or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's loss in e-book antitrust case likely to give advantage to Amazon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's loss in e-book antitrust case likely to give advantage to Amazon

post #1 of 85
Thread Starter 
The big winner in the U.S. government's antitrust victory over Apple is Amazon, experts say, as the online retailer will now be able to price e-books however it wants.

DOJ


While Amazon is already the e-book market leader, the company will be able to continue its aggressive pricing strategy to gain further market share, market watchers who spoke with Bloomberg said. Some even believe the ruling could affect Apple in areas other than the e-book market.

"Any Financial penalty is pocket change for Apple, but this decision can have a long-term effect," said David Balto, former policy director for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. "The government can extend this beyond books."

For her part, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who handed down the ruling on Wednesday, said her decision was based solely on events that occurred as Apple entered the e-book market. The judge said she does not "seek to paint with a broader brush."

The main issue for Apple in the trial was the fact that Amazon's low-price business model favors consumers, while antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers. Amazon sells titles under the so-called "wholesale model," which gives the retailer the power to set its own prices, sometimes at or below cost.

Book sellers opposed Amazon's use of the wholesale model, because it undercut their ability to have pricing parity with other e-book platforms, or even physical books. For that reason, they aligned with Apple to switch to the "agency" pricing model, which let them set their own prices ? a move that brought on antitrust scrutiny from the U.S. government.

Major publishers opted to settle with the government out of court rather than fight the antitrust case, but Apple decided to hold out and go to trial. After Wednesday's ruling, the company vowed to continue the fight and appeal Cote's decision.

Apple has much to gain by pushing forward in spite of the setback, according to Reuters. In particular, Apple may wish to preserve its negotiating leverage for future content deals, especially in its ongoing talks with Hollywood studios and record companies.

According to the report, Apple's current discussions have been inspired by "aggressive forays" into the digital music and movie markets by competitors Google and Amazon. While Amazon is the market leader for e-books, Apple's iTunes remains the go-to destination for buying digital music, movies and TV shows.
post #2 of 85
Apple can do the same can't they? I don't thin k the government was trying to restrict Apple's price options. They certainly have a huge advantage from a revenue standpoint and can easily afford to price match Amazon.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 85

Why can't Apple just mimic the strategy of Amazon and keep the price as same as Amazon? I believe people will come to Apple even if it same as Amazon price.

post #4 of 85
Whether or not Apple is guilty, the Justice department really must go after Amazon now. It's abusing both it's (near) monopoly status and it's ability to sell below cost to (a) drive other retailers out of business, and (b) reduce the value of books to the point that no publisher will be able to support serious authors (i.e. that don't sell in sufficient quantity). While the pricing may appear consumer friendly in the short term, this is not consumer or author friendly in the medium-long term.
post #5 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's loss in e-book antitrust case likely to give advantage to Amazon

 

 

 

In all honesty though, I will simply buy eBooks from whoever has them the cheapest.

post #6 of 85
Considering that Apple is appealing the decision and it's quite possible that it will be reversed on appeal, this article is currently just guesswork.
post #7 of 85
From what I read, the book publishers messed up with their inititial pricing model with Amazon and Apple was just trying to create an even playing field in which there were decent profits for all parties concerned.

The emails that I read written by Jobs were more of giving the book publishers some viable methods of achieving that.

There is NOTHING wrong with companies having a reasonable profit margin and for companies to be priced competitively. If they all get essentially the same pricing and there is a decent profit margin, each reseller does have the final decision on whether or not they want to offer discounting.

I don't know of too many businesses that don't have a suggested retail price and then they let the resellers sell them at whatever they want, but mfg can limit whether or not companies can advertise pricing. Some companies won't allow resellers to publish pricing or even sell certain products on-line or through mail order.

I think this case was decided improperly. This was, in my opinion, just a way for the Feds to force a settlement and going after Apple since they are jealous that Apple has more cash than they do.

I think the Feds need to go after Samsung's business practices as that is threatening more jobs in the US. Samsung makes components for most of the tablet and smartphone industry and they compete with their own component customers. To me, that's conflict of interest.

I think they should be investigated if anyone.

