before becoming net drains on the public good. I don't agree with this argument but a lot of smart people do. The argument you hear instead is that Amazon was driving down the price of ebooks and killing the market and something had to be done. This seems to admit price fixing but argue for an exception. Is there legal precedent for this kind of argument? Antitrust seems so straight forward at the statutory level and such an utter mess in practice.
I've always assumed the reason that people like AngelHedgie post in threads like these is because they're trying to prove to the fetishists that their MacBooks didn't descend to earth on Mount Sinai.
If you're suggesting that it is an equal and symbiotic relationship, I guess that just hasn't been my experience but I can't disagree. I hang out with a lot of art school grads, so I tend to hear people describe their brushed aluminum gadgets in terms people use for a spouse.
Invite me: XBox Live | PS3 | Steam
Link to me: Number Sorter | Achievement Generator
For the consumer. Walmart may be evil incarnate but they dont drop the prices down then raise them back up once they have the market share. They are consistently below cost of other major retailers. Which is why I love Amazon over Apple. They both may be evil corporations but with different way of doing things, Amazon with its Walmart style practices and Apple with its slave labor and markups for "art, I tend to favor the company that is favorable to my wallet over the one that is historically anti consumer.
I'm going to ask what may very well be a stupid question; if this is the case, is that why I'm noticing a lot of songs are $1.29? The old 99 cents + a 30 cent bump to help cover Apple's take?
Perhaps I'm connecting completely unrelated pieces of information, but I'd been pondering that for a while.
I fully recognize that it could just be a natural bump in price on hot/hit/new/whatever singles. But it's funny that every time I've gone to buy a song because it's "on a dollar", it's... not. The 30 cents doesn't break the bank of course, but it seems (in my casual buying experience) to be growing more common. A revision of Apple's policies/business model, or something elsewhere on the chain?
Walmart does this all the time. There are multiple examples of Walmart targeting local businesses by offering a heavily discounted product line specific to that market, then jacking the prices back up when those businesses close.
Here's one example. There are many others.
http://www.ilsr.org/retail/news/walmart-settles-predatory-pricing-charge/
Hmmm not for what I buy from there I guess. Those prices are always consistently lower than other stores. I am not dumb enough to try to buy things like lawn care etc from them.
Don't be a goose, friend.
Eh? Merely stating I know all of their "deals" are not so. The machinery for one they sell is sub par at best.
You stated Walmart does not engage in a practice. I pointed to one of many examples in specific markets across the country. What you think about the low-low prices at your local store is irrelevant to a discussion of abusive practices targeted to specific locales on a nationwide basis.
Your individual experience is not sufficient to make sweeping assumptions about the rationality or market awareness of typical consumers. The plural of anecdote is not "data."
Yours is a rhetorically poor comment.
LOL yeah I was making "sweeping assumptions" by stating I am not one to be brought in by random deals on poor quality equipment. Good one.
Anyways thanks for focusing on one little weak point. I like how people do that here as if it means anything to me.