Sorry folks I'm all for paying wherever I can get my content at the lowest price possible be it Amazon, Apple, wherever. Not paying more for books at Apple for fanboy sake. Apple raised the prices and I have bought one book for comparison purposes only. Same for music except then it's Apple for quality. No difference in quality for ebooks- so the lowest $$ rules.
Besides I can read an Amazon book on a Kindle outdoors in full sunlight too.
I use both iBooks and amazon's kindle app on my iPad. There are a few other reader apps for the iPad also like nook, kobo, ect. . . .
It's not like we ONLY have iBooks.
I am not getting the "price fixing" part. What is the complaint?
Apple can set a price, we choose if we want to pay it. .
Apple's pricing agreement forced Amazon to raise theirs. We used to be able to get ebooks dirt cheap until Apple upped the ante. I love the way fanboys will defend Apple and the publishers on this yet condemn the record industry if they try the same thing.
You get my original observation, unlike ALNorm who sees the Publisher getting screwed under agency v. wholesale when he clearly doesn't grasp that the Wholesale model breaks down when their is only one major Wholesaler dictating the pricing terms.
Excuse me? I never defended one model or the other, and it's the publishers that think they get screwed under the wholesale model, not me (I could give you quotes if you like). I am nothing but a consumer who wants to pay a lower price.
If the wholesale model and Amazon's grip leads to eventual screwing of the market, I am against it. If Apple's alleged collusion actually happened, which caused higher prices, I am against it.
The Publisher will not become a victim of the scenario I described. Apple can drive Amazon into the ground and by sheer volume way beyond Amazon's own will discover they'd have been better off with Apple and the Publishers agreeing on a fair market price structure.
Apple can indeed help subsidize the Publishers when Amazon attempts to strong arm the Publisher simply because the Publisher doesn't have to provide their products to Amazon's digital solution when they have hundreds of millions of iOS Users available to them. With the growth of the new iBooks initiative, the Publisher is not bound to provide current textbooks for Amazon or anyone else's platform, including standard EPub 3.0. They can produce only a .ibooks version all they want and by doing so the Publisher can differentiate it's market into tiers.
What do you prefer? Apple's current compromise or one where Amazon bites off more than they can chew?
I personally don't care. Amazon doesn't care about traditional print and it's clear by the current focus on Kindle and the pricing of print textbooks going through the roof, thus Amazon isn't working with Universities and more to be a point of sale for them.
The publishers disagree. They don't care about subsidies. They care about wanting to control the price to the consumer. A low price for ebooks is bad for them, and the only way Apple could drive Amazon into the ground is by undercutting Amazon on price. Publishers aren't going to pull everything from Amazon, and Apple does not have that much market control or power--at least not where it counts.
You have to look beyond ebooks to see that. You could have a trillion iOS users, but it matters nothing to that other 80% of the market that publishers care about. Print books. So unless Apple is going to open bookstores and warehouses for print books, Amazon is the big fish when it comes to the retail sector of the publishing industry.
As for what I care about, I want whatever gives me the lowest price. If Apple and Amazon tear at each others throats, but the price of ebooks drop in that price war, I'm all for it.
Consumers, that group of people who've never done anything useful in their lives, love it that they may get to pay less money. The rallying cry of consumers is "We deserve to get everything for free -- its our right", will love this DOJ move.
High prices, in fact, are what is needed. The higher the better in many cases. Why? With high prices comes opportunity for more efficient and effective publishers to enter the business and lower the costs, while still providing quality. And likely more quality than is available today.
Quality costs money and there is no reasonable belief that you shouldn't have to pay for it. Most of us made that decision long ago; most of us use Apple products. What the Apple haters call "the Apple tax", we call the cost of buying quality products.
You need to look on how you get paid. Do you get paid via the agency model? That is, you set the price for your labors, or do you sell your services as wholesale? Which one feeds your family?
Apple's pricing agreement forced Amazon to raise theirs. We used to be able to get ebooks dirt cheap until Apple upped the ante. I love the way fanboys will defend Apple and the publishers on this yet condemn the record industry if they try the same thing.
I'm not trying to defend Apple, even though I am an Apple fan boy. I honestly did not understand the details of the issue. Now that a few posters have listed the details I understand what everyone is concerned about.
