Aren't the DoJ's claims that Apple entering the market caused a price increase of best sellers?
Obviously it didn't as 'best sellers" are available in iBooks for $9.99, which is the price the DoJ alleges Apple somehow increased despite PUBLISHERS NAMING THEIR OWN PRICE, Random House demonstrated that by selling their books for $9.99.
Now is this competitive pricing the reason why Random House holds the top three spots?
In which case iBooks is working as it should, an open market where publishers are free to compete based on price.
I'm absolutely convinced you understand the allegations made despite your posts. It's not any individual assertions standing alone by themselves that raised flags. It's the "sum of the parts" as you well know, or at least should know.
There's no proof of wrong-doing by any party as things stand now, but the examples you're dragging out don't at all disprove any of the DoJ claims.
b) the examples I gave using the current three Best Sellers clearly show that:-
i) Amazon is charging a slightly lower price which is less than the $9.99 they used to charge.
ii) prices in the iBooks store vary depending on what the PUBLISHER WANTS TO CHARGE.
The DoJ has NOTHING on Apple.
smh.
Your links compared paperbacks on Amazon to ebooks on iBooks. You will not find price differentiation on Big 6 ebook titles between Amazon, Apple, B&N or anyone.
The contention is that Apple somehow caused eBook prices to rise which is bad for consumers.
There has been no evidence on the effect on average prices of eBooks of Apple's entry into the market so the scope was narrowed to "best sellers" based on anecdotal evidence.
Now that I have shown that "best sellers" ARE still $9.99 the scope is further narrowed to only include specific publishers.
So what is it exactly that is wrong here, as it seems like a normal competitive market.
The DoJ seems to have no idea when it comes to the factual basis of law, they have succumbed to the emotional rantings of a small subset of eBook consumers using a legally worthless, cherry picked price list of examples.
The local jewellery store charges more for a Rolex than they do for a Seiko maybe the DoJ should examine this anti-competitive behaviour.
Yeah the doj has no idea about factual basis of law, they have no case that's why 5/6 have settled. ebook prices didn't rise, and there is price differentiation and competition in book retailers amongst the prices of the six publishers currently... Now let's move on into discussing the flat earth scenario while we are being factual...
Your links compared paperbacks on Amazon to ebooks on iBooks. You will not find price differentiation on Big 6 ebook titles between Amazon, Apple, B&N or anyone.
eBook pricing is also included in those links, maybe you missed it, I suggest you go back and look again otherwise your post looks rather foolish.
Yeah the doj has no idea about factual basis of law, they have no case that's why 5/6 have settled. ebook prices didn't rise, and there is price differentiation and competition in book retailers amongst the prices of the six publishers currently... Now let's move on into discussing the flat earth scenario while we are being factual...
5 out of 6, so that means Random House was involved?
Obviously your ill informed opinion is not worth the screen space it takes up on this forum, why don't you do a little research BEFORE posting this drivel.
btw this may help you get some understanding of why your post is a pack of lies although it won't stop you writing congenitally stupid posts in future
eBook pricing is also included in those links, maybe you missed it, I suggest you go back and look again otherwise your post looks rather foolish.
My post is foolish? Read your post. Oh, why don't I just quote you.
Quote:
i) Amazon is charging a slightly lower price which is less than the $9.99 they used to charge.
You post isn't only foolish, it is flat out wrong. The prices of those ebooks you linked are identical in both stores, just as all ebook titles from Big 6 publishers will be identical at Apple, Amazon, and every other ebook seller.
5 out of 6, so that means Random House was involved?
Obviously your ill informed opinion is not worth the screen space it takes up on this forum, why don't you do a little research BEFORE posting this drivel.
btw this may help you get some understanding of why your post is a pack of lies although it won't stop you writing congenitally stupid posts in future http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/10/big-six-publishers-refuse-to-sign-new-contracts-with-amazon/
so it's 3 or 4 out of 5 that have settled, I got it up to 6 by mistake, so what? Go on and spill that bile, that's what happens when someone is put in a tight corner for having no arguments, and less than perfect manners. I am not the one however oaccusing the whole doj of no factual level in law and then going on posting flat out lies that prices are not identical.
