If the publishers want more profit, they should go with Apple and simply pull their e-books from Amazon. Then they could set whatever price they want just like app publishers.
There is another route to take though. For example Nikon now forces all certified dealers to charge full retail price for their cameras. If a retailer is found to be discounting the product they are cut off and can no longer get inventory. If retailers want to offer discounts they have to do it with bundling of other merchandise.
If, in this case, the publishers had some balls they would do the same thing to Amazon.
Thing is they are scared that losing Amazon's sales will hurt them in the short term.
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."
So in other words screw yourselves and anyone you did business with prior before you screw me? Since when did the publishers have the means of making anyone sell at a certain price. Oh yeah when they colluded with each other and ganged up on Amazon or at least that's what they're accused of doing.
If the publishers want more profit, they should go with Apple and simply pull their e-books from Amazon. Then they could set whatever price they want just like app publishers.
Betting the DoJ would have reached a similar conclusion and action. "Not good for he consumer" - threaten to sue and big brother divides and settles. My thought is they didn't count on Apple fighting back. I hope Apple does not settle and this goes to trial and ultimately a ruling that will establish precedent (no matter which direction). Guessing the DoJ will drop the suit before a negative ruling happens. It will injure their ability to bully companies and people into settling.
Betting the DoJ would have reached a similar conclusion and action. "Not good for he consumer" - threaten to sue and big brother divides and settles. My thought is they didn't count on Apple fighting back. I hope Apple does not settle and this goes to trial and ultimately a ruling that will establish precedent (no matter which direction). Guessing the DoJ will drop the suit before a negative ruling happens. It will injure their ability to bully companies and people into settling.
I don't think the DOJ can force the publishers to sell their e-books to Amazon if they don't want to. Exclusive resale channels are not against the law as far as I know.
So in other words screw yourselves and anyone you did business with prior before you screw me? Since when did the publishers have the means of making anyone sell at a certain price. Oh yeah when they colluded with each other and ganged up on Amazon or at least that's what they're accused of doing.
I understand that you are intent on twisting the reality of the situation into the form you want it to be (there's plenty of that goes on here as well) but, no. It simply means, promise you won't screw me if you want me to sell you books.
But, this is a bad tree to bark up for anyone supporting Amazon. These sort of most favored nation clauses are pretty much the only way Amazon does business with anyone. So, if we're going to put an end to that sort of thing, which is entirely legal, pretty much all of Amazon's contracts with everyone in every line of business will be thrown out the window. And, to criticize Apple on these grounds, but not Amazon, is rank hypocrisy*.
* Especially since Amazon's contracts often contain clauses that say things like, "and we can give your stuff away for free whenever we like, at no cost to us."
I don't think the DOJ can force the publishers to sell their e-books to Amazon if they don't want to. Exclusive resale channels are not against the law as far as I know.
Then again, an exclusive retail channel is exactly the problem publishers are trying to avoid, and which the DoJ is attempting to push them to.
Then again, an exclusive retail channel is exactly the problem publishers are trying to avoid, and which the DoJ is attempting to push them to.
If the publishers have the right to set their own price how is there a down side for them. I know it is unlikely that they would ever pull their e-books from Amazon as it would leave millions Kindle owners with bricks because they would not be able to decode Apples DRM. But the situation wouldn't last long because Amazon would blink first and renegotiate the contract that would require them to sell only at full retail price.
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?
It's not a question of the price Apple buys at, because, as already pointed out, they don't buy the books - they just sell them on behalf of the publisher and keep 30% of the sale price. This clause simply requires that if the publishers sell to other companies at lower prices, Apple can also sell at the lower price.
It's not a question of the price Apple buys at, because, as already pointed out, they don't buy the books - they just sell them on behalf of the publisher and keep 30% of the sale price. This clause simply requires that if the publishers sell to other companies at lower prices, Apple can also sell at the lower price.
I don't think Apple even cares what the wholesale price is that the publishers charge Amazon for the e-books. Apple just wants the retail price to be the same on the Apple store as it is on Amazon.
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?
