d****o
发帖数: 443 | 1 谁能说一说到底是什么一回事？是不是JOBS牵头把ebook的价钱提高了三四刀？然后搞
垮书店。 | s******s
发帖数: 13035 | 2 不是搞垮书店。而是让当年电子书的默认价格9.99提高了40%, 伤害了消费者。
据说本来也没啥证据，后来老乔自己回忆录里面写了和出版商谈判，看过这书的谈谈？
【在 d****o 的大作中提到】
: 谁能说一说到底是什么一回事？是不是JOBS牵头把ebook的价钱提高了三四刀？然后搞
: 垮书店。
| d****o
发帖数: 443 | 3 回忆录里没有DOJ的资料多，老乔为了做电子书店，把消费着跟卖了，amazon是打算9.
99再让出版商降价的。
【在 s******s 的大作中提到】
: 不是搞垮书店。而是让当年电子书的默认价格9.99提高了40%, 伤害了消费者。
: 据说本来也没啥证据，后来老乔自己回忆录里面写了和出版商谈判，看过这书的谈谈？
| K*****3
发帖数: 977 | 4 哇塞！楼下几个尽乱讲。
1，Amazon 9.99 ebook, 没有竞争，书商巨受伤害。
2，三大书商自己聚集打算提价，但没有渠道。
3，SJ提出，我和以前一样，提成30%，价格你们自己看着办。最后定价10.99!!!!!
4，Amazon 突然面临挑战，开始很多免费书，很多少于9.99的便宜书
eBook actually went more and averaged price dropped, though there are still
14.99 books.
Hence this lawsuit was totally wrong in the name of protecting consumers.
What might be wrong was the three big heads sit together and set price.
Despite what the price might be, it is against the anti-trust law.
However, all three had settled with the DoJ, except Apple. It was simple:
Apple doesn't think he did anything wrong: the price was fixed by the
publishers, hence no matter it is for pricing hiking or for price fixing,
there is little to do with Apple.
【在 d****o 的大作中提到】
: 谁能说一说到底是什么一回事？是不是JOBS牵头把ebook的价钱提高了三四刀？然后搞
: 垮书店。
| d****o
发帖数: 443 | 5
itune 的 $0.69-$1.29 音乐下载，出版商也巨受伤害，SJ为什么要APPLE定价?
SJ为了自己的30%过路费，不惜让ebook涨价，如果不涨价，SJ就拿不到30%。
【在 K*****3 的大作中提到】
: 哇塞！楼下几个尽乱讲。
: 1，Amazon 9.99 ebook, 没有竞争，书商巨受伤害。
: 2，三大书商自己聚集打算提价，但没有渠道。
: 3，SJ提出，我和以前一样，提成30%，价格你们自己看着办。最后定价10.99!!!!!
: 4，Amazon 突然面临挑战，开始很多免费书，很多少于9.99的便宜书
: eBook actually went more and averaged price dropped, though there are still
: 14.99 books.
: Hence this lawsuit was totally wrong in the name of protecting consumers.
: What might be wrong was the three big heads sit together and set price.
: Despite what the price might be, it is against the anti-trust law.
|
|
