It is often repeated that not average prices but only best sellers went up. You can call this cherry-picking if you like, but those are the books people actually buy; feel free to include in the average all classics below $1 if you think that's a point worth making.
I don't see anyone challenging the data in the comments and I wasn't able to find any rebuttals, so I take it that the few examples given in the article were representative of the market as a whole. You could perhaps provide your own proof of best sellers dropping in price for that time period... In the end, the DoJ will have to support its case with evidence and I suppose it is better positioned to find the relevant data, as suggested by the three companies that chose to settle.
So when the DoJ refers to "consumers" they are actually referring to a subset of consumers i.e. those who purchase new release best sellers.
To set up a book store you'd only need ten or so fiction books and ten or so non-fiction books because the rest is apparently irrelevant.
I now see where brick and mortar stores went wrong they were overstocked with irrelevant titles instead of only focussing on best sellers.
Sure it did. Where's all the B&M music stores? Was $.99 the price the music industry set or the price Apple set?
That's not a comparable product though, because the delivery method is very different. The cost of selling singles using physical medium makes it impractical to compete, but that's no reason to hamstring the new technology solution so that old technology can compete. I consider cost reductions because of advances in technology to be different from dumping - which is selling product below cost. When many of the B&Ms opened their own digital storefront, they were able to meet or beat Apple's pricing. Walmart sold for $0.88 a track last I recall. Amazon did $0.89, others had $0.99.
That said, the book market often doesn't reflect a similar reduction in price because of lower costs. Maybe there is something to this case, but I don't know. Before iBooks, I had been reading stories about Amazon paying 30% to publishers on best sellers, keeping 70% for themselves, those times are gone. Apple pays 70% to publishers, and taking their 30% cut.
I haven't ever seen proof that Amazon was losing money on it's eBook segment. They reportedly sold some best-sellers for under cost, but eBooks as a whole? Never seen it, so if you have some citation for the claim it would be helpful support for the argument.
So, what GG is saying is that the agency model didn't really increase ebook prices. Let's see how long it takes him to also argue that it did.
DOJ's assertion of e-books prices increase as the result of collusion is flawed and incorrect.
There was no collusion and the prices increased are due to popularity of e-books, the result of Apple's entrance into the market with an Agency model, the draw of Apple's premium brand image, and the popularity of iPad.
I haven't ever seen proof that Amazon was losing money on it's eBook segment. They reportedly sold some best-sellers for under cost, but eBooks as a whole? Never seen it, so if you have some citation for the claim it would be helpful support for the argument.
OK. So your argument that a best seller went from $9.99 to $15.99 is irrelevant. Some eBooks went from $9.99 to $5.99, too.
So where's the data on what happened to the AVERAGE ebook price? I've only seen one report and it was from a single publisher so it's merely anecdotal. They reported that their average selling price went down (and volume went up significantly). If you're going to continue to claim that Apple caused eBook prices to increase, you need data to support it - and picking just best sellers won't do since other books went down. So where's the data to back up your accusations?
OK. So your argument that a best seller went from $9.99 to $15.99 is irrelevant. Some eBooks went from $9.99 to $5.99, too.
So where's the data on what happened to the AVERAGE ebook price? I've only seen one report and it was from a single publisher so it's merely anecdotal. They reported that their average selling price went down (and volume went up significantly). If you're going to continue to claim that Apple caused eBook prices to increase, you need data to support it - and picking just best sellers won't do since other books went down. So where's the data to back up your accusations?
When you can quote "my claim" that Apple caused eBook prices to go up I'll be happy to respond. In the meantime I'm sure there's some legitimate discussions you can take part in rather than making stuff up once again. It's dishonest of you.
BTW, if you've only seen one anecdotal report on average eBook prices you very obviously didn't bother following my links in an earlier post. Perhaps you should read/research more and write less until you've caught up.
I'm with Myapplelove on everything. I've been buying ebooks for years, and the price hikes of the big six is the problem. I was about to buy an ebook for a 2001 book seen http://amzn.to/KSfegJ
The paper back is 9.44 but the ebook version is 13.99. Why would anyone want to pay that big of a price difference?
Amazon is also kind enough to let you know the publisher set this ridulous price.
