or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ seen as unlikely to win antitrust e-book suit against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DoJ seen as unlikely to win antitrust e-book suit against Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Eric Holder is a clown. I hope that he's out of a job soon.

The clown was Gonzalez. At any rate, the thousands of cases brought forth each year do not all pass Holder's desk for approval. It's called delegation.
post #42 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I think apple wanted the agency model for itself and other ebook sellers but didn't actually cross the line and tell the publishers what to charge. I think the illegal aspect of this case came about when the publishers all met and decided on prices across the board as opposed to coming up with their own prices individually (which I think they did in order to insure solidarity against amazon and none of the parties stabbed each other in the back by offering lower prices than the other parties). If it comes up in the case that Apple even suggested a price point to all parties, then I would definitely change my mind. If it comes out that apple knew what the publishers did but figured that that was their own issue, I'm not sure if I'd have an issue with it.

Yes, it would be one thing if Apple were saying, you can only sell these products for X amount of dollars anywhere. As Apple basically said, "You set the prices, but we get to sell at whatever anyone else gets to sell for. If you say Amazon gets $5 a book, we get $5 a book and our 30% cut," I believe it's a different story. That's much different than the smoke-filled back room scenario that some seem to be painting. It may be interesting to see how this plays out after the companies that have bowed out decide to settle. Quite simply, is there any limitation beyond paying the fines to continuing to use the agency model? The publishers could effectively say, "We're not colluding with anyone over prices, but after all this we've found this pricing structure and the agency model to work for us." Who knows, perhaps they adjust the prices to 11.99 and 13.99 to give the appearance of change while sticking with the agency model.
post #43 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Apple didn't need to strip ebook market share to sell iPads. Didn't you notice that there were several ebook readers available for iPad (including amazon's kindle) at launch? You seem to think that ebooks is some HUGE draw for the iPad and that really is just not the case. And btw, you are the one who appears naive in your posts.

Amazon has not paid 2.5B to developers or to publishers. Maybe iPads are something more to Apple and consumers than an e book device. This whole lawsuit is a joke. It shows that American capitalism is a joke also.
post #44 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dav View Post

wink wink, nod nod, know-what-i-mean?

What the heck are you winking and nodding for? I have about 10,000 songs, probably no more than 500 of which come from iTunes.

The rest are from my CD collection.
post #45 of 109
Apple already 'lost' this case when three of the five publishers agreed to settle. At this point, Apple is just wasting money when it should settle and cut its losses.

Why has it already lost? Holding high prices with the agency model only works if the majority of the market is holding similar prices. As soon as Amazon gets to go back to wholesale with 3 of the world's six largest publishers, it's going to look like one of those logic tests you took in elementary school.

Which of these is not like the others? A) 9.99 B) 9.99 C) 8.99 D) 14.99 E) 8.99 F) 9.99.

Apple must now choose to compete on price or not.

But it's the non-settling publishers I really feel sorry for. They will be stuck on an agency model and competing against Amazon's discounted prices. So when those agency model publishers lower their prices to become more competitive, they must also cut their profit, which is less than what the wholesale folks are getting (wholesale prices remain static when retail prices change up or down, whereas under agency the net price goes up when the retail goes up and the net goes down when the retail goes down).
post #46 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

If it comes up in the case that Apple even suggested a price point to all parties, then I would definitely change my mind.

That's one of the assertions in the DoJ complaint. Apple told the publishers they wanted $12.99, the publishers came back to Apple and said they'd rather shoot for $14.99. In the end Apple agreed they should use $12.99 and 14.99 as the price points. Apparently the only ones involved in setting this up and setting the agreed on prices that would apply to every bookseller were those five publishers and Apple.

I posted this for someone else
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-l...ks-2012-4?op=1

About midway down the page.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

Apple already 'lost' this case when three of the five publishers agreed to settle. At this point, Apple is just wasting money when it should settle and cut its losses.

That makes no sense.

Quote:
Why has it already lost? Holding high prices with the agency model only works if the majority of the market is holding similar prices.

Apple isn't "holding" any price. That's the point of the agency model!

Quote:
As soon as Amazon gets to go back to wholesale with 3 of the world's six largest publishers, it's going to look like one of those logic tests you took in elementary school.

So the settlement of those three publishers including a commitment to never using an agency model?

Quote:
Which of these is not like the others? A) 9.99 B) 9.99 C) 8.99 D) 14.99 E) 8.99 F) 9.99.

i think that's begging the question.

Quote:
Apple must now choose to compete on price or not.