Plus I think Google should be investigated in light of the latest security issues. They are finding that their Android OS since 1.6 release has a security flaw. And they are just finding out about this now? I'm wondering how long Google has known about this and what they are planning on doing about it. Some phones can't be updated with the latest OS so what's Google planning on doing? Haven't heard a peep about it. Does Google think that if they don't mention anything that it will just go away?
post #8 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattBookAir View Post

Whether or not Apple is guilty, the Justice department really must go after Amazon now. It's abusing both it's (near) monopoly status and it's ability to sell below cost to (a) drive other retailers out of business, and (b) reduce the value of books to the point that no publisher will be able to support serious authors (i.e. that don't sell in sufficient quantity). While the pricing may appear consumer friendly in the short term, this is not consumer or author friendly in the medium-long term.

 



Distributing e-books costs next to nothing.

But I agree on the point, that the justice department should keep an eye on Amazon, to prevent them from having a full monopoly.

post #9 of 85

Time for Apple to introduce $2.99 eBooks and see how long Amazon can match that price.

 

When Amazon can't produce the profits Wall Street is anticipating they will implode.

 

As far as other competitors in the eBook market go, the DoJ and this judge have basically said "F*ck 'em".

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 #10 of 85
This case stinks of lobbyists. Amazon is spending money hand over fist on lobbying the government and apparently buying judges. No one following the case thought that the DOJ met their burden of proof and even the judge had to moderate her comments. Guess Amazon came thru with another payment just in time for the formal decision because it was another 180 change in course.

Apple should just shrug this one off and move on to the appeals court. Pre-trial we all thought Apple would get a raw deal but with the defense lighting up DOJ witnesses we felt false hope. It seems now more than ever the outcome of this trial was pre-determined and the trial itself was just going thru the motions.

It will be interesting while this is on appeal what if anything will change however. The book labels already changed pricing structure with Amazon and I honestly don't expect much to change in the short to medium term unless Apple faces further defeats in the appeals court.

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply
post #11 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaot View Post

Distributing e-books costs next to nothing.

But I agree on the point, that the justice department should keep an eye on Amazon, to prevent them from having a full monopoly.

Distributing, yes.  Creating/marketing books is (can be) very expensive.

 

It's funny that we talk about "books" are if they are a commodity product like wheat or oil.  Especially for books from established authors, every book is to some extent a monopoly unto itself.  It's not like someone would say "Oh, publisher X is selling the series finale Game of Thrones book for $25, but publisher Y is selling the next Twilight book for $23.99, guess I'll snap up that sparkly vampire book."  So publishers will also have some degree of market power.  If one thinks that they aren't getting enough money at the wholesale market and they have books people want they can raise their prices.  Let Amazon sell it for $10 and take a loss if they want.

post #12 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Time for Apple to introduce $2.99 eBooks and see how long Amazon can match that price.

 

When Amazon can't produce the profits Wall Street is anticipating they will implode.

 

As far as other competitors in the eBook market go, the DoJ and this judge have basically said "F*ck 'em".

 

It would be interesting to see what happened.  Would Amazon go crying to DoJ about it?

post #13 of 85
"For that reason, they aligned with Apple to switch to the "agency" pricing model, which let them set their own prices %u2014 a move that brought on antitrust scrutiny from the U.S. government."

NO NO NO NO NO!

That is NOT what "brought on antitrust scrutiny".

What "brought on antitrust scrutiny" was that Apple ALSO got the companies to agree to *raise* prices on Amazon. Price fixing is illegal, and when multiple parties agree to do something illegal that's a conspiracy. THAT is what this court case is about.
post #14 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattBookAir View Post

Whether or not Apple is guilty, the Justice department really must go after Amazon now. It's abusing both it's (near) monopoly status and it's ability to sell below cost to (a) drive other retailers out of business, and (b) reduce the value of books to the point that no publisher will be able to support serious authors (i.e. that don't sell in sufficient quantity). While the pricing may appear consumer friendly in the short term, this is not consumer or author friendly in the medium-long term.

