Senator says Apple e-book suit could destroy publishing industry - Page 2

Apple has individual agreements with anyone who sells anything through iTunes.

Everything follows the same model, music, TV shows, movies, Apps and iBooks.

THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE ON THE OVERALL EFFECT OF APPLE'S ENTRY TO THE eBOOK MARKET ON THE AVERAGE PRICE OF eBOOKS, NONE, ZERO, ZIP.

If Amazon was NOT discounting title's as part of their attempt at price fixing certain titles to create a monopoly, as you contend then what is the fuss about?

YOU

CAN'T

HAVE

YOUR

CAKE

AND

EAT

IT

TOO!

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I mentioned Hugh Howey and his amazing Wool series in my prior post and since the guy is so upfront about what he does and how he does it, I thought I would check his blog as to experiences with Apple.

 

The guy is as nice as can be and as you see the primary discussion is about Nook and how well their website drives people toward new and interesting titles. However he states this about Apple....

 

 

Apple, whom I love to death is clearly not the innovator here. They sound and act like a damn dinosaur. These new authors basically create communities around fans and they smartly take chances with their works. When an author has been interacting with the fans of the works and said fans are clamoring for the new release, no one should have to wait 2 weeks to a month for Apple to wipe their ass and get their content out there. If Amazon has a market advantage, it is because they've been a market innovator. I personally love Kindle Singles and have found more good books to read since I treated myself to my Kindle Touch than I had found in the previous half decade. It is just too simple.

 

Having a device that notes your reading habits and keeps recommending excellent books for $0.99-$4.99 from an array of new and interesting authors is a recipe for success, not failure. It is also the future. I don't give a crap what Senator Schumer wants to say or who he wants to protect. The future is coming and Apple can either jump on or go the way of the other dinosaurs.

You don't wait, you can install the Kindle or Nook Apps and download and read the books.

So how many other bookstores can you install on a kindle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Schumer is clearly not intending to help the little guy with his statements.

It seems that way to you because you are taking the short and narrow view. The end game for Amazon, if the DoJ were successful, would be:

a. no bookseller competition and the ability to raise prices as much as they want,

b. dictated exclusive deals with publishers (they've already started this practice) that keep bookselling competition out of the market, and eventually

c. complete control of the publishing industry, directly (through publishing themselves, which they are doing more and more of) and indirectly, and effectively the sole power to decide what will actually be published and how much they will make us pay for it.

All of those things are bad for "the little guy", and the inevitable result of installing Amazon with a government sanctioned monopoly, which would be the result of the DoJ's actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baka-Dubbs 

 

 

Way to cherry pick your example.  You pulled the top 3 books, which just happen to be paperback books.  So yeah, you can get paperback books at 9.99 currently(or get the physical copies cheaper on amzon.  Why don't you try looking up the hardcover prices and try again, since it is the pricing of new release hardbacks that people are worried about, not the 50 shades of grey trilogy.

How much cheaper?

30c, 40?

Mate if you're that desperate for money go stand on a corner with a cup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 
 

<steaming pile of waffling rubbish>

 

 

 

Apple has individual agreements with anyone who sells anything through iTunes.

 

Everything follows the same model, music, TV shows, movies, Apps and iBooks.

 

THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE ON THE OVERALL EFFECT OF APPLE'S ENTRY TO THE eBOOK MARKET ON THE AVERAGE PRICE OF eBOOKS, NONE, ZERO, ZIP.

 

If Amazon was NOT discounting title's as part of their attempt at price fixing certain titles to create a monopoly, as you contend then what is the fuss about?

 

YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!

First, if you want to continue to have a discussion, you are going to have address points made, not ignore them while screaming in all CAPS to reiterate your point.

Apple does not have the same agreements and model in place for books as they do for other content areas. That is an outright lie. It is your claim so support it. Please prove that Apple follows the agency model whereby the publisher of said content is the only person allowed to determine the price of said content and through fair use, cannot allow anyone to sell at a price less than Apple. Prove the claim or withdraw it.

If Amazon was engaged in predatory actions, then where is the suit against them? Where are the actions against them? It does not follow with regard to your reasoning.

Is this really the face of Apple now? Are we as Apple supporters the guys who want SOPA/PIPA to be the norm? Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Schumer is the face of established media conglomerates trying to shut down and control both free speech and the little guy's access to controlling and selling their own works. Schumer is the face of a government out of control and wanting to take down your speech without due process or concern for your rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

You don't wait, you can install the Kindle or Nook Apps and download and read the books.

 

So how many other bookstores can you install on a kindle?

