One of the things that's so ridiculous about this is that about five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers could set minimum selling prices, not just minimum advertised prices as had been the case before the ruling. If manufacturers can set minimum selling prices, why can't publishers?
I'm pretty sure they could and still can, the problem the DoJ had wasn't with the agency model, but the way in which it had come about; the "conspiracy" for all major publishers to do the same thing at the same time, and to provide Apple with the most-favoured-nation clause.
Just to be clear, from reading the gigaom article it seems that the DoJ haven't made any accusation of further illegal conspiracy, they've just publicly commented that the filings from the book publishers are indicative of a shared mindset that could lead to further anticompetitive behaviour in the future. If that's the case, they're saying that regulators should be wary of, and perhaps takes preventative measures to prevent conspiracy and encourage competition.
It might be a little speculative, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with stating that as a position. It doesn't hurt to be sceptical.
And on the positive side, some might say that encouraging a multi-retailer market where Amazon isn't as dominant and predatory price dumping is eliminated, might be a good way to kick off that position.
Is the DoJ run by idiots? The punishment it proposes will affect those publishers. Of course they will respond in kind. Genius lawyers. I think the publishers should pull its ebooks one by one from Amazon and give the others exclusive rights.
let's expand on that a little.....Forcing writers to take lower fees, forcing out smaller publishers, forcing out local booksellers, forcing a smaller ecosystem in which creativity can be ushered. ( yes I know, a new paradigm will emerge, someday)
Amazon is being propped up as the darling of price reduction....at such a cost.
Some would argue that what's occurring is blind justice
While I disagree with what the DOJ is doing, I believe that the impacts you list above are incorrect. Authors are generally paid royalties based on the list price of a book, not the selling price. And since no one but the very top tier of authors ever earns out their advance, what they're paid on is almost moot anyway. The publishers can set any wholesale price for a book they want - it's just that Amazon discounts it frequently below that wholesale price. So the publishers still get the same money. There is a lot of illogic in this industry. In spite of continued publisher consolidation (like Penguin and Random House merging), there are an ever increasing number of books being published, yet the average author advance for first-time authors is around $12,000 and they generally never see another penny. Back in 1996, there were about 1.4 million books "in-print", but under a million were actually available with publishers or distributors holding inventory. Some sources claim today that there are over a million new books published each year in the U.S. But the vast majority sell under 2500 copies.
However, what the publishers are worried about is with Amazon's discounting, the overall perception of what an ebook (and in turn, hardcover and paperback books) is worth will fall. They're trying to avoid what happened to the record industry, where the perception is that a downloaded single is worth around a dollar. In 1966, singles (albeit double-sided singles) listed for $1 and usually retailed at around 65 cents. That 65 cents is $4.68 in 2013 dollars, which demonstrates why the record industry is in such trouble. And trade publishing in general has never been all that lucrative a business in any case.
Forcing everyone to sell at the same price is just as anticompetitive.
Maybe it is time for the competitive arguments to be focused on the services provided instead of only focusing on dumping the prices.
Don't forget that in the agency model, you still have to negotiate at which price you get the books from the publishers, so there is still margin competition there.
A world where everyone goes bankrupt even the ones with the most market shares isn't healthy neither. Just look at the California electricity crisis in 2001.
let's expand on that a little.....Forcing writers to take lower fees, forcing out smaller publishers, forcing out local booksellers, forcing a smaller ecosystem in which creativity can be ushered. ( yes I know, a new paradigm will emerge, someday)
Amazon is being propped up as the darling of price reduction....at such a cost.
Some would argue that what's occurring is blind justice
Nobody was taking lower fees except for Amazon. Apple wasn't making them any more money. Last I checked there are dozens of ebook stores which for now can compete for your dollar with a lower price but if they're forced to have the same price how would they be able to compete? Amazon's way was bad but Apple's way isn't much better. A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly.
Nobody was taking lower fees except for Amazon. Apple wasn't making them any more money. Last I checked there are dozens of ebook stores which for now can compete for your dollar with a lower price but if they're forced to have the same price how would they be able to compete? Amazon's way was bad but Apple's way isn't much better. A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly.
Amazon had 90+% market share prior to Apple. After Apple, more ebook sellers came to be. No duopoly there.
Maybe it is time for the competitive arguments to be focused on the services provided instead of only focusing on dumping the prices.
Don't forget that in the agency model, you still have to negotiate at which price you get the books from the publishers, so there is still margin competition there.
A world where everyone goes bankrupt even the ones with the most market shares isn't healthy neither. Just look at the California electricity crisis in 2001.
Yes but would you want your competitor to benefit from the results of your negotiations? That's like wooing the prettiest girl in town and because she went out with you she has to go out with everyone else.
Yes but would you want your competitor to benefit from the results of your negotiations? That's like wooing the prettiest girl in town and because she went out with you she has to go out with everyone else.
The customer lowest selling price is fixed by the deal Apple had with publishers, it doesn't fix the margin other resellers will get from their publishers.
The funny thing is that they blame Apple because they are preventing Amazon to sell books at, or bellow cost, arguing it raised the prices for the customers.
