This is not about Amazon. It might be easier to understand if we try not to see everything as Apple v. the world.
Not the world, just its direct competitors. Do you recall Analzon ever being hauled in to court for anything other than failure to collect local taxes on sales?
If Apple can't make money on E-books against Amazon, then so be it. Apple will simply get out of that end of the business to make money elsewhere where the regulations, laws and environment will allow them to make money.
I know that governments believe they are helping consumers by allowing stores to sell at a lower price. But there may be unintended consequences as there are with any such market intrusions by regulators.
After Amazon sells at a loss to put competitors out of business, they will then raise prices as customers have nowhere else to go. So consumer prices will probably exceed what they would have been if regulators had kept their noses out of it to begin with.
The whole regulatory concept has some benefits for some industries. But I don't think publishing is one of them.
. Do you recall Analzon ever being hauled in to court for anything other than failure to collect local taxes on sales?
Do you recall Amazon ever being in the center of a scheme that resulted in an entire established industries consumer prices rising literally 30% over night concurrent with their entry into that market?
I'm guessing there's a correlation there.
Amazon's thwarting of sales tax is pretty blatant.... which is why they were called on it. Like offshoring, it is perfectly legal- and fortunately also like offshoring steps are being taken to put in place a better system. If only government would pick up the pace a little.
Sell a ton of overnight stuff in NYC? Build a mega warehouse in NJ, deliver overnight, and charge no sales tax! Sell a ton of stuff in Ca? Build your warehouses in Nevada... No sales tax! By law, people are required to report this on their tax forms and pay their state taxes there. So while in theory the law is correct, in practice people tend not to report the tax free items they bought..... So it is technically Amazon's customers that are breaking the law, not Amazon itself. That technicality will be corrected in the next rev of law and Amazon will have to price accordingly.
I agree with Hill60. Apple should play Amazon at their own game. Lower pricing on books below Amazon and take their business away. If the gov't have decided that Amazon can sell below cost then so can Apple.
All Apple needs to do is run this for 2 quarters and Amazon will end up posting huge losses (especially if it has inventory it can't shift or has lower its prices more). They can use $10B of their cash to run the game until Amazon collapses.
I agree with Hill60. Apple should play Amazon at their own game. Lower pricing on books below Amazon and take their business away. If the gov't have decided that Amazon can sell below cost then so can Apple.
All Apple needs to do is run this for 2 quarters and Amazon will end up posting huge losses (especially if it has inventory it can't shift or has lower its prices more). They can use $10B of their cash to run the game until Amazon collapses.
The problem with that tactic is that it'll only benefit iOS users. Amazon sells ebooks across all platforms
The EU need to reread this agreement. All apple appear to have done is ask to get the same price as everyone else for the content THEY BUY from Penguin. What other retailers choose to sell that content on for to the public would still be up to them and they could still make a loss. It appears to have been twisted somewhat by someone somewhere. There again not suprising as both the EU and Americamhave some hefty deficits to sort out. Hmmm maybe that is more the case here they need money and Apple sensible stashed theirs for a rain day. As others have said go after those companies that have actually totally avoided tax first. If they want taxes then close the loopholes. In apples case Ireland are still happy to give them a tax haven which is within EU law, so you cannot really blame Apple or other companies for using it. I know it was done to attract big business in the good times but that may need looking at. It's time to sort out the tax mess rather than combining up with other convoluted schemes to extract cash that I'm not entirely sure are on a firm legal foundation. At least if what has been presented represents what actually happened.
Hmm I checked the BBC website on this, see link, as I trust their review. The problem I see with the agency model is when more than one retailer agrees to it. However as it is the publisher setting the price in each case then I would say it is mostly their responsibility. However in the EU at least they have little to complain about as France has fixed book pricing for physical book by law giving a precedent in the EU for the agency model. See the link below in the what will happen section
Apple was not the 1st to take-up the Agency Model, the very first I believe was Sony whatever their ebook system was called!? Now although mostly around Asia for Sony things were going well, so Amazon was getting itchy about this. They decided to try this route too, this is between 2006 - 2009.