Amazon has already entered the market as a publisher by bidding for new manuscripts. Initially, Amazon will beat out the traditional publishing houses and once they're on their knees, Amazon will bid at lower prices and win because the publishing houses will simply downsize and survive on re-runs and copyrighted material.

post #15 of 85

The American Justice System: Creating monopolies, making corporations people, and selecting our presidents since 2000 and beyond.

post #16 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaot View Post

Distributing e-books costs next to nothing.

But I agree on the point, that the justice department should keep an eye on Amazon, to prevent them from having a full monopoly.

Because the only costs involved with ebooks is the distribution costs, right? It's not like the authors need to get paid, or there are marketing costs, or editing costs, or paying the people who create the ebook version, etc, right?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Time for Apple to introduce $2.99 eBooks and see how long Amazon can match that price.

 

When Amazon can't produce the profits Wall Street is anticipating they will implode.

 

As far as other competitors in the eBook market go, the DoJ and this judge have basically said "F*ck 'em".

Yeah the funny part is that if they did such a "pro-consumer" move they'd be sued for anti-competitive price dumping.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post

What "brought on antitrust scrutiny" was that Apple ALSO got the companies to agree to *raise* prices on Amazon. Price fixing is illegal, and when multiple parties agree to do something illegal that's a conspiracy. THAT is what this court case is about.
Care to cite exactly where Apple did such a thing? Amazon could have easily told the publishers to take a hike when it came to accepting the agency model. Easily leveraging their huge market share in bookselling to make them bend to their will. Amazon was not some small-time player with no leverage.
post #17 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The big winner in the U.S. government's antitrust victory over Apple is Amazon, experts say, as the online retailer will now be able to price e-books however it wants.

 

Wasn't that the plan all along?  :shrug:

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #18 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

 

In all honesty though, I will simply buy eBooks from whoever has them the cheapest.

 

Which is precisely why iPhones are made in China and not the U.S. Same goes for textiles and every other consumer item, as well as industrial products. "Cheapest" trumps ethics, morals,  and social justice. Just ask any American consumer.

post #19 of 85

"The judge said she does not 'seek to paint with a broader brush.'"

 

What this really means is... I am going to ignore all the things Amazon did to destroy the market and put competitors out of business by undercutting prices... Instead I'm only going to look at prices just before Apple entered the market, and then prices after they entered the market.

 

Basically she's using a very finite period in time to determine whether prices "Went up". The fact is, Amazon unfairly drove prices down over the course of several years as they gained their monopoly position. This is unfair and anti-competitive to businesses that cannot sustain themselves if they have to match Amazon's prices. There have been many, many other companies sued by the DOJ for doing just that.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #20 of 85
"Anti trust" is not only about price, it's also about competition. If AMZ is preventing new competitors by undercutting them, that should be investigated.

In addition, ebooks isn't a market by itself. It has to considered in the larger book market too.
post #21 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post

Care to cite exactly where Apple did such a thing? Amazon could have easily told the publishers to take a hike when it came to accepting the agency model. Easily leveraging their huge market share in bookselling to make them bend to their will. Amazon was not some small-time player with no leverage.

 

 

Furthermore, the publishers could've told Apple to take a hike, but they didn't. They saw an opportunity to screw Amazon and used Apple to do it. When the DOJ knocked on the door, they all scrambled and went running, leaving Apple standing alone to defend itself.

 

Publishers -> Guilty.

Apple -> Not Guilty.

 

It's freaken obvious what happened. The thing is, since the publishers settled, any evidence of wrong doing on their part cannot be used in this trial. Apple is left to completely justify the actions of everyone involved.


Edited by mjtomlin - 7/11/13 at 7:39am
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #22 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaot View Post


Distributing e-books costs next to nothing.

 

Why does everyone think distributing e-books or any other digital media is cheap. Look how much Apple is spending on new data centers. This is the cost of doing business digitally. Amazon doesn't run their systems on an old IBM AT, they also have to pay for all their server farms. Yes, distributing digitally should be less expensive than printing and shipping books but everything has a cost. Add the authors price (why should we feel authors should give away their works of art? e-book dealers aren't paying for one digital copy, they're paying per sale.), advertising, and operational costs and distributing e-books isn't cheap. Try running a business and see how much it costs without even including the original cost of what you're selling. Amazon was selling books below their total operational cost just to drive out other business and to force people to buy their garbage e-book readers.

post #23 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

"Anti trust" is not only about price, it's also about competition. If AMZ is preventing new competitors by undercutting them, that should be investigated.
.

