Personally, thanks to Apple, I have become an author. I do not make money (neither Apple), as I decided to make it free. In the opposite case, I would have gained much more money than in the traditional publishing system.
i think the publishing companies deliberately overprice electronic books, but this has nothing to do with Apple. they just want to keep the high margin they make in traditional paper publishing, with very little left to the authors. This system is going to explode, as if they persist in this, authors will soon discover they do not need editors any more...
Jobs did suggest prices in this email. AFAIK under the agency model the publishers set the prices themselves. Also "we can all" hints that other publishers will participate under similar terms.
"As I see it, [Conspiring Publisher] has the following choices:
1. Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream ebooks market at $12.99 and $14.99."
Let's see. Apple suggests a couple of prices but makes it clear that the publisher can choose whatever price they want.
Amazon fixes the prices at $9.99 regardless of what the publisher wants.
Please explain how telling the publishers that the only price they can use is $9.99 is not price fixing.
$9.99 is not the only price that publishers can use, but the price for end customers. Amazon doesn't tell the publishers what the price should be; instead, it pays publishers whatever they ask for the book, and subsidizes the price to $9.99 from its own pockets. This has nothing to do with what is known as price fixing (see link above).
Besides, I don't recall anyone suing Amazon for illegal practices. Apple is the one on trial.
$9.99 is not the only price that publishers can use, but the price for end customers. Amazon doesn't tell the publishers what the price should be; instead, it pays publishers whatever they ask for the book, and subsidizes the price to $9.99 from its own pockets. This has nothing to do with what is known as price fixing (see link above).
Besides, I don't recall anyone suing Amazon for illegal practices. Apple is the one on trial.
Which only points out the hypocrisy of you and the others attacking Apple on this.
Apple allows the publishers to set prices. Amazon fixes prices and used their monopoly to enforce it.
You are technically correct that the publisher set the price to Amazon, but how long do you think Amazon would be willing to continue subsidizing the books where the publisher wanted more than $9.99? It's called predatory pricing - once Amazon controls the market, they simply stop promoting the books where they lose money - or tell the publishers to lower their price.
I must have missed choice 4, "You're welcome to publish at Apple's store in addition to Amazon, and feel free to set your own price."
That would be unworkable. The publishers would set a price of (at least) $14.27 on iTunes so Apple can get their 30% while they still get the $9.99 they get from Amazon. Then no-one would buy from iTunes. And Apple can't very well waive the 30% because their music, movie and TV wholesalers would be up in arms.
Which only points out the hypocrisy of you and the others attacking Apple on this.
Apple allows the publishers to set prices. Amazon fixes prices and used their monopoly to enforce it.
You are technically correct that the publisher set the price to Amazon, but how long do you think Amazon would be willing to continue subsidizing the books where the publisher wanted more than $9.99? It's called predatory pricing - once Amazon controls the market, they simply stop promoting the books where they lose money - or tell the publishers to lower their price.
I am not attacking Apple, just commenting that the attacks may not be completely unwarranted. In fact, before I saw this email from the late Mr Jobs, I hadn't formed an opinion as to whether Apple were likely to have orchestrated the collusion to fix ebook prices up.
Also, I am personally very happy with Amazon pushing the prices down. Everyone in my family reads a lot and we spend a lot on books. I used to go to Borders every month before they closed down. I am not happy when a company goes out of business, but such is life, some companies out-compete others. Amazon's business model is somewhat crazy and a bit of a mystery in the long run, but so far they have done nothing undeserving of my sympathy. Dragging Amazon in comments about this lawsuit is only smoke and mirrors and doesn't justify anyone else breaking the law.
That would be unworkable. The publishers would set a price of (at least) $14.27 on iTunes so Apple can get their 30% while they still get the $9.99 they get from Amazon. Then no-one would buy from iTunes. And Apple can't very well waive the 30% because their music, movie and TV wholesalers would be up in arms.
Well, tough luck. Are you suggesting that Apple's inability to compete on price justified a collusion to fix prices?
Workable or not, Jobs could have at least offered, right?
Personally I find that anything that Apple does to piss you off is just fine by me.