So you've concluded that...
  1. Apple is at fault for allowing an agency model.
  2. Apple is hurting competition by allowing an agency model.
  3. Apple needs to force publishers to have lower prices so Amazon can compete better.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #48 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

Apple already 'lost' this case when three of the five publishers agreed to settle. At this point, Apple is just wasting money when it should settle and cut its losses.

Why has it already lost? Holding high prices with the agency model only works if the majority of the market is holding similar prices. As soon as Amazon gets to go back to wholesale with 3 of the world's six largest publishers, it's going to look like one of those logic tests you took in elementary school.

Which of these is not like the others? A) 9.99 B) 9.99 C) 8.99 D) 14.99 E) 8.99 F) 9.99.

Apple must now choose to compete on price or not.

But it's the non-settling publishers I really feel sorry for. They will be stuck on an agency model and competing against Amazon's discounted prices. So when those agency model publishers lower their prices to become more competitive, they must also cut their profit, which is less than what the wholesale folks are getting (wholesale prices remain static when retail prices change up or down, whereas under agency the net price goes up when the retail goes up and the net goes down when the retail goes down).

This post is nonsense.
1) Agency model doesn't inherently mean higher prices.
2) You assume Apple cares about competing on ebook prices when the revenue from ebooks is peanuts to apple.
3) You also assume publishers (who set the prices!) would get schooled by others on the wholesale model when publishers could simply match those prices (I wouldn't but it is always an option for them)
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #49 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That makes no sense.

I guess I need to spell it out for you. The agency model plan to which Apple agreed made the publishers set the prices and made the publishers guarantee that they would not sell said titles anywhere else for a price less than they sold on Apple iBooks (most-favorite nation clause).

The settlements of the three publishers voided that contract with Apple. It also prohibited the publishers from disallowing retailers to discount. Hence, Apple is now defending a model which is inherently broken.


Quote:
Apple isn't "holding" any price. That's the point of the agency model!

True, and perhaps I should have said that above, in that the agency model allowed the publishers to hold a high price, which in turn allowed Apple to compete with Amazon.


Quote:
So the settlement of those three publishers including a commitment to never using an agency model?

No, but yes. Did it specifically say 'you are banned from the agency model?' No.

But it did say 'you are prohibited from preventing a retailer from discounting.' Well, if the retailer can discount at will, then it isn't an agency model. So while the words agency model weren't specifically used, the main practice that separated agency from wholesale (allowing the retailer to set the final price) is allowed.


Quote:
So you've concluded that...
  1. Apple is at fault for allowing an agency model.
  2. Apple is hurting competition by allowing an agency model.
  3. Apple needs to force publishers to have lower prices so Amazon can compete better.

I concluded no such thing, and I wonder how you implied as much. My conclusion is that Apple, from a business perspective, is defending itself in a lost cause. It's a lost cause because what allowed them to compete with Amazon on price required a majority of the market to agree. Now that that majority has gone away from that model--thanks to the settlement--Apple can't secure a competitive position under the model it is defending.

So why should they continue this fight? Apple is the least culpable in this case. Its ebook business is worth 50 million a year? Antitrust cases can take years. It is worth it to fight?

Now, if they want to defend themselves based on principle, all the power to them. I'm sure some attorneys are very happy.
post #50 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's one of the assertions in the DoJ complaint. Apple told the publishers they wanted $12.99, the publishers came back to Apple and said they'd rather shoot for $14.99. In the end Apple agreed they should use $12.99 and 14.99 as the price points. Apparently the only ones involved in setting this up and setting the agreed on prices that would apply to every bookseller were those five publishers and Apple.

I posted this for someone else
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-l...ks-2012-4?op=1

About midway down the page.

Good link and definitely makes this case a lot more gray than black-and-white. I do find it interesting that Apple suggested a ceiling for prices and not a floor as you (and others) have asserted. With that said, it still doesn't mean Apple has clean hands since it did suggest a price (which was rejected according to your link).
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #51 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

This post is nonsense.
1) Agency model doesn't inherently mean higher prices.

In this case it did.

Quote:
2) You assume Apple cares about competing on ebook prices when the revenue from ebooks is peanuts to apple.

Which is why I think Apple should settle. Why defend something that is peanuts to your business?

Quote:
3) You also assume publishers (who set the prices!) would get schooled by others on the wholesale model when publishers could simply match those prices (I wouldn't but it is always an option for them)

I guess I need to spell this one out, so you can see why the publisher on agency and competing in the Amazon world of wholesale will eventually get screwed.

