I didn't include any opinion about whether it was legal or not. I'm just talking from a moral standpoint. Why do that to people? Why not just compete with Amazon and beat their pricing?
Then again, Apple is all about a premium experience. Keep the more expensive books and offer something on top that makes it worth the extra money and see if consumers are willing to pay more for the same book but with the Apple experience.
Don't go forcing the publishers to make Amazon accept the agency model which will have them raise their prices. Let the consumer decide.
Pay Apple more....or pay amazon less. Consumers regularly pay more for Apple products anyway, so you never know, charging more may have worked without having to force amazon into the same model.
This is a rare instance that Apple cannot give a much better product nor experience. A book purchased from iBooks can only be read on iOS devices, a book I buy from Amazon can be read on my iPad, my Android phone, and my PC.
See I don't get that. Does Apple buy the ebook or does it just handle the transaction then collect 30%?
The latter.
Amazon's model was the former, with the publisher having zero say in the price. Which was often drastically down from the print pricing and thus the devaluing issues.
Remember that there are huge costs to publishers even outside of printing. They have to recover all those costs and if ebooks with a scant profit are costing them sales of more profitable physical books, that is an issue for them. They are getting painted as trying to screw consumers but they are just trying to run a business that is in a major changeover. A business where few really understand the details. When ebooks become THE books then pricing will naturally fall. Just like it did with VHS, DVD, BluRay and so on
Welcome to ObamaNation, where the Great Dictator's regime decides what's lawful.
Rather like all the Steve Jobs comments, you have zero proof this has anything to do with Obama being in office. So how about we drop that whole of thought and stick to the facts as reported.
Actually the DOJ wants to set the price. They have declared there is a right price for ebooks and they know what it is. And as they are tossing 'overcharging' into the fray, clearing it is less than what Apple and these publishers are charging.
I didn't include any opinion about whether it was legal or not. I'm just talking from a moral standpoint. Why do that to people? Why not just compete with Amazon and beat their pricing?
Then again, Apple is all about a premium experience. Keep the more expensive books and offer something on top that makes it worth the extra money and see if consumers are willing to pay more for the same book but with the Apple experience.
Don't go forcing the publishers to make Amazon accept the agency model which will have them raise their prices. Let the consumer decide.
Pay Apple more....or pay amazon less. Consumers regularly pay more for Apple products anyway, so you never know, charging more may have worked without having to force amazon into the same model.
Because if Apple entered the market and started undercutting Amazon, taking a loss on each book they'd be accused of being predatory by the same DoJ. Amazon would have a legit complaint. The publishers would not Apple to just become the only digital book seller after Amazon was forced out. The publishers were not forced by apple to sign with apple. If the prices Apple set are too high, don't buy books from them. Let Amazon compete with Apple on the new high prices and then Apple has no profit in the business.
Didn't SJ say that the agency model 'would raise prices, but that is what the publishers want anyway'?
That is the comment he allegedly made to one publisher. But in many cases the prices haven't gone up much if at all. It's really only in new release big titles like a John Grisham that you see a big change. And his readers are generally older folks that haven't embraced ebooks in general so they are paying that same book for their paper copy.
And the worst part, why FORCE amazon to have to use the same model if it means amazon has to RAISE prices on consumers?
Keep in mind that was the publishers, not Apple. They wanted pricing control and had leverage to say they would yank their titles if they didn't get it. Amazons stunts like how they pulled all of Macmillan's paper titles 'off the shelves' was a bluff they lost because the company didn't back down. Amazon could have countered with an offer to agree to letting the publishers set a minimum markup on titles for a set period of release or some other system that was still based off the warehouse terms. They didn't, they just caved and switched.
The latter.
Amazon's model was the former, with the publisher having zero say in the price. Which was often drastically down from the print pricing and thus the devaluing issues.