B/c even w/taking 30% on all sales thru iTunes, Apple only clears about 2% on selling things. It is not a big money maker for them. Cut their proceed to 20% and it is a losing affair for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
Clearly all of those years of experience selling books lets the DoJ know all about this. Right? </s>
It's not a question of the price Apple buys at, because, as already pointed out, they don't buy the books - they just sell them on behalf of the publisher and keep 30% of the sale price. This clause simply requires that if the publishers sell to other companies at lower prices, Apple can also sell at the lower price.
But the publishers have little control over what a reseller wants to sell a book they purchased wholesale for.
I understand that you are intent on twisting the reality of the situation into the form you want it to be (there's plenty of that goes on here as well) but, no. It simply means, promise you won't screw me if you want me to sell you books.
But, this is a bad tree to bark up for anyone supporting Amazon. These sort of most favored nation clauses are pretty much the only way Amazon does business with anyone. So, if we're going to put an end to that sort of thing, which is entirely legal, pretty much all of Amazon's contracts with everyone in every line of business will be thrown out the window. And, to criticize Apple on these grounds, but not Amazon, is rank hypocrisy*.
* Especially since Amazon's contracts often contain clauses that say things like, "and we can give your stuff away for free whenever we like, at no cost to us."
Why would Amazon's contracts with anyone have to be broken? They're not the ones bought up on charges, so that conversation should be left for another day. Btw I don't support Amazon, I would like what best for us as consumers. A ebook the same price across the board isn't. Say a certain book is selling well on the iBook store but not on Amazon, so to bolster sales the publisher lowers the price in an attempt to increase demand but in order to do so they have to lower the price in Apple's store. That doesn't make sense to me. I feel things should be flexible for market forces.
When you declare the opposite position "a lie" it's fairly clear what you are asserting, even if you think it offers you plausible deniability.
But, of course, your argument continues to ignore a number of facts. First of all, the most favored nation clause doesn't fix the price, it just says, "you won't screw us by making us sell it for more than you allow other people." Regardless of how some want to twist that into price fixing, it's really just a fairness clause. Secondly, there has been no general increase in eBook prices as a result of Apple's entry into the eBook market. And lastly, the agreements in place before the DoJ interfered in the market in its misguided attempt to shore up Amazon's crumbling monopoly, restored a healthy balance that going forward would have fostered competition and choice. There is absolutely no upside for anyone to the DoJ's actions, other than for Amazon. Publisher's get screwed, all other booksellers get screwed, and the public bears the brunt of devastating an industry because some legal hacks in Washington didn't understand what they were getting involved in and are unable to swallow their pride and admit they screwed up.
Have to agree with dasanman69 on this one. It is an untruth that amazon 'will' raise prices. It's very likely, but not definite.
But let's not get too caught up in the finer details of the dictionary meanings of our words. I think the overall idea is still understood. Giving them a virtual monopoly could be very bad.
Fair play to apple. Kind of old days sticking it to the man! Only now having billions to back yourself up with. I think most of us would love just one shot at this type of scenario in our lifetime.
Have to agree with dasanman69 on this one. It is an untruth that amazon 'will' raise prices. It's very likely, but not definite.
But let's not get too caught up in the finer details of the dictionary meanings of our words. I think the overall idea is still understood. Giving them a virtual monopoly could be very bad.
Fair play to apple. Kind of old days sticking it to the man! Only now having billions to back yourself up with. I think most of us would love just one shot at this type of scenario in our lifetime.
Thanks, finally someone with some sense and understanding.
Have to agree with dasanman69 on this one. It is an untruth that amazon 'will' raise prices. It's very likely, but not definite.
Well, saying it's an "untruth" implies that the opposite is true, since you've declared the first, contradictory proposition, false. But, even you are saying that it's more likely than not, so, we can dance around words, but the bottom line is that there's no reason to expect Amazon wouldn't raise prices after consolidating a monopoly, and every reason to believe they would, so the DoJ's action to establish them in a monopoly, sanctioned by the government, is contrary to the public interest.
