or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Book publishers challenge DOJ e-book penalties against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Book publishers challenge DOJ e-book penalties against Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 82

Maybe Apple should counter-propose selling ebooks at 5% below Amazon for 5 years, provided they can buy the books at the same price as Amazon?

 

That would meet the judges concern that consumers suffered because Apple was instrumental in raising prices. This way Apple would benefit consumers by lowering prices.

 

Apple has very deep pockets. This would cost them pennies out of their petty cash, barely noticeable in their overall accounts.

 

It would be nice to see Amazon hoisted on their own Petard....LOL 

post #42 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

How do you decide where to shop for your books? How do book sellers gain your business?
Is agency also used for ebooks or just printed?




You decide to buy from the more friendly bookseller, or the closest ... Or any other non-financial criteria which matters to you. Competition exists, but not based on price

the law was voted long before eBooks ever exist, si I guess it says nothing about it ...
Edited by Hydrogen - 8/8/13 at 2:44am

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

seems like an easy fix for Apple even with this crazy DoJ terms getting handed down.   Apply buy's Barnes and Noble e-book stores as a whole-owned subsidiary for song.

 

Or even better, Apple acquires all of B&N including brick and mortar stores in the deal. Apple then sets up a good sized Apple Store inside B&N. Offers free Wifi and eBook reading on iPad devices while in the store. This will attract people who have taste and miss book stores. While they are hanging out at the store, they can browse the Apple products.   Switch B&N to all printed and ebooks sold using agency model.  Publishers will cut all wholesale contracts with Amazon anyways.. the writing is on the wall.  Local books stores return to our society which can actually make a profit and survive. One can dream, right? 

 

B&N got out making and selling their own eBook reader anyways.. seems like and win win deal to  me. B&N is not long from certain death without this type of deal. 

 

Not economically viable.  Why would you want to continue to build brick-and-mortar when everyone is going online to shop?  Seems to me that most people go to Apple stores to buy and service the items that are used to buy more of their purchasing online.  Sure, Apple could easily get these B&N locations cheap and sell off the ones that will never perform, which would likely be 99% of the these locations.

 

You also don't want to overbuild the Apple Store to the point the Simpsons will joke about it like they did with Starbucks.

post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

Maybe Apple should counter-propose selling ebooks at 5% below Amazon for 5 years, provided they can buy the books at the same price as Amazon?

 

That would meet the judges concern that consumers suffered because Apple was instrumental in raising prices. This way Apple would benefit consumers by lowering prices.

 

Apple has very deep pockets. This would cost them pennies out of their petty cash, barely noticeable in their overall accounts.

 

It would be nice to see Amazon hoisted on their own Petard....LOL 

 

The DoJ (via Amazon complaint) could sue Apple over price subsidization.  It's illegal to use the excess profits from one part of your company to sell at a loss in order to monopolize.  IBM (eventually) got hammered by the DoJ for this during their System360 years.  Apple would clearly be doing so here as well.

 

The DoJ is a random, fickle organization.  With all the other price fixing out there, from metals, to food, to oil, to LIBOR, to ISDAfix, they chose to look into price fixing in ... wait for it ... ebooks.  The ITC has been accused of simply being a storing ground for patronage appointments when all the cushy ambassadorships were filled.  The DoJ is largely a political organization as well.  Don't delude yourself.

 

See what I mean?  See the amazingly intelligent behaviour of supposed educated people.  No wonder the world is going down the crapper.  With elite leadership like this, it's hard to get motivated to get up in the morning and care what happens.


Edited by patrickwalker - 8/8/13 at 4:34am
post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker View Post

 

The DoJ (via Amazon complaint) could sue Apple over price subsidization.  It's illegal to use the excess profits from one part of your company to sell at a loss in order to monopolize.  IBM (eventually) got hammered by the DoJ for this during their System360 years.  Apple would clearly be doing so here as well.

 

The DoJ is a random, fickle organization.  With all the other price fixing out there, from metals, to food, to oil, to LIBOR, to ISDAfix, they chose to look into price fixing in ... wait for it ... ebooks.  The ITC has been accused of simply being a storing ground for patronage appointments when all the cushy ambassadorships were filled.  The DoJ is largely a political organization as well.  Don't delude yourself.

 

See what I mean?  See the amazingly intelligent behaviour of supposed educated people.  No wonder the world is going down the crapper.  With elite leadership like this, it's hard to get motivated to get up in the morning and care what happens.

