Wrong Amazon uses the wholesale model. Buy at one price sell at another.
As I understood it, publishers put all vendors on the Agency model when Apple sealed the deal. Only after the fact, when publishers settled out of court, did vendors such as Amazon return to the wholesale model. Correct me if I am wrong (like, with a link to some proof), but rescinding the agency model was part of that deal.
Otherwise... who the hell cares if Apple is the only vendor with an Agency model?
There is more to this story other than what Apple Insider wrote about:
"In July 2010, Mr. Jobs, Apple's former chief executive, told the chief executive of Random House, Markus Dohle, that the publisher would suffer a loss of support from Apple if it held out much longer, according to an account of the conversation provided by Mr. Dohle in the filing. Two months later, Apple threatened to block an e-book application by Random House from appearing in Apple's App Store because it had not agreed to a deal with Apple, the filing said.
After Random House finally agreed to a contract on Jan. 18, 2011, Eddy Cue, the Apple executive in charge of its e-books deals, sent an e-mail to Mr. Jobs attributing the publisher's capitulation, in part, to "the fact that I prevented an app from Random House from going live in the app store," the filing reads"
The part about blocking access to the App Store unless you played ball may not support collusion however it does show Monopolistic tactics. I am pretty sure that Apple does not want to go in that direction with the DOJ.
There is more to this story other than what Apple Insider wrote about:
"In July 2010, Mr. Jobs, Apple%u2019s former chief executive, told the chief executive of Random House, Markus Dohle, that the publisher would suffer a loss of support from Apple if it held out much longer, according to an account of the conversation provided by Mr. Dohle in the filing. Two months later, Apple threatened to block an e-book application by Random House from appearing in Apple%u2019s App Store because it had not agreed to a deal with Apple, the filing said.
After Random House finally agreed to a contract on Jan. 18, 2011, Eddy Cue, the Apple executive in charge of its e-books deals, sent an e-mail to Mr. Jobs attributing the publisher%u2019s capitulation, in part, to %u201Cthe fact that I prevented an app from Random House from going live in the app store,%u201D the filing reads"
The part about blocking access to the App Store unless you played ball may not support collusion however it does show Monopolistic tactics. I am pretty sure that Apple does not want to go in that direction with the DOJ.
Apple has never had a monopoly. Amazon ruled the ebook market. Tablets were in its infancy stage.
As I understood it, publishers put all vendors on the Agency model when Apple sealed the deal. Only after the fact, when publishers settled out of court, did vendors such as Amazon return to the wholesale model. Correct me if I am wrong (like, with a link to some proof), but rescinding the agency model was part of that deal.
Otherwise... who the hell cares if Apple is the only vendor with an Agency model?
Time to add HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster to the list of publishers who've managed to strongarm Amazon into acceding to their supposedly industry-saving agency pricing model.
That's the problem right there. If they did it alone it's fine, if they got together to do it then it's not fine.
Apple has never had a monopoly. Amazon ruled the ebook market. Tablets were in its infancy stage.
I was talking about using its App store in a Monopolistic way. For example "Either you play ball or we won't allow your e-reader application to reach our 150M user base".
Like I said, the case with collusion can go either way because as of right now its second hand evidence that they are using (emails are not even the greatest of evidence) however this case could open up another front in regards to Monopolistic bullying.
Apple has never had a monopoly. Amazon ruled the ebook market. Tablets were in its infancy stage.
With the app store they do. One can't normally buy apps for their iDevice unless it's through the app store. One seller equates monopoly. Before you get your panties in a bunch I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but they can use their veto power and not allow a app into the store to get their way. That's monopolistic behavior.
With the app store they do. One can't normally buy apps for their iDevice unless it's through the app store. One seller equates monopoly. Before you get your panties in a bunch I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but they can use their veto power and not allow a app into the store to get their way. That's monopolistic behavior.
You can't say iOS apps only work on iOS device therefore Apple has an monopoly on iOS apps. This argument didn't work when Psystar said that Apple had an illegal monopoly on Mac OS X.
