Lets see. I bought two books this past week. I went to iBooks and saw that they were more expensive there, than Amazon. So I bought them in Kindle format from Amazon. What is the problem here?
Apple and the book publishers colluded to raise the price of eBooks and force Amazon's and the consumer's hands. Your books are probably not the from the publishers originally alligned in the agreement.
Steve Jobs was trying to dissolve Amazon of its market share of eBooks by launching Apple's own bookstore and by forcing Amazon to raise prices.
1) Bottom line: Apple will get to control what their eBooks sell for, get to buy books at wholesale price, and have a better association with publishers than Amazon, thereby coming out even better than before with customers and publishers being hurt by Amazon's greed.
2) Why isn't the DoJ on Amazon about dumping, exclusive dealing and an attempt at refusal to deal?
If the Government needs more money, they should have money invested in Apple stock and make a good 35 to 60% year to year return on investment. It certainly pays more than hiring attorneys to go after certain companies, which is what this sounds like. It just sounds like they are trying to fleece Apple, because someone is jealous.
"We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway,'" Jobs said. "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too. So they went to Amazon and said, 'You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books.'"
This should be interesting. I'm not sure how this qualifies as antitrust against Apple since they weren't in the position of a monopoly at the time. On the other hand, anything where "the customer pays a little more," and that's going to wind up as an across-the-board "little more" because of Apple's potential market dominance seems sketchy. On the other other hand, consistently selling products at a loss to maintain market dominance sounds a lot dumping and is sketchy as well---though Amazon's just a retailer and not the manufacturer, so who knows.
If this goes all the way to trial it should be interesting. It definitely sucks that the prices for my Kindle books have steadily risen since Apple got into the marketplace.
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
Apple simply reserves the right to lower the price in their store to match the price in any other store. It's not an agreement to never do it, and it's not up to the seller to monitor prices everywhere and adjust the iBooks prices accordingly. It's just giving Apple flexibility to lower prices to match competitors, despite the seller otherwise getting to set their own prices.
Monopoly abuse is using dominance in one market to gain an advantage in another. Apple is clearly guilty of that in forcing changes to Amazon's contracts with publishers.
The question of what is right is secondary.
To do what? To give Apple customers a way to use Apple as a source of content where it is priced similar.
The whole problem is the book publishers are just stupid. They should just simply have a list price for the hard cover version and the digital download version should be cheaper and then give a 30% or more discount to their retailers and leave it at that.
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
What you're outlining is different than Apple saying "we'll let you set the price, but if others sell lower we want the right to price lower as well". The publishers deciding to then push Amazon to the same agency model may be an issue, but Apple asking for the right to lower pricing to compete shouldn't have been.
Of course, the reality is that Apple wanted an agency model to lure deals, publishers wanted the higher prices, and neither was compatible with Amazon selling below cost since Apple matching the lower price would have put the publishers cut below their own wholesale. And of course Apple didn't want to have to buy wholesale and then watch Amazon sell lower and steal their thunder, presumably.
But I'm not clear that a publisher saying 'you can sell our book, but only at this price' should be illegal, particularly if the only way you were pricing it lower was by selling at a loss. Ah well, a bunch of crap for them to look into.
I know many people here are Apple fans...but look at this objectively.
Since Apple's price fixing with publishers (and make no mistake, that's what the "minimum book price" is exactly), the cost of new novels for eBooks has gone up from $9.99 to nearly $20. It is literally cheaper for me to go to the local brick & mortar store and buy a brand new hardcover than to download an eBook.
There's nothing wrong with Apple's agency model. The problem is with them mandating a minimum (high) book price that no one can undercut. That, quite literally, eliminates competition.
If Google or Amazon did this, the lot of you would be screaming bloody murder. Time for some objectivity, no?
Nonsense. Apple said, "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too." Therefore they were saying they could sell lower too. NOT "no one can sell lower". The publishers saw that Amazon was actually ruining their business and that of their other customers by commoditizing their products and driving prices way down below cost to the detriment of the industry.
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
That's just wrong.
