How do you decide where to shop for your books? How do book sellers gain your business?
Is agency also used for ebooks or just printed?
You decide to buy from the more friendly bookseller, or the closest ... Or any other non-financial criteria which matters to you. Competition exists, but not based on price
the law was voted long before eBooks ever exist, si I guess it says nothing about it ...
seems like an easy fix for Apple even with this crazy DoJ terms getting handed down. Apply buy's Barnes and Noble e-book stores as a whole-owned subsidiary for song.
Or even better, Apple acquires all of B&N including brick and mortar stores in the deal. Apple then sets up a good sized Apple Store inside B&N. Offers free Wifi and eBook reading on iPad devices while in the store. This will attract people who have taste and miss book stores. While they are hanging out at the store, they can browse the Apple products. Switch B&N to all printed and ebooks sold using agency model. Publishers will cut all wholesale contracts with Amazon anyways.. the writing is on the wall. Local books stores return to our society which can actually make a profit and survive. One can dream, right?
B&N got out making and selling their own eBook reader anyways.. seems like and win win deal to me. B&N is not long from certain death without this type of deal.
Not economically viable. Why would you want to continue to build brick-and-mortar when everyone is going online to shop? Seems to me that most people go to Apple stores to buy and service the items that are used to buy more of their purchasing online. Sure, Apple could easily get these B&N locations cheap and sell off the ones that will never perform, which would likely be 99% of the these locations.
You also don't want to overbuild the Apple Store to the point the Simpsons will joke about it like they did with Starbucks.
Maybe Apple should counter-propose selling ebooks at 5% below Amazon for 5 years, provided they can buy the books at the same price as Amazon?
That would meet the judges concern that consumers suffered because Apple was instrumental in raising prices. This way Apple would benefit consumers by lowering prices.
Apple has very deep pockets. This would cost them pennies out of their petty cash, barely noticeable in their overall accounts.
It would be nice to see Amazon hoisted on their own Petard....LOL
The DoJ (via Amazon complaint) could sue Apple over price subsidization. It's illegal to use the excess profits from one part of your company to sell at a loss in order to monopolize. IBM (eventually) got hammered by the DoJ for this during their System360 years. Apple would clearly be doing so here as well.
The DoJ is a random, fickle organization. With all the other price fixing out there, from metals, to food, to oil, to LIBOR, to ISDAfix, they chose to look into price fixing in ... wait for it ... ebooks. The ITC has been accused of simply being a storing ground for patronage appointments when all the cushy ambassadorships were filled. The DoJ is largely a political organization as well. Don't delude yourself.
See what I mean? See the amazingly intelligent behaviour of supposed educated people. No wonder the world is going down the crapper. With elite leadership like this, it's hard to get motivated to get up in the morning and care what happens.
The DoJ (via Amazon complaint) could sue Apple over price subsidization. It's illegal to use the excess profits from one part of your company to sell at a loss in order to monopolize. IBM (eventually) got hammered by the DoJ for this during their System360 years. Apple would clearly be doing so here as well.
The DoJ is a random, fickle organization. With all the other price fixing out there, from metals, to food, to oil, to LIBOR, to ISDAfix, they chose to look into price fixing in ... wait for it ... ebooks. The ITC has been accused of simply being a storing ground for patronage appointments when all the cushy ambassadorships were filled. The DoJ is largely a political organization as well. Don't delude yourself.
See what I mean? See the amazingly intelligent behaviour of supposed educated people. No wonder the world is going down the crapper. With elite leadership like this, it's hard to get motivated to get up in the morning and care what happens.
Which is why Apple should buy wholesale exclusive rights to eBooks from publishers (e.g. $10 million for this book, $5 million for that) and sell them for $1.99...
...f*ck Amazon.
As far as the DoJ goes, Apple would be obeying their orders, cutting prices to consumers.
The DOJ fucked up. Bad. And their going to have to back off with their tail between their legs. There is no way they can claim these penalties address only the e-book price fixing (if Apple was even involved in that, which I still don't believe they were). How does the selling of music, movies, and television, have anything to do with e-books?!? Please try and stick to the actual offense DOJ!