Publisher A supplies Amazon with ebooks on a wholesale model. Each book has a wholesale price of 9.00 and Amazon sells it for 9.99.

Publisher B is on Agency model. It currently has its comparable titles at $14.99, which means it makes 10.50 and Amazon makes 4.50.

Now that Amazon is aggressively cutting prices on wholesale model titles, this evidenced by the 9.99 price point on the majority of those ebooks, the agency model looks drastically overpriced when compared to the 9.99 titles. So Publisher B drops his price, which he can because he is still on a agency contract. At 9.99, he is now making 7 dollars a copy, while his wholesale buddies at 9.99 are making 9.

And remember, this is based on a $9 dollar wholesale price. In reality, Amazon was losing money on many of those titles, even paying a much as $14 dollars a copy and selling them for 9.99. In that case, publisher B's wholesale buddies are making twice as much on the same price point.

So schooled? Nope. Screwed? Yep.
post #52 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

My conclusion is that Apple, from a business perspective, is defending itself in a lost cause. It's a lost cause because what allowed them to compete with Amazon on price required a majority of the market to agree. Now that that majority has gone away from that model--thanks to the settlement--Apple can't secure a competitive position under the model it is defending

Ignoring all the other crap, you've just stated that the agency model allowed them to compete (despite being able to sell eBooks for a loss just like Amazon if they had chosen to) and that they can't compete with the agency model. Does not compute.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #53 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

I guess I need to spell it out for you. The agency model plan to which Apple agreed made the publishers set the prices and made the publishers guarantee that they would not sell said titles anywhere else for a price less than they sold on Apple iBooks (most-favorite nation clause).

Nope. Apple didn't force the publishers to not allow other retailers to discount. It made a deal where IF a retailer does discount, then Apple can match the price. Guess what? Stores do this all of the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

The settlements of the three publishers voided that contract with Apple. It also prohibited the publishers from disallowing retailers to discount. Hence, Apple is now defending a model which is inherently broken.

Again, nope. It would void agency contracts with other retailers which would need to be renegotiated which doesn't mean an automatic wholesale model (and even if it did, Apple would still have the right to match the price).



Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

True, and perhaps I should have said that above, in that the agency model allowed the publishers to hold a high price, which in turn allowed Apple to compete with Amazon.

You assume that Apple NEEDED to compete with Amazon. I disagree. If you can point me to a link where a huge percentage of iPad buyers purchased it mostly for ereading, I may change my mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

No, but yes. Did it specifically say 'you are banned from the agency model?' No.

But it did say 'you are prohibited from preventing a retailer from discounting.' Well, if the retailer can discount at will, then it isn't an agency model. So while the words agency model weren't specifically used, the main practice that separated agency from wholesale (allowing the retailer to set the final price) is allowed.

Again, this is an issue for the publishers and not Apple.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

I concluded no such thing, and I wonder how you implied as much. My conclusion is that Apple, from a business perspective, is defending itself in a lost cause. It's a lost cause because what allowed them to compete with Amazon on price required a majority of the market to agree. Now that that majority has gone away from that model--thanks to the settlement--Apple can't secure a competitive position under the model it is defending.

So why should they continue this fight? Apple is the least culpable in this case. Its ebook business is worth 50 million a year? Antitrust cases can take years. It is worth it to fight?

Now, if they want to defend themselves based on principle, all the power to them. I'm sure some attorneys are very happy.

You still assume that the publishers MUST go back to the wholesale model which is not true. Each publisher can still insist on the agency model. The difference is that the publishers must establish their prices on their own as opposed to working together.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #54 of 109
Who cares about all this court crap? I would just like to be able to buy books from the iBookStore here in New Zealand but I can't because it's not available to me.

Until then I have to settle with crappy books from Amazon. I want to buy from iBookStore because it's easier as iTunes is my main source of content purchasing.

The same thing goes for TV shows. That's why I download from nefarious places because I can't get the damn shows I want to watch any other way. DVDs are hit and miss as to whether or not they get imported.
post #55 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

You assume that Apple NEEDED to compete with Amazon. I disagree. If you can point me to a link where a huge percentage of iPad buyers purchased it mostly for ereading, I may change my mind.

The conclusion some are making on this point is ridiculous. They are saying that people read books on the iPad so without iBooks and iBookstore the iPad wouldn't sell.

