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 Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to anything it sells in iTunes? Like the entire Beatles library.
The difference you're failing to see is that Apple has secured digital (download) rights for a period whilst Amazon has secured rights to all forms of many books and publishers. This means it's not just Apple's iBookstore that won't get access to the digital content but Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, and any other store that would sell the printed medium.
And Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to anything it sells in iTunes? Like the entire Beatles library.
On a 40 year old catalog? Another difference is you can rip CDs yourself to get it on your portable music file player. You can't "rip" a paper book like that.
The difference you're failing to see is that Apple has secured digital (download) rights for a period whilst Amazon has secured rights to all forms of many books and publishers. This means it's not just Apple's iBookstore that won't get access to the digital content but Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, and any other store that would sell the printed medium.
It's rough being the new Microsoft. There once was a time when Microsoft didn't have a single lobbyist then they learned you take it hard and deep when you don't. Apple is the new Microsoft they better get use to this.
On a 40 year old catalog? Another difference is you can rip CDs yourself to get it on your portable music file player. You can't "rip" a paper book like that.
You could scan a book as pdf's, but who'd want to.
The difference you're failing to see is that Apple has secured digital (download) rights for a period whilst Amazon has secured rights to all forms of many books and publishers. This means it's not just Apple's iBookstore that won't get access to the digital content but Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, and any other store that would sell the printed medium.
Can you tell me what period of time? It could be said that Apple killed competition with $.99 songs that its competitors could not match.
You could scan a book as pdf's, but who'd want to.
It's possible, but the level of inconvenience is off the charts in comparison, days vs. five minutes for just one work. Not something most regular someone would do for themselves.
On a 40 year old catalog? Another difference is you can rip CDs yourself to get it on your portable music file player. You can't "rip" a paper book like that.
A best seller is a best seller whether its 40 yrs old or 40 days old. Ripping a book? Good idea for a app.
On a 40 year old catalog? Another difference is you can rip CDs yourself to get it on your portable music file player. You can't "rip" a paper book like that.
Good point. Another distinct difference is that if you want to purchase The Beatles on a song-by-song basis to listen via your Amazon Fire or non-Apple device you can do so as there is no DRM, yet with Amazon's eBooks there is no DRM-free model that would allow you to transfer the content to another app.
At least Amazon has put their app on pretty much every device imaginable but there formatting is wretched which does take away from the reading experience. It's akin to Amazon selling DRMed 64Kbps MP3s.
That said, I don't see anything overtly illegal about Amazon's exclusive deals even though I agree with the OP about DoJ priorities and why this (and there loss-leader eBook sales) aren't being looked into.
"In short, the agency model allows publishers to set content prices in exchange for a "most favored nations clause" that bars the houses from selling e-books to competing retailers at lower prices. The strategy is diametrically opposed by the "wholesale model" used by Amazon which lets resellers incentivize purchasing by offering products at below-cost prices."
The second sentence in the above quote from the article is categorically wrong. The so-called "wholesale model" was the industry standard at the time - all book sellers, including Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. sold books under this model. The Agency Model, with support from Apple, was designed to impede Amazon's success in selling ebooks. The model gave an opening for Apple's ebook store and gave Publishers absolute control over prices. I fail to see how this whole fiasco has benefited consumers other than giving them the ability to pay higher prices.
The second sentence in the above quote from the article is categorically wrong. The so-called "wholesale model" was the industry standard at the time - all book sellers, including Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. sold books under this model. The Agency Model, with support from Apple, was designed to impede Amazon's success in selling ebooks. The model gave an opening for Apple's ebook store and gave Publishers absolute control over prices. I fail to see how this whole fiasco has benefited consumers other than giving them the ability to pay higher prices.
You can't see how the agency model has any validity in business or are you saying that it, in itself, is an illegal practice?
The only questionable part is the most favored nations clause but that doesn't mean that Apple and the publishers colluded to artificially set prices.
They killed competition by creating a revenue stream for internet-based music when thievery was the only outlet?
They killed competition with 99¢ songs by not creating exclusive deals that other vendors could use?
You're really reaching now.
I'm reaching? Where are all the brick and morter stores that sold music? Entire nationwide chains gone because they could not compete with the $.99 per song. Now the thievery is almost all gone and is iTunes the saviour to the music industry?
I'm reaching? Where are all the brick and morter stores that sold music? Entire nationwide chains gone because they could not compete with the $.99 per song. Now the thievery is almost all gone and is iTunes the saviour to the music industry?
B&M stores were withering out before the iTMS was around. The internet not only brought with it the ability to steal music easily but to purchase CDs online at reduced costs. You can blame all you want but the causation but it's wrong.
