It's important that all parties understand each other and what's being discussed, then and only then can a debate take place.
What is being discussed is Apple saying "we're not going to set any prices. That's entirely up to you." whereas Amazon' model was "We set the prices for you." The only one that looks like it's improperly affecting the market is Amazon and it looks like Bezo's lobbyists were able to fast track baseless accusations when Amazon's predatory pricing was no longer working.
Apple set a condition that publishers had to offer the same deals they gave to others, giving Apple a chance to compete.
So, since the introduction of iBooks what has been the effect on the average price of ebooks, ALL ebooks not some cherry picked sample chosen specifically to show price increases?
Based on a "sample" of US citizens I have come to the conclusion that they are all psychopathic killers carrying guns.
What does the introduction of iBooks have to do with it? The price controls were only on "Bestsellers", not the entire range of books. How has that segment's average price tracked?
"We need to agree on prices though. I don't want to compete on prices if I can avoid it. How about we agree no less than $12.99 for our popular stuff and no one else can sell similar stuff for less than that in your shop. We can both make good money"
"I'll do better than that. If your competitors want to sell in my store they have to agree not to let any other stores somewhere else sell their stuff for less than that either"
"You sure that's legal?"
"Hey, my lips are sealed if yours are. I'll talk to those guys and make sure they're on board. All I want is my 30% OK? I'd just as soon not compete on price either."
"Sell it for whatever you want, you set the price just make sure we get as good a deal as anyone else".
What does the introduction of iBooks have to do with it? The price controls were only on "Bestsellers", not the entire range of books. How has that segment's average price tracked?
"There is to be no competition on ebooks, the proletariat will only read the books we select for you, at the price we set for you." - the Soviet Socialist United States of America.
I see the free market working. Amazon had unfavorable options for publishers but without any real competition to Amazon's model Amazon had them by their bindings. When Apple came in with a better offer and fair competition they had an out from Amazon's unsavory plan.
The comment I replied to contrasts that other post.
Free market is when competitors can freely do their own thing their way freely. So why is Apple now seemingly altruistic (I can use that word too) with the publishers when they weren't with the music industry?
What is being discussed is Apple saying "we're not going to set any prices. That's entirely up to you." whereas Amazon' model was "We set the prices for you." The only one that looks like it's improperly affecting the market is Amazon and it looks like Bezo's lobbyists were able to fast track baseless accusations when Amazon's predatory pricing was no longer working.
Free market is when competitors can freely do their own thing their way freely. So why is Apple now seemingly altruistic (I can use that word too) with the publishers when they weren't with the music industry?
So the publishers weren't free to do what they wanted with Apple? They weren't free to say "We like having no control over our ebook pricing under Amazon"? They weren't free to set their own prices with the iBookstore? The only predatory actions I've seen were from Amazon using their monopoly position to prevent others from entering the market.
And of course Apple is altruistic. Who said they were? Amazon was keeping the publishers captive and Apple saw an opportunity to gain market share by letting them set their own prices. What a fucking concept!
Undercutting everyone by selling below cost is also not competition.
Then do what Apple does best and offer a better customer experience at a premium. Don't I read that time, and time again on here, and how no other company gets that? Why is it any different now?
And if someone came along with a music store that had different prices than Apple (which has happened several times) I wouldn't consider that illegal or collusion. If Apple complained that it's not fair that the music labels get to set their own prices with a different store I wouldn't stand behind that nonsense but it sounds like you would.
So the publishers weren't free to do what they wanted with Apple? They weren't free to say "We like having no control over our ebook pricing under Amazon"? They weren't free to set their own prices with the iBookstore? The only predatory actions I've seen were from Amazon using their monopoly position to prevent others from entering the market.
And of course Apple is altruistic. Who said they were? Amazon was keeping the publishers captive and Apple saw an opportunity to gain market share by letting them set their own prices. What a fucking concept!
It is a great concept, I've never denied that, but you're still dodging the music industry question. Why didn't Apple let them set the price and then let them act accordingly to market forces?