But let's say, for argument sake, that number one use of the iPad is to read eBooks. Not having an iBooks app and iBookstore doesn't change that because there are already plenty of methods for reading books on the iPad so the need to compete with Amazon in order to keep selling iPads is erroneous.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #56 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The conclusion some are making on this point is ridiculous. They are saying that people read books on the iPad so without iBooks and iBookstore the iPad wouldn't sell.

But let's say, for argument sake, that number one use of the iPad is to read eBooks. Not having an iBooks app and iBookstore doesn't change that because there are already plenty of methods for reading books on the iPad so the need to compete with Amazon in order to keep selling iPads is erroneous.

Wholeheartedly agree and have stated this consistently. As I said in another thread, the logic regarding this case is off the rails.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #57 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

You still assume that the publishers MUST go back to the wholesale model which is not true. Each publisher can still insist on the agency model. The difference is that the publishers must establish their prices on their own as opposed to working together.

And if I were one of those publishers, I'd be telling amazon today that I'm happy to sell them all the ebooks they want. . . . at 2x wholesale.
post #58 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Nope. Apple didn't force the publishers to not allow other retailers to discount. It made a deal where IF a retailer does discount, then Apple can match the price. Guess what? Stores do this all of the time.

But those outcomes are different and should not be compared when matching prices under agency vs wholesale. Under an agency model, the percentage cut to the retailer (in this case, 30%) and the percentage to the publisher/distributor/manufacturer (in this case, 70%) remains static. So if the publisher set the price at $1 somewhere else and Apple matches that price, then Apple (on agency) still gets its 30%, or 30 cents.

Under a wholesale model, if the wholesale price is the same between two retailers (let's use $10 for an example) and retailer A discounts the retail price to $9, then retailer B CAN (but is not required) to match that price. The difference is, unlike the agency model where a positive profit is assured when matching prices, under a wholesale model, the price matching retailer must decide whether it also wishes to take a loss. The price matching retailer must decide whether it is advantageous to price match, whereas it is typically a wash when price matching under agency.


Quote:
Again, nope. It would void agency contracts with other retailers which would need to be renegotiated which doesn't mean an automatic wholesale model (and even if it did, Apple would still have the right to match the price).

Not sure what you are saying nope to. The settlement of the three publishers DID void the contracts with Apple. Do you want me to link it? The settlement also returned discounting power to the retailer. Under the agency model, the retailer was not allowed to discount. The final price was placed in the hands of the publishers.

This needs repeating. Under the agency model that was in place, retailers could not discount. Amazon, Apple, B&N, etc could discount titles from said publishers under the agency model. Final price is firmly in the hands of the publishers.


Quote:
You assume that Apple NEEDED to compete with Amazon. I disagree. If you can point me to a link where a huge percentage of iPad buyers purchased it mostly for ereading, I may change my mind.

Apple did and does compete with Amazon, and in the grand scheme of things, this wasn't about books. Apple was smart. It saw what the Kindle would eventually become. It probably didn't worry about the first model Kindles; it worried about the generational line of Kindle products--the Fire and onward. By nullifying the advantage of the early model Kindles, Apple would weaken the advantage of the subsequent line of Kindle models.

Think about it. Kindle had a few advantages on the iPad. One was the store interface, so Apple made its own store. One was the ebook selection, so Apple signed up the publishers. The last, and the biggy, was the price of ebooks sold in the store. Once Apple took that advantage too, then it practically took everything except the price point of the hardware itself.


Quote:
Again, this is an issue for the publishers and not Apple.

It is an issue for Apple if it is required to compete on price. Price on ebooks is one of the advantages Amazon had.


Quote:
You still assume that the publishers MUST go back to the wholesale model which is not true. Each publisher can still insist on the agency model. The difference is that the publishers must establish their prices on their own as opposed to working together.

The publishers who settled MUST go back to a wholesale model. Once a retailer can freely discount, the power to set a firm price is removed from the publisher, and it is no longer an agency model. Whether Apple abides by the suggested price is irrelevant; it has the option to discount. Hence, it is a wholesale model. Just because you call it agency or allow the publisher to set the price does not make it agency. What defines a model is who sets the final, firm price. The settlement requires publishers to allow retailers to discount, thus the final price is in the hands of the retailer.
post #59 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Ignoring all the other crap, you've just stated that the agency model allowed them to compete (despite being able to sell eBooks for a loss just like Amazon if they had chosen to) and that they can't compete with the agency model. Does not compute.

Allow me to clarify.

You are a publisher who now must allow retailers to discount. You sell to Amazon on a wholesale basis. Your product has a wholesale static dollar amount attached to it. For our example, let's say it is $12 per ebook (Amazon's cost). We'll also go ahead and assume Amazon is making a profit on each book--just for this example.