Remember that there are huge costs to publishers even outside of printing. They have to recover all those costs and if ebooks with a scant profit are costing them sales of more profitable physical books, that is an issue for them. They are getting painted as trying to screw consumers but they are just trying to run a business that is in a major changeover. A business where few really understand the details. When ebooks become THE books then pricing will naturally fall. Just like it did with VHS, DVD, BluRay and so on
Yea but don't you see its contradictory? If Apple doesn't buy the content and only sells it for a percentage of the price how is that clause effective? I would understand if it said "cannot be sold to consumers for less" but it says resellers. How can one ask to get the same price on something one isn't buying?
I didn't include any opinion about whether it was legal or not. I'm just talking from a moral standpoint. Why do that to people? Why not just compete with Amazon and beat their pricing?
Because Amazon had pricing control. They would just counter by dropping their price to beat Apple's. Until the publishers had control of pricing there would always be one side with an unfair advantage -- Amazon. Something the DoJ has ignored. Along with all questions of whether Amazon may have used monopoly power to get that position
Yea but don't you see its contradictory? If Apple doesn't buy the content and only sells it for a percentage of the price how is that clause effective? I would understand if it said "cannot be sold to consumers for less" but it says resellers. How can one ask to get the same price on something one isn't buying?
The clauses arent that simple. They also generally include terms that if another seller is offering at a lower price the MFN seller can lower theirs without needing permission from the publisher. Amazon has the same deal themselves. It's how they offer the books that go into the Starbucks thing for free during that time.
That sort of thing is why the publishers wanted pricing control from Amazon or they would pull out. They didn't want Amazon cutting prices and screwing them in all markets.
Under the "agency model", the publisher sets the selling price that the reselling is obligated to charge the customer.
Under a contract with a "most favored nations" clause, the publisher cannot sell to any other reseller at a lower price.
The combination of the two means that no reseller can sell an ebook from one of these publishers to the customer for less than it's sold in Apple's store. Apple's 30% take means that for publishers to continue receiving the same amount per book that they were getting prior to the shift, the publisher must raise the selling price above what it was.
Actually, you're wrong, and FreeRange is correct. Apple's contract with the publishers says that if the publishers allow other companies to sell at a lower price, they must also allow Apple to sell at that lower price. This is not the same as prohibiting the publisher to sell to others at a lower price - they can do that, they just have to sell to Apple at that lower price also. This has been widely misquoted in press stories.
Apple's typical strong arm policy is in fact ripping off consumers, prior to Apple and the publisher's collusion to set up the agency model e-book resellers were free to offer the books at whatever price they wanted just like brick and mortar stores. If they chose to sell a book below cover price to get business then that's their choice since they are paying the publisher the agreed upon price. Since Apple wants control of yet another market they (like they have with music and are trying to get into the living room with cable operators).
It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt. It seems pretty clear to me by the number of publishers who chose to settle there was some shady dealings going on.
If I manufacture some product and each one costs me £5, why should I be forced to sell that product for less to a retailer, and what gives the retailer (even a monopoly one) the right to demand price-setting rights for my product at less than it costs me to make? I might as well close-up shop and go home (probably make more money by selling any patents I may have for that product).
That is how Walmart got rich, and this is how Amazon pulls you into its eStore. Forget about working conditions in Chinese factories, this is happening to domestic businesses which are being absolutely buttf*cked by big retailers.
Actually, you're wrong, and FreeRange is correct. Apple's contract with the publishers says that if the publishers allow other companies to sell at a lower price, they must also allow Apple to sell at that lower price. This is not the same as prohibiting the publisher to sell to others at a lower price - they can do that, they just have to sell to Apple at that lower price also. This has been widely misquoted in press stories.
Again I ask How can Apple buy something at a lower price that it's not buying in the first place?
What is there to settle? Apple denies all allegations DoJ has claimed.
You've got to admit, DoJ's track record on these shaky cases hasn't been great...they've consistently come up short and lost...John Edwards, Roger Clemens, etc.
They are just looking for a way to save face on this one before another embarrassing lawsuit loss.
Good on Apple for defending vigorously and demanding Justice prove their allegations in court. Should be fun watching a bunch of GS 12/13/14 lawyers making $125k/year going up against Apple's $750-$1000/hour corporate lawyers.
