Okay, colluding may be illegal. Until the DoJ can prove colluding happened and win, I'm not so sure we can say without a doubt that there was colluding. And even if there was?I'm not saying there was?I don't think what the publishers did should be illegal. I mean, look, they were pissed off at Amazon. If they did get together in an underground lair and agreed on a model that made them happy, and Amazon signed their contracts agreeing to the terms, I personally don't see a whole lot of wrongdoing.
And what does the DoJ want to get out of this? If they win they can certainly fine the publishers, but can they actually negotiate the terms for the publishers' content? It's a genuine question actually, I don't know.
For years Apple used their large market market share in digital music to keep the price point at $0.99 per track. Record companies hated that. It's the same thing Amazon was trying to do by using their leverage to keep ebooks at $9.99. It's pot meet kettle. Apple eventually caved to $1.29 but that took years.
For years Apple used their large market market share in digital music to keep the price point at $0.99 per track. Record companies hated that. It's the same thing Amazon was trying to do by using their leverage to keep ebooks at $9.99. It's pot meet kettle. Apple eventually caved to $1.29 but that took years.
That's a tired argument. Apple's caving to $1.29 was also the labels' caving to iTunes Plus, higher quality audio without DRM. Do you think that they loved that? Worth the extra $0.30 if you ask me.
For years Apple used their large market market share in digital music to keep the price point at $0.99 per track. Record companies hated that. It's the same thing Amazon was trying to do by using their leverage to keep ebooks at $9.99. It's pot meet kettle. Apple eventually caved to $1.29 but that took years.
So where was the DoJ suit claiming that the music labels and Amazon colluded in bringing DRM-free music at a higher bit rate to a different store to shut Apple out?
I think you'll find there's basis for the 16 states making these claims and causing the government to investigate this. If there were no facts or evidence, do you think that some of the companies involved would have now already paid fines to settle this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...suit_for_cash/
In replying to BOTH of you, I think the original poster (that both of you replying to) should at least provide a link that back his/her words up. Link to at least one popular book in iBook Store or Amazon or even any other online store that we could compare prices with. Don't you think?
It's not about, "they were doing something bad too."
It's about making a choice: Allow Amazon to kill off all competition in bookselling, which effectively gives them control of the publishers, and who and what gets published and who publishes it, if they are the only place you can sell books. Or, allow a healthy, vibrant publishing and bookselling industry to flourish, so that consumer can choose where to buy books and what they want to read.
The Amazon scenario that the DoJ is myopically supporting, will result in a future with fewer books, fewer voices, fewer viepoints available at higher cost. The agency model leads to a future were the publishing industry thrives and grows and varied and independent voices are heard, and, in the end, lower prices for consumers than you'll get when Amazon controls everything. We've been headed down the Amazon path for a number of years now and the results so far are pretty bleak. How many publishers have to go out of business, merge, or be acquired, before we wake up and see how Amazon is destroying the publishing industry?
So, choose. Choose free speech or choose Amazon controlled speech. But, if we make the wrong choice now, we'll pay for it for a very long time.
its nothing to do with making a choice.
Its about legally penalizing those who break the law. If amazon breaks the law, then they will also be penalized.
Hypothetical situations about what might happen are irrelevant.
Hypothesized reasoning for downsizing, merging and closing down within the publishing industry are also irrelevant.
Its about enforcing the law within the case at hand.
So where was the DoJ suit claiming that the music labels and Amazon colluded in bringing DRM-free music at a higher bit rate to a different store to shut Apple out?
But Amazon had 90% of market before and ebooks were cheaper. The Apple deal with publishers caused the prices to rise. I'm still unsure of how that was good for customers. Apple broke up the monopoly but it only benefited Apple and publishers like HarperCollins
The publishers have to stay in business and people have to want to write books. That's how it benefitted consumers. If its not profitable for publishers and authors to write books, they simply won't do it. Print books already had razor thin margins and now amazon is selling the books at a price the publisher can't even match on its own website. That is a very big problem. I personally think publishers should pull their books from Amazon and sell their ebooks from their own website. People aren't stupid they'll by the books if they want them regardless of where they are if the price is reasonable.