There needs to be a panel of judges rather than just one judge on these matters....or they need to let a jury decide or something. This seems like a gross misappropriation of the law.
There needs to be a panel of judges rather than just one judge on these matters....or they need to let a jury decide or something. This seems like a gross misappropriation of the law.
Pretty darn sure Apple waived their right to a jury trial, opting to take their chance with a single judge in a bench trial. It was their choice.
Judge Coyote got paid off before the trial began. So the publishers objection will go unheard by this so called judge. We need to get to the appeals court with a new judge who hopefully isn't paid off by the DOJ or Amazon for that matter. This whole case reeks with a bad smell of political crap going on.
As for the DOJ's proposal it is exactly what Apple said it is. Especially when they try and reach for Apple's other business, music, movies, and Apps which has nothing to do with this case what so ever. Apple was supposedly guilty of something to do with books, not music, not movies, not Apps. Therefore the DOJ should have no legal right to go there period.
Exactly...
Have you all forgoten that iPads are being bought by schools and parents for schooling??? 5 years of not able to get new publishers for that would really put a hold on foot hold in schools for Amazon to play catch up. You know, more iPads in hands means more ebooks sold by Apple, not Amazon. All schools went to the ebook learning format, what would Amazon do? All those iPads would not sell kindles or buy Amazon ebooks. So, how much you looking to loose there Amazon???
Look after working for lawyers for over 20 years, I can tell you, it is all about how you spin, and how much you can get out of the other person. Gone are the day's of actual victims. You now have people saying they are the victims when they are the ones at fault. Seen the Ohio kidnapping trial, guy who did the kidnapping was trying to say he was the victim... really. Most don't have the balls to stand up and say, Yep I did it... well except for the one guy in the Texas base shootings, and even his lawyers are saying not guilty for him after he stated earlier guilty.
Bottom line - not tin foil hats if it is true. Don't think for a moment that Amazon higher ups did not grease some palms in the DOJ to have charges brought up on Apple. And the DOJ choosing the judge to see their side before even stepping foot into the court room. Think about it, if the Ohio kidnapper judge came out and said that the defendant was just misunderstood and record will show he did it, but don't believe it... then turned around and did a not guilty verdict, would you not think something was up??? Would you not think the judge was paid off? Which would prob be the case. So, yes, it was nothing but a political move by Amazon. Why else go beyond the scope of the actual charges? All movies, music, etc etc... All corps price fix, it's not like you have the same item from 4 different company's all the exact same price, each try to charge differently (usually slight cheaper) to get customers to buy their item not the competitors.
Oh, and Apple put a gun to the heads of the publishers to sign the contracts, you know to price fix. You know capitalism at it's finest. The publishers could have said No to Apples proposed model plan.
. This is only interesting because publishers settled for two-year ban from agency model...and by forcing Apple to a 5-yrs ban...well, where do publishers go besides Amazon for the next 5-yrs? DOJ is screwing everyone but Amazon!
The publishers are objecting because they agreed to a 2 year allowance time during which retailers like Amazon would have pricing control but publishers would be pay on agency terms. If Amazon wanted to put a title up for free for those two years the publisher would get nothing and couldn't yank the title from Amazon if the contract had not expired.
And yes' they are objecting because the DOJ would be cutting them off of a whole store and killing competition to a degree which goes against what the DOJ is supposed to be doing.
! 2) neither Amazon nor ebook readers are victims here! Publishers are making money, Apples gets their 30%,
No Apple won't. Because the DOJ is saying that Apple has to allow Amazon to put outside links to the Amazon store in the iOS app, bypassing Apple and cutting Apple off from a share. Same with Nook, Kobo etc.
And basically the same with music, movies, TV shows.
I look forward as a consumer in buying my books now at the cheapest price possible beit from Apple, Amazon, the boogeyman or whomever.
And unlike music or movies there is not any difference in ereading quality.
eBooks are overpriced to begin with and at the end of the day this just revolves around greed.