Selling at or below cost is prohibited in many countries because it is anticompetitive for a large company to kill emerging competition by selling at or below cost.
Amazon is the only place people by books these days. They have put many brick and mortar stores out of business because they can't compete with Amazon. Somehow the DOJ thinks they need protection and Apple is the enemy here?
Funny, since you're on Amazon's side but are claiming the outcome of what happens when Amazon's broken.
Please. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.
I'm not on Amazon's side. I'm on yours and my side as consumers. I see things for what they really are. No reality distortion field clouding my vision and if you look at my posts I've repeatedly agreed that Amazon's way is not good for competition.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
One of the things that's so ridiculous about this is that about five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers could set minimum selling prices, not just minimum advertised prices as had been the case before the ruling. If manufacturers can set minimum selling prices, why can't publishers?
I'm pretty sure they could and still can, the problem the DoJ had wasn't with the agency model, but the way in which it had come about; the "conspiracy" for all major publishers to do the same thing at the same time, and to provide Apple with the most-favoured-nation clause.
Is the DoJ run by idiots? The punishment it proposes will affect those publishers. Of course they will respond in kind. Genius lawyers. I think the publishers should pull its ebooks one by one from Amazon and give the others exclusive rights.
I wish the DOJ would investigate the DOJ for their handling of Fast & Furious instead of messing with computer companies and book publishers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theCore
let's expand on that a little.....Forcing writers to take lower fees, forcing out smaller publishers, forcing out local booksellers, forcing a smaller ecosystem in which creativity can be ushered. ( yes I know, a new paradigm will emerge, someday)
Amazon is being propped up as the darling of price reduction....at such a cost.
Some would argue that what's occurring is blind justice
While I disagree with what the DOJ is doing, I believe that the impacts you list above are incorrect. Authors are generally paid royalties based on the list price of a book, not the selling price. And since no one but the very top tier of authors ever earns out their advance, what they're paid on is almost moot anyway. The publishers can set any wholesale price for a book they want - it's just that Amazon discounts it frequently below that wholesale price. So the publishers still get the same money. There is a lot of illogic in this industry. In spite of continued publisher consolidation (like Penguin and Random House merging), there are an ever increasing number of books being published, yet the average author advance for first-time authors is around $12,000 and they generally never see another penny. Back in 1996, there were about 1.4 million books "in-print", but under a million were actually available with publishers or distributors holding inventory. Some sources claim today that there are over a million new books published each year in the U.S. But the vast majority sell under 2500 copies.
However, what the publishers are worried about is with Amazon's discounting, the overall perception of what an ebook (and in turn, hardcover and paperback books) is worth will fall. They're trying to avoid what happened to the record industry, where the perception is that a downloaded single is worth around a dollar. In 1966, singles (albeit double-sided singles) listed for $1 and usually retailed at around 65 cents. That 65 cents is $4.68 in 2013 dollars, which demonstrates why the record industry is in such trouble. And trade publishing in general has never been all that lucrative a business in any case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
Isn't the ability to drop prices good for the consumers ? Meaning content prices would drop right ?
That means we'll get more/better content, right?
/s
Maybe it is time for the competitive arguments to be focused on the services provided instead of only focusing on dumping the prices.
Don't forget that in the agency model, you still have to negotiate at which price you get the books from the publishers, so there is still margin competition there.
A world where everyone goes bankrupt even the ones with the most market shares isn't healthy neither. Just look at the California electricity crisis in 2001.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Just to be clear, .... blah blah
Is the DoJ run by idiots?
The more appropriate question to him would substitute "by" with "for.
Nobody was taking lower fees except for Amazon. Apple wasn't making them any more money. Last I checked there are dozens of ebook stores which for now can compete for your dollar with a lower price but if they're forced to have the same price how would they be able to compete? Amazon's way was bad but Apple's way isn't much better. A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly.
Amazon had 90+% market share prior to Apple. After Apple, more ebook sellers came to be. No duopoly there.
Yes but would you want your competitor to benefit from the results of your negotiations? That's like wooing the prettiest girl in town and because she went out with you she has to go out with everyone else.
Just not yet.
Because in their eyes the potential to make money is more important than actually making it.
While a lot peoples lost their job, DoJ try to beat the company out of their business. So ridiculous.
The customer lowest selling price is fixed by the deal Apple had with publishers, it doesn't fix the margin other resellers will get from their publishers.
Amazon is the only place people by books these days. They have put many brick and mortar stores out of business because they can't compete with Amazon. Somehow the DOJ thinks they need protection and Apple is the enemy here?
Baloney. Please show any public statement where the publishers said that they colluded to issue this statement.
Why do you feel so much need to spread lies about Apple and their business?
Last I checked, you were on the wrong side of the argument.
Another useless, and unhelpful post by moderator in exile Tallest Skil.
Funny, since you're on Amazon's side but are claiming the outcome of what happens when Amazon's broken.
Please. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.
I'm not on Amazon's side. I'm on yours and my side as consumers. I see things for what they really are. No reality distortion field clouding my vision and if you look at my posts I've repeatedly agreed that Amazon's way is not good for competition.