 

Which is why Apple should buy wholesale exclusive rights to eBooks from publishers (e.g. $10 million for this book, $5 million for that) and sell them for $1.99...

 

...f*ck Amazon.

 

As far as the DoJ goes, Apple would be obeying their orders, cutting prices to consumers.

 

What's the DoJ going to do?

 

Demand Apple increase prices?

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 #46 of 82
The DOJ fucked up. Bad. And their going to have to back off with their tail between their legs. There is no way they can claim these penalties address only the e-book price fixing (if Apple was even involved in that, which I still don't believe they were). How does the selling of music, movies, and television, have anything to do with e-books?!? Please try and stick to the actual offense DOJ!
post #47 of 82

There needs to be a panel of judges rather than just one judge on these matters....or they need to let a jury decide or something. This seems like a gross misappropriation of the law. 

post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

There needs to be a panel of judges rather than just one judge on these matters....or they need to let a jury decide or something. This seems like a gross misappropriation of the law. 

Pretty darn sure Apple waived their right to a jury trial, opting to take their chance with a single judge in a bench trial. It was their choice.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/8/13 at 8:09am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

Judge Coyote got paid off before the trial began. So the publishers objection will go unheard by this so called judge. We need to get to the appeals court with a new judge who hopefully isn't paid off by the DOJ or Amazon for that matter. This whole case reeks with a bad smell of political crap going on.
As for the DOJ's proposal it is exactly what Apple said it is. Especially when they try and reach for Apple's other business, music, movies, and Apps which has nothing to do with this case what so ever. Apple was supposedly guilty of something to do with books, not music, not movies, not Apps. Therefore the DOJ should have no legal right to go there period.

 

Exactly...

 

Have you all forgoten that iPads are being bought by schools and parents for schooling??? 5 years of not able to get new publishers for that would really put a hold on foot hold in schools for Amazon to play catch up. You know, more iPads in hands means more ebooks sold by Apple, not Amazon. All schools went to the ebook learning format, what would Amazon do? All those iPads would not sell kindles or buy Amazon ebooks. So, how much you looking to loose there Amazon???

 

Look after working for lawyers for over 20 years, I can tell you, it is all about how you spin, and how much you can get out of the other person. Gone are the day's of actual victims. You now have people saying they are the victims when they are the ones at fault. Seen the Ohio kidnapping trial, guy who did the kidnapping was trying to say he was the victim... really. Most don't have the balls to stand up and say, Yep I did it... well except for the one guy in the Texas base shootings, and even his lawyers are saying not guilty for him after he stated earlier guilty.

 

Bottom line - not tin foil hats if it is true. Don't think for a moment that Amazon higher ups did not grease some palms in the DOJ to have charges brought up on Apple. And the DOJ choosing the judge to see their side before even stepping foot into the court room. Think about it, if the Ohio kidnapper judge came out and said that the defendant was just misunderstood and record will show he did it, but don't believe it... then turned around and did a not guilty verdict, would you not think something was up??? Would you not think the judge was paid off? Which would prob be the case. So, yes, it was nothing but a political move by Amazon. Why else go beyond the scope of the actual charges? All movies, music, etc etc... All corps price fix, it's not like you have the same item from 4 different company's all the exact same price, each try to charge differently (usually slight cheaper) to get customers to buy their item not the competitors.

 

Oh, and Apple put a gun to the heads of the publishers to sign the contracts, you know to price fix. You know capitalism at it's finest. The publishers could have said No to Apples proposed model plan.

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #50 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post

. This is only interesting because publishers settled for two-year ban from agency model...and by forcing Apple to a 5-yrs ban...well, where do publishers go besides Amazon for the next 5-yrs? DOJ is screwing everyone but Amazon!

The publishers are objecting because they agreed to a 2 year allowance time during which retailers like Amazon would have pricing control but publishers would be pay on agency terms. If Amazon wanted to put a title up for free for those two years the publisher would get nothing and couldn't yank the title from Amazon if the contract had not expired.

And yes' they are objecting because the DOJ would be cutting them off of a whole store and killing competition to a degree which goes against what the DOJ is supposed to be doing.

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 #51 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post

! 2) neither Amazon nor ebook readers are victims here! Publishers are making money, Apples gets their 30%,

No Apple won't. Because the DOJ is saying that Apple has to allow Amazon to put outside links to the Amazon store in the iOS app, bypassing Apple and cutting Apple off from a share. Same with Nook, Kobo etc.

And basically the same with music, movies, TV shows.