If Apple wants to standardize the prices on e-books and the publishers are in agreement I still don't know if there is a legal issue.
I don't want to pay more for my content just like the next guy.
While I think publishers should be able to dictate the price of the products, I also feel the retailer should be able to dictate their selling point even if they decided take a loss on the product. So I'm not blindly supporting the publishers and Apple.
We as consumers have the final say of what we will and will not pay for. Does the Department of Justice need to be involved in this situation?
1. Regarding the alleged "so-called "most favored nation" clause which blocked publishers from selling their wares through other online outlets like Amazon."
This clause does NOT block publishers from selling their books through other online outlets. In fact practically every title for sale in the iBookstore is for sale elsewhere. The clause says that if a book is sold for a lower price elsewhere Apple may match that price. (Which they never take advantage of in my experience.)
Just to comment on this one section. Many people get confused by the extent of the most-favorite nation clause and then look at the difference in ebook prices as a way to say that this price conformity doesn't exit across the board like these allegations claim.
The reason we still see price differentiation between retailers is because not all publishers signed up for the full scope of the agency agreement. For example, Amazon has a wholesale contract with W.W. Norton & Sons. This allows Amazon to set the retail price. Apple, however, does not operate on a wholesale model with any publisher, so W.W. Norton & Sons sells through the iBookstore on an agency pricing model. W.W. Norton & Sons sells to Barnes & Nobles through a wholesale model as well.
This is why you'll find Paul Krugman's latest book (published by W.W. Norton) at each store under a different price.
The Big 6 publishers however, all operate on an across the board agency model with the MFN clause. You will NOT find those books at different prices between retailers.
Because AMZN sells each book for a loss, other ebook retailers must do the same. Since other ebook retailers can't, this model is very uncompetitive and a win for just AMZN. How does this make sense to the DOJ?
Meanwhile, the physical book stores will shut down because they can't sell books for that cheap. As more competition falls, AMZN will be only one left standing.
Generally, it is an antitrust violation for somebody with market power to sell at a loss if they are trying to eliminate the competition. (And generally, there is nothing wrong with selling at a loss, for those with no market power, even if they want to drive the competition out of business.)
Does Amazon have market power? Maybe so. Are they trying to eliminate competition? Maybe so.
A short period of artificially low prices is no consolation if the ebook market is dominated by one or by a few big players, especially if they collude. It is no good for a free market. It is no good for consumers. Such a situation is only good for the monopolist(s).
I'd like this whole situation to receive rigorous antitrust analysis by the feds. We are entering an era where the corporations are vying for control with the governments (as in, the people). We need the people to remain in control.
As a iPad owner, and a amazon customer. I'm not seeing how Apples/publisher prices were fair. I've seen hardcovers listed cheaper then ebook. 18 dollars for an ebook is to much. They don't have the same expenses as shipping and storing, and printing a physical book.
I'm not saying sell at a loss, but an ebook should never cost more then its hardcover counterpart.
Things should (?) be priced at the level that the market will bear.
The costs of production don't really enter into it. At every price level, different amounts of profit can be reaped. Many factors go into picking the price point, but cost of goods sold is only one small one, and is much less relevant than many others.
I am not getting the "price fixing" part. What is the complaint?
Apple can set a price, we choose if we want to pay it. .
the most favored nations clause is the complaint, if I understand correctly. If it were only Apple, things would be fine. But if everybody has the same model and the same price, then competition is reduced.
Apple's pricing agreement forced Amazon to raise theirs. We used to be able to get ebooks dirt cheap until Apple upped the ante. I love the way fanboys will defend Apple and the publishers on this yet condemn the record industry if they try the same thing.
Myself, I love it when trolls conflate disparate phenomena because they think the whole world is explained by "fanboys", in that they're to stupid and lazy to think any further.
(Just saying, don't beat me down!) If you support the agency model for uniform price, do not support AI's publicity on the price reduction on Apple products. Because Apple is a premium quality commodity, they deserve to be treated fairly across the resellers right? Mere fact that competition exists in the market is because consumers have choice on the same product across sellers.
Coming back to the price, this is the same agency model that is hurting my pocket deeper everytime I go to gas station now a days. I don't appreciate someone making money out of my pocket because they have control on something. If someone says 'then stop driving', I'll say 'then stop advertising at the first place'!
