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.
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.
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?
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".
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...
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.
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.
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.