Does it matter who's it up to? The fact still remains that you if you wanted to could not compete with Apple on price which means your ebook store will not survive.
You do realize when Apple came into the market, more ebook sellers popped up as well. Amazon's predatory pricing was a barrier to entry.
How is it collusion when the publishers aren't selling the same books? Would it be collusion if a car manufacturer talked with a real estate broker before coming to an agreement with Apple about how to price cars and real estate in iTunes?
I think the DOJ is nuts here (the equivalent of Javert from Les Miserables), but the collusion is fairly easy to understand.
In the wholesale model (what most retailers use), a publisher would sell books to a retailer for say $15 (wholesale price). The retailer is than free to sell it to end consumers at the MSRP, like $25, or $20, or loss lead for $10. The price competition arises because a publisher would sell their books to multiple retailers: like Barnes & Nobles, B. Dalton's (defunct) or Borders/WaldenBooks (defunct). The publisher sells books at agreed upon wholesale price to each of the retailers. The retailers, stocked with piles of these books in their stores, then compete for customers by being able to change the prices on the same books. Customers can shop at different retailers for the cheapest price.
Apple's deals with the publishers for ebooks did a couple of things. It moved the control of ebook prices from the retailer to the publishers with the agency model. By being a powerful enough new entrant into the ebook market (iPad et al), Apple enabled the publishers to move other ebook retailers (Amazon, B&N, Kobo) to agency models by threatening not to sell ebooks to retailers. The MFN is a red herring, as it was just a vehicle by which Apple guaranteed that publishers wouldn't stab them in the back (sell an ebook cheaper in one ebook store over another). The key thing was Apple's entrance into the market and that they were big enough for publishers to use as the stick to get other ebook retailers to change to agency.
With the publishers wanting higher prices for ebooks, and they got them by wresting control of prices from retailers to themselves, the prices did indeed rise instantaneously, only to gradually fall to basically where they were when Amazon was controlling the prices. With everyone on agency, there's no price competition on individual ebooks. When the DOJ says "price competition", they are talking about "price competition between retailers". The DOJ and the court apparently didn't think that basic demand/price curves was enough to change prices, but they aren't economists after all, but I digress.
The DOJ obviously did not like this. The judge agreed. The DOJ's remedy is to prevent this from happening again. We'll see how the judge decides on the remedy soon, and I think the DOJ's remedy will sale through with flying colors, and we'll all revisit this again on appeals and probably the SCOTUS if the remedy of Apple's IAP cut being eliminated will be put into effect.
Obviously, I disagree with the DOJ and the courts as the mechanics and dynamics of business in a digital goods market is totally different than in physical goods, and the laws developed through the years based on physical book sales really don't apply. Just to read an ebook, you need invest in a tablet that can cost anywhere between $50 to $500. Then you needed a reader application that has to be supplied by and supported in perpetuity by the platform vendor to be able to read the ebook. Just batpoop insane for the DOJ and the court to think they should apply traditional anti-trust law to this.
If they wanted price competition, mandate a standard format for ebooks, and enforce compatibility. That's about all they need to do.
I think the DOJ is nuts here (the equivalent of Javert from Les Miserables), but the collusion is fairly easy to understand.
In the wholesale model (what most retailers use), a publisher would sell books to a retailer for say $15 (wholesale price). The retailer is than free to sell it to end consumers at the MSRP, like $25, or $20, or loss lead for $10. The price competition arises because a publisher would sell their books to multiple retailers: like Barnes & Nobles, B. Dalton's (defunct) or Borders/WaldenBooks (defunct). The publisher sells books at agreed upon wholesale price to each of the retailers. The retailers, stocked with piles of these books in their stores, then compete for customers by being able to change the prices on the same books. Customers can shop at different retailers for the cheapest price.
Apple's deals with the publishers for ebooks did a couple of things. It moved the control of ebook prices from the retailer to the publishers with the agency model. By being a powerful enough new entrant into the ebook market (iPad et al), Apple enabled the publishers to move other ebook retailers (Amazon, B&N, Kobo) to agency models by threatening not to sell ebooks to retailers. The MFN is a red herring, as it was just a vehicle by which Apple guaranteed that publishers wouldn't stab them in the back (sell an ebook cheaper in one ebook store over another). The key thing was Apple's entrance into the market and that they were big enough for publishers to use as the stick to get other ebook retailers to change to agency.
With the publishers wanting higher prices for ebooks, and they got them by wresting control of prices from retailers to themselves, the prices did indeed rise instantaneously, only to gradually fall to basically where they were when Amazon was controlling the prices. With everyone on agency, there's no price competition on individual ebooks. When the DOJ says "price competition", they are talking about "price competition between retailers". The DOJ and the court apparently didn't think that basic demand/price curves was enough to change prices, but they aren't economists after all, but I digress.