They were selling best sellers at below their cost. Since a small competitor would be unable to do that, it meets the requirements for predatory pricing laws to come into play.

It's pretty much an open and shut case - if the government were to pursue it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 85

"Why can't Apple just mimic the strategy of Amazon and keep the price as same as Amazon? I believe people will come to Apple even if it same as Amazon price."

because the purpose of Apple is not to loose money, but to win it, doing fair business. Amazon and Google doesn't mind to loose money, because they are taking a previous step: building a monopoly in e-commerce and advertising. With the aid of US government. In some few years, with amazon and google having the power to price their services at will, without any resistance (take the deal or close your business), everybody will regret these legal actions.

post #25 of 85

Why don't Apple sue Amazon for their attempt to monopolize the market? With its huge popularity, and prices below costs, how long before Amazon becomes the only e-book seller in town? One of the reason why the stock market gives Amazon's share the price it's at is because of this hope of domination. Any attempt for the publishers to come together to gain pricing power is seen as collusion (with Apple being seen as the ring leader in this case, despite it just building a new platform).

 

If the Department of Justice is of any competence, it should have sued Amazon for price dumping in hope of driving out competitions. Amazon income bounces from small profit to moderate loss since its founding. Its lifetime profit (i.e. Retained Earnings) is $2B, for a company founded in 1994! 

post #26 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

Why can't Apple just mimic the strategy of Amazon and keep the price as same as Amazon? I believe people will come to Apple even if it same as Amazon price.

yes true - but will apple waive the 30% - answer no - because EVERY OTHER app devolper would complain - the reason apple got caught was to raise prices was that they COULD get there 30% while all prices are the same.

 

A publisher is NOT going to sell to apple the same prices as amazon while cutting another 30% share of the sale.  NO WAY at all! IMHO

post #27 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

Why can't Apple just mimic the strategy of Amazon and keep the price as same as Amazon? I believe people will come to Apple even if it same as Amazon price.

They can, and it would be great for everyone if they did.  That is actually the normal way to enter the market.  Competitive markets almost always trend toward low margins while oligopolies tend to maintain high margins.  Apple could have entered the market by either offering better books or a better price.  Their choice was to offer the same books at a much higher price.

post #28 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattBookAir View Post

Whether or not Apple is guilty, the Justice department really must go after Amazon now. It's abusing both it's (near) monopoly status and it's ability to sell below cost to (a) drive other retailers out of business, and (b) reduce the value of books to the point that no publisher will be able to support serious authors (i.e. that don't sell in sufficient quantity). While the pricing may appear consumer friendly in the short term, this is not consumer or author friendly in the medium-long term.

 

They won't, though, because Amazon owns them. They brought this case against Apple solely at Amazon's bidding and they aren't going to now turn on the hand that feeds them.

 

It's never been more clear that those with money who choose to use it to undermine our society now control it, completely, and probably irredeemably. Democracy, Freedom and Justice are, in the United States today, nothing more than empty words.

post #29 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple can do the same can't they? I don't thin k the government was trying to restrict Apple's price options. They certainly have a huge advantage from a revenue standpoint and can easily afford to price match Amazon.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what terms of their contacts ultimately survive this case and the appeals. If the MFN stays in tact then yes if Amazon regains pricing control Apple would in effect gain the same

But ultimately this might not be a huge win for Amazon, or at least not as huge. The press over this whole thing may finally force an examination of Amazon's old practices, particularly if they try to bring them back. The whole exclusive deals for books, digital music and TV shows is not really consumer friendly and should be eliminated or at least strongly restricted.

Plus who is to say that is whole thing will automatically turn Amazon to their old terms. It might not do anything to current contracts or if it does it might merely end them and Amazon has to redo all of them. And the option to require agency terms could still be valid or at least wholesale with pricing restrictions. And publishers could refuse to budge and say to hell if Amazon wants to cut their physical books, do it and get sued. Or they will walk and folks can buy them at Barnes and Noble or direct from the publisher. This isn't like FRAND where they have to deal with everyone.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #30 of 85

I like this article.  The judge explains why she made her decision.  You may not agree with her decision, but one thing is clear to me: most of the discussion on this forum is focusing on the wrong things.  The issue did not come down to the agency model or price matching.  The judge even says she is OK if Apple uses those sames strategies in the future.  That's not where this went wrong in her view.