I don't install the Kindle or Nook apps and download and read the books. I download the Kindle or Nook app. I go to a web browser, be it in Safari on my iPhone or some other browser on a computer. I buy the book. I ask Amazon to deliver it to my Kindle app on my device and then I go to the app, open it and watch it download. That is several steps longer than Apple allows or requires for iBooks whereby I hit a single button and go to the iBookstore.

As for how many other bookstores I can install on my Kindle Touch, the answer is probably zero. I can buy from other sources and install them onto my Kindle though and I can email books to my kindle from other stores and have them wirelessly delivered. People are certainly side-loading other book stores onto the Fire though so I suspect it is more about interest and progress than ill intent. I don't think I've ever read or heard about Kobo or BN submitting their apps for Kindle Touch and having them declined. They appear to prefer to sell their own $79-99 devices instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

It seems that way to you because you are taking the short and narrow view. The end game for Amazon, if the DoJ were successful, would be:

 

a. no bookseller competition and the ability to raise prices as much as they want,

b. dictated exclusive deals with publishers (they've already started this practice) that keep bookselling competition out of the market, and eventually

c. complete control of the publishing industry, directly (through publishing themselves, which they are doing more and more of) and indirectly, and effectively the sole power to decide what will actually be published and how much they will make us pay for it.

 

All of those things are bad for "the little guy", and the inevitable result of installing Amazon with a government sanctioned monopoly, which would be the result of the DoJ's actions.

It has nothing to do with my view. It has to do with the fact that no agency that enforces our laws and protects our rights has seen fit to find problems with what they have done and take action. When you allege someone or some entity is breaking the law or is engaging in predatory actions and none of the affected entities or agencies responsible have taken any action, then the claim is CRAP.

Apple feels like Android is stealing their intellectual property without permission or compensation, they sue. They petition the court. They file patents. They take action.

Apple has in no form or fashion taken any action against Amazon nor have they requested any court, agency or anyone else to take action against Amazon. The publishers have not done so either and all of these are BIG GUYS with deep pockets and plenty of lawyers.

So the claim simply has no merit. The publishers and Apple made their rationales VERY transparent. Apple wanted to protect their 30%. The publishers wanted to keep up the price of hard cover books. They all colluded together to make it happen and Amazon took the hit. The DOJ complaint also makes it clear that Apple pondered a collusion with Amazon whereby they would ask Amazon if they wanted to each keep their market niches and not compete against each other, Apple with music and media, Amazon with books. Apple clearly has a mindset of keeping their 30% and colluding with whoever will agree to whatever crazy conditions it takes to make it happen. It's wrong. It's a change from Apple's past. They need to fix it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

It has nothing to do with my view. It has to do with the fact that no agency that enforces our laws and protects our rights has seen fit to find problems with what they have done and take action. When you allege someone or some entity is breaking the law or is engaging in predatory actions and none of the affected entities or agencies responsible have taken any action, then the claim is CRAP.

So, according to your logic, if you aren't charged with a crime, you haven't committed it. That damage unrecognized does not exist. And, conversely, that if you have been charged you are guilty.

Unfortunately, the wrong person is often charged, and convicted, of a crime they didn't commit, all because the "authorities" are convinced they are right and ignore evidence to the contrary. Criminals walk because they crimes are recognized.

Arguing that Amazon is innocent of past crimes, and will never commit any in the future, because they haven't yet been charged with any tosses rationality out the window.

Couldn't agree with the good Senator more. Because of Amazon, I've had to price my books at no higher than $9.99 because at anything higher, amazon drops from 70% to 35% royalties; without Apple's 70% across the board, amazon would still be paying authors and publishers 35%.  I've put years into most of my dictionaries and find it galling that I have to accept throwaway prices or nothing at all.

Publishers simply can't afford to put books on the shelf because they're being squeezed to death by amazon. 

You might say, screw the publishers…wrong; without them, we're at the mercy of people who self-publish drivel, can't spell and won't copy edit. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


And Apple never set the price of something lower than any competitor could match and got a almost monopolistic stranglehold on a industry? It's okay if Apple does it but God forbid anyone else try it.

First of all, "could" be as bad as Amazon isn't even an argument. Secondly, what "almost monopolistic stranglehold" has Apple ever had on an industry? (Hint, iTunes Music store would be one of many possible incorrect answers, because they don't and never have.) Third, Apple has never engaged in product dumping -- i.e., selling something below cost -- which is exactly what Amazon has been doing with strategic titles, as well as dumping so called "self published" titles, at the expense of the authors.