To those saying why an ebook should cost less....ebooks are easily copied and pirated. Sharing is the same as giving the book away. There is more risk. Plus they don't want to hurt print book business. These things mean that publishers have to factor that into the price. We've all seen what Amazon has done to publishers who refuse to let Amazon set the prices of their own content.
Im not convinced the government has a case against Apple here. Apple has agency pricing for their apps on their app store and has for some time now.
As long as I, the consumer, get to buy eBooks at a lower price I could care less about Apple or Amazon. Funny how all of a sudden Apple brings up an Amazon monopoly. Greedy Apple slept with greedy publishers and winds up with kaka all over their hands. Bottom line- 30% of $5-$10 more Apple has made from off each and every eBook sold from me and everyone of you. And that's cool? The naivety on here is really astounding- or is it blindfolded Fanboism?
People willing to pay double in price because SJ told them to?
Btw- it is SJ/Apple's insistence of the "?most favored nation? clause that has come under scrutiny by the Justice Department not the "agency model".
Legal experts have said the Justice Department is unlikely to win against Apple, noting that it has a better case against the publishers. According to one antitrust professor, the government will need to show Apple "had some kind of involvement in the original arrangement" to win against Apple.
In others words SJ is dead and cannot testify. He was the one directly negotiating with the publishers. Sound like the publishers are directly tying him to the investigation either truthfully or as a way to slither out of this easily.
Funny stuff. Here in the Netherlands publishers set the prices of books by law. Thing is, our law doesn't include eBooks. Law is always far behind new technology.
The only problem I see in the agreements is the clause that price in iBookstore has to be equal to the lowest price the publishers set elswhere (with regards to agency model). Still, as Amazon buys wholesale and has no agency model (or do they?), prices between Amazon and iBookstore may still be different. Publishers don't set the Amazon prices directly, or do they?
Australian article about Amazon's predatory pricing concerns:
Amazon and Apple have both interestingly taken a similar path recently, which the publishers must be somewhat concerned about. That is that both now enable the writers themselves to self-publish through iBooks or the Amazon book store. This should give us more choice as it is easier for a writer to publish.
This has pros and cons to writers and consumers, but a clear looser is the publisher. Perhaps both companies thanks for events that have annoyed or tarnished them.
Happy that you highlight this point, of extreme importance. I take my personal example : I always dreamed of becoming an author, but no publisher would have probably accepted to invest on me. Thanks to Apple, my Book is avalable (for free, just because I decided so, but I could have decided otherwise), and I have achieved my dream.
Printed books will probably disapear, for the most part of it. Publishers try to postpone this (through non attractive ebooks price), but they will ultimately lose this battle. In addition, they will be confronted to the hard issue of redefining their added value in an electronic publishing context (can manage to keep the authors pourcentage as low as it is, for example ? (that low percentage , which was justified by heavy fixed costs of printing, poor selling risks, advertising costs, etc ... Can no longer be used as an excuse in electronic publishing context ...
I think of myself as a consumer, not an Apple apologist, and, frankly, I pay more for ebooks since Apple magnanimously "broke up" that mean old Amazon "monopoly".
Its about legally penalizing those who break the law. If amazon breaks the law, then they will also be penalized.
Hypothetical situations about what might happen are irrelevant.
Hypothesized reasoning for downsizing, merging and closing down within the publishing industry are also irrelevant.
Its about enforcing the law within the case at hand.
Nonsense. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that all parties charged are "guilty" of the accusations, it's the job of the DoJ to do what's best for the country. Setting up Amazon as the controller of the publishing industry is contrary to the public interest, and ultimately harmful to this country's citizens.
This kind of short-term thinking represents everything that's wrong with this country. Readers might be paying a few dollars more for books, but Amazon's monopoly position in the publishing industry was untenable. Allowing it to continue, which is what the DoJ action seeks to do, will eliminate competition in book retailing, and, as a result, will eventually result in Amazon controlling not only how much we pay for all books, traditional and e-books, but even what gets published.