Plus, it seems clear now that the DoJ was played by Amazon in this instance. The only acceptable settlement would be for the DoJ to drop the whole thing, including the settlements with the publishers who were cowed into giving up. But, clearly there are some enormous egos at play at DoJ who aren't voluntarily going to admit that the totally blew it.
I think Apple's statement that "It has no objection to the Proposed Judgment's bar on collusion" is an offering designed to allow the DOJ to save a little face and settle.
Apple's typical strong arm policy is in fact ripping off consumers, prior to Apple and the publisher's collusion to set up the agency model e-book resellers were free to offer the books at whatever price they wanted just like brick and mortar stores. If they chose to sell a book below cover price to get business then that's their choice since they are paying the publisher the agreed upon price. Since Apple wants control of yet another market they (like they have with music and are trying to get into the living room with cable operators).
How is letting the publishers compete a 'strong arm policy'?
Under the Amazon model, Amazon was well on its way to controlling the entire market. They would have had the ability to raise prices as much as they wished and even dictate content if they so chose. Apple is simply saying "let the publishers compete and price books however they want and we'll simply take a percentage. Apple is the one who's pro-competition here.
It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt. It seems pretty clear to me by the number of publishers who chose to settle there was some shady dealings going on.
Well, no. We have this little thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Apple doesn't have to prove their innocence (which would be impossible to prove, anyway). The DOJ has the burden of proof.
Of course, if you want to take the tack that Apple has to prove they are innocent, I guess I'll have to choose to accuse you of stealing a million dollars from me. Prove that you didn't - and if you can't do so, you go to jail.
I didn't include any opinion about whether it was legal or not. I'm just talking from a moral standpoint. Why do that to people? Why not just compete with Amazon and beat their pricing?
Then again, Apple is all about a premium experience. Keep the more expensive books and offer something on top that makes it worth the extra money and see if consumers are willing to pay more for the same book but with the Apple experience.
Don't go forcing the publishers to make Amazon accept the agency model which will have them raise their prices. Let the consumer decide.
Pay Apple more....or pay amazon less. Consumers regularly pay more for Apple products anyway, so you never know, charging more may have worked without having to force amazon into the same model.
Which demonstrates nothing beyond your inability to think long term.
First, Amazon was on its way to having monopoly power - which would have let them dictate prices not only to the consumer, but also how much the publisher got paid. That obviously harms the market.
Second, Even the DOJ's own evidence says that the average eBook pricing has been declining (other than a few very high profile books which Amazon was dumping previously) since Apple instituted its policy.
Third, Apple chooses to follow the law. Predatory pricing to take over a market is illegal. Too bad no one ever explained that to Amazon or the DOJ.
Fourth, even if Apple and Amazon got into a price war, it's effects would be limited. Eventually, one or the other would be unable to continue selling below cost - but the market might easily be destroyed by then.
Didn't SJ say that the agency model 'would raise prices, but that is what the publishers want anyway'?
How is it that Apple is using a model which raises prices good for consumers?
Don't know about you, but any 'model' which raises prices I don't want. And i can assure you 99% of people also will not be in favor of any model which raises prices.
Here's the quote: <span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:21px;">"We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."</span>
Why must we pay a little more? Why didn't Apple instead take 20% and have us pay a little less? And the worst part, why FORCE amazon to have to use the same model if it means amazon has to RAISE prices on consumers? I understand they want ever higher margins, but c'mon, their margins are already the highest probably of any company in the world ever. How greedy are they?
Heck, why didn't Apple supply the advertising and support costs and give the eBooks away? With their money, they could have afforded to buy the eBooks and PAY consumers to take them. Wouldn't that be better for consumers?
Sure - in the short term. Until the market was destroyed and/or Apple went bankrupt.
Apple's model was to take a fair percentage of the price (Amazon used to take a much higher percentage - up to 70% or more) and let the market choose. Other vendors could come in and compete. In the end, Apple's market fosters competition. Amazon's model blocks competition.
In the long run, competition is better for consumers.
Then why the clause that "a publisher cannot offer the content to a reseller lower than it does to Apple". If Apple is just handling the transaction then they aren't buying anything from the wholesalers (publishers).