Apple could do a lot of things. But, they haven't done any of the things you suggest they could do, nor have they ever shown any inclination to do the things you suggest they could do. Amazon, however, has done these things, precisely to get a monopolistic stranglehold on the bookselling and publishing industries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcsegenmd 

Couldn't agree with the good Senator more. Because of Amazon, I've had to price my books at no higher than $9.99 because at anything higher, amazon drops from 70% to 35% royalties; without Apple's 70% across the board, amazon would still be paying authors and publishers 35%.  I've put years into most of my dictionaries and find it galling that I have to accept throwaway prices or nothing at all.

 

Publishers simply can't afford to put books on the shelf because they're being squeezed to death by amazon. 

 

You might say, screw the publishers…wrong; without them, we're at the mercy of people who self-publish drivel, can't spell and won't copy edit. 

Exactly, although, even they will be at the mercy of Amazon, along with the readers, if the DoJ succeeds in this colossally stupid misadventure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elroth 

"Name-calling is for morons..."

Love it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

It has nothing to do with my view. It has to do with the fact that no agency that enforces our laws and protects our rights has seen fit to find problems with what they have done and take action. When you allege someone or some entity is breaking the law or is engaging in predatory actions and none of the affected entities or agencies responsible have taken any action, then the claim is CRAP.

 

So, according to your logic, if you aren't charged with a crime, you haven't committed it. That damage unrecognized does not exist. And, conversely, that if you have been charged you are guilty.

 

Unfortunately, the wrong person is often charged, and convicted, of a crime they didn't commit, all because the "authorities" are convinced they are right and ignore evidence to the contrary. Criminals walk because they crimes are recognized.

 

Arguing that Amazon is innocent of past crimes, and will never commit any in the future, because they haven't yet been charged with any tosses rationality out the window.

I went much further than saying there wasn't anyone being charged with a crime. I said there was no one even claiming to be the victim of a crime. It isn't as if Apple, who certainly isn't shy with a lawsuit, has contended that Amazon has monopoly status and that they would be unable to be competitive in the marketplace. The publishers never claimed this either. The agency model came into place because Apple wanted 30% and the publishers wanted higher e-book prices to prop up hardcover book sales. The claim that Amazon was taking losses and hurting others has been repeated but never proven nor have I even heard anyone mention any claimant.

Aside from repeating the claim, can you find someone, somewhere that declared Amazon was putting them out of the e-book retailing business?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcsegenmd 

Couldn't agree with the good Senator more. Because of Amazon, I've had to price my books at no higher than $9.99 because at anything higher, amazon drops from 70% to 35% royalties; without Apple's 70% across the board, amazon would still be paying authors and publishers 35%.  I've put years into most of my dictionaries and find it galling that I have to accept throwaway prices or nothing at all.

 

Publishers simply can't afford to put books on the shelf because they're being squeezed to death by amazon. 

 

You might say, screw the publishers…wrong; without them, we're at the mercy of people who self-publish drivel, can't spell and won't copy edit. 

I find this claim strange because Hugh Howey specifically notes that the Amazon royalty rate doubles when you get out of the $0.99 area. Of course he is self-published. Amazon's own page on this matter seems to reflect a royalty rate of 70% and shows no upper limit on price.

Barnes & Noble has opposed the settlement and lawsuit on exactly those grounds. Apple and the publishers with the courage to not give in to the DoJ's bullying tactics are fighting the charges on exactly those grounds. And, although you disingenuously tried to limit the scope of your question to e-books (an entirely artificial limitation), Amazon's tactics have clearly affected Borders, in particular, as well as thousands of independent booksellers.

Aside from ignoring all cases where someone has declared that Amazon's practices monopolistic and tending toward eliminating all competition, can you find any evidence, anywhere, that supports your (baseless) assertion that Amazon wasn't exercising monopoly power in bookselling and won't revert to those practices if granted a sanctioned monopoly with government dictated term imposed on publishers?

The bottom line here is that the DoJ is handing Amazon the book industry on a silver platter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

How much cheaper?

 

30c, 40?

 

Mate if you're that desperate for money go stand on a corner with a cup.

Funny, I am an avid reader and will probably go through more books this year than you will in your lifetime(Im being generous in assuming you have picked up a book before).  You do realize (most)paperbacks on amazon are buy 3 get the 4th free?  So essentially there is another 25% discount, on top of the already cheaper price.  What I am saying is that your using paperback books as your arguing point when the point was new release books is invalid.  Instead of ignoring my other point, look up the top selling hardback fiction and compare those prices. 