The fact remains that ebooks prices have risen and the adoption of the agency model WITH price fixing under the collusion of apple with publishers has cost the customer who can't now go to the cheapest seller.
Yeah sure enough as the internal documents that have come to light from apple via the doj reveal apple is right to brag about an aikido move. So apple got their way, they got their guaranteed 30% cut for a little more bandwidth one iTunes store infrastructure they took away the right of their competitors to compete on price, and "the customer pays a bit more, but that's what you (the publisher) want anyway"..
so it's 3 or 4 out of 5 that have settled, I got it up to 6 by mistake, so what? Go on and spill that bile, that's what happens when someone is put in a tight corner for having no arguments, and less than perfect manners. I am not the one however oaccusing the whole doj of no factual level in law and then going on posting flat out lies that prices are not identical.
The fact remains that ebooks prices have risen and the adoption of the agency model WITH price fixing under the collusion of apple with publishers has cost the customer who can't now go to the cheapest seller.
Yeah sure enough as the internal documents that have come to light from apple via the doj reveal apple is right to brag about an aikido move. So apple got their way, they got their guaranteed 30% cut for a little more bandwidth one iTunes store infrastructure they took away the right of their competitors to compete on price, and "the customer pays a bit more, but that's what you (the publisher) want anyway"..
Cite a source that "eBook prices have risen" before making such a sweeping statement.
There has been NO evidence presented that "eBook prices have risen" barring a few select titles from a few select publishers, now before we go around in circles again a simple question:-
Before Apple entered the eBooks market were ALL eBook titles in the Amazon bookstore capped at $9.99?
If they weren't then what was the average across ALL eBooks as that is the only way to establish an unskewed, statistically relevant baseline upon which to measure a trend, i.e. did prices rise, fall or remain the same.
Gas prices have risen, potato prices have risen, baloney prices have risen, gold prices have risen, prices rise (and fall) it's the nature of a free market the only way to prevent market based price changes is for the Government to step in and legislate set pricing.
Apple does not set prices, publishers do, the DoJ has nothing on Apple with these trumped up charges.
Apple are well within their rights to defend themselves and that is what they are doing.
Hopefully when this gets to court the instigators of the complaint will be revealed and depending on who it is, Apple will also be fully within their rights to sue for obstructionist and anticompetitive behaviour.
You do not have to use Apples store, Apple only makes their 30% cut on iBooks from people who CHOOSE to use their store, so consumers got their way by being presented with more choice, thus it is irrelevant. (Have a headshot to your strawman).
Perhaps the DoJ should investigate why Amazon advertises different t prices on different browsers, it shows as $9.99 on an iPhone, strange that.
Let's not keep building this strawman and stick to the relevant case and facts.
Quote:
Cite a source that "eBook prices have risen" before making such a sweeping statement.
There has been NO evidence presented that "eBook prices have risen" barring a few select titles from a few select publishers, now before we go around in circles again a simple question:-
This case IS about an alleged collusion by SPECIFIC parties to increase the price of their titles. As such, those specific parties did indeed raise the price of certain titles. 'ALL ebooks' is a strawman because ALL ebook publishers are neither under investigation nor are they accused of raising prices. However, if you want to see a breakdown a cited breakdown of price increases by the accused publishers, I'd suggest reading the clas-action complaint, which, by the way, a judge ruled that it merited the case going forward. Since this is a legal matter, her opinion, and not yours or mine, is what matters. The complaint (PDF): http://www.hbsslaw.com/file.php?id=861&key=a579e3b8530e573aaffdb1e3eb64f994
That link has a comparison of price increases.
Quote:
Before Apple entered the eBooks market were ALL eBook titles in the Amazon bookstore capped at $9.99?
No. Only titles currently on the NYT bestseller list, then eventually the NYT complained about their list being used, so Amazon switched to using its own lists. Titles not on that list had no upper limit to their price.
Quote:
If they weren't then what was the average across ALL eBooks as that is the only way to establish an unskewed, statistically relevant baseline upon which to measure a trend, i.e. did prices rise, fall or remain the same.