The publisher can't sell it for less to any other retailer. If the retailer wants to then sell certain books at a loss, or cheaper than Apple but with less margin, then that is up to them. Retailers have been selling loss leaders for years and years in the hope that while a customer is in the store buying the on-sale books they will then pick up a couple of other more profitable items.
Based on the wikipedia definition, I think there's probably an argument that none of the criteria for dumping are met by Amazon's practices. There was no competitive market for e-books, they weren't trying to force competitors out of the market, and they didn't seem interested in raising the prices later.
On the other hand, if you clump e-books in with their equivalent hardcopy books, then dumping e-books to drive hardcopy competitors out of business does seem to meet one of the criteria, however it's still not obvious that they intended to raise the prices on e-books once hardcopy competitors were gone. They probably expected to just drive down their wholesale costs from the publishers, just like Wallmart does with their suppliers.
Monopoly abuse is using dominance in one market to gain an advantage in another. Apple is clearly guilty of that in forcing changes to Amazon's contracts with publishers.
The question of what is right is secondary.
So in what market did Apple use their dominance to gain advantage in the ebook business? Apple came to the tablet business with the iPad with zero market share at the same time they announce their entry into the ebook business.
To do what? To give Apple customers a way to use Apple as a source of content where it is priced similar.
The whole problem is the book publishers are just stupid. They should just simply have a list price for the hard cover version and the digital download version should be cheaper and then give a 30% or more discount to their retailers and leave it at that.
Exactly. Sticking to the wholesale model would have been fine - they DO set the price, just not the market price. Let Apple, Amazon, B&N, etc. fight the rest out themselves. I'm sure the publishers concern was that Amazon would drive everyone else out of business, then come back with 'if you want to sell, it's going to be at $2 a book' (a la iTunes?), and publishers wanted to avoid that. Apple certainly didn't give an agency model deal to music producers.
Based on the wikipedia definition, I think there's probably an argument that none of the criteria for dumping are met by Amazon's practices. There was no competitive market for e-books, they weren't trying to force competitors out of the market, and they didn't seem interested in raising the prices later.
On the other hand, if you clump e-books in with their equivalent hardcopy books, then dumping e-books to drive hardcopy competitors out of business does seem to meet one of the criteria, however it's still not obvious that they intended to raise the prices on e-books once hardcopy competitors were gone. They probably expected to just drive down their wholesale costs from the publishers, just like Wallmart does with their suppliers.
You're right, there was no competitive market for eBooks because Amazon had a monopoly which could be argued was illegally had and maintained as a direct result from dumping.
Nonsense. Apple said, "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too." Therefore they were saying they could sell lower too. NOT "no one can sell lower". The publishers saw that Amazon was actually ruining their business and that of their other customers by commoditizing their products and driving prices way down below cost to the detriment of the industry.
A distinct creative work (e.g., a book) can't be commoditized.
That's about $9 more than what I'd pay for brand new kitty litter lining. How can I use a Stossel book to keep the cat pee and poop from getting on the plastic tray at that price?
"Stossel, a self-described skeptic, he has dismantled society's sacred cows with unerring common sense. Now he debunks the most sacred of them all: our intuition and belief that government can solve our problems."
Wow. Stossel is man enough to do exactly what Oil Companies, the NRA, and finger wagging Arizona governors have done. He joins the ranks of every asshole on TV in showing how tough they can be talking crap about big G. Apparently, he's a skeptic about Democratic elections of representatives. Perhaps he's suggesting massive bake sales and pot lucks at churches, coupled with a meeting of elders as a way for people to organize and build things like electric grids and bridges -- who can say what goes on in the mind of a champion?
Stossel gets the endorsement of NYT and Fox news commentator -- it really doesn't matter which one -- as they are ALL glorious, brave, mavericks who dismantle society's sacred cows; like Teacher's Unions, wages, benefits, promoting 401ks that lose half their value in an "oops year" versus Pensions, and of course, making fun of Urban hi-jinx.
? do I hate and loath John Stossel? Yes I do.