An lets look at these paperbacks.  Be reasonable here, is there any reason I should be able to buy a new paperback book cheaper than I can buy the same ebook?  There is no printing cost, no warehousing cost, no shipping cost, no overprint costs etc.  Yet, by your argument, that 9.99 for those books is completely reasonable and is a positive result of this "increased competition"?  Yes, I know, they have to keep track of who purchased what and who has the right to download this and that, but that is still far cheaper than the logistics involved in printing books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellacool 


With that crystal ball of yours can you throw out some lottery numbers? Get over it, Amazon only had a monopoly because they were first to the market with a killer product. They never used that position to hurt consumers, they used it too break up the monopoly the publishers had and forced them to abandon their antiquated business model. Apple used his fact to conspire against amazon so they can get their foot in the door and they got caught. This politician, ha, lobbying at its best. The fools that keep spouting off about this supposed monopoly that Amazon will have can only speculate and have zero evidence Amazon will harm consumers, they didn't in the past, why would they now? As for the publishers, get in the 21st century, no on wants physical books anymore. The consumer is rapidly moving to digital. I am glad Amazon dismantled the publishers monopoly and I am glad Apple got burned and it has come to light to show Apple cares about one thing, bottom line. If Amazon having a monopoly means I Payless for eBooks, good. I hope the DOJ slaps he crap out of Apple and the other publishers. Forces them back to being competitive and I can go back to $9.99 new releases. If the publishers don't like it, don't sell eBooks.

You show some narrow mind here.

Plenty of people will continue to buy physical books. The sale of the physical book will not cease for the foreseeable future.

It also seems that you may also have a crystal ball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


http://music-download-review.toptenreviews.com/itunes-review.html
Then define monopolistic. I never said Apple did anything wrong, I actually commend them for pushing for DRM free music, but even that can be a double edged sword and gain them even more market share.

I hardly think that music-download-review.toptenreviews.com can be considered an authoritative source for Apple's share of the digital music market, nor, even assuming an 80% share, does it indicate that Apple a) has a monopoly in digital music, or b) that they are behaving anti-competitively. In fact, record labels often cut special deals with Amazon, where Amazon is offered better terms than Apple. Are you saying that Amazon and the record labels are colluding?

But, more to the point, it's irrelevant to the discussion. What Apple is doing in music has no bearing on what Amazon is doing in books. An argument that "Apple does it too", while wrong in and of itself, a) doesn't make it ok for Amazon to do it and b) it admits that Amazon is in fact engaged in anti-competitive behavior, by your statement that Apple is and your argument that we give them a pass so why not Amazon, which doesn't really advance your overall argument, unless you are suggesting that we should all just turn a blind eye to Amazon's monopoly, like the DoJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

I went much further than saying there wasn't anyone being charged with a crime. I said there was no one even claiming to be the victim of a crime. It isn't as if Apple, who certainly isn't shy with a lawsuit, has contended that Amazon has monopoly status and that they would be unable to be competitive in the marketplace. The publishers never claimed this either. The agency model came into place because Apple wanted 30% and the publishers wanted higher e-book prices to prop up hardcover book sales. The claim that Amazon was taking losses and hurting others has been repeated but never proven nor have I even heard anyone mention any claimant.

 

Aside from repeating the claim, can you find someone, somewhere that declared Amazon was putting them out of the e-book retailing business?

 

 

 

I find this claim strange because Hugh Howey specifically notes that the Amazon royalty rate doubles when you get out of the $0.99 area. Of course he is self-published. Amazon's own page on this matter seems to reflect a royalty rate of 70% and shows no upper limit on price.

What does this bit mean?

"iv. Non-Compliance: If at any time your Digital Book does not meet the requirements for the 70% Royalty Option, the Royalty for the Digital Book will be as provided in the 35% Royalty Option and we can adjust previously reported or paid Royalties based on the 35% Royalty Option."

From your link.

So Amazon can take 65% if they want.

That seems so much fairer than Apple's 30%. /s

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

Aside from repeating the claim, can you find someone, somewhere that declared Amazon was putting them out of the e-book retailing business?

 

Barnes & Noble has opposed the settlement and lawsuit on exactly those grounds. Apple and the publishers with the courage to not give in to the DoJ's bullying tactics are fighting the charges on exactly those grounds. And, although you disingenuously tried to limit the scope of your question to e-books (an entirely artificial limitation), Amazon's tactics have clearly affected Borders, in particular, as well as thousands of independent booksellers.