 

The issue for the judge was Apple serving as a middle man as the publishers worked out a new pricing model.  It is because Apple was at the center of those discussions that they are now in trouble.  Had Apple simply discussed a deal with each publisher individually and kept the details of each agreement private, this case would have gone differently.

 

Another person interviewed in the articles points out this sets a precedence as to whether dominant companies can coordinate discussions between the parties in a particular industry.  My guess is Apple has used similar strategies with both the movie and music industry, so I know why Apple is sticking to its guns and saying it did nothing wrong.  

 

Personally, I can see a difference.  When Apple worked out deals with movie and music industries, they were breaking new ground.  With iBooks, they entered an existing market and had far greater market share going into the discussion.  That said, I am not sure if I agree with the judge's decision, but I recognize there were different circumstances surrounding the iTunes and iBooks negotiations.

 

That's the problem with antitrust law.  It is very circumstantial.  You can do the exact same thing you have done time and time again and finally get in trouble for it simply because your situation has improved.  


Edited by rednival - 7/11/13 at 8:17am
post #31 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don108 View Post

Considering that Apple is appealing the decision and it's quite possible that it will be reversed on appeal, this article is currently just guesswork.

I suspect that it won't be completely reversed. There are a couple of things that I believe will stick like removing the whole MFN or at least restrictions on its power. Like you can only use it if the regular price of an item is lowered. If it is a promo you can't but that promo is limited in scope so that someone can't mark something as on sale for months and months on end. Like for a while here in California there was a law about how rebates etc couldn't be longer than six months, especially buy this get that rebates like the old printer with a Mac. So every six months Apple would end the promo and start it the next day with a different set of printers. HP now, Epson next time.

So in the Ebook world the court might restrict the MFN so that Amazon can't mark down titles in the Starbucks giveaways as the codes are only valid for like 90 days.

Being allowed to use agency terms I think will ultimately be allowed.

As for this notion of collusion by Apple whether as the ringleader from day one or merely knowing the publishers were doing it and giving them the terms to let them, I think that will be canned. Had Apple not been using agency for ages they might have had a case but Apple has been so it's easy to see how they came into the game for many players. A couple may have been holding out because change is hard. Thus Steve's emails.

I think given the pre trial comments by the judge and how it seems from her post trial comments she's ignoring much of Apple's evidence it will be easy to get an appeal trial. This isn't over for Apple. And as I said before I think the press will force the DOJ to look at Amazon's digital business. Heck I won't be shocked if one of those White House petitions goes up in the next couple of days demanding it. For books, TV shows, movies.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #32 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

From what I read, the book publishers messed up with their inititial pricing model with Amazon

Yes and no. They needed that initial pricing model to gain a partner. So it wasn't a mistake at that time.

The mistake was in allowing Amazon to keep that control and not reigning them in as time went on. contracts were too long, publishers weren't gutsy enough to demand more control when they did change. They allowed themselves to be bullied by scare tactics etc. THAT is where the mess up occurred.

Once Apple was in the mix they had support, or at least possible support, and were able to hold Amazon's feet to the flames without the lawsuits that should have been filed ages before over stunts like withdrawing physical books which were likely under a different contract or predatory pricing that was hurting other retailers.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #33 of 85
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post


What "brought on antitrust scrutiny" was that Apple ALSO got the companies to agree to *raise* prices on Amazon. Price fixing is illegal, and when multiple parties agree to do something illegal that's a conspiracy. THAT is what this court case is about.

Says the judge but she decided that well before the trial. She walked in biased against Apple and walked out biased against Apple. The moment she made those comments she should have been off the trial.

Many witnesses made statements and brought full evidence that in fact Apple had zero to do directly with the publishers demanding agency terms from Amazon et al. Or at least got caught lying about having been told that Apple demanded such a change. The judge ignored that stuff because it didn't fit with her bias.