No, it's not. To get a true measure based on what is relevant in this case--since it targets bestselling ebooks--you would need the average sale price of ebook purchases. Best-sellers are called such because they sell a lot of copies. If a best-seller increases in price, and many rarely-purchased titles decrease, thus making the average price decrease, you do not have a true indicator of overall economic conditions. Of course, none of that is relevant. The question should be, "did certain publishers collude to increase certain prices of ebooks?" Collusion to price fix does not require a minimum number of price-fixed items; only one is needed.
Quote:
Apple does not set prices, publishers do, the DoJ has nothing on Apple with these trumped up charges.
Unless Apple helped set a floor, which has been argued (although I've not seen hard evidence, only suggestions of such), then the claim that Apple does not set the final price may in fact be true. However, Apple setting prices is not a requirement to include them in this case. If they played a part in bringing together the actors, then this is what is called a hub and spoke conspiracy. Also, Apple does not need to actually set the prices for the charges to fall under antitrust. Even if Apple brought together the actors so they could force their terms on Amazon as a collective, this is also illegal. It is called term-fixing. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1917928030443042074
Quote:
Apple are well within their rights to defend themselves and that is what they are doing.
Let's not keep building this strawman and stick to the relevant case and facts.
This case IS about an alleged collusion by SPECIFIC parties to increase the price of their titles. As such, those specific parties did indeed raise the price of certain titles. 'ALL ebooks' is a strawman because ALL ebook publishers are neither under investigation nor are they accused of raising prices. However, if you want to see a breakdown a cited breakdown of price increases by the accused publishers, I'd suggest reading the clas-action complaint, which, by the way, a judge ruled that it merited the case going forward. Since this is a legal matter, her opinion, and not yours or mine, is what matters. The complaint (PDF): http://www.hbsslaw.com/file.php?id=861&key=a579e3b8530e573aaffdb1e3eb64f994
That link has a comparison of price increases.
No. Only titles currently on the NYT bestseller list, then eventually the NYT complained about their list being used, so Amazon switched to using its own lists. Titles not on that list had no upper limit to their price.
No, it's not. To get a true measure based on what is relevant in this case--since it targets bestselling ebooks--you would need the average sale price of ebook purchases. Best-sellers are called such because they sell a lot of copies. If a best-seller increases in price, and many rarely-purchased titles decrease, thus making the average price decrease, you do not have a true indicator of overall economic conditions. Of course, none of that is relevant. The question should be, "did certain publishers collude to increase certain prices of ebooks?" Collusion to price fix does not require a minimum number of price-fixed items; only one is needed.
Unless Apple helped set a floor, which has been argued (although I've not seen hard evidence, only suggestions of such), then the claim that Apple does not set the final price may in fact be true. However, Apple setting prices is not a requirement to include them in this case. If they played a part in bringing together the actors, then this is what is called a hub and spoke conspiracy. Also, Apple does not need to actually set the prices for the charges to fall under antitrust. Even if Apple brought together the actors so they could force their terms on Amazon as a collective, this is also illegal. It is called term-fixing. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1917928030443042074
Absolutely.
Allegations NOT proven facts.
I guess we'll just have to wait for the court case which will exonerate Apple as they have done nothing wrong.
Or the browser that you used that you said made the price different? I still can't find it lower than 9.99. If Amazon is indeed selling that title lower than other retailers, those retailers get a free price match thanks to the across the board MFN clause.
Or the browser that you used that you said made the price different? I still can't find it lower than 9.99. If Amazon is indeed selling that title lower than other retailers, those retailers get a free price match thanks to the across the board MFN clause.
Or the browser that you used that you said made the price different? I still can't find it lower than 9.99. If Amazon is indeed selling that title lower than other retailers, those retailers get a free price match thanks to the across the board MFN clause.
Fifty Shades of Grey was originally published by Writers' Coffee Shop in May 2011. It was sold under the wholesale model, which was set by Amazon. Vintage, which is an imprint of Random House, purchased the rights several months ago. That is why there are two listings for the Kindle version but one says it is not available. The 'not available' edition is the old Writers' Coffee Shop sales page. When Random House purchased the rights, a new page was created with the agency pricing at 9.99.
However, I still can't find the 9.09 price. Your second link shows me only a link back to the product page. I do wonder if the 9.09 price you are seeing is the last sale price before Random House purchased the rights. That would explain the "Other Editions."