Comments
Besides I can read an Amazon book on a Kindle outdoors in full sunlight too.
It's a free market.
I use both iBooks and amazon's kindle app on my iPad. There are a few other reader apps for the iPad also like nook, kobo, ect. . . .
It's not like we ONLY have iBooks.
I am not getting the "price fixing" part. What is the complaint?
Apple can set a price, we choose if we want to pay it. .
Apple's pricing agreement forced Amazon to raise theirs. We used to be able to get ebooks dirt cheap until Apple upped the ante. I love the way fanboys will defend Apple and the publishers on this yet condemn the record industry if they try the same thing.
You get my original observation, unlike ALNorm who sees the Publisher getting screwed under agency v. wholesale when he clearly doesn't grasp that the Wholesale model breaks down when their is only one major Wholesaler dictating the pricing terms.
Excuse me? I never defended one model or the other, and it's the publishers that think they get screwed under the wholesale model, not me (I could give you quotes if you like). I am nothing but a consumer who wants to pay a lower price.
If the wholesale model and Amazon's grip leads to eventual screwing of the market, I am against it. If Apple's alleged collusion actually happened, which caused higher prices, I am against it.
The Publisher will not become a victim of the scenario I described. Apple can drive Amazon into the ground and by sheer volume way beyond Amazon's own will discover they'd have been better off with Apple and the Publishers agreeing on a fair market price structure.
Apple can indeed help subsidize the Publishers when Amazon attempts to strong arm the Publisher simply because the Publisher doesn't have to provide their products to Amazon's digital solution when they have hundreds of millions of iOS Users available to them. With the growth of the new iBooks initiative, the Publisher is not bound to provide current textbooks for Amazon or anyone else's platform, including standard EPub 3.0. They can produce only a .ibooks version all they want and by doing so the Publisher can differentiate it's market into tiers.
What do you prefer? Apple's current compromise or one where Amazon bites off more than they can chew?
I personally don't care. Amazon doesn't care about traditional print and it's clear by the current focus on Kindle and the pricing of print textbooks going through the roof, thus Amazon isn't working with Universities and more to be a point of sale for them.
The publishers disagree. They don't care about subsidies. They care about wanting to control the price to the consumer. A low price for ebooks is bad for them, and the only way Apple could drive Amazon into the ground is by undercutting Amazon on price. Publishers aren't going to pull everything from Amazon, and Apple does not have that much market control or power--at least not where it counts.
You have to look beyond ebooks to see that. You could have a trillion iOS users, but it matters nothing to that other 80% of the market that publishers care about. Print books. So unless Apple is going to open bookstores and warehouses for print books, Amazon is the big fish when it comes to the retail sector of the publishing industry.
As for what I care about, I want whatever gives me the lowest price. If Apple and Amazon tear at each others throats, but the price of ebooks drop in that price war, I'm all for it.
Consumers, that group of people who've never done anything useful in their lives, love it that they may get to pay less money. The rallying cry of consumers is "We deserve to get everything for free -- its our right", will love this DOJ move.
High prices, in fact, are what is needed. The higher the better in many cases. Why? With high prices comes opportunity for more efficient and effective publishers to enter the business and lower the costs, while still providing quality. And likely more quality than is available today.
Quality costs money and there is no reasonable belief that you shouldn't have to pay for it. Most of us made that decision long ago; most of us use Apple products. What the Apple haters call "the Apple tax", we call the cost of buying quality products.
You need to look on how you get paid. Do you get paid via the agency model? That is, you set the price for your labors, or do you sell your services as wholesale? Which one feeds your family?
Apple's pricing agreement forced Amazon to raise theirs. We used to be able to get ebooks dirt cheap until Apple upped the ante. I love the way fanboys will defend Apple and the publishers on this yet condemn the record industry if they try the same thing.
I'm not trying to defend Apple, even though I am an Apple fan boy. I honestly did not understand the details of the issue. Now that a few posters have listed the details I understand what everyone is concerned about.
If Apple wants to standardize the prices on e-books and the publishers are in agreement I still don't know if there is a legal issue.
I don't want to pay more for my content just like the next guy.
While I think publishers should be able to dictate the price of the products, I also feel the retailer should be able to dictate their selling point even if they decided take a loss on the product. So I'm not blindly supporting the publishers and Apple.
