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.
So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.
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.
So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.
That's the agency model. Curious that the objection has now morphed to how it hurts the publisher rather than the consumer, yet it was the publishers who agreed to it over the wholesale model and were then accused of price fixing.
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.
Apple didn't "force" anyone to do anything.
Publishers signed individual contracts.
When Amazon's agreements expired, publishers independently renegotiated their contracts with them.
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?
I can't even see how what you wrote here relates to the post you are replying to, or even the issue being discussed in this thread.
That's the agency model. Curious that the objection has now morphed to how it hurts the publisher rather than the consumer, yet it was the publishers who agreed to it over the wholesale model and were then accused of price fixing.
Depends on how you look at it, price down hurts publishers, price up hurts consumers. The publishers would rather have a higher price of course, but babies cry when taken away from their mothers breast and the right people cried when their precious bestsellers went up in price.
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.
I think Amazon has a penalty clause where if a book is sold lower somewhere else or if the ebook is priced above $10, THEIR USUAL 30% CUT, jumps to 70%, it's something like that.
Of course Apple's 30% cut is different to Amazon's 30% cut to some people simply because it's Apple.
It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt.
Why don't you go learn how the law works and also devote a bit of time boning up on certain inalienable rights guaranteed under the constitution of the United States of America, before making such a ludicrous statement.
So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.
Amazon renegotiated their contracts with publishers, they chose to agree to the agency model the publishers offered.
They take a 30% cut of the sale price.
They can also charge a penalty rate up to 70% if publishers sell their books for lower prices somewhere else.
That's the agency model. Curious that the objection has now morphed to how it hurts the publisher rather than the consumer, yet it was the publishers who agreed to it over the wholesale model and were then accused of price fixing.
Depends on how you look at it, price down hurts publishers, price up hurts consumers. The publishers would rather have a higher price of course, but babies cry when taken away from their mothers breast and the right people cried when their precious bestsellers went up in price.
Sure - but the objection that you raised was that the prices might go down and hurt the publishers. The standard complaint has been that it would drive prices up and hurt the consumer, which was supposedly what the DoJ was trying to prevent.
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.
See, that's the thing that most people don't understand. Apple just barely breaks even selling media. They do it as a service to their customers, to encourage them to buy Apple hardware. Apple is a hardware company, and they sell software and music and books and everything else at break-even prices.
Apple makes next to nothing on media. All of it is just to sell hardware, which is what they are most interested in doing. The media is just to enhance the user experience.
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?
Obviously, my assessment was pretty accurate. You're not able to see beyond superficialities.
You really, honestly can't see how a monopolist would have the power to dictate an advantage over the competitors? Really?
So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.
The beauty of Apple's way of doing it is that the publishers are able to set the prices with all of the major retailers. So the publisher has the ability to prevent any one retailer from putting its books on sale. They could allow it, but then the publisher would have to lower prices across the board, or, at least, for Apple.
Obviously, my assessment was pretty accurate. You're not able to see beyond superficialities.
You really, honestly can't see how a monopolist would have the power to dictate an advantage over the competitors? Really?
Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?
Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?
I don't know about your example, but the entire discussion was around the concept that if Amazon was allowed to build a monopoly position (which they were well on their way to doing), they could control and damage the market. You objected to that concept and then implied that even a monopoly couldn't harm the market.
Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?
I actually had a whole argument based on differences between physical book selling and digital book selling but realised there is simpler reply to dasanman69.
What supply and demand? You're talking about an infinitely copiable digital good. As for demand, marketing!!! Make your e-store more compelling to shop at etc. Don't stoop to the cheapest tactic possible by lowering the price of the product. It's not like you have physical stock you have to clear because its taking up shelf space and you have actual money sunk into the product.
Apple's method actually levels the playing field. You could even say that it favors the publishers more.
Question - has anyone ever saw an ebook that is more expensive than its physical counterpart at launch?
PS - the DoJ will drop this case if it ever seems like it'll go to trial. This is because Apple will drag Amazon kicking and screaming into the trial and then all those NDA'ed trade agreements and terms with publishers pre-Agency model will come to light.
I don't know about your example, but the entire discussion was around the concept that if Amazon was allowed to build a monopoly position (which they were well on their way to doing), they could control and damage the market. You objected to that concept and then implied that even a monopoly couldn't harm the market.
Then show me where I said that? All I said is that one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly . As I said before I am for you and I as consumers, I want what's best for us, more choices, and better prices.
I actually had a whole argument based on differences between physical book selling and digital book selling but realised there is simpler reply to dasanman69.
What supply and demand? You're talking about an infinitely copiable digital good. As for demand, marketing!!! Make your e-store more compelling to shop at etc. Don't stoop to the cheapest tactic possible by lowering the price of the product. It's not like you have physical stock you have to clear because its taking up shelf space and you have actual money sunk into the product.
Apple's method actually levels the playing field. You could even say that it favors the publishers more.
Question - has anyone ever saw an ebook that is more expensive than its physical counterpart at launch?