Fallacy #1: Amazon hasn't show much tendency to really care what books it was selling. You might recall the controversy involving them allowing that independently published eBook about pedophilia. Contrast that with say Apple's refusal to sell an app featuring the works of a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist (which they later reversed after it got widespread media coverage). I bought "The Yoni" from Amazon (print version), which is about the historical use of female genitalia as a sacred symbol. It contains numerous photographs of symbolic representations and outright images of female anatomy. Do you think Apple would allow that book in iTunes?
And regardless, how does that differ from the system we have today? You don't think the publishers are selective in the titles they are willing to publish?
Quote:
And $9.99 isn't going to last. Remember how overpriced Kindles were when there was no competition in the e-reader market. That's where e-book prices will eventually go if the DoJ succeeds in their effort to install Amazon as a government sanctioned monopoly of the publishing industry, end-to-end.
Fallacy #2: Raising prices isn't Amazon's modus operandi. It never has been. Amazon works on a high volume, low profit system versus Apple's low volume, high profit model.
The Kindle wasn't expensive initially because it had a monopoly on the e-reader market. It was expensive because it was new, the components were expensive, and the fact that Amazon had no way to know whether it would succeed. (Weird, kind of sounds like the initial launch of the iPhone, another product that was "overpriced" originally.)
The people attacking Amazon seem to be stuck on the idea that Amazon wants to kill off all competition. Maybe, but don't other businesses want the same? Would there be many sad faces at Apple if Google announced it was killing Android?
There are other reasons to sell some items below cost. A big one is that it builds good will with customers. If they can get a good price on something, they're more likely to come back and buy from you again. They'll even pay a little extra on some things just knowing how much of a good deal they got on the last item.
When it comes to eBooks, Amazon also had another good reason: building a market. There really wasn't much of a market for eBooks before Amazon created one. (Kind of like the iTunes Store and downloaded music.)
And let's face it, $9.99 was one of those sweet spot prices. It's basically $10, but it lacks that extra decimal so it psychologically feels a lot cheaper. Kind of like $0.99 was a sweet spot for digital tracks.
I think you'll find there's basis for the 16 states making these claims and causing the government to investigate this. If there were no facts or evidence, do you think that some of the companies involved would have now already paid fines to settle this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...suit_for_cash/
A simple before and after comparison of the before and after average prices should suffice as evidence that what you say is true.
Feel free to present it.
Will those sixteen states take into account the lower prices that resulted from Amazon avoiding paying them sales tax?
Fallacy #1: Amazon hasn't show much tendency to really care what books it was selling. You might recall the controversy involving them allowing that independently published eBook about pedophilia. Contrast that with say Apple's refusal to sell an app featuring the works of a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist (which they later reversed after it got widespread media coverage). I bought "The Yoni" from Amazon (print version), which is about the historical use of female genitalia as a sacred symbol. It contains numerous photographs of symbolic representations and outright images of female anatomy. Do you think Apple would allow that book in iTunes?
And regardless, how does that differ from the system we have today? You don't think the publishers are selective in the titles they are willing to publish?
Fallacy #2: Raising prices isn't Amazon's modus operandi. It never has been. Amazon works on a high volume, low profit system versus Apple's low volume, high profit model.
The Kindle wasn't expensive initially because it had a monopoly on the e-reader market. It was expensive because it was new, the components were expensive, and the fact that Amazon had no way to know whether it would succeed. (Weird, kind of sounds like the initial launch of the iPhone, another product that was "overpriced" originally.)
The people attacking Amazon seem to be stuck on the idea that Amazon wants to kill off all competition. Maybe, but don't other businesses want the same? Would there be many sad faces at Apple if Google announced it was killing Android?
There are other reasons to sell some items below cost. A big one is that it builds good will with customers. If they can get a good price on something, they're more likely to come back and buy from you again. They'll even pay a little extra on some things just knowing how much of a good deal they got on the last item.
When it comes to eBooks, Amazon also had another good reason: building a market. There really wasn't much of a market for eBooks before Amazon created one. (Kind of like the iTunes Store and downloaded music.)
And let's face it, $9.99 was one of those sweet spot prices. It's basically $10, but it lacks that extra decimal so it psychologically feels a lot cheaper. Kind of like $0.99 was a sweet spot for digital tracks.
A very well-reasoned unemotional response. Well put sir.