Amazon wasn't the only one discounting, fictionwise also had a very nice discount program and they were much smaller and in the ebook game longer then even Amazon.
Amazon had a few loss leaders to push people to the expensive kindles, now they have reversed this and sell the hardware cheaper. This was normally the release of best sellers, it wasn't all titles and after the book had been out a while it often went off sell.
I think once any company pays the publishers asking price then if they want to run a sell on it then they should be able to.
As to borders, they were late to the ebook game, their lack of vision is hardly Amazon's fault.
I'm with Myapplelove on everything. I've been buying ebooks for years, and the price hikes of the big six is the problem. I was about to buy an ebook for a 2001 book seen [=http://amzn.to/KSfegJ]here[/] The paper back is 9.44 but the ebook version is 13.99. Why would anyone want to pay that big of a price difference?
Amazon is also kind enough to let you know the publisher set this ridulous price.
You have it exactly backwards. In Amazon's model, it is Amazon who sets the price. Apple's model is the one where the publisher sets the price.
You have it exactly backwards. In Amazon's model, it is Amazon who sets the price. Apple's model is the one where the publisher sets the price.
Not sure how I'm wrong. Amazon paid the publisher the price they asked for, then set their own pricing.
Now the publisher has a ebook set at 14.00 dollars while it's paperback version is under ten. That's a big difference and hardly matches the quote of the consumer paying just a little bit more.
DOJ's assertion of e-books prices increase as the result of collusion is flawed and incorrect.
There was no collusion and the prices increased are due to popularity of e-books, the result of Apple's entrance into the market with an Agency model, the draw of Apple's premium brand image, and the popularity of iPad.
So why did a few publishers settle immediately when the lawsuit was announced?
They didn't even wait to see what the doj had on them. I'm not saying Apple was actively involved but they were indirectly involved. I see no problem with the agency model, the problem arises when one model conflicts with another.
You have it exactly backwards. In Amazon's model, it is Amazon who sets the price. Apple's model is the one where the publisher sets the price.
But in Apple's model the price has to be bumped up 30% to cover Apple's cut, if they match Amazon's price then they'll only make $6.99 per ebook vs the $9 99 Amazon pays for it. You're all afraid of what Amazon might do but I'd be more afraid of what Apple has done in the past and set a price and tell the industry take it or don't do business with us.
But in Apple's model the price has to be bumped up 30% to cover Apple's cut, if they match Amazon's price then they'll only make $6.99 per ebook vs the $9 99 Amazon pays for it. You're all afraid of what Amazon might do but I'd be more afraid of what Apple has done in the past and set a price and tell the industry take it or don't do business with us.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that the average price of ebooks to the consumer increased after Apple entered the market.
Not sure how I'm wrong. Amazon paid the publisher the price they asked for, then set their own pricing.
Now the publisher has a ebook set at 14.00 dollars while it's paperback version is under ten. That's a big difference and hardly matches the quote of the consumer paying just a little bit more.
You had it wrong (and still do) because you think that the publisher sets the price that the consumer sees in the Amazon model. They do not.
You had it wrong (and still do) because you think that the publisher sets the price that the consumer sees in the Amazon model. They do not.
For the "best-sellers", as identified by 5 of the 6 publishers, that price you saw at Amazon may in fact be the publisher's minimum selling price, and something Amazon had no option to reduce. So yes, in effect some of the best-seller prices Amazon advertised were set by the publishers. Amazon could sell for a higher price than the publisher-established price but not less.
I don't know if anything has yet changed with 3 of the 5 agreeing to a DoJ settlement already as I don't personally buy eBooks. In any case the combination of the agency model with "most favored nations" clause wrapped up with it took some of Amazon's price options away, forcing them at best to advertise the same minimum prices as Apple or any other reseller could on a group of best-selling titles.
For the "best-sellers", as identified by 5 of the 6 publishers, that price you saw at Amazon may in fact be the publisher's minimum selling price, and something Amazon had no option to reduce. So yes, in effect some of the best-seller prices Amazon advertised were set by the publishers. Amazon could sell for a higher price than the publisher-established price but not less.
I don't know if anything has yet changed with 3 of the 5 agreeing to a DoJ settlement already as I don't personally buy eBooks. In any case the combination of the agency model with "most favored nations" clause wrapped up with it took some of Amazon's price options away, forcing them at best to advertise the same minimum prices as Apple or any other reseller could on a group of best-selling titles.