Time to add HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster to the list of publishers who've managed to strongarm Amazon into acceding to their supposedly industry-saving agency pricing model.
That's the problem right there. If they did it alone it's fine, if they got together to do it then it's not fine.
They've settled, the word you bolded is merely sensational, and the actions of the publishers is mildly off-topic.
What matters here is the answer to this question:
Was it legal for Apple to secure the right to always sell at the lowest available price?
I am otherwise assuming that all charges of price fixing and collusion rest solely upon the shoulders of the publishers (who likely settled for that reason) and will not be found true in Apple's case.
The DOJ is using internet troll tactics here. There is nothing about that email that is collusion or a conspiracy. He compared to hardcovers, he stated Amazon's pricing, he opined what he thought was an ideal price point and even questioned his own opinion. If he's guilty of anything it's planting fear and making accusations of what Amazon will do in the future without qualifying it as "I believe Amazon will..." despite that being clear.
I doubt they would present only that section in such a manner if it went to court. I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
"Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."
While almost every post here has been saying they don't see anything here, I have to differ. I very much see this as a collusion. This is Apple trying to get a group of book publishers to sign up to get pricing of $12.99 and $14.99 with Apple for books currently selling at $9.99 on Amazon.
Publishers are expected (by law) to be competitive and not discuss pricing as a group in any way. Whether anyone thought they were colluding, there was clearly a third party coming in here and suggesting they should look to get books selling at these prices. That breaks the law because in effect they were setting prices via a third party (Apple).
The simple fact that all of the publishers settled rather than going to court shows they didn't think they'd be able to prove to a jury that this wasn't discussing price fixing. However it is important to note that Apple is a very different party in this in that when this discussion started, they did not publish books and so will argue that they were an innocent party simply discussing prices on their store. It will be interesting to see whether they broke any laws themselves by doing this as they were not themselves a publisher fixing book prices. (They are however now a book publisher, so that may impact the trial if there is evidence they planned to be a publisher when all this went down.)
Will be interesting to watch how this progresses.
On the publisher end, it may have been cheaper or easier to settle. The email itself needs more context. It's not like these guys have their lawyers read each message prior to hitting send.
They've settled, the word you bolded is merely sensational, and the actions of the publishers is mildly off-topic.
What matters here is the answer to this question: <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">Was it legal for Apple to secure the right to always sell at the lowest available price?</span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">I am otherwise assuming that all charges of price fixing and collusion rest solely upon the shoulders of the publishers (who likely settled for that reason) and will not be found true in Apple's case.</span>
That question matters none whatsoever. Apple's allowed to get whatever deal benefits them. The question is did the publishers get together to force Amazon into the same deal that they agreed to with Apple and was Apple in on it?
We can be just two, but it does not matter if the we refers to Apple and all the publishers. Apple can tell one publisher it has other publishers on board as long as Apple worked out the deals independently. That is a common sales technique. You tell one party you wish to sell to that another competing party is on board. Nothing wrong with that.
It's the combination of "we" and "all" that was my point not simply "we" by itself. It would be a weird thing for Jobs to say if he were just referring to Apple and HC. The phrase "we all" implies more than two. If it were in reference to just the two companies, it would have been more natural to just say "we" or "we both" but that's not what he said.
Maybe the point of this is the word "all". If Jobs means Apple and all the publishers agreeing to this together, the DOJ may have a point. There better be other evidence to support that, however, because if this is all they've got, they have nothing.
Never said I knew more than Jobs. I am sure Jobs knew exactly who he was dealing with. I was just commenting on being disappointed about doing business deals with the Murdochs. Granted, the Murdochs have been successful, but how that success came about is pretty questionable in certain areas of their empire.
Actually your original post was childish and unnecessary. They issue wasn't how Rupert came about his success so there wasn't much need to comment on that. There are more than just a few that would argue how ethical Steve was in acquiring his wealth. Those questions will always exist for people who have built successful enterprises, you'll just have to get over it.