When combined with the agency model and simultaneously agreed to and announced by Apple and each of the major publishers?
EDIT: The telling part is the timing. If Apple and the major publishers had not all agreed to the exact same conditions and all at the same time this would not have become an issue IMHO... <span style="line-height:1.231;">but they did. A reasonable person would conclude that one party would likely have coordinated the negotiations for all to have come together and agreed at once.</span>
I think a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that one party coordinated the negotiations for all. I think it's equally likely that the publishers got caught talking amongst each other.
The coordination of the announcement is not an indication (to me) that the agreement to the exact same conditions is a clear sign of Apple colluding or price fixing. Is it naive for me to consider that the publishers all saw a better deal, the same deal offered to each by Apple, and took it? Perhaps but until I read evidence of Apple's collusion or disclosure of communications or details of negotiations between publishers I'll withhold judgement.
It is a great concept, I've never denied that, but you're still dodging the music industry question. Why didn't Apple let them set the price and then let them act accordingly to market forces?
1) Apple did let them set prices. Remember when the music labels actually did collude with Amazon to offer prices lower than Apple with no DRM (after saying how no DRM was a stupid suggestion by Jobs) and at a higher bit rate. Apple then bent to them and allowed a three tier pricing model.
2) The key difference isn't that Apple set all the prices the same for songs (which in not how Amazon sets book prices) it's that Apple didn't sell them for a loss to illegally corner a market. In fact, it was quite clearly stated year-after-year that CDs were cheaper than Apple's model as a key reason why iTMS was stupid and would fail. You can't say the same for Amazon who is dumping to illegally corner the market.
And if someone came along with a music store that had different prices than Apple (which has happened several times) I wouldn't consider that illegal or collusion. If Apple complained that it's not fair that the music labels get to set their own prices with a different store I wouldn't stand behind that nonsense but it sounds like you would.
That happens all the time and of course it's not illegal, and people go bargain hunting because that freedom exists, and thanks for proving my point. Despite being undersold people still chose to buy from Apple.
It is a great concept, I've never denied that, but you're still dodging the music industry question. Why didn't Apple let them set the price and then let them act accordingly to market forces?
1) Apple did let them set prices. Remember when the music labels actually did collude with Amazon to offer prices lower than Apple with no DRM (after saying how no DRM was a stupid suggestion by Jobs) and at a higher bit rate. Apple then bent to them and allowed a three tier pricing model.
2) The key difference isn't that Apple set all the prices the same for songs (which in not how Amazon sets book prices) it's that Apple didn't sell them for a loss to illegally corner a market. In fact, it was quite clearly stated year-after-year that CDs were cheaper than Apple's model as a key reason why iTMS was stupid and would fail. You can't say the same for Amazon who is dumping to illegally corner the market.
Not at a loss? Then why did it take them 12 years to make a profit? And the music industry should've gotten the same treatment from the DoJ that the publishers got for doing that to Apple.
Comments
deleted
Undercutting everyone by selling below cost is also not competition.
What is being discussed is Apple saying "we're not going to set any prices. That's entirely up to you." whereas Amazon' model was "We set the prices for you." The only one that looks like it's improperly affecting the market is Amazon and it looks like Bezo's lobbyists were able to fast track baseless accusations when Amazon's predatory pricing was no longer working.
Originally Posted by MacRulez
So that we may all learn from this, what exactly did he do that you feel he should stop?
You, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'll do whatever pleases me. If the agency model was the problem then the DoJ would've taken it up with Apple 10 years ago.
Maybe they weren't being advised by some whining, shadowy third party throwing around behind the scenes, lobbying kick backs at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple set a condition that publishers had to offer the same deals they gave to others, giving Apple a chance to compete.
So, since the introduction of iBooks what has been the effect on the average price of ebooks, ALL ebooks not some cherry picked sample chosen specifically to show price increases?
Based on a "sample" of US citizens I have come to the conclusion that they are all psychopathic killers carrying guns.
