Originally Posted by jragosta
I can tell you don't know anything about business.
Name a single great product that was designed by teams from different companies. It doesn't work. Amazon would insist on their clunky way of doing things and Apple would not be able to design it properly. AT BEST, you'd have a color Kindle, but you'd never have something with the integrated design elegance of the iPad.
Then you don't know what you're talking about either. Apple doesn't design everything that goes into their products either. Really not any different of a situation. And it's a bit like the iPhones Maps app that is written by Apple but powered mostly by Google.
As for Amazon's monopoly being great for consumers, that's absurd. Amazon was keeping prices artificially low to stave off competition. In the long run, it would have either stifled innovation or caused the market to be unprofitable, causing everyone to lose interest. Competition is what drives innovation.
*cough* iPod *cough*
So the iPod's near-monopoly on mp3 players is stifling innovation? Thanks for clearing that up.
And keeping prices artificially low is exactly what Apple has reportedly tried to do with TV shows. I remember articles on this site saying that Apple was trying to negotiate for 99 cent shows. How many competitors do you think that would have driven out of the business, like say Amazon's Unbox/On Demand service?
I'm getting really tired of this 'higher prices for the consumer' crap. Macmillan's proposal was to LOWER some prices and raise others. As near as you can tell from their press release, only the latest best sellers would have the higher price and the higher volume of books would be cheaper.
And didn't we hear that same line of reasoning about variable pricing for music tracks? Go to iTunes and find 10 songs selling for 69 cents that you'd actually want to own. Then find 10 tracks for 69 cents that you know 10 other people would like to own. Everything popular is sitting at either 99 cents or $1.29. That won't be any different for eBooks.
More importantly, under the new pricing, the publishers and authors get to keep the majority of the price rather than Amazon keeping 70%. When Amazon keeps twice as much as the publishers and authors, what's the incentive for them to create new work and make it available on that format?
There's the fact publishers/authors were making additional money for pretty much no additional work. If the publishers weren't making money, do you think they would have agreed to that 70/30 split?
Likewise, Amazon as a major retailer might be knowledgeable about the price people are willing to pay for products. The 99 cent price for music tracks was said to be the "magic number" because it gave the illusion of it being less than $1.00. Just the same as $9.99 skirting right below the double-digit $10.00 price. They could well have solid data that just that 1 cent difference makes a huge difference in how much a product sells, let alone jumping from $9.99 to $13.99 or more.
And this case is even worse. It's going to be a fairly large percentage increase in price. How much do you think sales are going to drop when prices jump 40% or more? If they drop enough, Amazon might be forced out of the eBook business bringing us closer to an eBook monopoly that you've already said is a bad thing.
Or is a monopoly only a bad thing when it's not an Apple monopoly?