With the app store they do. One can't normally buy apps for their iDevice unless it's through the app store. One seller equates monopoly. Before you get your panties in a bunch I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but they can use their veto power and not allow a app into the store to get their way. That's monopolistic behavior.
Nobody would have a problem have that. Apple users could pay the going rate for publishers with a 30% Apple tax added on. Neither I nor the DoJ would have a problem with that. This letter is a piece of evidence... it isn't a case. When you combine this discussion (hey, all you publishers, we are going to allow you to set your own prices... as long as that price is $12.99) with their actual implementation is where the DOJ got interested. Apple added in that any of the booksellers that signed on were not allowed to sell their e-books at a lower price on competitor sites...
So the end effect would be Amazon prices going to $12.99 because that's the price Apple effectively set and got all the publishers to collude together and agree on. Whether that last statement is true or not is not what I'm arguing, I'm just pointing out that that is the DoJ's side of the case.
My take is I'm glad the DoJ stepped in and stopped it before all the publishers 'independently' decided to raise their prices above current market prices. I don't think their case against Apple will hold. Apple has terrific lawyers, and as long as they can claim the publishers independently agreed to set their prices they can argue Apple out of the mix. They can also argue that nobody was 'forced' to use Apples system. That would of course mean that the publishers colluded with each other- but they've all already admitted that. It was a pretty good setup. All publishers agree to raise prices... all publishers actually raise prices across all platforms simultaneously... when asked if they colluded to raise prices their argument would be 'no, we simply had to do that by the TOS in our Apple contract' Kind of cute, but they didn't get away with it and its a good thing it did not happen.
Steve's letter is pretty straightforward and tells the publishers they have three bad choices, and they should pick his choice- the least bad of the three. Apples effective policy then fixes the price of books across other platforms.
In the end, Apple is still free to sell books on its platform for $12.99 and sell the same books to Apple users that sell elsewhere for $9.99. Apple is not free to sell books for $12.99 and tell publishers they must raise their prices to a minimum of $12.99 on those other platforms as well. Its all good.
At the end of the day the publishers can be on the iPad or not. So it's still the publisher's choice. Apple didn't force the publisher's to put their books on the iBookstore.
I doubt they would present only that section in such a manner if it went to court. I could be wrong.
On the publisher end, it may have been cheaper or easier to settle. The email itself needs more context. It's not like these guys have their lawyers read each message prior to hitting send.
I just think this case is such a stretch in terms of trying to prove actual collusion. Of course Apple is going to tell book publishers what they think the optimal prices should be. In fact I found it interesting that Steve said flat out the market wouldn't pay a higher price than $15 and that the optimal price range was between $13-15 for books.
I just think this case is a stretch and the federal government has more concerning problems on its hands rather than going on witch hunts that costs millions of dollars.
At the end of the day the publishers can be on the iPad or not. So it's still the publisher's choice. Apple didn't force the publisher's to put their books on the iBookstore.
With the Kindle and Nook apps they could be on the iPad without the iBookstore.
It sure seems clear that in #2 he is saying that all Amazon is doing is artificially lowering prices, and that once they do that then they will cut the publishers revenue even further. And then it's certainly relevant to think that is the real hard to consumers. Once Amazon kills the market then they can raise prices - leaving us with no book publishers and higher prices and a Amazon monopoly.
It sure seems clear that in #2 he is saying that all Amazon is doing is artificially lowering prices, and that once they do that then they will cut the publishers revenue even further. And then it's certainly relevant to think that is the real hard to consumers. Once Amazon kills the market then they can raise prices - leaving us with no book publishers and higher prices and a Amazon monopoly.
Then why didn't they do it when they had free rein for years before? What sense does killing off the publishers make? These are old companies with deep pockets, and they should've either released individual apps or made a unified marketplace across all platforms.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Wrong Amazon uses the wholesale model. Buy at one price sell at another.
As I understood it, publishers put all vendors on the Agency model when Apple sealed the deal. Only after the fact, when publishers settled out of court, did vendors such as Amazon return to the wholesale model. Correct me if I am wrong (like, with a link to some proof), but rescinding the agency model was part of that deal.