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 #52 of 82

I look forward  as a consumer in buying my books now at the cheapest price possible beit from Apple, Amazon, the boogeyman or whomever.

And unlike music or movies there is not any difference in ereading quality.

eBooks are overpriced to begin with and at the end of the day this just revolves around greed.

I only wish Apple produced a beuautiful eink reader based device in addition to the iPad. It would nice to have a choice and another thing to look at in the store which is rather stale as of late. 

 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

its my understand that the DoJ settlement forced publishers back to wholesale with Amazon.  

The original comment was that Amazon was currently on wholesale contracts. They are not (which is why the publishers might be forced to change it back).

But I also believe that you and tech boy are mistaken. As I have read it, agency model (which is not illegal per the DOJ) stands but the publishers have to give Amazon etc the control to change prices as the retailer wants for the next two years. And pay based on the selling price not the publisher desired selling price

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 #54 of 82

Wow. The book publishers are a bunch of losers alright.

post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore?  I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.

If the book is a non DRM ePub you can read it in iBooks, but Amazon uses a proprietary format for most titles which doesn't work outside of their app. Which is why the kindle for iOS app exists.

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 #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post

It is not absurd for Apple to get out of consumer ebooks.

This ruling would force Apple out for the next five years. It would server contracts, basically bar new ones etc.

All those schools buying iPads for textbooks would have no books this year because the publishers would have to do them for other formats, etc since many of them were only prepared for the iPad. And so on.

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 #57 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Pretty darn sure Apple waived their right to a jury trial, opting to take their chance with a single judge in a bench trial. It was their choice.

Which doesn't absolve the judge from the legal and moral obligation not to prejudge the case. Unfortunately, the judge failed in that simple requirement.
"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 #58 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

This ruling would force Apple out for the next five years. It would server contracts, basically bar new ones etc.

 

The proposed remedy only bars agency contracts with the 5 major publishers. It doesn't bar wholesale contracts for ebooks. The DOJ remedy is telling Apple to use a wholesale model for eBooks and do it in such a way as to not raise ebooks price across the industry.

 

The problem for the publishers is that with the wholesale model, with Amazon employing their "zero margin" tactics, Apple can do the same. This nukes the publishers hardcover book sales, which is their current primary revenue generator. So double whammy. The publishers can't control prices and their primary source of revenue gets nuked.

 

When I said the publishers are wimps, they truly are. They've got options, they just don't have the guts to do it. They can window ebooks. Hardcover books get a 6 month exclusive, then the ebooks and paperbacks can be released. They can sell ebooks themselves, and not retail them. Any Joe can set up an online store these days. Well do it.

post #59 of 82

Government dictating the way the economy is run is fascism.  The DoJ became fascist at some point. 

 

The job of judges is to stop this kind of BS and defend the constitution.

 

I lay blame at the feet of the judge who is the real criminal here.

post #60 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

The problem for the publishers is that with the wholesale model, with Amazon employing their "zero margin" tactics, Apple can do the same. This nukes the publishers hardcover book sales, which is their current primary revenue generator. So double whammy. The publishers can't control prices and their primary source of revenue gets nuked.

I believe Amazon can't go back to the zero margin tactic.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Government dictating the way the economy is run is fascism.  The DoJ became fascist at some point. 

The job of judges is to stop this kind of BS and defend the constitution.

I lay blame at the feet of the judge who is the real criminal here.

Since when did electronic media become the entire economy?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Because Apple is not playing ball in Washington.. that's why. Its a shake down.

Yep. No judge is going to rule against the DOJ. It would be career suicide. Same with the appeal.
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

Yep. No judge is going to rule against the DOJ. It would be career suicide. Same with the appeal.

Right. So the government has never lost a lawsuit?

Take off your tin foil hat.
"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 #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Dude, Bezos != Amazon. He is using his own money not Amazon's. You'll need to find some law that he is breaking in buying Washington Post. He can buy whatever he wants as a private citizen.

He is CEO of Amazon buying a Washington DC paper. No way this is because he thinks its strictly a good investment as papers have been losing money around the country for years.
post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Right. So the government has never lost a lawsuit?

Take off your tin foil hat.

I will take off my hat if you open your eyes.
post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I believe Amazon can't go back to the zero margin tactic.

 

Why not? That's the way their whole business is set up. They price to as close to zero margin or zero net profits as possible. Having someone else control prices is anathema to AMZN's modus operandi.

post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

Why not? That's the way their whole business is set up. They price to as close to zero margin or zero net profits as possible. Having someone else control prices is anathema to AMZN's modus operandi.

