Lovely apple reposted from a previous discussion on this topic
Your factual problem is that at the time apple set up iBooks there was amazon and ....amazon.
Amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss."
Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much.
DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
No one else could use books as a loss leader so the model was not available to other vendors. If you can't wrap your thoughts around that, then what is there to talk about. Authors and publishers are entitled to consider their work as having value.
Look at the facts. If Amazon had been allowed to sell for such low prices, then they would have raised them in the long run. Apple did us all a favor by making Amazon charge a little more now, instead of a lot more later.
But the government won't let any good deed go unpunished, especially if it is Apple.
What proof do you have that Amazon would've raised prices? They haven't in the time that they've been selling ebooks. You're just repeating the scare tactics you've been gullible enough to believe.
Lovely apple reposted from a previous discussion on this topic
Your factual problem is that at the time apple set up iBooks there was amazon and ....amazon.
Amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss."
Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much.
DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
No one else could use books as a loss leader so the model was not available to other vendors. If you can't wrap your thoughts around that, then what is there to talk about. Authors and publishers are entitled to consider their work as having value.
Correction: Amazon was selling SOME ebooks below cost.
You're insinuating it was all ebooks and that is not the case.
Virtually overnight, this conspiracy to fix prices caused e-book prices to increase by as much $5 per unit, costing consumers tens of millions of dollars, according to the lawsuit: “Millions of e-books that would have sold at retail for $9.99 or for other low prices instead sold for the prices indicated by the price schedules included in the Apple Agency Agreements — generally, $12.99 or $14.99.” According to the suit, Apple boasted of the successful scheme as an “Akido move,” after the Japanese martial art.
No evidence. The article presents a statement as fact but provides no evidence to support their statement. You simply quoted their statement which, as I already stated, doesn't have any associated evidentiary support.
IANAL, but I think Apple's defense strategy is a hard sell. Yes, the agency model may have advantages, and yes, Apple may have entered the market in a moment when Amazon have been doing something that would have proven detrimental in the long term. However this trial is not about Apple's motifs, noble as they may have been, but about whether Apple broke the low. It is immaterial what Amazon would have done with its position on the market; Apple is not the DoJ and fixing prices and colluding isn't the way to correct Amazon's actions, regardless how sinister the latter may have seemed.
It's of course the court that will be deciding who's guilty and who isn't, we shouldn't condemn Apple in advance; all I'm saying is that the defense could focus on proving that Apple didn't collude, rather than try to wake sympathy by asserting that whatever Apple did was for everyone's good...
But especially extra good for Apple, and not so much for the consumer.
I've been buying eBooks for over four years now, and I suspect that the majority of you DoJ trashers can't say that, and so don't really have perspective on this, except your usual perspective that everything Apple does is Golden.
...
So stop Apple-worshipping yourselves into arguing against your own best interests, which the DoJ is simply doing its job of trying to look out for.
Four years. Thanks for the laugh. That's *such* a long time You should wipe your chin, now, though. You've got a bit of froth there. Before the iBookstore, Amazon was busily throttling competition, and now that the DOJ has intervened, they get to return to that behavior. So you're happy. Great. But you're getting a little sanctimonious about tell me what's in my best interests. Four years of Kindle ownership aside, I don't think you're a great judge of that. I don't think that cheap books, obtained on the broken back of a publishing industry brought to its knees by one all-powerful Amazon is the only metric by which to judge my best interests. That's only a good thing if you can't see very far down the road.
Yankee Group, a Boston-based research firm, says that the average price of a consumer digital book has fallen to $8.19 this year (2011) from $9.23 in 2009.
...but here's a thought. Do we even need traditional big publishing houses anymore? There's a lot of worthy indie-published works and many of the best-known authors have recognized that they're often on the losing end when dealing with the big publishers, deciding to forego them altogether. Note too that it's the big publishers and not the authors who come out the biggest winners on eBooks. While the publishers realize a better profit margin, part of it comes from a lower royalty they pay the author compared to pay-outs on a printed version. Doesn't quite seem fair, but I guess there's supposed to be logic buried somewhere in the house math.
Switching to a different model doesn't entail memos to publishers to "withhold books from amazon" and throw in with apple" for 12.99 and 14.99 books "the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway", and no one can have it cheaper on top of that
That's the definition of collusion.
And don't divert the issue to amazon, no one can compete on price anymore after apple's collusion with them, because apple didn't want to compete with others, or run a proper bookshop, they wanted a guaranteed 30% cut per book for sitting on their ass in iTunes infrastructure and getting 30% per customer click for doing close to nothing, because at least in the app store they provide the os and the tools to create the applications.