You're going to be in for a horrible next few years as this company moves from strength to strength.
Happiness, and a social life outside this forum: There things will be denied to you for quite a while yet.
LOL. I am disgusted that the Mods haven't kicked zzz's sorry backside out of these forums yet. His posts detract from, derail, or obfuscate just about every forum topic.
LOL. I am disgusted that the Mods haven't kicked zzz's sorry backside out of these forums yet. His posts detract from, derail, or obfuscate just about every forum topic.
Ugh.
Unlike your own posts, which are always on topic. /s
Well, tough luck. Are you suggesting that Apple's inability to compete on price justified a collusion to fix prices?
Workable or not, Jobs could have at least offered, right?
I don't know what you mean by "tough luck." Do you mean that if you can't match the price in a market you can't enter? Well that's not true, you can go to the wholesalers and explain that due to existing arrangements, $12.99 is the lowest you can do, and would they prefer you or the other guy as a business partner? It's totally on them whatever choice they make.
LOL. I am disgusted that the Mods haven't kicked zzz's sorry backside out of these forums yet. His posts detract from, derail, or obfuscate just about every forum topic.
Ugh
LOL, beat me to it - yes, unlike your well reasoned and always unbiased posts.
So Amazon is like a charity, giving 100% of the proceeds to publishers?
You want to back that up with a link?
It's in Job's email. He says they would make less in the short term if they went with Apple. Apple price: $12.99 x 0.7 = $9.09. So they must be getting somewhere close to the full $9.99 from Amazon, at least $9.10. And it's not for charity they are doing it, but to build market share for Kindle.
Well, tough luck. Are you suggesting that Apple's inability to compete on price justified a collusion to fix prices?
Workable or not, Jobs could have at least offered, right?
No, he's suggesting that Amazon was illegally abusing its monopoly position via predatory pricing. Selling at or below cost to keep a competitor out of the market is illegal. So why are you attacking Apple rather than Amazon which was clearly guilty of illegal predatory pricing?
$9.99 is not the only price that publishers can use, but the price for end customers. Amazon doesn't tell the publishers what the price should be; instead, it pays publishers whatever they ask for the book, and subsidizes the price to $9.99 from its own pockets. This has nothing to do with what is known as price fixing (see link above).
Huh!? What if it was sold to Amazon for $0.99 instead?
Comments
Reads like someone trying to break up a monopoly (Amazon's), not trying to create one.
i think the publishing companies deliberately overprice electronic books, but this has nothing to do with Apple. they just want to keep the high margin they make in traditional paper publishing, with very little left to the authors. This system is going to explode, as if they persist in this, authors will soon discover they do not need editors any more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Reads like someone trying to break up a monopoly (Amazon's), not trying to create one.
I must have missed choice 4, "You're welcome to publish at Apple's store in addition to Amazon, and feel free to set your own price."
Let's see. Apple suggests a couple of prices but makes it clear that the publisher can choose whatever price they want.
Amazon fixes the prices at $9.99 regardless of what the publisher wants.
And you accuse Apple of price fixing?
You're really confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Let's see. Apple suggests a couple of prices but makes it clear that the publisher can choose whatever price they want.
Amazon fixes the prices at $9.99 regardless of what the publisher wants.
And you accuse Apple of price fixing?
You're really confused.
"Price fixing" and "fixed price" isn't the same.
If one checks our posting history there will be little doubt as to who's confused.
Please explain how telling the publishers that the only price they can use is $9.99 is not price fixing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please explain how telling the publishers that the only price they can use is $9.99 is not price fixing.
$9.99 is not the only price that publishers can use, but the price for end customers. Amazon doesn't tell the publishers what the price should be; instead, it pays publishers whatever they ask for the book, and subsidizes the price to $9.99 from its own pockets. This has nothing to do with what is known as price fixing (see link above).
Besides, I don't recall anyone suing Amazon for illegal practices. Apple is the one on trial.
Which only points out the hypocrisy of you and the others attacking Apple on this.
Apple allows the publishers to set prices. Amazon fixes prices and used their monopoly to enforce it.