Part of the agreement with the publishers doesn't allow retailers to take a loss on their entire ebook lineup, on some ebooks yes but there needs to be a profit overall. In essence the publishers were given a concession because they settled.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Part of the agreement with the publishers doesn't allow retailers to take a loss on their entire ebook lineup, on some ebooks yes but there needs to be a profit overall. In essence the publishers were given a concession because they settled.

 

The DOJ declared that AMZN's ebook business is and was profitable. So, how are we supposed to tell the difference between then and the future?

 

Also, I said "zero margin" or "zero net profits". That doesn't mean a loss.

post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

The DOJ declared that AMZN's ebook business is and was profitable. So, how are we supposed to tell the difference between then and the future?

Also, I said "zero margin" or "zero net profits". That doesn't mean a loss.

The DoJ can say whatever they want about Amazon per eBook profitability. They were not on trial.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post



But I also believe that you and tech boy are mistaken. As I have read it, agency model (which is not illegal per the DOJ) stands but the publishers have to give Amazon etc the control to change prices as the retailer wants for the next two years. And pay based on the selling price not the publisher desired selling price
An agency model in which the retailer sets the price? Sounds like an oxymoron.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

The DoJ can say whatever they want about Amazon per eBook profitability. They were not on trial.

 

One more time. How do you know Amazon's eBook business was or is in the red? Then, how would you be able to tell in the future?

 

I don't think there's a problem whatsoever with Apple using the wholesale model for eBooks, and operating it at zero margin, just like Amazon is purported to do. The only problem is Apple's practice of always trying to make a profit, or at a minimum something just above break even like the iTunes store.

 

Was the DOJ lying about Amazon's eBook division's profitability? Who knows. If they were, and it was found out that Amazon's eBook business was actually operating at loss, then I think there will be some serious consequences at the DOJ. This court case isn't over yet.

post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

The DOJ declared that AMZN's ebook business is and was profitable. So, how are we supposed to tell the difference between then and the future?

Also, I said "zero margin" or "zero net profits". That doesn't mean a loss.

Of course they were profitable, it was mainly the best sellers that they sold at cost or at a loss. The DoJ wants to make sure that Amazon doesn't abuse it by selling a publishers entire ebook lineup at cost or for a loss.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
...Why favor one of your content providers (by buying it)  while you distribute its competitors content also...  
Its like Amazon buy a book publisher.  Or Apple buying a music publisher.

No need to buy a publisher... Amazon is a print-on-demand book publisher! It's an amazing system - completely automated - that creates a paperback version of your book for no actual investment except your time and talent. A very good friend of mine has published two books so far (Kindle & Paperback versions... I did the covers and he did the rest.) Change/modify anything about the book at any time (I lightened some of the pics that were printing dark). Free ISBN and listing on Amazon, etc.

 

As the author he pays a heavily discounted price... even as a pure vanity press it is a spectacular system. BUT, it means that Amazon is a publisher. As much as I like their "no investment" system, there is something wicked in it in light of the DOJ's/trial's decision.

post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Of course they were profitable, it was mainly the best sellers that they sold at cost or at a loss..

Really? Care to provide evidence that their eBook business was profitable? And before you answer, note that their trailing 12 month EPS was -$0.23 so they entire company is losing money.
"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 #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Really? Care to provide evidence that their eBook business was profitable? And before you answer, note that their trailing 12 month EPS was -$0.23 so they entire company is losing money.

Well didn't the average price of ebooks go down after Apple came into the market? I mean wasn't that the argument against the claims that Apple raised prices. So if the average price came it means that Amazon had the average ebook priced with a healthy profit. One that the agency model actually bought down. Simple cause and effect with a little 1st grade math thrown in. Does that make too much sense for your Ivy League head?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


...As I have read it, agency model (which is not illegal per the DOJ) stands but the publishers have to give Amazon etc the control to change prices as the retailer wants for the next two years...
...And pay based on the selling price not the publisher desired selling price

Please correct me if I'm wrong... If my logic is correct -- the wholesale model means the Publisher sets their price with a suggested retail. Retailer sells it for whatever they like (anti-dumping laws apply in certain industries). For example: Publisher wholesales a book for $5 / Retailer sells for $8 (Pub: $5 revenue / Retail: $3 revenue). If Retailer decides to run a few loss-leaders (like milk at my local grocery store to get me in there vs. getting milk at Costco)... sells the book for $4 (Pub: $5 revenue / Retail: -$1 loss). Simple system that has been around forever.