Funny how Apple is all of a sudden worried about a competitors price.
Why? Because this is a rare instance in which Apple can charge a premium price for a premium product. Ebooks bought on the iBookstore can only be read on iDevices whereas a ebook bought from Amazon can be read across multiple platforms and devices.
Four years. Thanks for the laugh. That's *such* a long time You should wipe your chin, now, though. You've got a bit of froth there. Before the iBookstore, Amazon was busily throttling competition, and now that the DOJ has intervened, they get to return to that behavior. So you're happy. Great. But you're getting a little sanctimonious about tell me what's in my best interests. Four years of Kindle ownership aside, I don't think you're a great judge of that. I don't think that cheap books, obtained on the broken back of a publishing industry brought to its knees by one all-powerful Amazon is the only metric by which to judge my best interests. That's only a good thing if you can't see very far down the road.
So Apple is gonna save the publishing industry just like they saved the music industry?
How well is that going?
Hey, it worked for that one company. You know, the one that… …has been relegated to the dustbin of history and exists only for the purpose of this illustration.
Probably the same logic that allowed you to come to the fallacious conclusion that the iBooks Store is "more retarded trash".
iBooks store is not the topic - the system of selling a product that it introduced (and later placed on the entire eBook market) is.
Seeing how the Feds, US States and Europe's competition commissioner all feel it should be dismantled - top it with the fact that 3 of the Publishers already walked away from it.. "retarded Trash" seems possible.
Four years. Thanks for the laugh. That's *such* a long time You should wipe your chin, now, though. You've got a bit of froth there. Before the iBookstore, Amazon was busily throttling competition, and now that the DOJ has intervened, they get to return to that behavior. So you're happy. Great. But you're getting a little sanctimonious about tell me what's in my best interests. Four years of Kindle ownership aside, I don't think you're a great judge of that. I don't think that cheap books, obtained on the broken back of a publishing industry brought to its knees by one all-powerful Amazon is the only metric by which to judge my best interests. That's only a good thing if you can't see very far down the road.
Four years in the tech world is a long time.
Lets see what happened in 2008, Apple introduced the iPhone 3G and the app store. Seems like a lifetime ago don't it?
Collusion kept prices artificially high and that didn't hurt consumers? But a lawsuit hurts consumers.
Yes, competition usually results in lower prices. But, Amazon is always trying to be the low price leader. So I don't see that with this type of competition, the consumer is better off.
Amazon engaged in anti-competitive behavior to gain its dominance in the e-book market. It had a monopoly on online traditional sales, and had advantages such as not having to collect sales tax that traditional retailers had to collect. When e-books came out Amazon forced publishers to essentially give the e-books away below cost by threatening to not carry their hardcover books, which would be the kiss of death. This quickly allowed Amazon to gain a monopoly position in e-books as well, not to mention hurt the traditional book market.
So while it may be true that Amazon pushed the cost of e-books down, it did it in an anti-competitive fashion and by doing so it hurt consumers who are interested in buying books through a traditional retail channel.
Further, it wasn't illegal for Apple to ask publishers to change to agency model, which opened the market up to not only Apple, but Barnes and Noble and others. Even with the agency model, Amazon holds over 60 percent of the market. Further, I can't find popular books like the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, or Ian Flemming novels on iBooks. The Agency model created competition and Amazon had to adapt.
iBooks store is not the topic - the system of selling a product that it introduced (and later placed on the entire eBook market) is.
Seeing how the Feds, US States and Europe's competition commissioner all feel it should be dismantled - top it with the fact that 3 of the Publishers already walked away from it.. "retarded Trash" seems possible.
...so the Government should decide how content creators sell their work i.e wholesale only.
Should this model encapsulate all industries or are eBooks some sort of exception.
Perhaps a new system could be set up, artistic content could be valued on pages for books, minutes for music and movies, square inches for paintings, weight for sculpture, etc with Government mandated fixed wholesale prices monitored by the DoJ to "protect" consumers.
Now, where is a study that conclusively shows that the AVERAGE price of eBooks has risen since Apple entered the market with their agency model that isn't based on anecdotal evidence based on a few cherry picked examples?
The DoJ is letting emotion overcome what should be an impartial consideration of law.
Further, it wasn't illegal for Apple to ask publishers to change to agency model, which opened the market up to not only Apple, but Barnes and Noble and others. Even with the agency model, Amazon holds over 60 percent of the market. Further, I can't find popular books like the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, or Ian Flemming novels on iBooks. The Agency model created competition and Amazon had to adapt.