I only wish Apple produced a beuautiful eink reader based device in addition to the iPad. It would nice to have a choice and another thing to look at in the store which is rather stale as of late.
its my understand that the DoJ settlement forced publishers back to wholesale with Amazon.
The original comment was that Amazon was currently on wholesale contracts. They are not (which is why the publishers might be forced to change it back).
But I also believe that you and tech boy are mistaken. As I have read it, agency model (which is not illegal per the DOJ) stands but the publishers have to give Amazon etc the control to change prices as the retailer wants for the next two years. And pay based on the selling price not the publisher desired selling price
Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore? I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.
If the book is a non DRM ePub you can read it in iBooks, but Amazon uses a proprietary format for most titles which doesn't work outside of their app. Which is why the kindle for iOS app exists.
It is not absurd for Apple to get out of consumer ebooks.
This ruling would force Apple out for the next five years. It would server contracts, basically bar new ones etc.
All those schools buying iPads for textbooks would have no books this year because the publishers would have to do them for other formats, etc since many of them were only prepared for the iPad. And so on.
Pretty darn sure Apple waived their right to a jury trial, opting to take their chance with a single judge in a bench trial. It was their choice.
Which doesn't absolve the judge from the legal and moral obligation not to prejudge the case. Unfortunately, the judge failed in that simple requirement.
This ruling would force Apple out for the next five years. It would server contracts, basically bar new ones etc.
The proposed remedy only bars agency contracts with the 5 major publishers. It doesn't bar wholesale contracts for ebooks. The DOJ remedy is telling Apple to use a wholesale model for eBooks and do it in such a way as to not raise ebooks price across the industry.
The problem for the publishers is that with the wholesale model, with Amazon employing their "zero margin" tactics, Apple can do the same. This nukes the publishers hardcover book sales, which is their current primary revenue generator. So double whammy. The publishers can't control prices and their primary source of revenue gets nuked.
When I said the publishers are wimps, they truly are. They've got options, they just don't have the guts to do it. They can window ebooks. Hardcover books get a 6 month exclusive, then the ebooks and paperbacks can be released. They can sell ebooks themselves, and not retail them. Any Joe can set up an online store these days. Well do it.
The problem for the publishers is that with the wholesale model, with Amazon employing their "zero margin" tactics, Apple can do the same. This nukes the publishers hardcover book sales, which is their current primary revenue generator. So double whammy. The publishers can't control prices and their primary source of revenue gets nuked.
I believe Amazon can't go back to the zero margin tactic.
Comments
You decide to buy from the more friendly bookseller, or the closest ... Or any other non-financial criteria which matters to you. Competition exists, but not based on price
the law was voted long before eBooks ever exist, si I guess it says nothing about it ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
seems like an easy fix for Apple even with this crazy DoJ terms getting handed down. Apply buy's Barnes and Noble e-book stores as a whole-owned subsidiary for song.
Or even better, Apple acquires all of B&N including brick and mortar stores in the deal. Apple then sets up a good sized Apple Store inside B&N. Offers free Wifi and eBook reading on iPad devices while in the store. This will attract people who have taste and miss book stores. While they are hanging out at the store, they can browse the Apple products. Switch B&N to all printed and ebooks sold using agency model. Publishers will cut all wholesale contracts with Amazon anyways.. the writing is on the wall. Local books stores return to our society which can actually make a profit and survive. One can dream, right?
B&N got out making and selling their own eBook reader anyways.. seems like and win win deal to me. B&N is not long from certain death without this type of deal.
Not economically viable. Why would you want to continue to build brick-and-mortar when everyone is going online to shop? Seems to me that most people go to Apple stores to buy and service the items that are used to buy more of their purchasing online. Sure, Apple could easily get these B&N locations cheap and sell off the ones that will never perform, which would likely be 99% of the these locations.
You also don't want to overbuild the Apple Store to the point the Simpsons will joke about it like they did with Starbucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor
Maybe Apple should counter-propose selling ebooks at 5% below Amazon for 5 years, provided they can buy the books at the same price as Amazon?
