Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (130706)	4/11/2012 2:46:05 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

Another point that seems to be missed, continuously, is that the 30% cut Apple takes doesn't generate significant profits for them. It covers their costs in maintaining the online store, credit card processing, administration, etc. The only way this is true is if there is literally zero scale in the business. Do you really believe that Apple was at break even in '06 in content sales and the same is true today? Slacker

To: Cogito who wrote (130706)	4/11/2012 3:11:14 PM
From: iggyl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

I didn't know that the agency model was illegal. I know I've bought things where the manufacturer set the price and if a store was licensed to sell they could not discount the price of the item. First pair of premium skis I ever bought was at a store that wasn't authorized to sell them, had gotten a shipment from another store that had surplus stock and the serial number had been scratched off so the authorized store couldn't be identified and thereby lose their franchise license. In terms of collusion of the five booksellers all going to agency model, it seems like they were smart enough businessman to figure out that status quo wasn't working and Amazon was throwing them under the bus.