Apple telling the government that their suit is essentially idiotic, while true, will probably result in additional punitive measures by our all-powerful, all-knowing overlords.
B&M stores were withering out before the iTMS was around. The internet not only brought with it the ability to steal music easily but to purchase CDs online at reduced costs. You can blame all you want but the causation but it's wrong.
It sure as hell didn't help now did it? Nobody here was crying stop the monopoly when B&M music stores was closing down and the cheapest place to buy music was on iTunes. And there was no "well you can set the price and we'll take 30%" it was ""sell the songs for $.99 or we wont sell it"
So do you have some figures comparing the AVERAGE price of eBooks before and after Apple entered the market, not just anecdotal evidence based on selected titles with discounts?
I cited a report in the last Apple/DOJ thread from a publisher that stated that Apple's agency model caused the average price of the books they sold to decrease. I don't think there's any evidence for the market as a whole. Lots of people ASSUME that the agency model will increase prices, but there's no evidence to support that. For at least one publisher, the priced dropped.
I didn't hear your response on how this is anything but collusion what with the evidence hat has surfaced.
It certainly costs less money when you have a readied infrastructure and storage and bandwidth for ebooks is dwarfed by the other content you sell. If apple has a gallery then the ebooks would be selling out of the men's room. Aplle should have bought wholesale and managed a proper bookstore just like everyone else and not opt for a 30% guaranteed cut in collusion with publishers.
Where is the evidence of collusion? So far, there's none. Apple proposed a new pricing model and even suggested that the publishers would benefit. But neither of those is collusion - and the DOJ hasn't provided any evidence of collusion, either. So where's the evidence?
Amazon have always and continue to sell goods for below their actual market value in order to push sales of their hardware. This is probably more anti-competitive than what occurred with the iBookstore.
What would have happened if Apple had not opened a book store and B&N and the others trying to open eBook stores had failed because of Amazon's tactics?
The same as what always happens when someone is in a monopoly position. Look at the mobile phone industry.
Your tax payer's dollars are being wasted on this action. I would rather it was spent trying to find out who was the instigator of it. If it came from Amazon then there are much bigger questions for Bezos and the DoJ to answer
[quote name="jragosta" url="/t/150257/apple-says-doj-lawsuit
-fundamentally-flawed-could-harm-consumers/40#post_2114877"]
I cited a report in the last Apple/DOJ thread from a publisher that stated that Apple's agency model caused the average price of the books they sold to decrease. I don't think there's any evidence for the market as a whole. Lots of people ASSUME that the agency model will increase prices, but there's no evidence to support that. For at least one publisher, the priced dropped.
Where is the evidence of collusion? So far, there's none. Apple proposed a new pricing model and even suggested that the publishers would benefit. But neither of those is collusion - and the DOJ hasn't provided any evidence of collusion, either.
So where's the evidence?[/quote]
Well lets see if the agency model does truly lower prices. Songs that used to cost $.99 on iTunes are now $1.29, nope that's a increase. Did Apple so graciously let the record labels set the price and merely act as the "agent" or did it strong arm them into agreeing to $.99 a song. The competition could not of offer this same predatory price so they're mostly now gone.
Comments
And Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to anything it sells in iTunes? Like the entire Beatles library.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to anything it sells in iTunes? Like the entire Beatles library.
I believe that was only for a limited time.
There are plenty of music from The Beatles to be had in stores all over the world, including on Amazon.
The difference you're failing to see is that Apple has secured digital (download) rights for a period whilst Amazon has secured rights to all forms of many books and publishers. This means it's not just Apple's iBookstore that won't get access to the digital content but Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, and any other store that would sell the printed medium.
On a 40 year old catalog? Another difference is you can rip CDs yourself to get it on your portable music file player. You can't "rip" a paper book like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There are plenty of music from The Beatles to be had in stores all over the world, including on Amazon.
The difference you're failing to see is that Apple has secured digital (download) rights for a period whilst Amazon has secured rights to all forms of many books and publishers. This means it's not just Apple's iBookstore that won't get access to the digital content but Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, and any other store that would sell the printed medium.http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=popular&field-keywords=the+beatles
It's rough being the new Microsoft. There once was a time when Microsoft didn't have a single lobbyist then they learned you take it hard and deep when you don't. Apple is the new Microsoft they better get use to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
On a 40 year old catalog? Another difference is you can rip CDs yourself to get it on your portable music file player. You can't "rip" a paper book like that.
You could scan a book as pdf's, but who'd want to.
Can you tell me what period of time? It could be said that Apple killed competition with $.99 songs that its competitors could not match.