Fifty Shades of Grey was originally published by Writers' Coffee Shop in May 2011. It was sold under the wholesale model, which was set by Amazon. Vintage, which is an imprint of Random House, purchased the rights several months ago. That is why there are two listings for the Kindle version but one says it is not available. The 'not available' edition is the old Writers' Coffee Shop sales page. When Random House purchased the rights, a new page was created with the agency pricing at 9.99.
However, I still can't find the 9.09 price. Your second link shows me only a link back to the product page. I do wonder if the 9.09 price you are seeing is the last sale price before Random House purchased the rights. That would explain the "Other Editions."
On Amazon the publisher is listed as Cornerstone Digital:-
Fifty Shades of Grey was originally published by Writers' Coffee Shop in May 2011. It was sold under the wholesale model, which was set by Amazon. Vintage, which is an imprint of Random House, purchased the rights several months ago. That is why there are two listings for the Kindle version but one says it is not available. The 'not available' edition is the old Writers' Coffee Shop sales page. When Random House purchased the rights, a new page was created with the agency pricing at 9.99.
However, I still can't find the 9.09 price. Your second link shows me only a link back to the product page. I do wonder if the 9.09 price you are seeing is the last sale price before Random House purchased the rights. That would explain the "Other Editions."
Which would prove the price went up, even though random house isn't apart of the lawsuit for the 100th time..
Look patience has a certain limit to it, you ve been rebuted here several times by quite a few people, and even those sympathetic to apple have told you that you haven't made any valid case in favour of apple at all. Give it a rest, and drop the discussion, you might regain some respect from other posters here eventually if you do.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Aren't the DoJ's claims that Apple entering the market caused a price increase of best sellers?
Obviously it didn't as 'best sellers" are available in iBooks for $9.99, which is the price the DoJ alleges Apple somehow increased despite PUBLISHERS NAMING THEIR OWN PRICE, Random House demonstrated that by selling their books for $9.99.
Now is this competitive pricing the reason why Random House holds the top three spots?
In which case iBooks is working as it should, an open market where publishers are free to compete based on price.
I'm absolutely convinced you understand the allegations made despite your posts. It's not any individual assertions standing alone by themselves that raised flags. It's the "sum of the parts" as you well know, or at least should know.
There's no proof of wrong-doing by any party as things stand now, but the examples you're dragging out don't at all disprove any of the DoJ claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Rubbish:-
a) under which precise statute
and
b) the examples I gave using the current three Best Sellers clearly show that:-
i) Amazon is charging a slightly lower price which is less than the $9.99 they used to charge.
ii) prices in the iBooks store vary depending on what the PUBLISHER WANTS TO CHARGE.
The DoJ has NOTHING on Apple.
smh.
Your links compared paperbacks on Amazon to ebooks on iBooks. You will not find price differentiation on Big 6 ebook titles between Amazon, Apple, B&N or anyone.
Yeah the doj has no idea about factual basis of law, they have no case that's why 5/6 have settled. ebook prices didn't rise, and there is price differentiation and competition in book retailers amongst the prices of the six publishers currently... Now let's move on into discussing the flat earth scenario while we are being factual...
eBook pricing is also included in those links, maybe you missed it, I suggest you go back and look again otherwise your post looks rather foolish.
5 out of 6, so that means Random House was involved?
Obviously your ill informed opinion is not worth the screen space it takes up on this forum, why don't you do a little research BEFORE posting this drivel.
btw this may help you get some understanding of why your post is a pack of lies although it won't stop you writing congenitally stupid posts in future
http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/10/big-six-publishers-refuse-to-sign-new-contracts-with-amazon/
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
eBook pricing is also included in those links, maybe you missed it, I suggest you go back and look again otherwise your post looks rather foolish.
My post is foolish? Read your post. Oh, why don't I just quote you.
Quote:
i) Amazon is charging a slightly lower price which is less than the $9.99 they used to charge.
You post isn't only foolish, it is flat out wrong. The prices of those ebooks you linked are identical in both stores, just as all ebook titles from Big 6 publishers will be identical at Apple, Amazon, and every other ebook seller.
The fact remains that ebooks prices have risen and the adoption of the agency model WITH price fixing under the collusion of apple with publishers has cost the customer who can't now go to the cheapest seller.