Still waiting for evidence backing your claims. For example, where is the evidence to show that the publisher sets a minimum selling price that Amazon can't violate? And how do you reconcile that with the fact that it is known that Amazon sells some books below cost?
And, most importantly, I'm still waiting for that evidence that the average eBook price has gone up since Apple entered the market.
Jragosta, it's pretty common knowledge that those publishers were alleged to have set a minimum floor price of between $12.99 and $14.99 on what they determined to be "Best-sellers". You've read the same sources and are well aware of that (or should be).
As for some evidence that average eBook prices had gone up, don't look for me to give you one. My linked sources, and the claim I made, was that had marginally gone down since 2007. Why do you bother planting false statements attributed to members? If you don't have anything honest to add to a discussion there's no forum rules that require you to post.
EDIT: If you truly are confused about the allegations rather than being dishonest (again!), TheVerge had a pretty good synopsis. You should take a couple of minutes and read it.
The big publishing houses use new, popular titles to generate a significant amount of revenue - which is why new releases are higher priced than classics or older popular releases - no one in this forum should be unfamiliar with that fact. Which is why many of these are released in hardbound version first with the paperback being released some weeks down stream.
What was happening in the case of Amazon is the fact that the publishers were holding back popular titles from Amazon, because of the pricing model Amazon was using. So Amazon wasn't pricing premium content, just less popular content (which judging from some of the commentary here is a preferred category anyway) aggressively. Since there is a tipping point between price and popularity, Amazon was trying to leverage that to drive traffic and uptake on their ereader devices. The publishing houses had little choice in who to go to for epub format book sales it was substantially Amazon and few other large retailers. This allowed Amazon to use a predatory pricing technique based on their control of a majority of the market.
Enter Apple. They want to be able to provide epub content at reasonable prices (because having to charge a lot for them would slow uptake - witness their approach on iTunes for music). In order to level the playing field with Amazon, they went straight to the source - the large publishing houses. The plan is simple: we support you setting the prices to what you feel is competitively profitable for you, everyone gets the same pricing scheme without favoritism. No one gets to drastically undercut anyone else, everyone gets to play by the same rules.
Not a bad situation unless you are a rabid consumer of "paperback" level literature and have been enjoying Amazon's predatory pricing, and now have to pay a price that allows more money to support less popular titles and writers and allows a potentially more diverse authoring environment. Witness Amazon's scramble to lock down as much epub content as they can prior to the trial. They may suspect it won't go the way they want, so those of you crowing about the loveliness of Amazon's pricing will soon find that those sources they lock down will belong to Amazon to price as they see fit.
Personally, it's an interesting case to watch. I think Apple has a leg to stand on, as I think DOJ has a leg to stand on. I'm not convinced we've seen all of the evidence, but with what we've seen so far, I think it's a 51/49 call in Apple's favor.
Personally, it's an interesting case to watch. I think Apple has a leg to stand on, as I think DOJ has a leg to stand on. I'm not convinced we've seen all of the evidence, but with what we've seen so far, I think it's a 51/49 call in Apple's favor.
Would you still think so if Apple settles out of court?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
It is often repeated that not average prices but only best sellers went up. You can call this cherry-picking if you like, but those are the books people actually buy; feel free to include in the average all classics below $1 if you think that's a point worth making.
Here's one link to an article form December 2011 talking about the price hike: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2074946/An-eBook-reader-Christmas-tree-Bad-news--publishers-band-hike-prices-higher-real-books.html
I don't see anyone challenging the data in the comments and I wasn't able to find any rebuttals, so I take it that the few examples given in the article were representative of the market as a whole. You could perhaps provide your own proof of best sellers dropping in price for that time period... In the end, the DoJ will have to support its case with evidence and I suppose it is better positioned to find the relevant data, as suggested by the three companies that chose to settle.
So when the DoJ refers to "consumers" they are actually referring to a subset of consumers i.e. those who purchase new release best sellers.
To set up a book store you'd only need ten or so fiction books and ten or so non-fiction books because the rest is apparently irrelevant.
I now see where brick and mortar stores went wrong they were overstocked with irrelevant titles instead of only focussing on best sellers.