It's possible, but the level of inconvenience is off the charts in comparison, days vs. five minutes for just one work. Not something most regular someone would do for themselves.
A best seller is a best seller whether its 40 yrs old or 40 days old. Ripping a book? Good idea for a app.
Good point. Another distinct difference is that if you want to purchase The Beatles on a song-by-song basis to listen via your Amazon Fire or non-Apple device you can do so as there is no DRM, yet with Amazon's eBooks there is no DRM-free model that would allow you to transfer the content to another app.
At least Amazon has put their app on pretty much every device imaginable but there formatting is wretched which does take away from the reading experience. It's akin to Amazon selling DRMed 64Kbps MP3s.
That said, I don't see anything overtly illegal about Amazon's exclusive deals even though I agree with the OP about DoJ priorities and why this (and there loss-leader eBook sales) aren't being looked into.
They killed competition by creating a revenue stream for internet-based music when thievery was the only outlet?
They killed competition with 99¢ songs by not creating exclusive deals that other vendors could use?
I think you're really reaching now.
"In short, the agency model allows publishers to set content prices in exchange for a "most favored nations clause" that bars the houses from selling e-books to competing retailers at lower prices. The strategy is diametrically opposed by the "wholesale model" used by Amazon which lets resellers incentivize purchasing by offering products at below-cost prices."
The second sentence in the above quote from the article is categorically wrong. The so-called "wholesale model" was the industry standard at the time - all book sellers, including Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. sold books under this model. The Agency Model, with support from Apple, was designed to impede Amazon's success in selling ebooks. The model gave an opening for Apple's ebook store and gave Publishers absolute control over prices. I fail to see how this whole fiasco has benefited consumers other than giving them the ability to pay higher prices.
You can't see how the agency model has any validity in business or are you saying that it, in itself, is an illegal practice?
The only questionable part is the most favored nations clause but that doesn't mean that Apple and the publishers colluded to artificially set prices.
I'm reaching? Where are all the brick and morter stores that sold music? Entire nationwide chains gone because they could not compete with the $.99 per song. Now the thievery is almost all gone and is iTunes the saviour to the music industry?
B&M stores were withering out before the iTMS was around. The internet not only brought with it the ability to steal music easily but to purchase CDs online at reduced costs. You can blame all you want but the causation but it's wrong.
Apple telling the government that their suit is essentially idiotic, while true, will probably result in additional punitive measures by our all-powerful, all-knowing overlords.
It sure as hell didn't help now did it? Nobody here was crying stop the monopoly when B&M music stores was closing down and the cheapest place to buy music was on iTunes. And there was no "well you can set the price and we'll take 30%" it was ""sell the songs for $.99 or we wont sell it"
I cited a report in the last Apple/DOJ thread from a publisher that stated that Apple's agency model caused the average price of the books they sold to decrease. I don't think there's any evidence for the market as a whole. Lots of people ASSUME that the agency model will increase prices, but there's no evidence to support that. For at least one publisher, the priced dropped.
Where is the evidence of collusion? So far, there's none. Apple proposed a new pricing model and even suggested that the publishers would benefit. But neither of those is collusion - and the DOJ hasn't provided any evidence of collusion, either. So where's the evidence?
Thanks TBell, I missed by that much.
Amazon have always and continue to sell goods for below their actual market value in order to push sales of their hardware. This is probably more anti-competitive than what occurred with the iBookstore.
What would have happened if Apple had not opened a book store and B&N and the others trying to open eBook stores had failed because of Amazon's tactics?
The same as what always happens when someone is in a monopoly position. Look at the mobile phone industry.
Your tax payer's dollars are being wasted on this action. I would rather it was spent trying to find out who was the instigator of it. If it came from Amazon then there are much bigger questions for Bezos and the DoJ to answer
-fundamentally-flawed-could-harm-consumers/40#post_2114877"]
I cited a report in the last Apple/DOJ thread from a publisher that stated that Apple's agency model caused the average price of the books they sold to decrease. I don't think there's any evidence for the market as a whole. Lots of people ASSUME that the agency model will increase prices, but there's no evidence to support that. For at least one publisher, the priced dropped.
Where is the evidence of collusion? So far, there's none. Apple proposed a new pricing model and even suggested that the publishers would benefit. But neither of those is collusion - and the DOJ hasn't provided any evidence of collusion, either.
So where's the evidence?[/quote]
Well lets see if the agency model does truly lower prices. Songs that used to cost $.99 on iTunes are now $1.29, nope that's a increase. Did Apple so graciously let the record labels set the price and merely act as the "agent" or did it strong arm them into agreeing to $.99 a song. The competition could not of offer this same predatory price so they're mostly now gone.