That's simply a fairness clause that means, "we want to sell your books, but don't make it impossible for us to do so by making us sell them for more than you have others sell them for."
Apple's typical strong arm policy is in fact ripping off consumers, prior to Apple and the publisher's collusion to set up the agency model e-book resellers were free to offer the books at whatever price they wanted just like brick and mortar stores. If they chose to sell a book below cover price to get business then that's their choice since they are paying the publisher the agreed upon price. Since Apple wants control of yet another market they (like they have with music and are trying to get into the living room with cable operators).
It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt. It seems pretty clear to me by the number of publishers who chose to settle there was some shady dealings going on.
You don't understand the bigger picture. Amazon has a monopoly on online book sales. It used that monopoly power to unfairly force the publishers to to charge less for the e-books. If the publishers didn't agree, Amazon would threaten to not carry their hard cover books. Amazon was acting as a true monopolist by using its power in one marked to gain a monopoly in another market. That is strong arming.
Apple couldn't strong arm the publishers as it wasn't in the book business. It didn't have any leverage. The publishers hated Amazon for the above mentioned tactics, so they were happy to embrace Apple. Apple merely negotiated the same types of contracts it did for music and apps. Further, Apple can't be guilty of collusion because Apple doesn't compete with the publishers. The publishers, however, compete with one another. Moreover, since the adoption of the agency model you have seen companies like Barnes and Noble become competitive and be able to offer its customers e-books for its Nook without Amazon using its market power to force publishers to accept less than market price. This keep stores like Barnes and Nobles around, which benefits people like me who like to go in actual stores. Moreover, Amazon is also keeping Apple from getting popular books like the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, and Sherlock Holmes.
I am glad your not in charge. The government's job is to proof guilt. Apple is supposed to be presumed innocent. Further, you proof guilt at a trial. Apple is merely saying don't punish it until it has been proven guilty.
That's simply a fairness clause that means, "we want to sell your books, but don't make it impossible for us to do so by making us sell them for more than you have others sell them for."
Moreover, the clause only applied to new releases.
Comments
This is a rare instance that Apple cannot give a much better product nor experience. A book purchased from iBooks can only be read on iOS devices, a book I buy from Amazon can be read on my iPad, my Android phone, and my PC.
The latter.
Amazon's model was the former, with the publisher having zero say in the price. Which was often drastically down from the print pricing and thus the devaluing issues.
Remember that there are huge costs to publishers even outside of printing. They have to recover all those costs and if ebooks with a scant profit are costing them sales of more profitable physical books, that is an issue for them. They are getting painted as trying to screw consumers but they are just trying to run a business that is in a major changeover. A business where few really understand the details. When ebooks become THE books then pricing will naturally fall. Just like it did with VHS, DVD, BluRay and so on
Rather like all the Steve Jobs comments, you have zero proof this has anything to do with Obama being in office. So how about we drop that whole of thought and stick to the facts as reported.
Actually the DOJ wants to set the price. They have declared there is a right price for ebooks and they know what it is. And as they are tossing 'overcharging' into the fray, clearing it is less than what Apple and these publishers are charging.
Because if Apple entered the market and started undercutting Amazon, taking a loss on each book they'd be accused of being predatory by the same DoJ. Amazon would have a legit complaint. The publishers would not Apple to just become the only digital book seller after Amazon was forced out. The publishers were not forced by apple to sign with apple. If the prices Apple set are too high, don't buy books from them. Let Amazon compete with Apple on the new high prices and then Apple has no profit in the business.
That is the comment he allegedly made to one publisher. But in many cases the prices haven't gone up much if at all. It's really only in new release big titles like a John Grisham that you see a big change. And his readers are generally older folks that haven't embraced ebooks in general so they are paying that same book for their paper copy.
Keep in mind that was the publishers, not Apple. They wanted pricing control and had leverage to say they would yank their titles if they didn't get it. Amazons stunts like how they pulled all of Macmillan's paper titles 'off the shelves' was a bluff they lost because the company didn't back down. Amazon could have countered with an offer to agree to letting the publishers set a minimum markup on titles for a set period of release or some other system that was still based off the warehouse terms. They didn't, they just caved and switched.