Exactly. Amazon recently bragged about having exclusive rights to 15% of the NYT best sellers list in ebook format. How come the DOJ isn't investigating them on that.
I've been buying eBooks for over four years now, and I suspect that the majority of you DoJ trashers can't say that, and so don't really have perspective on this, except your usual perspective that everything Apple does is Golden.
Now, I love Apple's accomplishments and products, but I don't have that particular brain-cloud...at least sometimes!
Once you and Apple stop babbling about "free enterprise", the "value of competition", "better for consumers", and "a perfectly legitimate business model",
one simple, consumer-related fact remains:
The advent of Apple in the ebook market, and the general adoption of its "agency model", resulted in an immediate and universal rise in eBook prices, except perhaps in the oldest titles, and out-of-print (generally free anyway) titles.
Assuming arguendo you are correct about the sudden raise in prices, you act as if price is the only metric. The reality is Amazon was using its dominance in hardcover books to artificially deflate the prices of e-books. That is anti-competitive behavior.
Exactly. Amazon recently bragged about having exclusive rights to 15% of the NYT best sellers list in ebook format. How come the DOJ isn't investigating them on that.
And it is undoubtedly getting the exclusives by leveraging it dominance in hardcover sales.
Comments
Your factual problem is that at the time apple set up iBooks there was amazon and ....amazon.
Amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost.
From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss."
Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much.
DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
No one else could use books as a loss leader so the model was not available to other vendors. If you can't wrap your thoughts around that, then what is there to talk about. Authors and publishers are entitled to consider their work as having value.
What proof do you have that Amazon would've raised prices? They haven't in the time that they've been selling ebooks. You're just repeating the scare tactics you've been gullible enough to believe.
Correction: Amazon was selling SOME ebooks below cost.
You're insinuating it was all ebooks and that is not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Quote:
Virtually overnight, this conspiracy to fix prices caused e-book prices to increase by as much $5 per unit, costing consumers tens of millions of dollars, according to the lawsuit: “Millions of e-books that would have sold at retail for $9.99 or for other low prices instead sold for the prices indicated by the price schedules included in the Apple Agency Agreements — generally, $12.99 or $14.99.” According to the suit, Apple boasted of the successful scheme as an “Akido move,” after the Japanese martial art.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/04/12/how-apples-steve-jobs-book-publishers-cost-consumers-millions/#ixzz1vk4bR0au
No evidence. The article presents a statement as fact but provides no evidence to support their statement. You simply quoted their statement which, as I already stated, doesn't have any associated evidentiary support.
But especially extra good for Apple, and not so much for the consumer.
Did anyone else read this with the voice of the Southern hyper chicken/Lawyer from Futurama? If not, please read again, i say I say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
I've been buying eBooks for over four years now, and I suspect that the majority of you DoJ trashers can't say that, and so don't really have perspective on this, except your usual perspective that everything Apple does is Golden.
...
So stop Apple-worshipping yourselves into arguing against your own best interests, which the DoJ is simply doing its job of trying to look out for.
Four years. Thanks for the laugh. That's *such* a long time
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
You might want to source that price decrease since 2007, including volumes of titles sold.... Cause you are probably the only one who s seen it
http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/ebook-prices-in-2004-vs-2011-whats-changed/
Yankee Group, a Boston-based research firm, says that the average price of a consumer digital book has fallen to $8.19 this year (2011) from $9.23 in 2009.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-15/business/chi-readers-getting-cheaper-but-rising-ebook-prices-causing-sticker-shock-20111215_1_e-book-digital-books-kindle
...but here's a thought. Do we even need traditional big publishing houses anymore? There's a lot of worthy indie-published works and many of the best-known authors have recognized that they're often on the losing end when dealing with the big publishers, deciding to forego them altogether. Note too that it's the big publishers and not the authors who come out the biggest winners on eBooks. While the publishers realize a better profit margin, part of it comes from a lower royalty they pay the author compared to pay-outs on a printed version. Doesn't quite seem fair, but I guess there's supposed to be logic buried somewhere in the house math.
http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/e-book-royalty-math-the-big.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2012/feb/27/anthony-horowitz-do-we-still-need-publishers
Funny how Apple is all of a sudden worried about a competitors price.
Why? Because this is a rare instance in which Apple can charge a premium price for a premium product. Ebooks bought on the iBookstore can only be read on iDevices whereas a ebook bought from Amazon can be read across multiple platforms and devices.
So Apple is gonna save the publishing industry just like they saved the music industry?
