Amazon exec says Apple's agency model was designed to hinder Kindle

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 107
    So true -- Apple was if anything a victim of the Agency Model. They'd sell an eBook for $.99 if they could. They probably expediently went along with it because they had to play catchup with Amazon's domination in the market.

    Yes, it could be "collusion" but more likely it was extortion. Yet who can blame the publishers who are getting squeezed out -- nobody really needs their services anymore if you look at it.
  • Reply 102 of 107
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Yet Amazon had something like 90% of the eBook market. When you combine that with the threats and tantrums thrown by Amazon, it looks pretty suspicious.

    How about the threats and tantrums thrown by the publishers? That's not suspicious?

    Being the most popular does not a monopoly make. Sony's ebook store existed a year before Amazon's and shortly after B&N's store. The consumers chose with their wallets, and the vast majority chose Amazon.
  • Reply 103 of 107
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


     

    Yes, but 90% is merely an inconvenient fact. Screams of "price fixing" merely need to find the ears of well greased palms for a verdict and the media will dutifully echo whatever the conventional wisdom utters -- without doing any math that would spoil the fun. *sigh* I just don't know how this price fixing nonsense even has legs --- it's as if everyone screamed about Apple using FoxConn and didn't notice EVERYONE uses FoxConn and Apple was about the only company trying to improve conditions. I'm not holding Apple blameless for being a soul-less greedy corporation, but they seem a bit more lifelike than the rest of the zombies who seem above reproach.


     


    I wish the judge would hurry up and find Apple guilty as she said she was going to do, so Apple can move this travesty into the Supreme Court on appeal.


     


    That's when this mess will get sorted out.

  • Reply 104 of 107
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    How about the threats and tantrums thrown by the publishers? That's not suspicious?

    Being the most popular does not a monopoly make. Sony's ebook store existed a year before Amazon's and shortly after B&N's store. The consumers chose with their wallets, and the vast majority chose Amazon.

    Yes but undercutting your competitors where no one can make a profit is illegal.
  • Reply 105 of 107
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Yes but undercutting your competitors where no one can make a profit is illegal.

    It obviously is either not happening or it's not illegal.
  • Reply 106 of 107
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 346member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post


     


    Amazon sells book at $9.99 with 2% margin....  effective price to publisher..... $9.99


    Apple sells book at $12.99.  Takes extortionary 30% cut...   effective price to publisher $9.99


     



     


    if Apple sells at $12.99 and takes a 30% cut it would be $3.90, leaving the publisher with only $9.09, not $9.99

  • Reply 107 of 107
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,480member
    Except you had that pesky Steve Jobs popping up telling the publishers what the price needed to be set at.

    Apple will be found guilty and than the states will sue them.
    Haters... So sad. Just like the App store, the publisher sets the price. Not Apple. If the set the price to zero Apple is fine with that too. The key is it is the publisher or owner that determines the price. In a sense the previous model should be considered collusion if any thing. Amazon setup exclusive contracts with the same wholesale price from each major publisher.
Sign In or Register to comment.