Yeah sure enough as the internal documents that have come to light from apple via the doj reveal apple is right to brag about an aikido move. So apple got their way, they got their guaranteed 30% cut for a little more bandwidth one iTunes store infrastructure they took away the right of their competitors to compete on price, and "the customer pays a bit more, but that's what you (the publisher) want anyway"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
so it's 3 or 4 out of 5 that have settled, I got it up to 6 by mistake, so what? Go on and spill that bile, that's what happens when someone is put in a tight corner for having no arguments, and less than perfect manners. I am not the one however oaccusing the whole doj of no factual level in law and then going on posting flat out lies that prices are not identical.
The fact remains that ebooks prices have risen and the adoption of the agency model WITH price fixing under the collusion of apple with publishers has cost the customer who can't now go to the cheapest seller.
Yeah sure enough as the internal documents that have come to light from apple via the doj reveal apple is right to brag about an aikido move. So apple got their way, they got their guaranteed 30% cut for a little more bandwidth one iTunes store infrastructure they took away the right of their competitors to compete on price, and "the customer pays a bit more, but that's what you (the publisher) want anyway"..
Cite a source that "eBook prices have risen" before making such a sweeping statement.
There has been NO evidence presented that "eBook prices have risen" barring a few select titles from a few select publishers, now before we go around in circles again a simple question:-
Before Apple entered the eBooks market were ALL eBook titles in the Amazon bookstore capped at $9.99?
If they weren't then what was the average across ALL eBooks as that is the only way to establish an unskewed, statistically relevant baseline upon which to measure a trend, i.e. did prices rise, fall or remain the same.
Gas prices have risen, potato prices have risen, baloney prices have risen, gold prices have risen, prices rise (and fall) it's the nature of a free market the only way to prevent market based price changes is for the Government to step in and legislate set pricing.
Apple does not set prices, publishers do, the DoJ has nothing on Apple with these trumped up charges.
Apple are well within their rights to defend themselves and that is what they are doing.
Hopefully when this gets to court the instigators of the complaint will be revealed and depending on who it is, Apple will also be fully within their rights to sue for obstructionist and anticompetitive behaviour.
You do not have to use Apples store, Apple only makes their 30% cut on iBooks from people who CHOOSE to use their store, so consumers got their way by being presented with more choice, thus it is irrelevant. (Have a headshot to your strawman).
Perhaps the DoJ should investigate why Amazon advertises different t prices on different browsers, it shows as $9.99 on an iPhone, strange that.
E. L. James (Author)Fifty Shades of Grey [Kindle Edition]
3.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (4,461 customer reviews) | Like(38)
Digital List Price:
$12.79 What's this?
Print List Price:
$15.95
Kindle Price:
$9.09 includes free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save:
$6.86 (43%)
Let's not keep building this strawman and stick to the relevant case and facts.
Quote:
Cite a source that "eBook prices have risen" before making such a sweeping statement.
There has been NO evidence presented that "eBook prices have risen" barring a few select titles from a few select publishers, now before we go around in circles again a simple question:-
This case IS about an alleged collusion by SPECIFIC parties to increase the price of their titles. As such, those specific parties did indeed raise the price of certain titles. 'ALL ebooks' is a strawman because ALL ebook publishers are neither under investigation nor are they accused of raising prices. However, if you want to see a breakdown a cited breakdown of price increases by the accused publishers, I'd suggest reading the clas-action complaint, which, by the way, a judge ruled that it merited the case going forward. Since this is a legal matter, her opinion, and not yours or mine, is what matters. The complaint (PDF): http://www.hbsslaw.com/file.php?id=861&key=a579e3b8530e573aaffdb1e3eb64f994
That link has a comparison of price increases.
Quote:
Before Apple entered the eBooks market were ALL eBook titles in the Amazon bookstore capped at $9.99?
No. Only titles currently on the NYT bestseller list, then eventually the NYT complained about their list being used, so Amazon switched to using its own lists. Titles not on that list had no upper limit to their price.
Quote:
If they weren't then what was the average across ALL eBooks as that is the only way to establish an unskewed, statistically relevant baseline upon which to measure a trend, i.e. did prices rise, fall or remain the same.