Is Apple charging too much for their Fox News friendly kitty liner for protofascists who are working to undermine this country? No. No they are not. I'd prefer it to be $30 and self destruct after 10 hours.
OK, but for actual books of value -- I think a price of $3.99 is about right. Let's get real; there is no issue with scale nor printing nor shipping. The cost to deliver is only a few pennies more than a song track. Giving the author $1.20 would be way above the average contract, but 66% of that would be awesome as well.
Obviously, Apple was trying to avoid the mighty fist of the Justice Department by being evil, since apparently, them being the only one raising wages and worker conditions in China was pissing off everybody quietly getting their microwaves built for $.99.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Apple and the book publishers colluded to raise the price of eBooks and force Amazon's and the consumer's hands. Your books are probably not the from the publishers originally alligned in the agreement.
Steve Jobs was trying to dissolve Amazon of its market share of eBooks by launching Apple's own bookstore and by forcing Amazon to raise prices.
The US is right in this case. (duck)
Did Amazon hire lobbyists for this?
I checked and the two books are not published by the ones listed in the suit. Had I found the price the same, the higher one, I would have not made the purchase and bought used paperbacks. I think maybe this is more relevant to the NYT bestseller list books, that are hot off the presses and being heavily marketed. I see that as a small subset of the published material avaliable. I rarely buy what they are trying to spoon feed to me. I guess this whole issue is more relevant to the sheep of the world.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Spot on.
A bunch of the publishers named in the suit have already settled -- that's how innocent everyone is in this collusion.
It's going to be hard for Apple to claim they didn't collude when people they allegedly colluded with have admitted they did.
Comments
Lets see. I bought two books this past week. I went to iBooks and saw that they were more expensive there, than Amazon. So I bought them in Kindle format from Amazon. What is the problem here?
Apple and the book publishers colluded to raise the price of eBooks and force Amazon's and the consumer's hands. Your books are probably not the from the publishers originally alligned in the agreement.
Steve Jobs was trying to dissolve Amazon of its market share of eBooks by launching Apple's own bookstore and by forcing Amazon to raise prices.
The US is right in this case. (duck)
Did Amazon hire lobbyists for this?
2) Why isn't the DoJ on Amazon about dumping, exclusive dealing and an attempt at refusal to deal?
"We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway,'" Jobs said. "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too. So they went to Amazon and said, 'You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books.'"
This should be interesting. I'm not sure how this qualifies as antitrust against Apple since they weren't in the position of a monopoly at the time. On the other hand, anything where "the customer pays a little more," and that's going to wind up as an across-the-board "little more" because of Apple's potential market dominance seems sketchy. On the other other hand, consistently selling products at a loss to maintain market dominance sounds a lot dumping and is sketchy as well---though Amazon's just a retailer and not the manufacturer, so who knows.
If this goes all the way to trial it should be interesting. It definitely sucks that the prices for my Kindle books have steadily risen since Apple got into the marketplace.
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
Apple simply reserves the right to lower the price in their store to match the price in any other store. It's not an agreement to never do it, and it's not up to the seller to monitor prices everywhere and adjust the iBooks prices accordingly. It's just giving Apple flexibility to lower prices to match competitors, despite the seller otherwise getting to set their own prices.
Monopoly abuse is using dominance in one market to gain an advantage in another. Apple is clearly guilty of that in forcing changes to Amazon's contracts with publishers.
The question of what is right is secondary.
To do what? To give Apple customers a way to use Apple as a source of content where it is priced similar.
The whole problem is the book publishers are just stupid. They should just simply have a list price for the hard cover version and the digital download version should be cheaper and then give a 30% or more discount to their retailers and leave it at that.
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
What you're outlining is different than Apple saying "we'll let you set the price, but if others sell lower we want the right to price lower as well". The publishers deciding to then push Amazon to the same agency model may be an issue, but Apple asking for the right to lower pricing to compete shouldn't have been.