You are technically correct that the publisher set the price to Amazon, but how long do you think Amazon would be willing to continue subsidizing the books where the publisher wanted more than $9.99? It's called predatory pricing - once Amazon controls the market, they simply stop promoting the books where they lose money - or tell the publishers to lower their price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
I must have missed choice 4, "You're welcome to publish at Apple's store in addition to Amazon, and feel free to set your own price."
That would be unworkable. The publishers would set a price of (at least) $14.27 on iTunes so Apple can get their 30% while they still get the $9.99 they get from Amazon. Then no-one would buy from iTunes. And Apple can't very well waive the 30% because their music, movie and TV wholesalers would be up in arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Which only points out the hypocrisy of you and the others attacking Apple on this.
Apple allows the publishers to set prices. Amazon fixes prices and used their monopoly to enforce it.
You are technically correct that the publisher set the price to Amazon, but how long do you think Amazon would be willing to continue subsidizing the books where the publisher wanted more than $9.99? It's called predatory pricing - once Amazon controls the market, they simply stop promoting the books where they lose money - or tell the publishers to lower their price.
I am not attacking Apple, just commenting that the attacks may not be completely unwarranted. In fact, before I saw this email from the late Mr Jobs, I hadn't formed an opinion as to whether Apple were likely to have orchestrated the collusion to fix ebook prices up.
Also, I am personally very happy with Amazon pushing the prices down. Everyone in my family reads a lot and we spend a lot on books. I used to go to Borders every month before they closed down. I am not happy when a company goes out of business, but such is life, some companies out-compete others. Amazon's business model is somewhat crazy and a bit of a mystery in the long run, but so far they have done nothing undeserving of my sympathy. Dragging Amazon in comments about this lawsuit is only smoke and mirrors and doesn't justify anyone else breaking the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
That would be unworkable. The publishers would set a price of (at least) $14.27 on iTunes so Apple can get their 30% while they still get the $9.99 they get from Amazon. Then no-one would buy from iTunes. And Apple can't very well waive the 30% because their music, movie and TV wholesalers would be up in arms.
Well, tough luck. Are you suggesting that Apple's inability to compete on price justified a collusion to fix prices?
Workable or not, Jobs could have at least offered, right?
LOL. I am disgusted that the Mods haven't kicked zzz's sorry backside out of these forums yet. His posts detract from, derail, or obfuscate just about every forum topic.
Ugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
LOL. I am disgusted that the Mods haven't kicked zzz's sorry backside out of these forums yet. His posts detract from, derail, or obfuscate just about every forum topic.
Ugh.
Unlike your own posts, which are always on topic. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
...while they still get the $9.99 they get from Amazon...
So Amazon is like a charity, giving 100% of the proceeds to publishers?
You want to back that up with a link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Well, tough luck. Are you suggesting that Apple's inability to compete on price justified a collusion to fix prices?
Workable or not, Jobs could have at least offered, right?
I don't know what you mean by "tough luck." Do you mean that if you can't match the price in a market you can't enter? Well that's not true, you can go to the wholesalers and explain that due to existing arrangements, $12.99 is the lowest you can do, and would they prefer you or the other guy as a business partner? It's totally on them whatever choice they make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
LOL. I am disgusted that the Mods haven't kicked zzz's sorry backside out of these forums yet. His posts detract from, derail, or obfuscate just about every forum topic.
Ugh
LOL, beat me to it - yes, unlike your well reasoned and always unbiased posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So Amazon is like a charity, giving 100% of the proceeds to publishers?
You want to back that up with a link?
It's in Job's email. He says they would make less in the short term if they went with Apple. Apple price: $12.99 x 0.7 = $9.09. So they must be getting somewhere close to the full $9.99 from Amazon, at least $9.10. And it's not for charity they are doing it, but to build market share for Kindle.
No, he's suggesting that Amazon was illegally abusing its monopoly position via predatory pricing. Selling at or below cost to keep a competitor out of the market is illegal. So why are you attacking Apple rather than Amazon which was clearly guilty of illegal predatory pricing?
Huh!? What if it was sold to Amazon for $0.99 instead?
As usual, on topic, but confused.
Of course I am biased. What's your point?