Comments
Okay, colluding may be illegal. Until the DoJ can prove colluding happened and win, I'm not so sure we can say without a doubt that there was colluding. And even if there was?I'm not saying there was?I don't think what the publishers did should be illegal. I mean, look, they were pissed off at Amazon. If they did get together in an underground lair and agreed on a model that made them happy, and Amazon signed their contracts agreeing to the terms, I personally don't see a whole lot of wrongdoing.
And what does the DoJ want to get out of this? If they win they can certainly fine the publishers, but can they actually negotiate the terms for the publishers' content? It's a genuine question actually, I don't know.
For years Apple used their large market market share in digital music to keep the price point at $0.99 per track. Record companies hated that. It's the same thing Amazon was trying to do by using their leverage to keep ebooks at $9.99. It's pot meet kettle. Apple eventually caved to $1.29 but that took years.
For years Apple used their large market market share in digital music to keep the price point at $0.99 per track. Record companies hated that. It's the same thing Amazon was trying to do by using their leverage to keep ebooks at $9.99. It's pot meet kettle. Apple eventually caved to $1.29 but that took years.
That's a tired argument. Apple's caving to $1.29 was also the labels' caving to iTunes Plus, higher quality audio without DRM. Do you think that they loved that? Worth the extra $0.30 if you ask me.
For years Apple used their large market market share in digital music to keep the price point at $0.99 per track. Record companies hated that. It's the same thing Amazon was trying to do by using their leverage to keep ebooks at $9.99. It's pot meet kettle. Apple eventually caved to $1.29 but that took years.
So where was the DoJ suit claiming that the music labels and Amazon colluded in bringing DRM-free music at a higher bit rate to a different store to shut Apple out?
I think you'll find there's basis for the 16 states making these claims and causing the government to investigate this. If there were no facts or evidence, do you think that some of the companies involved would have now already paid fines to settle this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...suit_for_cash/
In replying to BOTH of you, I think the original poster (that both of you replying to) should at least provide a link that back his/her words up. Link to at least one popular book in iBook Store or Amazon or even any other online store that we could compare prices with. Don't you think?
It's not about, "they were doing something bad too."
It's about making a choice: Allow Amazon to kill off all competition in bookselling, which effectively gives them control of the publishers, and who and what gets published and who publishes it, if they are the only place you can sell books. Or, allow a healthy, vibrant publishing and bookselling industry to flourish, so that consumer can choose where to buy books and what they want to read.
The Amazon scenario that the DoJ is myopically supporting, will result in a future with fewer books, fewer voices, fewer viepoints available at higher cost. The agency model leads to a future were the publishing industry thrives and grows and varied and independent voices are heard, and, in the end, lower prices for consumers than you'll get when Amazon controls everything. We've been headed down the Amazon path for a number of years now and the results so far are pretty bleak. How many publishers have to go out of business, merge, or be acquired, before we wake up and see how Amazon is destroying the publishing industry?
So, choose. Choose free speech or choose Amazon controlled speech. But, if we make the wrong choice now, we'll pay for it for a very long time.
its nothing to do with making a choice.
Its about legally penalizing those who break the law. If amazon breaks the law, then they will also be penalized.
Hypothetical situations about what might happen are irrelevant.
Hypothesized reasoning for downsizing, merging and closing down within the publishing industry are also irrelevant.
Its about enforcing the law within the case at hand.
So where was the DoJ suit claiming that the music labels and Amazon colluded in bringing DRM-free music at a higher bit rate to a different store to shut Apple out?
Evidence of collusion?
But Amazon had 90% of market before and ebooks were cheaper. The Apple deal with publishers caused the prices to rise. I'm still unsure of how that was good for customers. Apple broke up the monopoly but it only benefited Apple and publishers like HarperCollins
The publishers have to stay in business and people have to want to write books. That's how it benefitted consumers. If its not profitable for publishers and authors to write books, they simply won't do it. Print books already had razor thin margins and now amazon is selling the books at a price the publisher can't even match on its own website. That is a very big problem. I personally think publishers should pull their books from Amazon and sell their ebooks from their own website. People aren't stupid they'll by the books if they want them regardless of where they are if the price is reasonable.