Apple is another retailer that sells your books, but Apple sells on an agency model.

Amazon prices their book at 12.99, thus making 99 cents profit, while Apple matches the price.

Under the agency price match, if the 30/70 split is firm, you the publisher are going to make only 9.10 on a 12.99 ebook. Are you going to be happy with this, or are you going to ask Apple to pay the $12?

Another option, which I doubt Apple would go for, is for you to ask Apple to raise the price until your dollar amount cut is identical to Amazon's wholesale price. In that case, the ebook price would need to be around $17. The consumer is probably going to buy the 12.99 book when presented with those option.

And even another option is to ask Apple to lower its percentage take. Think they will?

So when placing a wholesale model against a 30/70 agency model, the agency model retailer or publisher is going to get shafted. And once Amazon catches wind that another company is paying less per ebook, it will also demand the same price, in which case the price goes down even more.

That is why I say agency is not very compatible with wholesale on the same product at different retailers.
post #60 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

But those outcomes are different and should not be compared when matching prices under agency vs wholesale. Under an agency model, the percentage cut to the retailer (in this case, 30%) and the percentage to the publisher/distributor/manufacturer (in this case, 70%) remains static. So if the publisher set the price at $1 somewhere else and Apple matches that price, then Apple (on agency) still gets its 30%, or 30 cents.

Under a wholesale model, if the wholesale price is the same between two retailers (let's use $10 for an example) and retailer A discounts the retail price to $9, then retailer B CAN (but is not required) to match that price. The difference is, unlike the agency model where a positive profit is assured when matching prices, under a wholesale model, the price matching retailer must decide whether it also wishes to take a loss. The price matching retailer must decide whether it is advantageous to price match, whereas it is typically a wash when price matching under agency.

Not sure what you are saying nope to. The settlement of the three publishers DID void the contracts with Apple. Do you want me to link it? The settlement also returned discounting power to the retailer. Under the agency model, the retailer was not allowed to discount. The final price was placed in the hands of the publishers.

This needs repeating. Under the agency model that was in place, retailers could not discount. Amazon, Apple, B&N, etc could discount titles from said publishers under the agency model. Final price is firmly in the hands of the publishers.

Yes. I actually would like a link. It makes no sense to dissolve Apple's contract and not Amazon's contract. And if BOTH contracts were dissolved, the prior contract with Amazon doesn't automatically go into place AFAIK.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

Apple did and does compete with Amazon, and in the grand scheme of things, this wasn't about books. Apple was smart. It saw what the Kindle would eventually become. It probably didn't worry about the first model Kindles; it worried about the generational line of Kindle products--the Fire and onward. By nullifying the advantage of the early model Kindles, Apple would weaken the advantage of the subsequent line of Kindle models.

Think about it. Kindle had a few advantages on the iPad. One was the store interface, so Apple made its own store. One was the ebook selection, so Apple signed up the publishers. The last, and the biggy, was the price of ebooks sold in the store. Once Apple took that advantage too, then it practically took everything except the price point of the hardware itself.

Errr, Apple had a store loooong before the Kindle. Also, Apple would not need to compete on content price since: 1) it already did in music (and lost!) but still sold more, 2) ebooks wasn't/isn't a big selling factor for the iPad (again, if you or anybody else presents a link that says that consumers purchased an iPad mostly for ereading, I may change my position), 3) the Fire doesn't even share the same NAME as the kindle much less any branding, 4) you overlook that kindle and other ereader apps were available


Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

It is an issue for Apple if it is required to compete on price. Price on ebooks is one of the advantages Amazon had.

See above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

The publishers who settled MUST go back to a wholesale model. Once a retailer can freely discount, the power to set a firm price is removed from the publisher, and it is no longer an agency model. Whether Apple abides by the suggested price is irrelevant; it has the option to discount. Hence, it is a wholesale model. Just because you call it agency or allow the publisher to set the price does not make it agency. What defines a model is who sets the final, firm price. The settlement requires publishers to allow retailers to discount, thus the final price is in the hands of the retailer.

And that changes things how? Amazon discounts and then Apple does as well (or doesn't). Who cares? Apple isn't making sure that the lights stay on due to ebook prices.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #61 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

Allow me to clarify.

You are a publisher who now must allow retailers to discount. You sell to Amazon on a wholesale basis. Your product has a wholesale static dollar amount attached to it. For our example, let's say it is $12 per ebook (Amazon's cost). We'll also go ahead and assume Amazon is making a profit on each book--just for this example.