Like who needs choice anyway.
That's not a comparable product though, because the delivery method is very different. The cost of selling singles using physical medium makes it impractical to compete, but that's no reason to hamstring the new technology solution so that old technology can compete. I consider cost reductions because of advances in technology to be different from dumping - which is selling product below cost. When many of the B&Ms opened their own digital storefront, they were able to meet or beat Apple's pricing. Walmart sold for $0.88 a track last I recall. Amazon did $0.89, others had $0.99.
That said, the book market often doesn't reflect a similar reduction in price because of lower costs. Maybe there is something to this case, but I don't know. Before iBooks, I had been reading stories about Amazon paying 30% to publishers on best sellers, keeping 70% for themselves, those times are gone. Apple pays 70% to publishers, and taking their 30% cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I haven't ever seen proof that Amazon was losing money on it's eBook segment. They reportedly sold some best-sellers for under cost, but eBooks as a whole? Never seen it, so if you have some citation for the claim it would be helpful support for the argument.
So, what GG is saying is that the agency model didn't really increase ebook prices. Let's see how long it takes him to also argue that it did.
I think a good argument for Apple could be:
DOJ's assertion of e-books prices increase as the result of collusion is flawed and incorrect.
There was no collusion and the prices increased are due to popularity of e-books, the result of Apple's entrance into the market with an Agency model, the draw of Apple's premium brand image, and the popularity of iPad.
OK. So your argument that a best seller went from $9.99 to $15.99 is irrelevant. Some eBooks went from $9.99 to $5.99, too.
So where's the data on what happened to the AVERAGE ebook price? I've only seen one report and it was from a single publisher so it's merely anecdotal. They reported that their average selling price went down (and volume went up significantly). If you're going to continue to claim that Apple caused eBook prices to increase, you need data to support it - and picking just best sellers won't do since other books went down. So where's the data to back up your accusations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK. So your argument that a best seller went from $9.99 to $15.99 is irrelevant. Some eBooks went from $9.99 to $5.99, too.
So where's the data on what happened to the AVERAGE ebook price? I've only seen one report and it was from a single publisher so it's merely anecdotal. They reported that their average selling price went down (and volume went up significantly). If you're going to continue to claim that Apple caused eBook prices to increase, you need data to support it - and picking just best sellers won't do since other books went down. So where's the data to back up your accusations?
When you can quote "my claim" that Apple caused eBook prices to go up I'll be happy to respond. In the meantime I'm sure there's some legitimate discussions you can take part in rather than making stuff up once again. It's dishonest of you.
BTW, if you've only seen one anecdotal report on average eBook prices you very obviously didn't bother following my links in an earlier post. Perhaps you should read/research more and write less until you've caught up.
The paper back is 9.44 but the ebook version is 13.99. Why would anyone want to pay that big of a price difference?
Amazon is also kind enough to let you know the publisher set this ridulous price.
Amazon wasn't the only one discounting, fictionwise also had a very nice discount program and they were much smaller and in the ebook game longer then even Amazon.
Amazon had a few loss leaders to push people to the expensive kindles, now they have reversed this and sell the hardware cheaper. This was normally the release of best sellers, it wasn't all titles and after the book had been out a while it often went off sell.
I think once any company pays the publishers asking price then if they want to run a sell on it then they should be able to.
As to borders, they were late to the ebook game, their lack of vision is hardly Amazon's fault.
You have it exactly backwards. In Amazon's model, it is Amazon who sets the price. Apple's model is the one where the publisher sets the price.
Not sure how I'm wrong. Amazon paid the publisher the price they asked for, then set their own pricing.
Now the publisher has a ebook set at 14.00 dollars while it's paperback version is under ten. That's a big difference and hardly matches the quote of the consumer paying just a little bit more.
So why did a few publishers settle immediately when the lawsuit was announced?
They didn't even wait to see what the doj had on them. I'm not saying Apple was actively involved but they were indirectly involved. I see no problem with the agency model, the problem arises when one model conflicts with another.
But in Apple's model the price has to be bumped up 30% to cover Apple's cut, if they match Amazon's price then they'll only make $6.99 per ebook vs the $9 99 Amazon pays for it. You're all afraid of what Amazon might do but I'd be more afraid of what Apple has done in the past and set a price and tell the industry take it or don't do business with us.