We as consumers have the final say of what we will and will not pay for. Does the Department of Justice need to be involved in this situation?
1. Regarding the alleged "so-called "most favored nation" clause which blocked publishers from selling their wares through other online outlets like Amazon."
This clause does NOT block publishers from selling their books through other online outlets. In fact practically every title for sale in the iBookstore is for sale elsewhere. The clause says that if a book is sold for a lower price elsewhere Apple may match that price. (Which they never take advantage of in my experience.)
Just to comment on this one section. Many people get confused by the extent of the most-favorite nation clause and then look at the difference in ebook prices as a way to say that this price conformity doesn't exit across the board like these allegations claim.
The reason we still see price differentiation between retailers is because not all publishers signed up for the full scope of the agency agreement. For example, Amazon has a wholesale contract with W.W. Norton & Sons. This allows Amazon to set the retail price. Apple, however, does not operate on a wholesale model with any publisher, so W.W. Norton & Sons sells through the iBookstore on an agency pricing model. W.W. Norton & Sons sells to Barnes & Nobles through a wholesale model as well.
This is why you'll find Paul Krugman's latest book (published by W.W. Norton) at each store under a different price.
The Big 6 publishers however, all operate on an across the board agency model with the MFN clause. You will NOT find those books at different prices between retailers.
Because AMZN sells each book for a loss, other ebook retailers must do the same. Since other ebook retailers can't, this model is very uncompetitive and a win for just AMZN. How does this make sense to the DOJ?
Meanwhile, the physical book stores will shut down because they can't sell books for that cheap. As more competition falls, AMZN will be only one left standing.
Generally, it is an antitrust violation for somebody with market power to sell at a loss if they are trying to eliminate the competition. (And generally, there is nothing wrong with selling at a loss, for those with no market power, even if they want to drive the competition out of business.)
Does Amazon have market power? Maybe so. Are they trying to eliminate competition? Maybe so.
A short period of artificially low prices is no consolation if the ebook market is dominated by one or by a few big players, especially if they collude. It is no good for a free market. It is no good for consumers. Such a situation is only good for the monopolist(s).
I'd like this whole situation to receive rigorous antitrust analysis by the feds. We are entering an era where the corporations are vying for control with the governments (as in, the people). We need the people to remain in control.
As a iPad owner, and a amazon customer. I'm not seeing how Apples/publisher prices were fair. I've seen hardcovers listed cheaper then ebook. 18 dollars for an ebook is to much. They don't have the same expenses as shipping and storing, and printing a physical book.
I'm not saying sell at a loss, but an ebook should never cost more then its hardcover counterpart.
Things should (?) be priced at the level that the market will bear.
The costs of production don't really enter into it. At every price level, different amounts of profit can be reaped. Many factors go into picking the price point, but cost of goods sold is only one small one, and is much less relevant than many others.
A single dominant vendor would hurt everyone in the long run.
Absolutely. But a situation in which there are several big collusive players is no better.
I am not getting the "price fixing" part. What is the complaint?
Apple can set a price, we choose if we want to pay it. .
the most favored nations clause is the complaint, if I understand correctly. If it were only Apple, things would be fine. But if everybody has the same model and the same price, then competition is reduced.
Apple's pricing agreement forced Amazon to raise theirs. We used to be able to get ebooks dirt cheap until Apple upped the ante. I love the way fanboys will defend Apple and the publishers on this yet condemn the record industry if they try the same thing.
Myself, I love it when trolls conflate disparate phenomena because they think the whole world is explained by "fanboys", in that they're to stupid and lazy to think any further.
Sorry folks I'm all for paying wherever I can get my content at the lowest price possible be it Amazon, Apple, wherever.
Exactly, how many of the supporters bought products from the resellers so far? http://www.appleinsider.com/mac_price_guide/
(Just saying, don't beat me down!) If you support the agency model for uniform price, do not support AI's publicity on the price reduction on Apple products. Because Apple is a premium quality commodity, they deserve to be treated fairly across the resellers right? Mere fact that competition exists in the market is because consumers have choice on the same product across sellers.
Coming back to the price, this is the same agency model that is hurting my pocket deeper everytime I go to gas station now a days. I don't appreciate someone making money out of my pocket because they have control on something. If someone says 'then stop driving', I'll say 'then stop advertising at the first place'!