The publisher is allowed to set sell price on a per distributor basis. Again, I'd sell to amazon at 2x wholesale and see if they can match iBook prices. Turnabout is fair play.
post #62 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Yes. I actually would like a link. It makes no sense to dissolve Apple's contract and not Amazon's contract. And if BOTH contracts were dissolved, the prior contract with Amazon doesn't automatically go into place AFAIK.

This link has a breakdown plus the actual pdf of the settlement terms. http://blog-admin.wired.com/epicente...tlement-ebook/


Quote:
Errr, Apple had a store loooong before the Kindle. Also, Apple would not need to compete on content price since: 1) it already did in music (and lost!) but still sold more, 2) ebooks wasn't/isn't a big selling factor for the iPad (again, if you or anybody else presents a link that says that consumers purchased an iPad mostly for ereading, I may change my position), 3) the Fire doesn't even share the same NAME as the kindle much less any branding, 4) you overlook that kindle and other ereader apps were available

Apple did not have the iBookstore before the Kindle. The Kindle came out in 2007, and the iBookstore opened in early 2010. And as I mentioned, this wasn't about books. Apple makes money on hardware. Amazon was a potential competitor to Apple in the hardware market. One way to nullify competitive advantage is to provide identical services as your competitor. And no, I didn't overlook the Kindle App. In fact, allowing the Kindle App was another way to nullify the benefits of the Kindle. "Hey, look, my hardware does what theirs does."


Quote:
And that changes things how? Amazon discounts and then Apple does as well (or doesn't). Who cares? Apple isn't making sure that the lights stay on due to ebook prices.

It changes things because Apple, if it must go to a wholesale model, may have to take losses, which, according to reports, it did not want to get into a price war with Amazon.
post #63 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

The publisher is allowed to set sell price on a per distributor basis. Again, I'd sell to amazon at 2x wholesale and see if they can match iBook prices. Turnabout is fair play.

See Robinson-Patman Act.
post #64 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

This link has a breakdown plus the actual pdf of the settlement terms. http://blog-admin.wired.com/epicente...tlement-ebook/




Apple did not have the iBookstore before the Kindle. The Kindle came out in 2007, and the iBookstore opened in early 2010. And as I mentioned, this wasn't about books. Apple makes money on hardware. Amazon was a potential competitor to Apple in the hardware market. One way to nullify competitive advantage is to provide identical services as your competitor. And no, I didn't overlook the Kindle App. In fact, allowing the Kindle App was another way to nullify the benefits of the Kindle. "Hey, look, my hardware does what theirs does."




It changes things because Apple, if it must go to a wholesale model, may have to take losses, which, according to reports, it did not want to get into a price war with Amazon.

1) Thanks! So basically the settled publishers must nullify ALL contracts and start anew with wholesale model. Well, if the pricing results in the way you propose, I will change my mind when iPad sales drop (which I doubt).
2) You said store and not iBookstore. Apple had a store for music looong before the Kindle and selling ebooks is simply a natural extension of the music and app store.
3) Losses on content would be MUCH less than losses on hardware so I don't see where Apple is at some BIG disadvantage
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #65 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

1) Thanks! So basically the settled publishers must nullify ALL contracts and start anew with wholesale model. Well, if the pricing results in the way you propose, I will change my mind when iPad sales drop (which I doubt).
2) You said store and not iBookstore. Apple had a store for music looong before the Kindle and selling ebooks is simply a natural extension of the music and app store.
3) Losses on content would be MUCH less than losses on hardware so I don't see where Apple is at some BIG disadvantage

Just to address #3. That's why I think Apple should just settle this case. Get it over with. Finish it. Put it behind them. It won't get its money back from the costs of a successful defense. And as another poster linked, you don't want the DoJ snooping around your other businesses.

Other than principle, I see no reason to drag this out when there is no guarantee Apple will win. Ebook sales are a drop in the bucket for Apple. Plus it has already lost half of its contracts with the major publishers. What is it trying to save? Even if it wins, those settlements are still in play.
post #66 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

Just to address #3. That's why I think Apple should just settle this case. Get it over with. Finish it. Put it behind them. It won't get its money back from the costs of a successful defense. And as another poster linked, you don't want the DoJ snooping around your other businesses.

Other than principle, I see no reason to drag this out when there is no guarantee Apple will win. Ebook sales are a drop in the bucket for Apple. Plus it has already lost half of its contracts with the major publishers. What is it trying to save? Even if it wins, those settlements are still in play.