To those saying why an ebook should cost less....ebooks are easily copied and pirated. Sharing is the same as giving the book away. There is more risk. Plus they don't want to hurt print book business. These things mean that publishers have to factor that into the price. We've all seen what Amazon has done to publishers who refuse to let Amazon set the prices of their own content.
Im not convinced the government has a case against Apple here. Apple has agency pricing for their apps on their app store and has for some time now.
Im not convinced the government has a case against Apple here. Apple has agency pricing for their apps on their app store and has for some time now.
The model has nothing to do with the issue. Agency model is perfectly legal.
Its how the publishers colluded to force amazon into this model that is the issue.
People willing to pay double in price because SJ told them to?
Btw- it is SJ/Apple's insistence of the "?most favored nation? clause that has come under scrutiny by the Justice Department not the "agency model".
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...-book-pricing/
The model has nothing to do with the issue. Agency model is perfectly legal.
Its how the publishers via innocent Apple colluded to force amazon into this model that is the issue.
there I fixed it for you.
Legal experts have said the Justice Department is unlikely to win against Apple, noting that it has a better case against the publishers. According to one antitrust professor, the government will need to show Apple "had some kind of involvement in the original arrangement" to win against Apple.
In others words SJ is dead and cannot testify. He was the one directly negotiating with the publishers. Sound like the publishers are directly tying him to the investigation either truthfully or as a way to slither out of this easily.
there I falsified it for you.
fixed
The only problem I see in the agreements is the clause that price in iBookstore has to be equal to the lowest price the publishers set elswhere (with regards to agency model). Still, as Amazon buys wholesale and has no agency model (or do they?), prices between Amazon and iBookstore may still be different. Publishers don't set the Amazon prices directly, or do they?
Australian article about Amazon's predatory pricing concerns:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/amazon-to-bl...-339335908.htm
Amazon and Apple have both interestingly taken a similar path recently, which the publishers must be somewhat concerned about. That is that both now enable the writers themselves to self-publish through iBooks or the Amazon book store. This should give us more choice as it is easier for a writer to publish.
This has pros and cons to writers and consumers, but a clear looser is the publisher. Perhaps both companies thanks for events that have annoyed or tarnished them.
Happy that you highlight this point, of extreme importance. I take my personal example : I always dreamed of becoming an author, but no publisher would have probably accepted to invest on me. Thanks to Apple, my Book is avalable (for free, just because I decided so, but I could have decided otherwise), and I have achieved my dream.
Printed books will probably disapear, for the most part of it. Publishers try to postpone this (through non attractive ebooks price), but they will ultimately lose this battle. In addition, they will be confronted to the hard issue of redefining their added value in an electronic publishing context (can manage to keep the authors pourcentage as low as it is, for example ? (that low percentage , which was justified by heavy fixed costs of printing, poor selling risks, advertising costs, etc ... Can no longer be used as an excuse in electronic publishing context ...
Apple worked with publishers to make book pricing more expensive.
Prove it.
I think of myself as a consumer, not an Apple apologist, and, frankly, I pay more for ebooks since Apple magnanimously "broke up" that mean old Amazon "monopoly".
Show us invoices, prove it.
its nothing to do with making a choice.
Its about legally penalizing those who break the law. If amazon breaks the law, then they will also be penalized.
Hypothetical situations about what might happen are irrelevant.
Hypothesized reasoning for downsizing, merging and closing down within the publishing industry are also irrelevant.
Its about enforcing the law within the case at hand.
Nonsense. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that all parties charged are "guilty" of the accusations, it's the job of the DoJ to do what's best for the country. Setting up Amazon as the controller of the publishing industry is contrary to the public interest, and ultimately harmful to this country's citizens.
This kind of short-term thinking represents everything that's wrong with this country. Readers might be paying a few dollars more for books, but Amazon's monopoly position in the publishing industry was untenable. Allowing it to continue, which is what the DoJ action seeks to do, will eliminate competition in book retailing, and, as a result, will eventually result in Amazon controlling not only how much we pay for all books, traditional and e-books, but even what gets published.