Its easy to match a higher price.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that the average price of ebooks to the consumer increased after Apple entered the market.
You had it wrong (and still do) because you think that the publisher sets the price that the consumer sees in the Amazon model. They do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You had it wrong (and still do) because you think that the publisher sets the price that the consumer sees in the Amazon model. They do not.
For the "best-sellers", as identified by 5 of the 6 publishers, that price you saw at Amazon may in fact be the publisher's minimum selling price, and something Amazon had no option to reduce. So yes, in effect some of the best-seller prices Amazon advertised were set by the publishers. Amazon could sell for a higher price than the publisher-established price but not less.
I don't know if anything has yet changed with 3 of the 5 agreeing to a DoJ settlement already as I don't personally buy eBooks. In any case the combination of the agency model with "most favored nations" clause wrapped up with it took some of Amazon's price options away, forcing them at best to advertise the same minimum prices as Apple or any other reseller could on a group of best-selling titles.
Still waiting for evidence backing your claims. For example, where is the evidence to show that the publisher sets a minimum selling price that Amazon can't violate? And how do you reconcile that with the fact that it is known that Amazon sells some books below cost?
And, most importantly, I'm still waiting for that evidence that the average eBook price has gone up since Apple entered the market.
Jragosta, it's pretty common knowledge that those publishers were alleged to have set a minimum floor price of between $12.99 and $14.99 on what they determined to be "Best-sellers". You've read the same sources and are well aware of that (or should be).
As for some evidence that average eBook prices had gone up, don't look for me to give you one. My linked sources, and the claim I made, was that had marginally gone down since 2007. Why do you bother planting false statements attributed to members? If you don't have anything honest to add to a discussion there's no forum rules that require you to post.
EDIT: If you truly are confused about the allegations rather than being dishonest (again!), TheVerge had a pretty good synopsis. You should take a couple of minutes and read it.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2941053/inside-the-dojs-ebook-price-fixing-case-against-apple-an-analysis
The big publishing houses use new, popular titles to generate a significant amount of revenue - which is why new releases are higher priced than classics or older popular releases - no one in this forum should be unfamiliar with that fact. Which is why many of these are released in hardbound version first with the paperback being released some weeks down stream.
What was happening in the case of Amazon is the fact that the publishers were holding back popular titles from Amazon, because of the pricing model Amazon was using. So Amazon wasn't pricing premium content, just less popular content (which judging from some of the commentary here is a preferred category anyway) aggressively. Since there is a tipping point between price and popularity, Amazon was trying to leverage that to drive traffic and uptake on their ereader devices. The publishing houses had little choice in who to go to for epub format book sales it was substantially Amazon and few other large retailers. This allowed Amazon to use a predatory pricing technique based on their control of a majority of the market.
Enter Apple. They want to be able to provide epub content at reasonable prices (because having to charge a lot for them would slow uptake - witness their approach on iTunes for music). In order to level the playing field with Amazon, they went straight to the source - the large publishing houses. The plan is simple: we support you setting the prices to what you feel is competitively profitable for you, everyone gets the same pricing scheme without favoritism. No one gets to drastically undercut anyone else, everyone gets to play by the same rules.
Not a bad situation unless you are a rabid consumer of "paperback" level literature and have been enjoying Amazon's predatory pricing, and now have to pay a price that allows more money to support less popular titles and writers and allows a potentially more diverse authoring environment. Witness Amazon's scramble to lock down as much epub content as they can prior to the trial. They may suspect it won't go the way they want, so those of you crowing about the loveliness of Amazon's pricing will soon find that those sources they lock down will belong to Amazon to price as they see fit.
Personally, it's an interesting case to watch. I think Apple has a leg to stand on, as I think DOJ has a leg to stand on. I'm not convinced we've seen all of the evidence, but with what we've seen so far, I think it's a 51/49 call in Apple's favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlevier
Personally, it's an interesting case to watch. I think Apple has a leg to stand on, as I think DOJ has a leg to stand on. I'm not convinced we've seen all of the evidence, but with what we've seen so far, I think it's a 51/49 call in Apple's favor.
Would you still think so if Apple settles out of court?