 

I realize that high volume Retailers like Amazon negotiate lower prices in exchange for a promise of guaranteed volume. But in the end, the Publisher's product price has to be set (at least somewhat) by the Publisher. (Even in the example of Amazon's Print-on-Demand publishing -- the author has a minimum price they must set for their book -- depending on whether the inside has black/white pics [ie. $12.99] or color pics [ie. $21.99].)

 

Is this traditional Wholesale/Retail model gone? Are the publishers Mandated to take a percentage of actual sales price (agency)? Does Amazon REALLY have the POWER to DICTATE the price of the Publishers product? Yikes! It's not Amazon's product -- why should THEY have this power?

post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2P View Post

Please correct me if I'm wrong... If my logic is correct -- the wholesale model means the Publisher sets their price with a suggested retail. Retailer sells it for whatever they like (anti-dumping laws apply in certain industries). For example: Publisher wholesales a book for $5 / Retailer sells for $8 (Pub: $5 revenue / Retail: $3 revenue). If Retailer decides to run a few loss-leaders (like milk at my local grocery store to get me in there vs. getting milk at Costco)... sells the book for $4 (Pub: $5 revenue / Retail: -$1 loss). Simple system that has been around forever.

I realize that high volume Retailers like Amazon negotiate lower prices in exchange for a promise of guaranteed volume. But in the end, the Publisher's product price has to be set (at least somewhat) by the Publisher. (Even in the example of Amazon's Print-on-Demand publishing -- the author has a minimum price they must set for their book -- depending on whether the inside has black/white pics [ie. $12.99] or color pics [ie. $21.99].)

Is this traditional Wholesale/Retail model gone? Are the publishers Mandated to take a percentage of actual sales price (agency)? Does Amazon REALLY have the POWER to DICTATE the price of the Publishers product? Yikes! It's not Amazon's product -- why should THEY have this power?

It's not only Amazon, Walmart abused that power and now Rubbermaid is a shadow of it's former self. While we're on the subject of dictating prices didn't Apple dictate to the music industry the $9.99 album price undercutting their physical albums sales and putting all the B&M stores out of business?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #78 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

...While we're on the subject of dictating prices didn't Apple dictate to the music industry the $9.99 album price undercutting their physical albums sales and putting all the B&M stores out of business?

I recall that Jobs fought long and hard to have the Music Publishers sell ALL of their songs for 99¢. I thought it was brilliant to have a simple concept like that. The album prices varied from the $9.99... with special editions, booklets, videos, etc thrown in to justify more that $9.99. But if you recall, CD's had gotten up to $19.99... $21.99 and up. Who was it that "forced" them to reduce CD's to $9.99? I'm not certain. It may have been the lack of sales. And, as you say, Dasanman69, digital piracy (then iTunes sales) took a HUGE bite out of their CD sales!

 

Fast forward a few years and there are at least 3 prices on the iTunes stores... and many other subscription services that average the price of a track to between 39¢ and 49¢ (for a monthly flat fee).

post #79 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Well didn't the average price of ebooks go down after Apple came into the market? I mean wasn't that the argument against the claims that Apple raised prices. So if the average price came it means that Amazon had the average ebook priced with a healthy profit. One that the agency model actually bought down. Simple cause and effect with a little 1st grade math thrown in. Does that make too much sense for your Ivy League head?

Let's see:

You and your Apple-hating friends keep claiming that the price of eBooks went UP after Apple entered. So your logic is backwards. or you were lying when you said that prices went up. Take your pick.

Furthermore, you never provided any evidence to back up your claims, anyway. And even at its very best, Amazon was never all that profitable.
"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 #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Let's see:

You and your Apple-hating friends keep claiming that the price of eBooks went UP after Apple entered. So your logic is backwards. or you were lying when you said that prices went up. Take your pick.

Furthermore, you never provided any evidence to back up your claims, anyway. And even at its very best, Amazon was never all that profitable.

I never said the price went up the DoJ did. Just because I'm critical of Apple doesn't mean I hate them. I own several devices and more often than not it's the product I recommend to friends whenever I'm asked for advice. FYI I don't agree with the DoJ verdict, (I have stated on numerous occasions that I didn't believe Apple was guilty) nor do I agree with the punishment they've suggested.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Book publishers challenge DOJ e-book penalties against Apple