True and you have been consistent in that position.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #67 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm View Post

See Robinson-Patman Act.

Is a book a commodity in that same sense? Being a copy of a single work with ownership retained by the author/publisher. It seems that amazon was the party attempting to commoditize and the publishers gaining a distribution competitor to add competition in the marketplace. Seems odd that this act could be used to prevent competition.

If this applies, I'll change my stance. Publishers should just not sign agreements with amazon. Is there an act that says they have to if they deem it destructive to their business?
post #68 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Is a book a commodity in that same sense? Being a copy of a single work with ownership retained by the author/publisher. It seems that amazon was the party attempting to commoditize and the publishers gaining a distribution competitor to add competition in the marketplace. Seems odd that this act could be used to prevent competition.

If this applies, I'll change my stance. Publishers should just not sign agreements with amazon. Is there an act that says they have to if they deem it destructive to their business?

Under the current case, it would seem as such (that ebooks fall under the definition of a typical commodity item).

As for your second take. Yes, a manufacturer is free to decide with whom it wishes to do business. But that goes both ways.

You have to look at the bigger picture, and it harks back to the collusion case. Ebooks are a smaller piece of the publishing landscape (most estimates have it below 20%). You still have that other 80%, which is print, and Amazon is a massive market for those titles (estimates give it near 40-60% of the total publishing retail market). If an individual publisher took on Amazon, Amazon could then kill 40-60% of their business overnight by pulling print titles.

According to the allegations, publishers wanted the agency model because it allowed them to price their ebooks higher, which in turn protected print sales. You see, print distribution is what the large publishers have as their ace card. Everything else they do can be outsourced (editing, marketing, contracts), but not everyone can get their print titles into a brick and mortar bookstore. Kill a publishers hold on print distribution, by killing brick and mortar bookstores, and you kill the publishers' business model.

A publisher removing ebooks, which could make Amazon remove print books of that publisher, is exactly what they fought against. It takes a different path, but it in essence has the same effect; it kills print.
post #69 of 109
"Unlikely," huh?

I'd say the fact that three of the five publishers just folded like cheap tissue paper makes a win extremely "likely." Cute attempt to put some spin on it though, AI.
post #70 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

If you don't think SJ and Apple wanted to strip eBook market share from Amazon in order to sell iPads than you're too naive for the internet. You think Apple was not active in the eBook negotiations and was just going by what the publishers wanted when SJ was flying back and forth to NY meeting with publisher after publisher?
If you believe that then I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Look the general consensus all over the web is that Apple is guilty, so lets just hang them now and get a judge to stamp the paperwork later, ok?

Better than waiting for that pesky justice system.*







*Warning the above post may contain traces of sarcasm which may have an adverse effect on some individuals.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #71 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dav View Post

wink wink, nod nod, know-what-i-mean?


Say no more
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #72 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

""The government will have to show that Apple had some kind of involvement in the original arrangement,."

I am pretty sure the Anti-trust division of justice knows what the law is and probably has some evidence of this.

You seem to know more than some of the foremost legal brains perhaps Apple should engage you to fight their case.
post #73 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Good link and definitely makes this case a lot more gray than black-and-white. I do find it interesting that Apple suggested a ceiling for prices and not a floor as you (and others) have asserted. With that said, it still doesn't mean Apple has clean hands since it did suggest a price (which was rejected according to your link).

In essence the ceiling is the floor in this case and reportedly by intent. That's included in the DoJ assertions. I think it's in the last couple of paragraphs in the earlier link.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 109
DOJ is over reaching.

AAPL did not collude to fix pricing. What they did do is fracture Amazons near monopoly on e books. Amazon adopted a predatory pricing policy in which e book prices were set at or in some cases below Amazons cost. Pricing that was significantly below traditional book store pricing which is a critical part of a publishers business model.

Typically, in this situation, a business would refuse to sell to a retailer who priced at a level that was destructive to the business model. However, Amazons dominate position on e books gave publishers limited options. If a Publisher wanted access to the e book distribution channel, accept Amazon's pricing model and their discounting or be barred from the e book market.

AAPL, through the agency model, returned pricing power to the individual publishers. Keep in mind publishers each have unique products. Stephen King, Dean Koontz Tom Clancy, etc. Now each publisher can dictate the e book pricing for its unique products through the setting of list price for hardcover.