PS - the DoJ will drop this case if it ever seems like it'll go to trial. This is because Apple will drag Amazon kicking and screaming into the trial and then all those NDA'ed trade agreements and terms with publishers pre-Agency model will come to light.
You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.
You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.
Rubbish.
It gives the publisher the tools to react to market forces as they set the price for the work they have paid for.
Independent publishers are on equal footing apart from not having the marketing budgets the majors have for promoting author's works.
Comments
So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.
That's the agency model. Curious that the objection has now morphed to how it hurts the publisher rather than the consumer, yet it was the publishers who agreed to it over the wholesale model and were then accused of price fixing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
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.
Apple didn't "force" anyone to do anything.
Publishers signed individual contracts.
When Amazon's agreements expired, publishers independently renegotiated their contracts with them.
No-one was "forced" to do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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?
I can't even see how what you wrote here relates to the post you are replying to, or even the issue being discussed in this thread.
Depends on how you look at it, price down hurts publishers, price up hurts consumers. The publishers would rather have a higher price of course, but babies cry when taken away from their mothers breast and the right people cried when their precious bestsellers went up in price.
Nor did I expect you to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
I think Amazon has a penalty clause where if a book is sold lower somewhere else or if the ebook is priced above $10, THEIR USUAL 30% CUT, jumps to 70%, it's something like that.
Of course Apple's 30% cut is different to Amazon's 30% cut to some people simply because it's Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
It is Apple's job to prove they are innocent, not the government's job, their job is to prove guilt.
Why don't you go learn how the law works and also devote a bit of time boning up on certain inalienable rights guaranteed under the constitution of the United States of America, before making such a ludicrous statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.
Amazon renegotiated their contracts with publishers, they chose to agree to the agency model the publishers offered.
They take a 30% cut of the sale price.
They can also charge a penalty rate up to 70% if publishers sell their books for lower prices somewhere else.
If Amazon sells your book for $10, you get $7.
Sure - but the objection that you raised was that the prices might go down and hurt the publishers. The standard complaint has been that it would drive prices up and hurt the consumer, which was supposedly what the DoJ was trying to prevent.
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.
See, that's the thing that most people don't understand. Apple just barely breaks even selling media. They do it as a service to their customers, to encourage them to buy Apple hardware. Apple is a hardware company, and they sell software and music and books and everything else at break-even prices.
Apple makes next to nothing on media. All of it is just to sell hardware, which is what they are most interested in doing. The media is just to enhance the user experience.
Obviously, my assessment was pretty accurate. You're not able to see beyond superficialities.
You really, honestly can't see how a monopolist would have the power to dictate an advantage over the competitors? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So because a reseller puts a book on sale the publisher should take a hit so that Apple can sell at the same price? Say I make a book and after all my costs and a nice little profit I price it at $10, it's sold on Amazon and iBooks for $12.99, great right? But then unbeknownst to me or without my input Amazon drops the price to $9.99 taking a $. 01 loss on it, it really doesn't impact me because I'm still getting my $10 now Apple turns around and says under our agreement we have to sell the book at the same price but in this case I'll be only getting $7 per ebook.
The beauty of Apple's way of doing it is that the publishers are able to set the prices with all of the major retailers. So the publisher has the ability to prevent any one retailer from putting its books on sale. They could allow it, but then the publisher would have to lower prices across the board, or, at least, for Apple.
That keeps things fair.
Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?
So I wonder if Amazon getting cozy with the DoJ to manipulate the market had anything to do with this
The State Department cancelling a $16.5 million Kindle contract.
Of course there'd be no evidence of any link but the coincidence is interesting.
I don't know about your example, but the entire discussion was around the concept that if Amazon was allowed to build a monopoly position (which they were well on their way to doing), they could control and damage the market. You objected to that concept and then implied that even a monopoly couldn't harm the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Where in my example was there anything monopolistic? Of course I can see the abuses a monopoly can bring about. I was asking why can't a company adjust for supply and demand if it has to lower the price elsewhere in which demand is high. Now I ask you can you see and understand my assessment?
I actually had a whole argument based on differences between physical book selling and digital book selling but realised there is simpler reply to dasanman69.
What supply and demand? You're talking about an infinitely copiable digital good. As for demand, marketing!!! Make your e-store more compelling to shop at etc. Don't stoop to the cheapest tactic possible by lowering the price of the product. It's not like you have physical stock you have to clear because its taking up shelf space and you have actual money sunk into the product.
Apple's method actually levels the playing field. You could even say that it favors the publishers more.
Question - has anyone ever saw an ebook that is more expensive than its physical counterpart at launch?
PS - the DoJ will drop this case if it ever seems like it'll go to trial. This is because Apple will drag Amazon kicking and screaming into the trial and then all those NDA'ed trade agreements and terms with publishers pre-Agency model will come to light.
Then show me where I said that? All I said is that one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly . As I said before I am for you and I as consumers, I want what's best for us, more choices, and better prices.
You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.
Rubbish.
It gives the publisher the tools to react to market forces as they set the price for the work they have paid for.
Independent publishers are on equal footing apart from not having the marketing budgets the majors have for promoting author's works.