Yea but don't you see its contradictory? If Apple doesn't buy the content and only sells it for a percentage of the price how is that clause effective? I would understand if it said "cannot be sold to consumers for less" but it says resellers. How can one ask to get the same price on something one isn't buying?
Because Amazon had pricing control. They would just counter by dropping their price to beat Apple's. Until the publishers had control of pricing there would always be one side with an unfair advantage -- Amazon. Something the DoJ has ignored. Along with all questions of whether Amazon may have used monopoly power to get that position
The clauses arent that simple. They also generally include terms that if another seller is offering at a lower price the MFN seller can lower theirs without needing permission from the publisher. Amazon has the same deal themselves. It's how they offer the books that go into the Starbucks thing for free during that time.
That sort of thing is why the publishers wanted pricing control from Amazon or they would pull out. They didn't want Amazon cutting prices and screwing them in all markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
Under the "agency model", the publisher sets the selling price that the reselling is obligated to charge the customer.
Under a contract with a "most favored nations" clause, the publisher cannot sell to any other reseller at a lower price.
The combination of the two means that no reseller can sell an ebook from one of these publishers to the customer for less than it's sold in Apple's store. Apple's 30% take means that for publishers to continue receiving the same amount per book that they were getting prior to the shift, the publisher must raise the selling price above what it was.
Actually, you're wrong, and FreeRange is correct. Apple's contract with the publishers says that if the publishers allow other companies to sell at a lower price, they must also allow Apple to sell at that lower price. This is not the same as prohibiting the publisher to sell to others at a lower price - they can do that, they just have to sell to Apple at that lower price also. This has been widely misquoted in press stories.
Apple's typical strong arm policy is in fact ripping off consumers, prior to Apple and the publisher's collusion to set up the agency model e-book resellers were free to offer the books at whatever price they wanted just like brick and mortar stores. If they chose to sell a book below cover price to get business then that's their choice since they are paying the publisher the agreed upon price. Since Apple wants control of yet another market they (like they have with music and are trying to get into the living room with cable operators).
It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt. It seems pretty clear to me by the number of publishers who chose to settle there was some shady dealings going on.
If I manufacture some product and each one costs me £5, why should I be forced to sell that product for less to a retailer, and what gives the retailer (even a monopoly one) the right to demand price-setting rights for my product at less than it costs me to make? I might as well close-up shop and go home (probably make more money by selling any patents I may have for that product).
That is how Walmart got rich, and this is how Amazon pulls you into its eStore. Forget about working conditions in Chinese factories, this is happening to domestic businesses which are being absolutely buttf*cked by big retailers.
If enough people kick Uncle Sam's butt enough times maybe Uncle Sam will begin to behave like he isn't above the law... Go Apple!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Then Prove It.
That is kind of Apple's appoint. The government can't just cause Apple harm by rewriting its contracts without first proving its case at trial.
Again I ask How can Apple buy something at a lower price that it's not buying in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix01
What is there to settle? Apple denies all allegations DoJ has claimed.
You've got to admit, DoJ's track record on these shaky cases hasn't been great...they've consistently come up short and lost...John Edwards, Roger Clemens, etc.
They are just looking for a way to save face on this one before another embarrassing lawsuit loss.
Good on Apple for defending vigorously and demanding Justice prove their allegations in court. Should be fun watching a bunch of GS 12/13/14 lawyers making $125k/year going up against Apple's $750-$1000/hour corporate lawyers.
Plus, it seems clear now that the DoJ was played by Amazon in this instance. The only acceptable settlement would be for the DoJ to drop the whole thing, including the settlements with the publishers who were cowed into giving up. But, clearly there are some enormous egos at play at DoJ who aren't voluntarily going to admit that the totally blew it.
I think Apple's statement that "It has no objection to the Proposed Judgment's bar on collusion" is an offering designed to allow the DOJ to save a little face and settle.
