Except for that little clause that the publishers can't set the prices any lower for other sellers than they do for Apple. Which kind of kills that "free market" BS you're trying to sell.
And people seem to miss the irony of the publisher's anger with Amazon. Forcing a change to the agency model was a pretty big slap in the face to Amazon. Amazon has made selling eBooks a part of its core business but to Apple it's just a value add to help sell more hardware. If the publisher's stopped selling eBooks tomorrow, Amazon would be forced into scramble mode adjusting to a dramatic change in balance plans while Apple would simply shrug and move on. Amazon is the one that has invested hard core on pushing the eBook market into the mainstream with tons of advertising and prime product placement of their website. For Apple, iBooks is another feature bullet point for iOS devices. The publisher's weren't losing money with Amazon. If Amazon sells a book for $3 that the publishers sold to Amazon for $5, it was Amazon that ate the $2 discount.
Two things about this:
It's ironic that people claim MFN status is anti free market when MFN is the basis of the WTO tariff negotiation between almost every country in the world.
An example would be importing cars into the USA. The MFN concept applied to multi-lateral trade agreements would mean that that USA can't charge a 7% import duty on German cars, a 9% on Japanese cars, and 11% on Korean cars. All these being imports.
The MFN concept states that the same import duty has to be applied evenly so that all imported cars to the USA are taxed evenly % in order to provide a fair and free trade environment.
While it applies differently in this case, the claim that MFN and free markets are inconsistent is ridiculous.
On your last couple of sentences in your last paragraph:
Prolonged selling of goods at a loss with the intention of preventing or hurting competition is called "dumping" and is a violation of antitrust laws.
It's harder to prove when Amazon has 90% of the market but if you take a hypothetical situation where Amazon had 70% and Barnes and Noble had 30%. If at this point, Amazon starts selling at a loss to gain market share, and the changes to 90% Amazon and 10% BnN, there would be a clear case of dumping violating antitrust laws.
I also want to add that I think the publishers saw the iPad and potentially massive onslaught of android tablets as a way to reduce their dependence on Amazon and the Kindle ( before the kindle fire.) Therefore they thought that there may be a potential of 50 or more ebook retailers and they want all of these new market entrants to have a level playing field and having a massive competitor like Amazon selling ebooks at a loss would discourage investment and competition in the market. That sounds like a good defense to the switch to the agency model.
And? Every publisher for eons has had the same price range for each group of books -- hardcover, mass-market and trade paper. They used the same range for the ebooks using age of the title and how it is published as a standard book as their guide.
As for the discounts, Amazon has the same clause and may have since they started in 2007. Where's the fuss about that.
It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
How about we wait for the DOJ to finish their case and find Apple guilty. you might discover that in fact you aren't the legal expert on this that your tone is implying.
That's what I've been suggesting as well. Meanwhile, as long as AI publishes news on the topic, we can comment on those... better than to comment on other posters credentials, right?
Which never happened, based on the simple fact tha not ALL eBook prices rose.
30% is that an average or a guess based on a very small sample.
eBook prices in iBooks didn't rise at all due to it not existing prior to prices being set.
We've had this conversation before... The "very small sample" you speak of are the bestsellers that comprise most of the books being bought. If one title sells 100 copies and 10 titles sell one copy each (just an example, real values will differ, see link below), the average price of books sold would be heavily weighted towards this one bestseller title.
Check again all the actual data in the class action complaint, you will find plenty of graphs, individual examples, and publisher price lists there. Here's one relevant example:
It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...
It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
We've had this conversation before... The "very small sample" you speak of are the bestsellers that comprise most of the books being bought. If one title sells 100 copies and 10 titles sell one copy each (just an example, real values will differ, see link below), the average price of books sold would be heavily weighted towards this one bestseller title.
Check again all the actual data in the class action complaint, you will find plenty of graphs, individual examples, and publisher price lists there. Here's one relevant example:
all the prices go up by 30%
all the prices
all
Your response does not back your statement up, based simply on the fact that it is not representative of the price of ALL eBooks.
The lawsuit is based on logic just as flawed.
Apple is innocent, they do not set prices, they will be exonerated.
We've had this conversation before... The "very small sample" you speak of are the bestsellers that comprise most of the books being bought. If one title sells 100 copies and 10 titles sell one copy each (just an example, real values will differ, see link below), the average price of books sold would be heavily weighted towards this one bestseller title.
Check again all the actual data in the class action complaint, you will find plenty of graphs, individual examples, and publisher price lists there. Here's one relevant example:
And, yet, some publishers stated that their prices went DOWN significantly after the agency model was introduced (source was cited in an earlier thread). You can reach whatever conclusion you wish when you choose to accept only the evidence that supports your thesis.
So where't the evidence about the ENTIRE INDUSTRY'S AVERAGE PRICE?