That would meet the judges concern that consumers suffered because Apple was instrumental in raising prices. This way Apple would benefit consumers by lowering prices.
Apple has very deep pockets. This would cost them pennies out of their petty cash, barely noticeable in their overall accounts.
It would be nice to see Amazon hoisted on their own Petard....LOL
The DoJ (via Amazon complaint) could sue Apple over price subsidization. It's illegal to use the excess profits from one part of your company to sell at a loss in order to monopolize. IBM (eventually) got hammered by the DoJ for this during their System360 years. Apple would clearly be doing so here as well.
The DoJ is a random, fickle organization. With all the other price fixing out there, from metals, to food, to oil, to LIBOR, to ISDAfix, they chose to look into price fixing in ... wait for it ... ebooks. The ITC has been accused of simply being a storing ground for patronage appointments when all the cushy ambassadorships were filled. The DoJ is largely a political organization as well. Don't delude yourself.
See what I mean? See the amazingly intelligent behaviour of supposed educated people. No wonder the world is going down the crapper. With elite leadership like this, it's hard to get motivated to get up in the morning and care what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker
The DoJ (via Amazon complaint) could sue Apple over price subsidization. It's illegal to use the excess profits from one part of your company to sell at a loss in order to monopolize. IBM (eventually) got hammered by the DoJ for this during their System360 years. Apple would clearly be doing so here as well.
The DoJ is a random, fickle organization. With all the other price fixing out there, from metals, to food, to oil, to LIBOR, to ISDAfix, they chose to look into price fixing in ... wait for it ... ebooks. The ITC has been accused of simply being a storing ground for patronage appointments when all the cushy ambassadorships were filled. The DoJ is largely a political organization as well. Don't delude yourself.
See what I mean? See the amazingly intelligent behaviour of supposed educated people. No wonder the world is going down the crapper. With elite leadership like this, it's hard to get motivated to get up in the morning and care what happens.
Which is why Apple should buy wholesale exclusive rights to eBooks from publishers (e.g. $10 million for this book, $5 million for that) and sell them for $1.99...
...f*ck Amazon.
As far as the DoJ goes, Apple would be obeying their orders, cutting prices to consumers.
What's the DoJ going to do?
Demand Apple increase prices?
There needs to be a panel of judges rather than just one judge on these matters....or they need to let a jury decide or something. This seems like a gross misappropriation of the law.
Pretty darn sure Apple waived their right to a jury trial, opting to take their chance with a single judge in a bench trial. It was their choice.
Judge Coyote got paid off before the trial began. So the publishers objection will go unheard by this so called judge. We need to get to the appeals court with a new judge who hopefully isn't paid off by the DOJ or Amazon for that matter. This whole case reeks with a bad smell of political crap going on.
As for the DOJ's proposal it is exactly what Apple said it is. Especially when they try and reach for Apple's other business, music, movies, and Apps which has nothing to do with this case what so ever. Apple was supposedly guilty of something to do with books, not music, not movies, not Apps. Therefore the DOJ should have no legal right to go there period.
Exactly...
Have you all forgoten that iPads are being bought by schools and parents for schooling??? 5 years of not able to get new publishers for that would really put a hold on foot hold in schools for Amazon to play catch up. You know, more iPads in hands means more ebooks sold by Apple, not Amazon. All schools went to the ebook learning format, what would Amazon do? All those iPads would not sell kindles or buy Amazon ebooks. So, how much you looking to loose there Amazon???
Look after working for lawyers for over 20 years, I can tell you, it is all about how you spin, and how much you can get out of the other person. Gone are the day's of actual victims. You now have people saying they are the victims when they are the ones at fault. Seen the Ohio kidnapping trial, guy who did the kidnapping was trying to say he was the victim... really. Most don't have the balls to stand up and say, Yep I did it... well except for the one guy in the Texas base shootings, and even his lawyers are saying not guilty for him after he stated earlier guilty.