How is letting the publishers compete a 'strong arm policy'?
Under the Amazon model, Amazon was well on its way to controlling the entire market. They would have had the ability to raise prices as much as they wished and even dictate content if they so chose. Apple is simply saying "let the publishers compete and price books however they want and we'll simply take a percentage. Apple is the one who's pro-competition here.
Well, no. We have this little thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'. Apple doesn't have to prove their innocence (which would be impossible to prove, anyway). The DOJ has the burden of proof.
Of course, if you want to take the tack that Apple has to prove they are innocent, I guess I'll have to choose to accuse you of stealing a million dollars from me. Prove that you didn't - and if you can't do so, you go to jail.
Which demonstrates nothing beyond your inability to think long term.
First, Amazon was on its way to having monopoly power - which would have let them dictate prices not only to the consumer, but also how much the publisher got paid. That obviously harms the market.
Second, Even the DOJ's own evidence says that the average eBook pricing has been declining (other than a few very high profile books which Amazon was dumping previously) since Apple instituted its policy.
Third, Apple chooses to follow the law. Predatory pricing to take over a market is illegal. Too bad no one ever explained that to Amazon or the DOJ.
Fourth, even if Apple and Amazon got into a price war, it's effects would be limited. Eventually, one or the other would be unable to continue selling below cost - but the market might easily be destroyed by then.
Heck, why didn't Apple supply the advertising and support costs and give the eBooks away? With their money, they could have afforded to buy the eBooks and PAY consumers to take them. Wouldn't that be better for consumers?
Sure - in the short term. Until the market was destroyed and/or Apple went bankrupt.
Apple's model was to take a fair percentage of the price (Amazon used to take a much higher percentage - up to 70% or more) and let the market choose. Other vendors could come in and compete. In the end, Apple's market fosters competition. Amazon's model blocks competition.
In the long run, competition is better for consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
A
Then why the clause that "a publisher cannot offer the content to a reseller lower than it does to Apple". If Apple is just handling the transaction then they aren't buying anything from the wholesalers (publishers).
That's simply a fairness clause that means, "we want to sell your books, but don't make it impossible for us to do so by making us sell them for more than you have others sell them for."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
Apple's typical strong arm policy is in fact ripping off consumers, prior to Apple and the publisher's collusion to set up the agency model e-book resellers were free to offer the books at whatever price they wanted just like brick and mortar stores. If they chose to sell a book below cover price to get business then that's their choice since they are paying the publisher the agreed upon price. Since Apple wants control of yet another market they (like they have with music and are trying to get into the living room with cable operators).
It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt. It seems pretty clear to me by the number of publishers who chose to settle there was some shady dealings going on.
You don't understand the bigger picture. Amazon has a monopoly on online book sales. It used that monopoly power to unfairly force the publishers to to charge less for the e-books. If the publishers didn't agree, Amazon would threaten to not carry their hard cover books. Amazon was acting as a true monopolist by using its power in one marked to gain a monopoly in another market. That is strong arming.
Apple couldn't strong arm the publishers as it wasn't in the book business. It didn't have any leverage. The publishers hated Amazon for the above mentioned tactics, so they were happy to embrace Apple. Apple merely negotiated the same types of contracts it did for music and apps. Further, Apple can't be guilty of collusion because Apple doesn't compete with the publishers. The publishers, however, compete with one another. Moreover, since the adoption of the agency model you have seen companies like Barnes and Noble become competitive and be able to offer its customers e-books for its Nook without Amazon using its market power to force publishers to accept less than market price. This keep stores like Barnes and Nobles around, which benefits people like me who like to go in actual stores. Moreover, Amazon is also keeping Apple from getting popular books like the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, and Sherlock Holmes.
I am glad your not in charge. The government's job is to proof guilt. Apple is supposed to be presumed innocent. Further, you proof guilt at a trial. Apple is merely saying don't punish it until it has been proven guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
That's simply a fairness clause that means, "we want to sell your books, but don't make it impossible for us to do so by making us sell them for more than you have others sell them for."
Moreover, the clause only applied to new releases.