Of course, the reality is that Apple wanted an agency model to lure deals, publishers wanted the higher prices, and neither was compatible with Amazon selling below cost since Apple matching the lower price would have put the publishers cut below their own wholesale. And of course Apple didn't want to have to buy wholesale and then watch Amazon sell lower and steal their thunder, presumably.
But I'm not clear that a publisher saying 'you can sell our book, but only at this price' should be illegal, particularly if the only way you were pricing it lower was by selling at a loss. Ah well, a bunch of crap for them to look into.
I know many people here are Apple fans...but look at this objectively.
Since Apple's price fixing with publishers (and make no mistake, that's what the "minimum book price" is exactly), the cost of new novels for eBooks has gone up from $9.99 to nearly $20. It is literally cheaper for me to go to the local brick & mortar store and buy a brand new hardcover than to download an eBook.
There's nothing wrong with Apple's agency model. The problem is with them mandating a minimum (high) book price that no one can undercut. That, quite literally, eliminates competition.
If Google or Amazon did this, the lot of you would be screaming bloody murder. Time for some objectivity, no?
Nonsense. Apple said, "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too." Therefore they were saying they could sell lower too. NOT "no one can sell lower". The publishers saw that Amazon was actually ruining their business and that of their other customers by commoditizing their products and driving prices way down below cost to the detriment of the industry.
2) Why isn't the DoJ on Amazon about dumping, exclusive dealing and an attempt at refusal to deal?
Dunno. Maybe nothing illegal about Amazon's model (no doubt it's come up)? Maybe one thing at a time and Amazon's is still to come?
Many people seem to not comprehend the issue. The issue is not the agency model (setting their "own price").
The issue is Apple's condition that no one else ever sell it for less than Apple. This eliminates competition by definition. All other stores must use the price from the iBookStore and never offer it for less. This is quite literally price fixing. Price fixing is most definitely illegal.
That's just wrong.
The publisher can't sell it for less to any other retailer. If the retailer wants to then sell certain books at a loss, or cheaper than Apple but with less margin, then that is up to them. Retailers have been selling loss leaders for years and years in the hope that while a customer is in the store buying the on-sale books they will then pick up a couple of other more profitable items.
Why isn't the DoJ on Amazon about dumping, exclusive dealing and an attempt at refusal to deal?
Based on the wikipedia definition, I think there's probably an argument that none of the criteria for dumping are met by Amazon's practices. There was no competitive market for e-books, they weren't trying to force competitors out of the market, and they didn't seem interested in raising the prices later.
On the other hand, if you clump e-books in with their equivalent hardcopy books, then dumping e-books to drive hardcopy competitors out of business does seem to meet one of the criteria, however it's still not obvious that they intended to raise the prices on e-books once hardcopy competitors were gone. They probably expected to just drive down their wholesale costs from the publishers, just like Wallmart does with their suppliers.
Monopoly abuse is using dominance in one market to gain an advantage in another. Apple is clearly guilty of that in forcing changes to Amazon's contracts with publishers.
The question of what is right is secondary.
So in what market did Apple use their dominance to gain advantage in the ebook business? Apple came to the tablet business with the iPad with zero market share at the same time they announce their entry into the ebook business.
To do what? To give Apple customers a way to use Apple as a source of content where it is priced similar.
The whole problem is the book publishers are just stupid. They should just simply have a list price for the hard cover version and the digital download version should be cheaper and then give a 30% or more discount to their retailers and leave it at that.
Exactly. Sticking to the wholesale model would have been fine - they DO set the price, just not the market price. Let Apple, Amazon, B&N, etc. fight the rest out themselves. I'm sure the publishers concern was that Amazon would drive everyone else out of business, then come back with 'if you want to sell, it's going to be at $2 a book' (a la iTunes?), and publishers wanted to avoid that. Apple certainly didn't give an agency model deal to music producers.
Based on the wikipedia definition, I think there's probably an argument that none of the criteria for dumping are met by Amazon's practices. There was no competitive market for e-books, they weren't trying to force competitors out of the market, and they didn't seem interested in raising the prices later.