Otherwise... who the hell cares if Apple is the only vendor with an Agency model?
edit to add this link:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/amazon-agrees-to-agency-pricing-model-with-two-more-publishers/
"In July 2010, Mr. Jobs, Apple's former chief executive, told the chief executive of Random House, Markus Dohle, that the publisher would suffer a loss of support from Apple if it held out much longer, according to an account of the conversation provided by Mr. Dohle in the filing. Two months later, Apple threatened to block an e-book application by Random House from appearing in Apple's App Store because it had not agreed to a deal with Apple, the filing said.
After Random House finally agreed to a contract on Jan. 18, 2011, Eddy Cue, the Apple executive in charge of its e-books deals, sent an e-mail to Mr. Jobs attributing the publisher's capitulation, in part, to "the fact that I prevented an app from Random House from going live in the app store," the filing reads"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/technology/us-now-paints-apple-as-ringmaster-in-its-lawsuit-on-e-book-price-fixing.html?_r=0
The part about blocking access to the App Store unless you played ball may not support collusion however it does show Monopolistic tactics. I am pretty sure that Apple does not want to go in that direction with the DOJ.
EDIT: Fixed all the pasting errors
Apple has never had a monopoly. Amazon ruled the ebook market. Tablets were in its infancy stage.
Thanks for the link.
That's the problem right there. If they did it alone it's fine, if they got together to do it then it's not fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Apple has never had a monopoly. Amazon ruled the ebook market. Tablets were in its infancy stage.
I was talking about using its App store in a Monopolistic way. For example "Either you play ball or we won't allow your e-reader application to reach our 150M user base".
Like I said, the case with collusion can go either way because as of right now its second hand evidence that they are using (emails are not even the greatest of evidence) however this case could open up another front in regards to Monopolistic bullying.
With the app store they do. One can't normally buy apps for their iDevice unless it's through the app store. One seller equates monopoly. Before you get your panties in a bunch I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but they can use their veto power and not allow a app into the store to get their way. That's monopolistic behavior.
You can't say iOS apps only work on iOS device therefore Apple has an monopoly on iOS apps. This argument didn't work when Psystar said that Apple had an illegal monopoly on Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Thanks for the link.
Quote:
Time to add HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster to the list of publishers who've managed to strongarm Amazon into acceding to their supposedly industry-saving agency pricing model.
That's the problem right there. If they did it alone it's fine, if they got together to do it then it's not fine.They've settled, the word you bolded is merely sensational, and the actions of the publishers is mildly off-topic.
What matters here is the answer to this question:
Was it legal for Apple to secure the right to always sell at the lowest available price?
I am otherwise assuming that all charges of price fixing and collusion rest solely upon the shoulders of the publishers (who likely settled for that reason) and will not be found true in Apple's case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The DOJ is using internet troll tactics here. There is nothing about that email that is collusion or a conspiracy. He compared to hardcovers, he stated Amazon's pricing, he opined what he thought was an ideal price point and even questioned his own opinion. If he's guilty of anything it's planting fear and making accusations of what Amazon will do in the future without qualifying it as "I believe Amazon will..." despite that being clear.
I doubt they would present only that section in such a manner if it went to court. I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
"Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."
While almost every post here has been saying they don't see anything here, I have to differ. I very much see this as a collusion. This is Apple trying to get a group of book publishers to sign up to get pricing of $12.99 and $14.99 with Apple for books currently selling at $9.99 on Amazon.
Publishers are expected (by law) to be competitive and not discuss pricing as a group in any way. Whether anyone thought they were colluding, there was clearly a third party coming in here and suggesting they should look to get books selling at these prices. That breaks the law because in effect they were setting prices via a third party (Apple).
The simple fact that all of the publishers settled rather than going to court shows they didn't think they'd be able to prove to a jury that this wasn't discussing price fixing. However it is important to note that Apple is a very different party in this in that when this discussion started, they did not publish books and so will argue that they were an innocent party simply discussing prices on their store. It will be interesting to see whether they broke any laws themselves by doing this as they were not themselves a publisher fixing book prices. (They are however now a book publisher, so that may impact the trial if there is evidence they planned to be a publisher when all this went down.)