What does the introduction of iBooks have to do with it? The price controls were only on "Bestsellers", not the entire range of books. How has that segment's average price tracked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And 99¢ songs wasn't dumping? Of course not. Silly me the music industry needed saving, and Apple exploited them... I mean rescued them.
I used to buy vinyl singles for 99c.
It seems that model was around long before iTunes, and you got two songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
"We need to agree on prices though. I don't want to compete on prices if I can avoid it. How about we agree no less than $12.99 for our popular stuff and no one else can sell similar stuff for less than that in your shop. We can both make good money"
"I'll do better than that. If your competitors want to sell in my store they have to agree not to let any other stores somewhere else sell their stuff for less than that either"
"You sure that's legal?"
"Hey, my lips are sealed if yours are. I'll talk to those guys and make sure they're on board. All I want is my 30% OK? I'd just as soon not compete on price either."
"Sell it for whatever you want, you set the price just make sure we get as good a deal as anyone else".
How's that tin foil hat coming along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
What does the introduction of iBooks have to do with it? The price controls were only on "Bestsellers", not the entire range of books. How has that segment's average price tracked?
"There is to be no competition on ebooks, the proletariat will only read the books we select for you, at the price we set for you." - the Soviet Socialist United States of America.
Free market is when competitors can freely do their own thing their way freely. So why is Apple now seemingly altruistic (I can use that word too) with the publishers when they weren't with the music industry?
Sounds very much like Apple 10 years ago.
So the publishers weren't free to do what they wanted with Apple? They weren't free to say "We like having no control over our ebook pricing under Amazon"? They weren't free to set their own prices with the iBookstore? The only predatory actions I've seen were from Amazon using their monopoly position to prevent others from entering the market.
And of course Apple is altruistic. Who said they were? Amazon was keeping the publishers captive and Apple saw an opportunity to gain market share by letting them set their own prices. What a fucking concept!
Then do what Apple does best and offer a better customer experience at a premium. Don't I read that time, and time again on here, and how no other company gets that? Why is it any different now?
And if someone came along with a music store that had different prices than Apple (which has happened several times) I wouldn't consider that illegal or collusion. If Apple complained that it's not fair that the music labels get to set their own prices with a different store I wouldn't stand behind that nonsense but it sounds like you would.
It is a great concept, I've never denied that, but you're still dodging the music industry question. Why didn't Apple let them set the price and then let them act accordingly to market forces?
I think a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that one party coordinated the negotiations for all. I think it's equally likely that the publishers got caught talking amongst each other.
The coordination of the announcement is not an indication (to me) that the agreement to the exact same conditions is a clear sign of Apple colluding or price fixing. Is it naive for me to consider that the publishers all saw a better deal, the same deal offered to each by Apple, and took it? Perhaps but until I read evidence of Apple's collusion or disclosure of communications or details of negotiations between publishers I'll withhold judgement.
1) Apple did let them set prices. Remember when the music labels actually did collude with Amazon to offer prices lower than Apple with no DRM (after saying how no DRM was a stupid suggestion by Jobs) and at a higher bit rate. Apple then bent to them and allowed a three tier pricing model.
2) The key difference isn't that Apple set all the prices the same for songs (which in not how Amazon sets book prices) it's that Apple didn't sell them for a loss to illegally corner a market. In fact, it was quite clearly stated year-after-year that CDs were cheaper than Apple's model as a key reason why iTMS was stupid and would fail. You can't say the same for Amazon who is dumping to illegally corner the market.
That happens all the time and of course it's not illegal, and people go bargain hunting because that freedom exists, and thanks for proving my point. Despite being undersold people still chose to buy from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It is a great concept, I've never denied that, but you're still dodging the music industry question. Why didn't Apple let them set the price and then let them act accordingly to market forces?
What, like 69c songs on Amazon?
Not at a loss? Then why did it take them 12 years to make a profit? And the music industry should've gotten the same treatment from the DoJ that the publishers got for doing that to Apple.