Fallacy #1: Amazon hasn't show much tendency to really care what books it was selling. You might recall the controversy involving them allowing that independently published eBook about pedophilia. Contrast that with say Apple's refusal to sell an app featuring the works of a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist (which they later reversed after it got widespread media coverage). I bought "The Yoni" from Amazon (print version), which is about the historical use of female genitalia as a sacred symbol. It contains numerous photographs of symbolic representations and outright images of female anatomy. Do you think Apple would allow that book in iTunes?
And regardless, how does that differ from the system we have today? You don't think the publishers are selective in the titles they are willing to publish?
And $9.99 isn't going to last. Remember how overpriced Kindles were when there was no competition in the e-reader market. That's where e-book prices will eventually go if the DoJ succeeds in their effort to install Amazon as a government sanctioned monopoly of the publishing industry, end-to-end.
Fallacy #2: Raising prices isn't Amazon's modus operandi. It never has been. Amazon works on a high volume, low profit system versus Apple's low volume, high profit model.
The Kindle wasn't expensive initially because it had a monopoly on the e-reader market. It was expensive because it was new, the components were expensive, and the fact that Amazon had no way to know whether it would succeed. (Weird, kind of sounds like the initial launch of the iPhone, another product that was "overpriced" originally.)
The people attacking Amazon seem to be stuck on the idea that Amazon wants to kill off all competition. Maybe, but don't other businesses want the same? Would there be many sad faces at Apple if Google announced it was killing Android?
There are other reasons to sell some items below cost. A big one is that it builds good will with customers. If they can get a good price on something, they're more likely to come back and buy from you again. They'll even pay a little extra on some things just knowing how much of a good deal they got on the last item.
When it comes to eBooks, Amazon also had another good reason: building a market. There really wasn't much of a market for eBooks before Amazon created one. (Kind of like the iTunes Store and downloaded music.)
And let's face it, $9.99 was one of those sweet spot prices. It's basically $10, but it lacks that extra decimal so it psychologically feels a lot cheaper. Kind of like $0.99 was a sweet spot for digital tracks.
I think you'll find there's basis for the 16 states making these claims and causing the government to investigate this. If there were no facts or evidence, do you think that some of the companies involved would have now already paid fines to settle this... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...suit_for_cash/
A simple before and after comparison of the before and after average prices should suffice as evidence that what you say is true.
Feel free to present it.
Will those sixteen states take into account the lower prices that resulted from Amazon avoiding paying them sales tax?
Fallacy #1: Amazon hasn't show much tendency to really care what books it was selling. You might recall the controversy involving them allowing that independently published eBook about pedophilia. Contrast that with say Apple's refusal to sell an app featuring the works of a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist (which they later reversed after it got widespread media coverage). I bought "The Yoni" from Amazon (print version), which is about the historical use of female genitalia as a sacred symbol. It contains numerous photographs of symbolic representations and outright images of female anatomy. Do you think Apple would allow that book in iTunes?
And regardless, how does that differ from the system we have today? You don't think the publishers are selective in the titles they are willing to publish?
Fallacy #2: Raising prices isn't Amazon's modus operandi. It never has been. Amazon works on a high volume, low profit system versus Apple's low volume, high profit model.
The Kindle wasn't expensive initially because it had a monopoly on the e-reader market. It was expensive because it was new, the components were expensive, and the fact that Amazon had no way to know whether it would succeed. (Weird, kind of sounds like the initial launch of the iPhone, another product that was "overpriced" originally.)
The people attacking Amazon seem to be stuck on the idea that Amazon wants to kill off all competition. Maybe, but don't other businesses want the same? Would there be many sad faces at Apple if Google announced it was killing Android?
There are other reasons to sell some items below cost. A big one is that it builds good will with customers. If they can get a good price on something, they're more likely to come back and buy from you again. They'll even pay a little extra on some things just knowing how much of a good deal they got on the last item.
When it comes to eBooks, Amazon also had another good reason: building a market. There really wasn't much of a market for eBooks before Amazon created one. (Kind of like the iTunes Store and downloaded music.)
And let's face it, $9.99 was one of those sweet spot prices. It's basically $10, but it lacks that extra decimal so it psychologically feels a lot cheaper. Kind of like $0.99 was a sweet spot for digital tracks.
A very well-reasoned unemotional response. Well put sir.