And, yet, some publishers stated that their prices went DOWN significantly after the agency model was introduced (source was cited in an earlier thread). You can reach whatever conclusion you wish when you choose to accept only the evidence that supports your thesis.
So where't the evidence about the ENTIRE INDUSTRY'S AVERAGE PRICE?
I don't recall anyone making claims about ENTIRE INDUSTRY'S AVERAGE PRICE, only about the 5 publishers who participated in the alleged collusion.
Another strawman argument from you - I don't even know why I bother with you any more, so I will stop here.
You're grasping straws. Obviously in this context (collusion) all prices means the prices of all publishers.
I am not providing the arguments -- they are all from the linked document. I urge you to read it.
PS. How much do you think Apple's lawyers make? How much do you expect to get for (failing) to do their job?
When I pick up on your disingenuousness you respond with this drivel, you plainly stated that "It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...", which quite frankly isn't true.
Apple has not increased a single price, they do not set the selling price of any of the eBooks sold through iBooks.
They are innocent of any wrongdoing and will be exonerated.
PS How much do you think Amazon spends on lobbying in order to prop up their thwarted attempt at monopolising the eBook market?
btw Apple's lawyers have paid for themselves many times over for years based purely on the $650 million judgement they got overturned in East Texas a while ago.
[SIZE=12px][SIZE=14px]Your response does not back your statement up, based simply on the fact that it is not representative of the price of [SIZE=48px]ALL [SIZE=14px]eBooks[/SIZE][/SIZE].[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=12px][SIZE=14px]The lawsuit is based on logic just as flawed.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=12px][SIZE=14px]Apple is innocent, they do not set prices, they will be exonerated.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
All prices didn't go up because Amazon was not selling every ebook at a loss. While they were losing money on some ebooks they were making money on others. Funny thing with civil lawsuits is that there doesn't need to be much evidence for the plaintiff to win. Apple will probably win the DoJ case but I wouldn't be surprised if they lose the class action one.
When I pick up on your disingenuousness you respond with this drivel, you plainly stated that "It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...", which quite frankly isn't true.
Apple has not increased a single price, they do not set the selling price of any of the eBooks sold through iBooks.
They are innocent of any wrongdoing and will be exonerated.
PS How much do you think Amazon spends on lobbying in order to prop up their thwarted attempt at monopolising the eBook market?
btw Apple's lawyers have paid for themselves many times over for years based purely on the $650 million judgement they got overturned in East Texas a while ago.
You're correct Apple didn't directly increase prices, but the agency model (which I have no problem with) did. Now I've seen evidence of prices going up and I've seen evidence of prices going up, my conclusion to that is while Amazon was selling some ebooks at a loss it was selling others at a healthy profit margin. Going to the agency model caused the under priced books to go up and the over priced books to go down. People will always see saving money as a good thing, they got used to a good thing as we all do and will scream bloody murder when it's taken away from them and will lash out at whoever they deem responsible.
I don't recall anyone making claims about ENTIRE INDUSTRY'S AVERAGE PRICE, only about the 5 publishers who participated in the alleged collusion.
Another strawman argument from you - I don't even know why I bother with you any more, so I will stop here.
First, the DOJ made exactly that argument.
Second, you still haven't provided evidence that all books sold by those 5 publishers increased. Furthermore, you haven't provided any evidence of collusion. Finally, you haven't provided any evidence that Apple was involved in collusion.
But, then, it's not surprising since you never support your arguments.
All prices didn't go up because Amazon was not selling every ebook at a loss. While they were losing money on some ebooks they were making money on others. Funny thing with civil lawsuits is that there doesn't need to be much evidence for the plaintiff to win. Apple will probably win the DoJ case but I wouldn't be surprised if they lose the class action one.
There's another factor which isn't considered. Amazon was selling eBooks at a loss - which means that they were subsidizing eBooks with hardcover books. If the new agency model means that Amazon increased prices on eBooks and decreased prices on hardcover books by a similar amount, then there's no net harm.
Amazon spent $870,000 on lobbying last year compared to Apple's $500,000. Neither of those numbers is particularly high for multibillion dollar companies.
Very true. The publishers said they wouldn't re-up their contracts without their new terms but Amazon wasn't held at gun point to agree. They could have said no to the terms and removed said titles from their catalog without blinking
The problem arises when they all demand new terms at the same time, that raised a red flag of collusion, but I don't think Apple was a active partiicipant.
The problem arises when they all demand new terms at the same time, that raised a red flag of collusion, but I don't think Apple was a active partiicipant.
Collusion has a specific meaning.
If someone like Apple simply told the publishers that they would offer an agency model, it's entirely possible that they could all have objected to Amazon's terms and demanded a new contract without any collusion occurring.