Will be interesting to watch how this progresses.
On the publisher end, it may have been cheaper or easier to settle. The email itself needs more context. It's not like these guys have their lawyers read each message prior to hitting send.
That question matters none whatsoever. Apple's allowed to get whatever deal benefits them. The question is did the publishers get together to force Amazon into the same deal that they agreed to with Apple and was Apple in on it?
It's the combination of "we" and "all" that was my point not simply "we" by itself. It would be a weird thing for Jobs to say if he were just referring to Apple and HC. The phrase "we all" implies more than two. If it were in reference to just the two companies, it would have been more natural to just say "we" or "we both" but that's not what he said.
Actually your original post was childish and unnecessary. They issue wasn't how Rupert came about his success so there wasn't much need to comment on that. There are more than just a few that would argue how ethical Steve was in acquiring his wealth. Those questions will always exist for people who have built successful enterprises, you'll just have to get over it.
Xbox, wii, play station have monopolies then too.
Yes. Monopolies in certain situations aren't bad you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
Nobody would have a problem have that. Apple users could pay the going rate for publishers with a 30% Apple tax added on. Neither I nor the DoJ would have a problem with that. This letter is a piece of evidence... it isn't a case. When you combine this discussion (hey, all you publishers, we are going to allow you to set your own prices... as long as that price is $12.99) with their actual implementation is where the DOJ got interested. Apple added in that any of the booksellers that signed on were not allowed to sell their e-books at a lower price on competitor sites...
So the end effect would be Amazon prices going to $12.99 because that's the price Apple effectively set and got all the publishers to collude together and agree on. Whether that last statement is true or not is not what I'm arguing, I'm just pointing out that that is the DoJ's side of the case.
My take is I'm glad the DoJ stepped in and stopped it before all the publishers 'independently' decided to raise their prices above current market prices. I don't think their case against Apple will hold. Apple has terrific lawyers, and as long as they can claim the publishers independently agreed to set their prices they can argue Apple out of the mix. They can also argue that nobody was 'forced' to use Apples system. That would of course mean that the publishers colluded with each other- but they've all already admitted that. It was a pretty good setup. All publishers agree to raise prices... all publishers actually raise prices across all platforms simultaneously... when asked if they colluded to raise prices their argument would be 'no, we simply had to do that by the TOS in our Apple contract' Kind of cute, but they didn't get away with it and its a good thing it did not happen.
Steve's letter is pretty straightforward and tells the publishers they have three bad choices, and they should pick his choice- the least bad of the three. Apples effective policy then fixes the price of books across other platforms.
In the end, Apple is still free to sell books on its platform for $12.99 and sell the same books to Apple users that sell elsewhere for $9.99. Apple is not free to sell books for $12.99 and tell publishers they must raise their prices to a minimum of $12.99 on those other platforms as well. Its all good.
At the end of the day the publishers can be on the iPad or not. So it's still the publisher's choice. Apple didn't force the publisher's to put their books on the iBookstore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I doubt they would present only that section in such a manner if it went to court. I could be wrong.
On the publisher end, it may have been cheaper or easier to settle. The email itself needs more context. It's not like these guys have their lawyers read each message prior to hitting send.
I just think this case is such a stretch in terms of trying to prove actual collusion. Of course Apple is going to tell book publishers what they think the optimal prices should be. In fact I found it interesting that Steve said flat out the market wouldn't pay a higher price than $15 and that the optimal price range was between $13-15 for books.
I just think this case is a stretch and the federal government has more concerning problems on its hands rather than going on witch hunts that costs millions of dollars.
With the Kindle and Nook apps they could be on the iPad without the iBookstore.
Then why didn't they do it when they had free rein for years before? What sense does killing off the publishers make? These are old companies with deep pockets, and they should've either released individual apps or made a unified marketplace across all platforms.