Apple has been using agency for ages. Agency is better for the publishers as it gives them control. They might have demanded it even without Apple joining the game

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #34 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post

Yeah the funny part is that if they did such a "pro-consumer" move they'd be sued for anti-competitive price dumping.

Amazon wasn't. For years they sold ebooks at below cost to kill off any other sellers and got away with it. How was it not an issue then but it is now. Oh right, it's Apple.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #35 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

The American Justice System: Creating monopolies, making corporations people, and selecting our presidents since 2000 and beyond.

 

And there's nothing you can do about it but whine and cry? You might at least have ended with that tired, hollow battle cry "Wake up America!"

post #36 of 85

This is hardly a case of Apple heroically stepping to defend the downtrodden and defenseless publishing industry.  Apple aims for dominance and it's own terms wherever it goes.  Publishers are at a turning point in their industry's life, similar to the growing pains/rigor mortis of the newspaper trade.  Your average paper is charging 2 or 3 times the price for less content and far less depth than what they offered 15 years ago.  I still haven't heard a good justification from the publishers for keeping pricing for e-books at or above hard copy pricing.  And I said justification, not excuses.  All I see here was Apple trying to corner a market share percentage that they could lock in to the $9.99 & above price-point....  because that's a better position for their 30% cut.  I am not the entire market, but there are a lot of people like me that to whatever extent prefer a "real" book.  And for $9.99, I usually buy the real book, that I can then do whatever the heck I want with.  When I see a deal on an e-book, I get it...  but frequently also buy the hard copy when I get a nice price.  For the good of the industry, and it's readers...  they need to keep an eye on what indie game developers are accomplishing.  Public funding of projects, publishing without DRM, selling bundles with pricing determined by the buyer (!)...  There are a wide array of options, and this isn't the 20th Century.  Stop your sniveling and find the new method...  or pricing will come down on it's own, and Apple will still be taking a cut, if they remain in the market at all.

post #37 of 85
The best way for publishers to counteract Amazon's predatory lowballling of their book prices is to simply raise the price of the book to increase Amazon's loss.

For example, if Amazon sells your $25 book for $1, undercutting the price at other resellers by $24, then simply raise the price of the book that Amazon buys to $100.

For other resellers, simply rebate them $75 so that they can keep the sale price at $25.

This forces Amazon to take a $99 loss on the book it sells for $1.
post #38 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Amazon wasn't. For years they sold ebooks at below cost to kill off any other sellers and got away with it. How was it not an issue then but it is now. Oh right, it's Apple

 

You do realize that you are not required by law to make a profit on every item you sell?  Retailers have used "loss leaders" for probably centuries or longer to get the buyer in the door.  Additionally, if you feel so strongly about it, look into other sellers, where you can voluntarily pay more to assuage your conscience.  Regardless, the entity that gets shafted in every scenario is the author who isn't on the A-list.  So, most of them.  And ya, it's Apple, the company with the most cash in the world.  They are playing at the big boy's table by choice...  and they play just as dirty as anyone else there.

post #39 of 85
Now one should confuse Amazon's business tactics with what Apple was doing. Whatever Amazon is doing does not change what Apple did; two wrongs do not make a right.

There also seems to be confusion about what Apple arranged with publishers. They did not make publishers match whatever price they charged to others, including
Amazon. Instead, they had publishers agree that they would give Apple whatever price other retailers sold products to the public minus 30%. That takes away any incentive for other retailers to compete with Apple on the basis of price. Whatever price another retailer might offer the public, Apple could always charge less and still make a profit. That is anti competitive and not a free market.
post #40 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

The best way for publishers to counteract Amazon's predatory lowballling of their book prices is to simply raise the price of the book to increase Amazon's loss.

For example, if Amazon sells your $25 book for $1, undercutting the price at other resellers by $24, then simply raise the price of the book that Amazon buys to $100.

For other resellers, simply rebate them $75 so that they can keep the sale price at $25.

This forces Amazon to take a $99 loss on the book it sells for $1.

 

The problem is that Amazon has driven other book sellers out of business. If you don't sell it through Amazon then were are you going to sell it?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's loss in e-book antitrust case likely to give advantage to Amazon