How about we wait for the DOJ to finish their case and find Apple guilty. you might discover that in fact you aren't the legal expert on this that your tone is implying.
Collusion has a specific meaning.
If someone like Apple simply told the publishers that they would offer an agency model, it's entirely possible that they could all have objected to Amazon's terms and demanded a new contract without any collusion occurring.
Then why did 3 publishing houses immediately settle with the DoJ? Will you take a plea bargain on a crime you didn't commit?
First, the DOJ made exactly that argument.
Second, you still haven't provided evidence that all books sold by those 5 publishers increased. Furthermore, you haven't provided any evidence of collusion. Finally, you haven't provided any evidence that Apple was involved in collusion.
But, then, it's not surprising since you never support your arguments.
There's another factor which isn't considered. Amazon was selling eBooks at a loss - which means that they were subsidizing eBooks with hardcover books. If the new agency model means that Amazon increased prices on eBooks and decreased prices on hardcover books by a similar amount, then there's no net harm.
Why does it have to be hardcover books? It was mostly like other ebooks they were subsidizing bestsellers with. How else would you explain a price drop some ebooks and a price rise on others. If an ebook costs less now with the agency model of wholesale plus 30% then that means Amazon was selling it at anki above 30% margin.
Comments
Two things about this:
It's ironic that people claim MFN status is anti free market when MFN is the basis of the WTO tariff negotiation between almost every country in the world.
An example would be importing cars into the USA. The MFN concept applied to multi-lateral trade agreements would mean that that USA can't charge a 7% import duty on German cars, a 9% on Japanese cars, and 11% on Korean cars. All these being imports.
The MFN concept states that the same import duty has to be applied evenly so that all imported cars to the USA are taxed evenly % in order to provide a fair and free trade environment.
While it applies differently in this case, the claim that MFN and free markets are inconsistent is ridiculous.
On your last couple of sentences in your last paragraph:
Prolonged selling of goods at a loss with the intention of preventing or hurting competition is called "dumping" and is a violation of antitrust laws.
It's harder to prove when Amazon has 90% of the market but if you take a hypothetical situation where Amazon had 70% and Barnes and Noble had 30%. If at this point, Amazon starts selling at a loss to gain market share, and the changes to 90% Amazon and 10% BnN, there would be a clear case of dumping violating antitrust laws.
I also want to add that I think the publishers saw the iPad and potentially massive onslaught of android tablets as a way to reduce their dependence on Amazon and the Kindle ( before the kindle fire.) Therefore they thought that there may be a potential of 50 or more ebook retailers and they want all of these new market entrants to have a level playing field and having a massive competitor like Amazon selling ebooks at a loss would discourage investment and competition in the market. That sounds like a good defense to the switch to the agency model.
Competition is good, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
And? Every publisher for eons has had the same price range for each group of books -- hardcover, mass-market and trade paper. They used the same range for the ebooks using age of the title and how it is published as a standard book as their guide.
As for the discounts, Amazon has the same clause and may have since they started in 2007. Where's the fuss about that.
It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
How about we wait for the DOJ to finish their case and find Apple guilty. you might discover that in fact you aren't the legal expert on this that your tone is implying.
That's what I've been suggesting as well. Meanwhile, as long as AI publishes news on the topic, we can comment on those... better than to comment on other posters credentials, right?
Which never happened, based on the simple fact tha not ALL eBook prices rose.
30% is that an average or a guess based on a very small sample.
eBook prices in iBooks didn't rise at all due to it not existing prior to prices being set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Which never happened, based on the simple fact tha not ALL eBook prices rose.
30% is that an average or a guess based on a very small sample.
eBook prices in iBooks didn't rise at all due to it not existing prior to prices being set.
We've had this conversation before... The "very small sample" you speak of are the bestsellers that comprise most of the books being bought. If one title sells 100 copies and 10 titles sell one copy each (just an example, real values will differ, see link below), the average price of books sold would be heavily weighted towards this one bestseller title.
Check again all the actual data in the class action complaint, you will find plenty of graphs, individual examples, and publisher price lists there. Here's one relevant example:
This is your exact quote, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...
It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
We've had this conversation before... The "very small sample" you speak of are the bestsellers that comprise most of the books being bought. If one title sells 100 copies and 10 titles sell one copy each (just an example, real values will differ, see link below), the average price of books sold would be heavily weighted towards this one bestseller title.
Check again all the actual data in the class action complaint, you will find plenty of graphs, individual examples, and publisher price lists there. Here's one relevant example:
all the prices go up by 30%
all the prices
all
Your response does not back your statement up, based simply on the fact that it is not representative of the price of ALL eBooks.
The lawsuit is based on logic just as flawed.
Apple is innocent, they do not set prices, they will be exonerated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
This is your exact quote, right?