On the other hand, if you clump e-books in with their equivalent hardcopy books, then dumping e-books to drive hardcopy competitors out of business does seem to meet one of the criteria, however it's still not obvious that they intended to raise the prices on e-books once hardcopy competitors were gone. They probably expected to just drive down their wholesale costs from the publishers, just like Wallmart does with their suppliers.
You're right, there was no competitive market for eBooks because Amazon had a monopoly which could be argued was illegally had and maintained as a direct result from dumping.
Nonsense. Apple said, "But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too." Therefore they were saying they could sell lower too. NOT "no one can sell lower". The publishers saw that Amazon was actually ruining their business and that of their other customers by commoditizing their products and driving prices way down below cost to the detriment of the industry.
A distinct creative work (e.g., a book) can't be commoditized.
IN fact, John Stossel's book; "No, They Can't" is $12.99
http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/no-t...55695148?mt=11 Act NOW before they run out!
That's about $9 more than what I'd pay for brand new kitty litter lining. How can I use a Stossel book to keep the cat pee and poop from getting on the plastic tray at that price?
"Stossel, a self-described skeptic, he has dismantled society's sacred cows with unerring common sense. Now he debunks the most sacred of them all: our intuition and belief that government can solve our problems."
Wow. Stossel is man enough to do exactly what Oil Companies, the NRA, and finger wagging Arizona governors have done. He joins the ranks of every asshole on TV in showing how tough they can be talking crap about big G. Apparently, he's a skeptic about Democratic elections of representatives. Perhaps he's suggesting massive bake sales and pot lucks at churches, coupled with a meeting of elders as a way for people to organize and build things like electric grids and bridges -- who can say what goes on in the mind of a champion?
Stossel gets the endorsement of NYT and Fox news commentator -- it really doesn't matter which one -- as they are ALL glorious, brave, mavericks who dismantle society's sacred cows; like Teacher's Unions, wages, benefits, promoting 401ks that lose half their value in an "oops year" versus Pensions, and of course, making fun of Urban hi-jinx.
? do I hate and loath John Stossel? Yes I do.
Is Apple charging too much for their Fox News friendly kitty liner for protofascists who are working to undermine this country? No. No they are not. I'd prefer it to be $30 and self destruct after 10 hours.
OK, but for actual books of value -- I think a price of $3.99 is about right. Let's get real; there is no issue with scale nor printing nor shipping. The cost to deliver is only a few pennies more than a song track. Giving the author $1.20 would be way above the average contract, but 66% of that would be awesome as well.
Obviously, Apple was trying to avoid the mighty fist of the Justice Department by being evil, since apparently, them being the only one raising wages and worker conditions in China was pissing off everybody quietly getting their microwaves built for $.99.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Apple and the book publishers colluded to raise the price of eBooks and force Amazon's and the consumer's hands. Your books are probably not the from the publishers originally alligned in the agreement.
Steve Jobs was trying to dissolve Amazon of its market share of eBooks by launching Apple's own bookstore and by forcing Amazon to raise prices.
The US is right in this case. (duck)
Did Amazon hire lobbyists for this?
I checked and the two books are not published by the ones listed in the suit. Had I found the price the same, the higher one, I would have not made the purchase and bought used paperbacks. I think maybe this is more relevant to the NYT bestseller list books, that are hot off the presses and being heavily marketed. I see that as a small subset of the published material avaliable. I rarely buy what they are trying to spoon feed to me. I guess this whole issue is more relevant to the sheep of the world.
Wow- some of the posts on here are really rich. I remember how people here went ballistic when the music idustry tried to get Apple to raise the $99cent per song pricing for years. The music industry and artists were claiming loss of revenue.
Same thing here except Apple and the publishing houses delibertately forced Amazon to raise their pricing whining about how they were losing money.
Funny how the shoe on the other foot never seems to fit around here.
Spot on.
A bunch of the publishers named in the suit have already settled -- that's how innocent everyone is in this collusion.
It's going to be hard for Apple to claim they didn't collude when people they allegedly colluded with have admitted they did.