Why would Amazon's contracts with anyone have to be broken? They're not the ones bought up on charges, so that conversation should be left for another day. Btw I don't support Amazon, I would like what best for us as consumers. A ebook the same price across the board isn't. Say a certain book is selling well on the iBook store but not on Amazon, so to bolster sales the publisher lowers the price in an attempt to increase demand but in order to do so they have to lower the price in Apple's store. That doesn't make sense to me. I feel things should be flexible for market forces.
That sounds good in theory, but when you go beyond the superficial, it doesn't make sense.
What you are proposing essentially amounts to a system where the strongest (and/or largest) customer can dictate a large advantage for themselves. At the start of Apple's ebook efforts, Amazon outsold them by many orders of magnitude. Amazon could have said to the publishers "we demand a price that's consistently 10% below Apple or we will stop selling your books. Since this would be fatal for the publisher and since Amazon had most of the business at that time, most publishers would have gone along - and the status quo would have become entrenched.
Apple's solution simply guarantees that no one has a significant advantage in purchase price and can therefore compete by offering better service, better support, better hardware, etc. It also ensures that it would be fairly easy for a new player to enter the market while Amazon's policies were designed to keep new entries out of the market.
Well, saying it's an "untruth" implies that the opposite is true, since you've declared the first, contradictory proposition, false. But, even you are saying that it's more likely than not, so, we can dance around words, but the bottom line is that there's no reason to expect Amazon wouldn't raise prices after consolidating a monopoly, and every reason to believe they would, so the DoJ's action to establish them in a monopoly, sanctioned by the government, is contrary to the public interest.
Raising prices is not the only damage Amazon could do with their monopoly:
- Demanding lower prices from publishers. Might look good on the surface, but there's no reason to think they'd lower prices to consumers, so the consumer would not benefit. The publishers, OTOH could be severely damaged - even to the point of bankruptcy
- Demanding control over the creative process and/or content of the books.
- Limiting access to other resellers by demanding an exclusive position. This could put their competitors out of business and further strengthen their monopoly.
It's not a question of the price Apple buys at, because, as already pointed out, they don't buy the books - they just sell them on behalf of the publisher and keep 30% of the sale price. This clause simply requires that if the publishers sell to other companies at lower prices, Apple can also sell at the lower price.
But the publishers have little control over what a reseller wants to sell a book they purchased wholesale for.
Possibly not, but what does that have to do with it? The MFN clause requires the publishers to ensure that the iBooks price is no higher than the lowest price being offered elsewhere, whether or not the publishers control that price.
As long as the best outcome for consumers is met, I could care less about whoever may be a monopolist or who colluded.
Consumer first.
Bleh... that is an incredibly myopic view as there's literally no way to infallibly define what constitutes such an outcome. Is it based on cost? quality of materials? availability? I'd like to see better textbooks and technical material that doesn't require reviewing an errata every other page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
B/c even w/taking 30% on all sales thru iTunes, Apple only clears about 2% on selling things. It is not a big money maker for them. Cut their proceed to 20% and it is a losing affair for them.
Clearly all of those years of experience selling books lets the DoJ know all about this. Right? </s>
I thought some of the breakdowns suggested a better percentage there? Out of curiosity where did you find this?
That sounds good in theory, but when you go beyond the superficial, it doesn't make sense.
What you are proposing essentially amounts to a system where the strongest (and/or largest) customer can dictate a large advantage for themselves. At the start of Apple's ebook efforts, Amazon outsold them by many orders of magnitude. Amazon could have said to the publishers "we demand a price that's consistently 10% below Apple or we will stop selling your books. Since this would be fatal for the publisher and since Amazon had most of the business at that time, most publishers would have gone along - and the status quo would have become entrenched.
Apple's solution simply guarantees that no one has a significant advantage in purchase price and can therefore compete by offering better service, better support, better hardware, etc. It also ensures that it would be fairly easy for a new player to enter the market while Amazon's policies were designed to keep new entries out of the market.
Really? Then would you be so kind to give me an example as I have that what I'm proposing amounts to a system where the strongest can dictate a large advantage. Superficial? Really? I'd bet the bank that if you went to the Barnes & Noble near you and I the one near me we'd find totally different books on sale and that's the same retailer. Why can't the same happen in the ebook business?