-- annoyingly large font removed --
You're grasping straws. Obviously in this context (collusion) all prices means the prices of all publishers.
I am not providing the arguments -- they are all from the linked document. I urge you to read it.
PS. How much do you think Apple's lawyers make? How much do you expect to get for (failing) to do their job?
And, yet, some publishers stated that their prices went DOWN significantly after the agency model was introduced (source was cited in an earlier thread). You can reach whatever conclusion you wish when you choose to accept only the evidence that supports your thesis.
So where't the evidence about the ENTIRE INDUSTRY'S AVERAGE PRICE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, yet, some publishers stated that their prices went DOWN significantly after the agency model was introduced (source was cited in an earlier thread). You can reach whatever conclusion you wish when you choose to accept only the evidence that supports your thesis.
So where't the evidence about the ENTIRE INDUSTRY'S AVERAGE PRICE?
I don't recall anyone making claims about ENTIRE INDUSTRY'S AVERAGE PRICE, only about the 5 publishers who participated in the alleged collusion.
Another strawman argument from you - I don't even know why I bother with you any more, so I will stop here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
You're grasping straws. Obviously in this context (collusion) all prices means the prices of all publishers.
I am not providing the arguments -- they are all from the linked document. I urge you to read it.
PS. How much do you think Apple's lawyers make? How much do you expect to get for (failing) to do their job?
When I pick up on your disingenuousness you respond with this drivel, you plainly stated that "It only starts to smell fishy when all the prices go up by 30% simultaneously...", which quite frankly isn't true.
Apple has not increased a single price, they do not set the selling price of any of the eBooks sold through iBooks.
They are innocent of any wrongdoing and will be exonerated.
PS How much do you think Amazon spends on lobbying in order to prop up their thwarted attempt at monopolising the eBook market?
btw Apple's lawyers have paid for themselves many times over for years based purely on the $650 million judgement they got overturned in East Texas a while ago.
All prices didn't go up because Amazon was not selling every ebook at a loss. While they were losing money on some ebooks they were making money on others. Funny thing with civil lawsuits is that there doesn't need to be much evidence for the plaintiff to win. Apple will probably win the DoJ case but I wouldn't be surprised if they lose the class action one.
You're correct Apple didn't directly increase prices, but the agency model (which I have no problem with) did. Now I've seen evidence of prices going up and I've seen evidence of prices going up, my conclusion to that is while Amazon was selling some ebooks at a loss it was selling others at a healthy profit margin. Going to the agency model caused the under priced books to go up and the over priced books to go down. People will always see saving money as a good thing, they got used to a good thing as we all do and will scream bloody murder when it's taken away from them and will lash out at whoever they deem responsible.
First, the DOJ made exactly that argument.
Second, you still haven't provided evidence that all books sold by those 5 publishers increased. Furthermore, you haven't provided any evidence of collusion. Finally, you haven't provided any evidence that Apple was involved in collusion.
But, then, it's not surprising since you never support your arguments.
There's another factor which isn't considered. Amazon was selling eBooks at a loss - which means that they were subsidizing eBooks with hardcover books. If the new agency model means that Amazon increased prices on eBooks and decreased prices on hardcover books by a similar amount, then there's no net harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But, then, it's not surprising since you never support your arguments.
Jragosta, you are a shameless liar!
Not hard to find:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/under-scrutiny-google-spends-record-amount-on-lobbying/?ref=business
Amazon spent $870,000 on lobbying last year compared to Apple's $500,000. Neither of those numbers is particularly high for multibillion dollar companies.
Google spent over $5 M, btw.
So you respond to my statement that you never support your arguments by...... making another unsupported argument.
Figures.
The problem arises when they all demand new terms at the same time, that raised a red flag of collusion, but I don't think Apple was a active partiicipant.
Collusion has a specific meaning.
If someone like Apple simply told the publishers that they would offer an agency model, it's entirely possible that they could all have objected to Amazon's terms and demanded a new contract without any collusion occurring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
How about we wait for the DOJ to finish their case and find Apple guilty. you might discover that in fact you aren't the legal expert on this that your tone is implying.
He's no 'legal' expert.
He's a dyed-in-the-wool Anti-Apple Expert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
He's no 'legal' expert.
He's a dyed-in-the-wool Anti-Apple Expert.
Hey, look what the cat dragged! Do you have anything on topic to share, anantksundaram? Or are you only posting in my honor?
;-)
Then why did 3 publishing houses immediately settle with the DoJ? Will you take a plea bargain on a crime you didn't commit?
Why does it have to be hardcover books? It was mostly like other ebooks they were subsidizing bestsellers with. How else would you explain a price drop some ebooks and a price rise on others. If an ebook costs less now with the agency model of wholesale plus 30% then that means Amazon was selling it at anki above 30% margin.