No, it's not. To get a true measure based on what is relevant in this case--since it targets bestselling ebooks--you would need the average sale price of ebook purchases. Best-sellers are called such because they sell a lot of copies. If a best-seller increases in price, and many rarely-purchased titles decrease, thus making the average price decrease, you do not have a true indicator of overall economic conditions. Of course, none of that is relevant. The question should be, "did certain publishers collude to increase certain prices of ebooks?" Collusion to price fix does not require a minimum number of price-fixed items; only one is needed.
Quote:
Apple does not set prices, publishers do, the DoJ has nothing on Apple with these trumped up charges.
Unless Apple helped set a floor, which has been argued (although I've not seen hard evidence, only suggestions of such), then the claim that Apple does not set the final price may in fact be true. However, Apple setting prices is not a requirement to include them in this case. If they played a part in bringing together the actors, then this is what is called a hub and spoke conspiracy. Also, Apple does not need to actually set the prices for the charges to fall under antitrust. Even if Apple brought together the actors so they could force their terms on Amazon as a collective, this is also illegal. It is called term-fixing. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1917928030443042074
Quote:
Apple are well within their rights to defend themselves and that is what they are doing.
Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm
Let's not keep building this strawman and stick to the relevant case and facts.
This case IS about an alleged collusion by SPECIFIC parties to increase the price of their titles. As such, those specific parties did indeed raise the price of certain titles. 'ALL ebooks' is a strawman because ALL ebook publishers are neither under investigation nor are they accused of raising prices. However, if you want to see a breakdown a cited breakdown of price increases by the accused publishers, I'd suggest reading the clas-action complaint, which, by the way, a judge ruled that it merited the case going forward. Since this is a legal matter, her opinion, and not yours or mine, is what matters. The complaint (PDF): http://www.hbsslaw.com/file.php?id=861&key=a579e3b8530e573aaffdb1e3eb64f994
That link has a comparison of price increases.
No. Only titles currently on the NYT bestseller list, then eventually the NYT complained about their list being used, so Amazon switched to using its own lists. Titles not on that list had no upper limit to their price.
No, it's not. To get a true measure based on what is relevant in this case--since it targets bestselling ebooks--you would need the average sale price of ebook purchases. Best-sellers are called such because they sell a lot of copies. If a best-seller increases in price, and many rarely-purchased titles decrease, thus making the average price decrease, you do not have a true indicator of overall economic conditions. Of course, none of that is relevant. The question should be, "did certain publishers collude to increase certain prices of ebooks?" Collusion to price fix does not require a minimum number of price-fixed items; only one is needed.
Unless Apple helped set a floor, which has been argued (although I've not seen hard evidence, only suggestions of such), then the claim that Apple does not set the final price may in fact be true. However, Apple setting prices is not a requirement to include them in this case. If they played a part in bringing together the actors, then this is what is called a hub and spoke conspiracy. Also, Apple does not need to actually set the prices for the charges to fall under antitrust. Even if Apple brought together the actors so they could force their terms on Amazon as a collective, this is also illegal. It is called term-fixing. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1917928030443042074
Absolutely.
Allegations NOT proven facts.
I guess we'll just have to wait for the court case which will exonerate Apple as they have done nothing wrong.
E. L. James (Author)Fifty Shades of Grey [Kindle Edition]
3.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (4,503 customer reviews) | Like(38)
Digital List Price:
$12.79 What's this?
Print List Price:
$15.95
Kindle Price:
$9.09 includes free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save:
$6.86 (43%)
Length: 528 pages
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here.
Formats
Amazon Price
New from
Used from
Audible Audio Edition, Unabridged
$27.51
or Free with Audible 30-day free trial
Audio, CD, Audiobook, Unabridged
$27.00
$27.00
--
Expand
Paperback
$9.57
$8.54
$9.24
Kindle Edition
$9.09
--
--
Do you care to share the link for that price?
Or the browser that you used that you said made the price different? I still can't find it lower than 9.99. If Amazon is indeed selling that title lower than other retailers, those retailers get a free price match thanks to the across the board MFN clause.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007J4T2G8/
It comes up for me at 9.99.
Same for me, with a note that the priced was fixed, *coughs* set by the publisher.
In Safari on a MacBook in Australia, a straight copy and paste.