 

Aside from ignoring all cases where someone has declared that Amazon's practices monopolistic and tending toward eliminating all competition, can you find any evidence, anywhere, that supports your (baseless) assertion that Amazon wasn't exercising monopoly power in bookselling and won't revert to those practices if granted a sanctioned monopoly with government dictated term imposed on publishers?

 

The bottom line here is that the DoJ is handing Amazon the book industry on a silver platter.

Good show and I'll give you half credit for your answer.

B&N simply appears to want the agency model to still be available. They don't dispute the collusion and have in fact, benefited from it seeing how they more than two years late to the e-reader game. However their primary reason in opposing all of this is pretty clear. They endorse the old model, still profit from it and want things to be more expensive and slow down so they can catch up with the change.

Barnes & Nobile warns that such a drastic step will particularly devastate brick-and-mortar stores, relegating them to act as "free advertising and [book] showrooms" that are bound to collapse trying to compete with Amazon's wholesale pricing structure.

So you found a brick and mortar retailer who is having trouble and is showing resistance to becoming an e-tailer. That's honestly better effort than most around here show in attempting to prove your points so good half-credit job! Now have a good read on this as well and see why Uncle Charlie is full of crap. Take a note at these three in particular.

• In case you're wondering how seriously the DOJ is taking this case, the evidence in the complaint includes details of when publishing CEOs called each other and for how long. Yes, the government went and got phone records.
• Apple's US agency deals all took effect on April 3, 2010 with the release of the original iPad.
• Every other major ebook retailer was forced into agency deals within four months, including Amazon. The key provision was Apple's "most favored nation" pricing clause — Eddy Cue told Apple exec Pete Alcorn that "any decent MFN forces the model."

Eddie Cue is mentioned throughout the DOJ complaint and clearly they have call records, emails, etc. from him on these matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

What does this bit mean?

 

"iv. Non-Compliance: If at any time your Digital Book does not meet the requirements for the 70% Royalty Option, the Royalty for the Digital Book will be as provided in the 35% Royalty Option and we can adjust previously reported or paid Royalties based on the 35% Royalty Option."

 

From your link.

 

So Amazon can take 65% if they want.

 

That seems so much fairer than Apple's 30%. /s

The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baka-Dubbs 

 

 

Funny, I am an avid reader and will probably go through more books this year than you will in your lifetime(Im being generous in assuming you have picked up a book before).  You do realize (most)paperbacks on amazon are buy 3 get the 4th free?  So essentially there is another 25% discount, on top of the already cheaper price.  What I am saying is that your using paperback books as your arguing point when the point was new release books is invalid.  Instead of ignoring my other point, look up the top selling hardback fiction and compare those prices. 

 

An lets look at these paperbacks.  Be reasonable here, is there any reason I should be able to buy a new paperback book cheaper than I can buy the same ebook?  There is no printing cost, no warehousing cost, no shipping cost, no overprint costs etc.  Yet, by your argument, that 9.99 for those books is completely reasonable and is a positive result of this "increased competition"?  Yes, I know, they have to keep track of who purchased what and who has the right to download this and that, but that is still far cheaper than the logistics involved in printing books.

You can also get them from a library for free.

The point is this whole DoJ fiasco is based solely on the pricing of "Best Sellers" and the contention of whoever mysteriously raised the complaint behind the scenes, that they would cost more than the $9.99 Amazon was charging at the time.

The top three current best sellers, as decided by the New York Times are $9.99 in the iBooks store.

That is inescapable reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.

So Amazon is price fixing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


Show me once where I referred to "digital downloads". I said they were the largest retailer in music only in a matter of fact context not to support my argument but of course you'd pick that to argue about. I provided a link that says they have a almost 80% market share so prove otherwise. Until then I will do like you and believe whatever I want to.

Hey, be a mate and pop down the Apple store and buy a CD for me.

Oh that's right, Apple only sells digital music.

What percentage of the banana market does Apple hold?

Which is just as relevant as their share of the non-digital music market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

The claim was that Amazon lowered their royalty rate if you went ABOVE a certain price. The reality is Amazon lowers your royalty rate for pricing too low.

 

So Amazon is price fixing.

No. Everything has some cost associated with it. While e-book costs are no where near the cost of physical books, there are still costs in managing, hosting, transmitting them, etc. If you read carefully, you would see that under the 70% option, Amazon charges for the download but with the 35% solution, they do not.

Try it yourself; they pay 70% up to 9.99, dropping it back to 35% at $10, which means I make no more money for a $20 book than for a $10 book, which is infuriating; Apple gives you 70%, regardless of the price