Bottom line - not tin foil hats if it is true. Don't think for a moment that Amazon higher ups did not grease some palms in the DOJ to have charges brought up on Apple. And the DOJ choosing the judge to see their side before even stepping foot into the court room. Think about it, if the Ohio kidnapper judge came out and said that the defendant was just misunderstood and record will show he did it, but don't believe it... then turned around and did a not guilty verdict, would you not think something was up??? Would you not think the judge was paid off? Which would prob be the case. So, yes, it was nothing but a political move by Amazon. Why else go beyond the scope of the actual charges? All movies, music, etc etc... All corps price fix, it's not like you have the same item from 4 different company's all the exact same price, each try to charge differently (usually slight cheaper) to get customers to buy their item not the competitors.
Oh, and Apple put a gun to the heads of the publishers to sign the contracts, you know to price fix. You know capitalism at it's finest. The publishers could have said No to Apples proposed model plan.The publishers are objecting because they agreed to a 2 year allowance time during which retailers like Amazon would have pricing control but publishers would be pay on agency terms. If Amazon wanted to put a title up for free for those two years the publisher would get nothing and couldn't yank the title from Amazon if the contract had not expired.
And yes' they are objecting because the DOJ would be cutting them off of a whole store and killing competition to a degree which goes against what the DOJ is supposed to be doing.
No Apple won't. Because the DOJ is saying that Apple has to allow Amazon to put outside links to the Amazon store in the iOS app, bypassing Apple and cutting Apple off from a share. Same with Nook, Kobo etc.
And basically the same with music, movies, TV shows.
I look forward as a consumer in buying my books now at the cheapest price possible beit from Apple, Amazon, the boogeyman or whomever.
And unlike music or movies there is not any difference in ereading quality.
eBooks are overpriced to begin with and at the end of the day this just revolves around greed.
I only wish Apple produced a beuautiful eink reader based device in addition to the iPad. It would nice to have a choice and another thing to look at in the store which is rather stale as of late.
The original comment was that Amazon was currently on wholesale contracts. They are not (which is why the publishers might be forced to change it back).
But I also believe that you and tech boy are mistaken. As I have read it, agency model (which is not illegal per the DOJ) stands but the publishers have to give Amazon etc the control to change prices as the retailer wants for the next two years. And pay based on the selling price not the publisher desired selling price
Wow. The book publishers are a bunch of losers alright.
If the book is a non DRM ePub you can read it in iBooks, but Amazon uses a proprietary format for most titles which doesn't work outside of their app. Which is why the kindle for iOS app exists.
This ruling would force Apple out for the next five years. It would server contracts, basically bar new ones etc.
All those schools buying iPads for textbooks would have no books this year because the publishers would have to do them for other formats, etc since many of them were only prepared for the iPad. And so on.
Which doesn't absolve the judge from the legal and moral obligation not to prejudge the case. Unfortunately, the judge failed in that simple requirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
This ruling would force Apple out for the next five years. It would server contracts, basically bar new ones etc.
The proposed remedy only bars agency contracts with the 5 major publishers. It doesn't bar wholesale contracts for ebooks. The DOJ remedy is telling Apple to use a wholesale model for eBooks and do it in such a way as to not raise ebooks price across the industry.
The problem for the publishers is that with the wholesale model, with Amazon employing their "zero margin" tactics, Apple can do the same. This nukes the publishers hardcover book sales, which is their current primary revenue generator. So double whammy. The publishers can't control prices and their primary source of revenue gets nuked.
When I said the publishers are wimps, they truly are. They've got options, they just don't have the guts to do it. They can window ebooks. Hardcover books get a 6 month exclusive, then the ebooks and paperbacks can be released. They can sell ebooks themselves, and not retail them. Any Joe can set up an online store these days. Well do it.
Government dictating the way the economy is run is fascism. The DoJ became fascist at some point.
The job of judges is to stop this kind of BS and defend the constitution.
I lay blame at the feet of the judge who is the real criminal here.
I believe Amazon can't go back to the zero margin tactic.
Since when did electronic media become the entire economy?