Comments
If the publishers want more profit, they should go with Apple and simply pull their e-books from Amazon. Then they could set whatever price they want just like app publishers.
There is another route to take though. For example Nikon now forces all certified dealers to charge full retail price for their cameras. If a retailer is found to be discounting the product they are cut off and can no longer get inventory. If retailers want to offer discounts they have to do it with bundling of other merchandise.
If, in this case, the publishers had some balls they would do the same thing to Amazon.
Thing is they are scared that losing Amazon's sales will hurt them in the short term.
So in other words screw yourselves and anyone you did business with prior before you screw me? Since when did the publishers have the means of making anyone sell at a certain price. Oh yeah when they colluded with each other and ganged up on Amazon or at least that's what they're accused of doing.
Betting the DoJ would have reached a similar conclusion and action. "Not good for he consumer" - threaten to sue and big brother divides and settles. My thought is they didn't count on Apple fighting back. I hope Apple does not settle and this goes to trial and ultimately a ruling that will establish precedent (no matter which direction). Guessing the DoJ will drop the suit before a negative ruling happens. It will injure their ability to bully companies and people into settling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
Betting the DoJ would have reached a similar conclusion and action. "Not good for he consumer" - threaten to sue and big brother divides and settles. My thought is they didn't count on Apple fighting back. I hope Apple does not settle and this goes to trial and ultimately a ruling that will establish precedent (no matter which direction). Guessing the DoJ will drop the suit before a negative ruling happens. It will injure their ability to bully companies and people into settling.
I don't think the DOJ can force the publishers to sell their e-books to Amazon if they don't want to. Exclusive resale channels are not against the law as far as I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So in other words screw yourselves and anyone you did business with prior before you screw me? Since when did the publishers have the means of making anyone sell at a certain price. Oh yeah when they colluded with each other and ganged up on Amazon or at least that's what they're accused of doing.
I understand that you are intent on twisting the reality of the situation into the form you want it to be (there's plenty of that goes on here as well) but, no. It simply means, promise you won't screw me if you want me to sell you books.
But, this is a bad tree to bark up for anyone supporting Amazon. These sort of most favored nation clauses are pretty much the only way Amazon does business with anyone. So, if we're going to put an end to that sort of thing, which is entirely legal, pretty much all of Amazon's contracts with everyone in every line of business will be thrown out the window. And, to criticize Apple on these grounds, but not Amazon, is rank hypocrisy*.
* Especially since Amazon's contracts often contain clauses that say things like, "and we can give your stuff away for free whenever we like, at no cost to us."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't think the DOJ can force the publishers to sell their e-books to Amazon if they don't want to. Exclusive resale channels are not against the law as far as I know.
Then again, an exclusive retail channel is exactly the problem publishers are trying to avoid, and which the DoJ is attempting to push them to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Then again, an exclusive retail channel is exactly the problem publishers are trying to avoid, and which the DoJ is attempting to push them to.
If the publishers have the right to set their own price how is there a down side for them. I know it is unlikely that they would ever pull their e-books from Amazon as it would leave millions Kindle owners with bricks because they would not be able to decode Apples DRM. But the situation wouldn't last long because Amazon would blink first and renegotiate the contract that would require them to sell only at full retail price.
It's not a question of the price Apple buys at, because, as already pointed out, they don't buy the books - they just sell them on behalf of the publisher and keep 30% of the sale price. This clause simply requires that if the publishers sell to other companies at lower prices, Apple can also sell at the lower price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
It's not a question of the price Apple buys at, because, as already pointed out, they don't buy the books - they just sell them on behalf of the publisher and keep 30% of the sale price. This clause simply requires that if the publishers sell to other companies at lower prices, Apple can also sell at the lower price.
I don't think Apple even cares what the wholesale price is that the publishers charge Amazon for the e-books. Apple just wants the retail price to be the same on the Apple store as it is on Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
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?