How well is that going?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Hey, it worked for that one company. You know, the one that… …has been relegated to the dustbin of history and exists only for the purpose of this illustration.
Probably the same logic that allowed you to come to the fallacious conclusion that the iBooks Store is "more retarded trash".
iBooks store is not the topic - the system of selling a product that it introduced (and later placed on the entire eBook market) is.
Seeing how the Feds, US States and Europe's competition commissioner all feel it should be dismantled - top it with the fact that 3 of the Publishers already walked away from it.. "retarded Trash" seems possible.
Four years in the tech world is a long time.
Lets see what happened in 2008, Apple introduced the iPhone 3G and the app store. Seems like a lifetime ago don't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
iBooks store is not the topic - the system of selling a product that it introduced (and later placed on the entire eBook market) is.
So… the iBooks Store is the topic, then. Because it is the system of selling the product. Otherwise I'm confused here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So… the iBooks Store is the topic, then. Because it is the system of selling the product. Otherwise I'm confused here.
I think he took the purple pill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanExtremists
Collusion kept prices artificially high and that didn't hurt consumers? But a lawsuit hurts consumers.
Yes, competition usually results in lower prices. But, Amazon is always trying to be the low price leader. So I don't see that with this type of competition, the consumer is better off.
Amazon engaged in anti-competitive behavior to gain its dominance in the e-book market. It had a monopoly on online traditional sales, and had advantages such as not having to collect sales tax that traditional retailers had to collect. When e-books came out Amazon forced publishers to essentially give the e-books away below cost by threatening to not carry their hardcover books, which would be the kiss of death. This quickly allowed Amazon to gain a monopoly position in e-books as well, not to mention hurt the traditional book market.
So while it may be true that Amazon pushed the cost of e-books down, it did it in an anti-competitive fashion and by doing so it hurt consumers who are interested in buying books through a traditional retail channel.
Further, it wasn't illegal for Apple to ask publishers to change to agency model, which opened the market up to not only Apple, but Barnes and Noble and others. Even with the agency model, Amazon holds over 60 percent of the market. Further, I can't find popular books like the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, or Ian Flemming novels on iBooks. The Agency model created competition and Amazon had to adapt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
iBooks store is not the topic - the system of selling a product that it introduced (and later placed on the entire eBook market) is.
Seeing how the Feds, US States and Europe's competition commissioner all feel it should be dismantled - top it with the fact that 3 of the Publishers already walked away from it.. "retarded Trash" seems possible.
...so the Government should decide how content creators sell their work i.e wholesale only.
Should this model encapsulate all industries or are eBooks some sort of exception.
Perhaps a new system could be set up, artistic content could be valued on pages for books, minutes for music and movies, square inches for paintings, weight for sculpture, etc with Government mandated fixed wholesale prices monitored by the DoJ to "protect" consumers.
Now, where is a study that conclusively shows that the AVERAGE price of eBooks has risen since Apple entered the market with their agency model that isn't based on anecdotal evidence based on a few cherry picked examples?
The DoJ is letting emotion overcome what should be an impartial consideration of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Further, it wasn't illegal for Apple to ask publishers to change to agency model, which opened the market up to not only Apple, but Barnes and Noble and others. Even with the agency model, Amazon holds over 60 percent of the market. Further, I can't find popular books like the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, or Ian Flemming novels on iBooks. The Agency model created competition and Amazon had to adapt.
Exactly. Amazon recently bragged about having exclusive rights to 15% of the NYT best sellers list in ebook format. How come the DOJ isn't investigating them on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
I've been buying eBooks for over four years now, and I suspect that the majority of you DoJ trashers can't say that, and so don't really have perspective on this, except your usual perspective that everything Apple does is Golden.
Now, I love Apple's accomplishments and products, but I don't have that particular brain-cloud...at least sometimes!
Once you and Apple stop babbling about "free enterprise", the "value of competition", "better for consumers", and "a perfectly legitimate business model",
one simple, consumer-related fact remains:
The advent of Apple in the ebook market, and the general adoption of its "agency model", resulted in an immediate and universal rise in eBook prices, except perhaps in the oldest titles, and out-of-print (generally free anyway) titles.
Assuming arguendo you are correct about the sudden raise in prices, you act as if price is the only metric. The reality is Amazon was using its dominance in hardcover books to artificially deflate the prices of e-books. That is anti-competitive behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Exactly. Amazon recently bragged about having exclusive rights to 15% of the NYT best sellers list in ebook format. How come the DOJ isn't investigating them on that.
And it is undoubtedly getting the exclusives by leveraging it dominance in hardcover sales.