What AAPL did was to collude with publishers to break Amazons near monopoly on the retail sale of e books. The fact that Amazon choose to set low pricing for all books, regardless of market demand, that saved consumers money is probably not relevant. Reverse the situation, say Amazon was trying to maximize profits on e books and charged e book users a huge premium. Everyone does the exact same thing to implement the agency model but the net result is AAPL entered the e book market and prices fall.

The question is:

Are publishers allowed to collude to create alternatives for distribution on e books?

Are publishers allowed to collude to wrest pricing control back to each individual publisher?

Publishers still compete on price and quality of content. As for the most favored nations pricing, this eliminated Amazons opportunity to strong arm publishers to reduce the commission rate which would have allowed Amazon to continue with a predatory pricing strategy and force new e book retailer entrants to either lose money or not enter the e book market.

I have read the entire settlement. My question is does this DOJ agreement implicitly REQUIRE publishers who are party to the agreement to sell to Amazon? Publishers may be better off selling to AAPL under the wholesale model, count on AAPL to not discount, and deny product to Amazon.
post #75 of 109
**********

The five publishers and Apple hatched an arrangement that lifted the price of many best-selling e-books to $12.99 or $14.99, according to the suit. The publishers then banded together to impose that model on Amazon, the government alleged.

"As a result of this alleged conspiracy, we believe that consumers paid millions of dollars more for some of the most popular titles," said Attorney General Eric Holder.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...054615152.html

**********

WTF ... that is some seriously flaw reasoning. So it is OKAY for Amazon to offer steep discounts to undermine original publishers' prices and that drove consumers to buy books from Amazon instead of other websites or bookstores??? The larger pictures here could partially explain the downfall of Borders and perhaps even B&N.

Apple and the five publishers gathered to form an alliance to keep their prices from falling. That is wrong? DOJ might as well start suing all internet based companies because sooner or later they will see more of this type of business alliance.

DOJ....do you effing job right...this is a waste of everyone's time. Although, I bet Amazon is enjoying this stun.
post #76 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpw824804 View Post


Typically, in this situation, a business would refuse to sell to a retailer who priced at a level that was destructive to the business model. However, Amazons dominate position on e books gave publishers limited options. If a Publisher wanted access to the e book distribution channel, accept Amazon's pricing model and their discounting or be barred from the e book market.

I have read the entire settlement. My question is does this DOJ agreement implicitly REQUIRE publishers who are party to the agreement to sell to Amazon? Publishers may be better off selling to AAPL under the wholesale model, count on AAPL to not discount, and deny product to Amazon.

Your first paragraph details a position that occurred when the ebook market was less than 5% of the entire publishing landscape. Now that ebooks are 20% of the publishing landscape, do you think the publishers would take that hit and deny product to Amazon, although they appeared to fear that outcome in a smaller market?

Also, the settlement terms prevent retaliation against a retailer for said retailers pricing strategy. Do you think a publisher disallowing Amazon to sell its products would fall under retaliation?
post #77 of 109
The e book market was growing and a publisher could not afford to ignore this distribution channel. Amazon had 90% market share three years ago in a distribution channel growing triple digits. Amazon was ensuring this dominace by making it unprofitable for new entrants. Look at the price war in books between Walmart and Amazon.

The DOJ agreement stated they must cancel the existing agency contract with e book retailers and avoid any future agency model for two years. They are also forbidden to retaliate against any e book retailer for discounting. But nothing in the DOJ agreement mandated they must sell their product to anyone or spefically Amazon. Is not entering into an agreement with a retailer "retaliation"?
post #78 of 109
It is no secret publishers are pissed about Amazon's steep discounts. It completely undermines the same books sold else where, online and otherwise.

I think part of the problem is publishers need to man-up, either boycott Amazon or shut up. I work in publishing, and in twenty years of doing this, I have never seen such a lack of direction and leadership.
post #79 of 109
In addition, AAPL is now in the market and Amazon is down to 60% share. There is now a viable alternative to Amazon.

This is not about profits to the publishers. They made more money under the wholesale model than retail once you take sales tax (paid at 100% retail by the publisher) and commissions paid on gross publisher sales to the authors. The issue was whoring the price to make the paper book market decline at a faster rate due to an artificially high differential between e books and paper by Amazon operating below cost on the most popular books.
post #80 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpw824804 View Post

Is not entering into an agreement with a retailer "retaliation"?

Good question, but I'd have to respond with another question.

What is your (you being the publisher) reason for not allowing your books to be sold in the largest marketplace in the world for your product?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ seen as unlikely to win antitrust e-book suit against Apple