B/c even w/taking 30% on all sales thru iTunes, Apple only clears about 2% on selling things. It is not a big money maker for them. Cut their proceed to 20% and it is a losing affair for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
Clearly all of those years of experience selling books lets the DoJ know all about this. Right? </s>
But the publishers have little control over what a reseller wants to sell a book they purchased wholesale for.
Why would Amazon's contracts with anyone have to be broken? They're not the ones bought up on charges, so that conversation should be left for another day. Btw I don't support Amazon, I would like what best for us as consumers. A ebook the same price across the board isn't. Say a certain book is selling well on the iBook store but not on Amazon, so to bolster sales the publisher lowers the price in an attempt to increase demand but in order to do so they have to lower the price in Apple's store. That doesn't make sense to me. I feel things should be flexible for market forces.
Have to agree with dasanman69 on this one. It is an untruth that amazon 'will' raise prices. It's very likely, but not definite.
But let's not get too caught up in the finer details of the dictionary meanings of our words. I think the overall idea is still understood. Giving them a virtual monopoly could be very bad.
Fair play to apple. Kind of old days sticking it to the man! Only now having billions to back yourself up with. I think most of us would love just one shot at this type of scenario in our lifetime.
Thanks, finally someone with some sense and understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanie248
Have to agree with dasanman69 on this one. It is an untruth that amazon 'will' raise prices. It's very likely, but not definite.
Well, saying it's an "untruth" implies that the opposite is true, since you've declared the first, contradictory proposition, false. But, even you are saying that it's more likely than not, so, we can dance around words, but the bottom line is that there's no reason to expect Amazon wouldn't raise prices after consolidating a monopoly, and every reason to believe they would, so the DoJ's action to establish them in a monopoly, sanctioned by the government, is contrary to the public interest.
That sounds good in theory, but when you go beyond the superficial, it doesn't make sense.
What you are proposing essentially amounts to a system where the strongest (and/or largest) customer can dictate a large advantage for themselves. At the start of Apple's ebook efforts, Amazon outsold them by many orders of magnitude. Amazon could have said to the publishers "we demand a price that's consistently 10% below Apple or we will stop selling your books. Since this would be fatal for the publisher and since Amazon had most of the business at that time, most publishers would have gone along - and the status quo would have become entrenched.
Apple's solution simply guarantees that no one has a significant advantage in purchase price and can therefore compete by offering better service, better support, better hardware, etc. It also ensures that it would be fairly easy for a new player to enter the market while Amazon's policies were designed to keep new entries out of the market.
Raising prices is not the only damage Amazon could do with their monopoly:
- Demanding lower prices from publishers. Might look good on the surface, but there's no reason to think they'd lower prices to consumers, so the consumer would not benefit. The publishers, OTOH could be severely damaged - even to the point of bankruptcy
- Demanding control over the creative process and/or content of the books.
- Limiting access to other resellers by demanding an exclusive position. This could put their competitors out of business and further strengthen their monopoly.
Possibly not, but what does that have to do with it? The MFN clause requires the publishers to ensure that the iBooks price is no higher than the lowest price being offered elsewhere, whether or not the publishers control that price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
As long as the best outcome for consumers is met, I could care less about whoever may be a monopolist or who colluded.
Consumer first.
Bleh... that is an incredibly myopic view as there's literally no way to infallibly define what constitutes such an outcome. Is it based on cost? quality of materials? availability? I'd like to see better textbooks and technical material that doesn't require reviewing an errata every other page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
B/c even w/taking 30% on all sales thru iTunes, Apple only clears about 2% on selling things. It is not a big money maker for them. Cut their proceed to 20% and it is a losing affair for them.
Clearly all of those years of experience selling books lets the DoJ know all about this. Right? </s>
I thought some of the breakdowns suggested a better percentage there? Out of curiosity where did you find this?
Really? Then would you be so kind to give me an example as I have that what I'm proposing amounts to a system where the strongest can dictate a large advantage. Superficial? Really? I'd bet the bank that if you went to the Barnes & Noble near you and I the one near me we'd find totally different books on sale and that's the same retailer. Why can't the same happen in the ebook business?