Google back in Jan of 2009 announced they were going the Agency Model preempting Amazon.
I don 't see that anywhere in the links you provided other than a single forum post from "random internet guy". Do you have something a bit more reliable supporting your claim of Google doing an agency model? Perhaps they did but I hadn't seen the news before.
In any event I don't think an agency model by itself is an issue. It became one when combined with the most-favored-nation clause
Comments
I know that governments believe they are helping consumers by allowing stores to sell at a lower price. But there may be unintended consequences as there are with any such market intrusions by regulators.
After Amazon sells at a loss to put competitors out of business, they will then raise prices as customers have nowhere else to go. So consumer prices will probably exceed what they would have been if regulators had kept their noses out of it to begin with.
The whole regulatory concept has some benefits for some industries. But I don't think publishing is one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
. Do you recall Analzon ever being hauled in to court for anything other than failure to collect local taxes on sales?
Do you recall Amazon ever being in the center of a scheme that resulted in an entire established industries consumer prices rising literally 30% over night concurrent with their entry into that market?
I'm guessing there's a correlation there.
Amazon's thwarting of sales tax is pretty blatant.... which is why they were called on it. Like offshoring, it is perfectly legal- and fortunately also like offshoring steps are being taken to put in place a better system. If only government would pick up the pace a little.
Sell a ton of overnight stuff in NYC? Build a mega warehouse in NJ, deliver overnight, and charge no sales tax! Sell a ton of stuff in Ca? Build your warehouses in Nevada... No sales tax! By law, people are required to report this on their tax forms and pay their state taxes there. So while in theory the law is correct, in practice people tend not to report the tax free items they bought..... So it is technically Amazon's customers that are breaking the law, not Amazon itself. That technicality will be corrected in the next rev of law and Amazon will have to price accordingly.
So the consumer was "ripped off", Apple was fined and the Government receive the money. Sounds fair /s.
No one forced people to buy ebooks from Apple, the customers had the opportunity to shop about.
All Apple needs to do is run this for 2 quarters and Amazon will end up posting huge losses (especially if it has inventory it can't shift or has lower its prices more). They can use $10B of their cash to run the game until Amazon collapses.
The problem with that tactic is that it'll only benefit iOS users. Amazon sells ebooks across all platforms
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The problem with that tactic is that it'll only benefit iOS users. Amazon sells ebooks across all platforms
Not that it makes a lot of difference, but iBook will be available on Mavericks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17685120.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
...that resulted in an entire established industries consumer prices rising literally 30% over night concurrent with their entry into that market?
Taking into account the "entire" eBook industry, prices actually fell.
...unless you cherrypick a very small sample of specific titles, which is not the "entire" market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The problem with that tactic is that it'll only benefit iOS users. Amazon sells ebooks across all platforms
...so?
Amazon don't give a f*ck about consumers, as can be seen by their wholesale destruction of competitors.
So what happened at Bezo's boathouse?
Now although mostly around Asia for Sony things were going well, so Amazon was getting itchy about this.
They decided to try this route too, this is between 2006 - 2009.
Google back in Jan of 2009 announced they were going the Agency Model preempting Amazon.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/28877/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/28878/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
http://inkmesh.com/blog/2009/11/30/amazon-barnes-and-noble-sony-ebook-pricing/
http://kindlingromance.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/romance-ebook-stats-9-11-09-kindle-store-still-outpacing-sony-ebook-store/
And how many competitors has Apple destroyed? Does it really matter how it's achieved when the end result is the same?
I don 't see that anywhere in the links you provided other than a single forum post from "random internet guy". Do you have something a bit more reliable supporting your claim of Google doing an agency model? Perhaps they did but I hadn't seen the news before.
In any event I don't think an agency model by itself is an issue. It became one when combined with the most-favored-nation clause
It has everything to do with Amazon.