On my iPhone the link comes up as:-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B007J4T2G8/ref=aa_ri_kindlestore_top_1
With the $9.99 price.
It also says it's "not currently available".
However clicking "Other Editions", brings up this:-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/kindle/other-editions/ref=kina_tdp?ie=UTF8&a=B007J4T2G8
$9.09
Curious and curiouser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
In Safari on a MacBook in Australia, a straight copy and paste.
On my iPhone the link comes up as:-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B007J4T2G8/ref=aa_ri_kindlestore_top_1
With the $9.99 price.
It also says it's "not currently available".
However clicking "Other Editions", brings up this:-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/kindle/other-editions/ref=kina_tdp?ie=UTF8&a=B007J4T2G8
$9.09
Curious and curiouser.
Fifty Shades of Grey was originally published by Writers' Coffee Shop in May 2011. It was sold under the wholesale model, which was set by Amazon. Vintage, which is an imprint of Random House, purchased the rights several months ago. That is why there are two listings for the Kindle version but one says it is not available. The 'not available' edition is the old Writers' Coffee Shop sales page. When Random House purchased the rights, a new page was created with the agency pricing at 9.99.
However, I still can't find the 9.09 price. Your second link shows me only a link back to the product page. I do wonder if the 9.09 price you are seeing is the last sale price before Random House purchased the rights. That would explain the "Other Editions."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALNorm
Fifty Shades of Grey was originally published by Writers' Coffee Shop in May 2011. It was sold under the wholesale model, which was set by Amazon. Vintage, which is an imprint of Random House, purchased the rights several months ago. That is why there are two listings for the Kindle version but one says it is not available. The 'not available' edition is the old Writers' Coffee Shop sales page. When Random House purchased the rights, a new page was created with the agency pricing at 9.99.
However, I still can't find the 9.09 price. Your second link shows me only a link back to the product page. I do wonder if the 9.09 price you are seeing is the last sale price before Random House purchased the rights. That would explain the "Other Editions."
On Amazon the publisher is listed as Cornerstone Digital:-
Product Details
File Size: 1410 KB
Print Length: 528 pages
Publisher: Cornerstone Digital (March 19, 2012)
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services
Language: English
ASIN: B007L3BMGA
Text-to-Speech: Not enabled
http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Shades-of-Grey-ebook/dp/B007L3BMGA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1338107767&sr=1-1
On Random House's site the imprint is also listed as Cornerstone Digital
Fifty Shades of Grey
by E L James
8
High Res Cover Image
The book everyone is talking about. When Ana Steele meets Christian Grey ...
Available Formats
Fifty Shades of Grey Paperback
Fifty Shades of Grey EBookISBN: 9781448149452Published: 20/03/2012Imprint: Cornerstone DigitalExtent: 528 pagesSubject: Romance$17.95 RRPBuy Now
http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/e-l-james/fifty-shades-of-grey-9780099579939.aspx
The Australian version is listed at $17.95
I guess you'll have to go back to the drawing board with your Writers Coffee shop theory, especially as the publishing dates are in 2012.
I am new to this forum, this is really very interesting and best forum for me and other also.
thankss!!
I am new to this forum, this is really very interesting and best forum for me and other also.
thankss!!
Which would prove the price went up, even though random house isn't apart of the lawsuit for the 100th time..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergi
Which would prove the price went up, even though random house isn't apart of the lawsuit for the 100th time..
Apart from the eBook being published by Random House as was shown in the post above yours.
So the price went up from $9.99 to $9.99, which shows that the price did not go up.
The DoJ has no case.
Apple will win this as they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
E. L. James (Author)Fifty Shades of Grey [Kindle Edition]
3.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (4,559 customer reviews) | Like(39)
Digital List Price:
$12.79 What's this?
Print List Price:
$15.95
Kindle Price:
$9.09 includes free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save:
$6.86 (43%)
Length: 528 pages
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here.
Formats
Amazon Price
New from
Used from
Audible Audio Edition, Unabridged
$27.51
or Free with Audible 30-day free trial
Audio, CD, Audiobook, Unabridged
$27.00
$27.00
--
Expand
Paperback
$9.57
$8.49
$8.99
Kindle Edition
$9.09
--
--