The DOJ obviously did not like this. The judge agreed. The DOJ's remedy is to prevent this from happening again. We'll see how the judge decides on the remedy soon, and I think the DOJ's remedy will sale through with flying colors, and we'll all revisit this again on appeals and probably the SCOTUS if the remedy of Apple's IAP cut being eliminated will be put into effect.
Obviously, I disagree with the DOJ and the courts as the mechanics and dynamics of business in a digital goods market is totally different than in physical goods, and the laws developed through the years based on physical book sales really don't apply. Just to read an ebook, you need invest in a tablet that can cost anywhere between $50 to $500. Then you needed a reader application that has to be supplied by and supported in perpetuity by the platform vendor to be able to read the ebook. Just batpoop insane for the DOJ and the court to think they should apply traditional anti-trust law to this.
If they wanted price competition, mandate a standard format for ebooks, and enforce compatibility. That's about all they need to do.
Well written and I agree. The question I'd like the answer to is this, why did prices fall? Was it because Amazon had some ebooks overpriced or did sales die down enough to warrant a price drop?
Does this apply to you also? Ever admitted when have ever been wrong on this Forum? no remote chance of you ever being wrong.. right? Because you are perfect.. and want respect. I recall you try to portray being open minded, reasonable and fair guy. However, when the going gets though you start throwing elbows and calling people dumb. Calling names like "Ivy League brain of yours", "The exiled moderator", and I am sure countless other things for which others have done a good job letting it pass. Maybe because they hae been here alot longer than I have and know your real MO. One I am just slowing learning about you now and putting the pieces together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'm a grown man so no I wasn't trying to be 'cute' I was being facetious, and thanks for your concern but it's none of your business if I want to embarrass myself.
Finally, I point we can agree with you on. You are a grown man and it is your right if you want to embarrass yourself by the way you are acting towards others.
No wonder people stop debating with you. You are not a man, you are a child and a bully at that when the going get though because your debate is flawed.
so go embarrass yourself all you want... its your business. Keep it up and you will have no-one to debate with, nor any respect.
Oh please… "socialist regime"?? Stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh. They are misinforming and misguiding you. That isn't "education". Socialism is an Economic System.
Please go and get a proper education about the nature of "Socialism" before posting silly, ignorant, politically laced commentary here. It clearly isn't what you think it is. SImple definitions are a good start. You could even try Wikipedia for basics:
Does this apply to you also? Ever admitted when have ever been wrong on this Forum? no remote chance of you ever being wrong.. right? I recall you try to portray being open minded, reasonable and fair guy. When the going gets though to start throwing elbows. Calling names like "Ivy League brain of yours", "The exiled moderator", and I am sure countless other things.
Finally, I point we can agree with you on. You are a grown man and it is your right if you want to embarrass yourself by the way you are acting towards others.
No wonder people stop debating with you. You are not a man, you are a child and a bully at that when the going get though because your debate is flawed.
so go embarrass yourself all you want... its your business.
I have been mistaken quite a few times and did indeed admit that I was wrong on this forum. Certain people on this forum are incapable of having a decent conversation. You either see things their way or there's no productive dialogue nor even a 'let's agree to disagree'. I am not the bully, I'm the one fighting back.
It leaves it intact. Yes I should have included Amazon in there but that would be stating the obvious and oft repeated on here so I omitted it. Yes it is the publishers that set the price but it's Apple's iBookstore you'd be competing with and not the publishers.
By the same token, I omitted the mention of the MFN (leaving only the "Agency Agreement" mention within which the MFN exists and not the other way around), but that too would have been stating the obvious, no? But that was the detail in your sole reply, which also ignored the rest of my premise.
If the publishers set the prices across the market, and I know that my prices won't be any better or worse than iBooks due to MFN, how is that making it impossible for me to compete with iBooks? I can compete in many ways aside from price, especially if I know that prices won't be different enough to be the primary determining factor.
Alternatively, if my competition is pretty much ONLY Amazon, who before could set the prices themselves to a level I CANNOT COMPETE WITH (because they can sustain a prolonged below-cost 'loss leader' campaign, whereas I cannot), then the significance of this "obvious statement" is so overwhelming, that it could only be construed as manipulative to leave it out. Get that?
And once again you are ignoring and/or redirecting from the core premise or point of my response, and again moving the goalposts.
I'm done with this. Spam away in solitude if you like...
I always try to be an optimist. I want to believe that justice is blind. But I'm really starting to think that Apple has pissed someone off in the current administration.
Well written and I agree. The question I'd like the answer to is this, why did prices fall? Was it because Amazon had some ebooks overpriced or did sales die down enough to warrant a price drop?
Comments
You do realize when Apple came into the market, more ebook sellers popped up as well. Amazon's predatory pricing was a barrier to entry.
Please explain how this policy equates with colluding to raise prices.
It's alright, they'll die off slowly.
http://tidbits.com/article/13912
Please delete
please delete
Oh man... there's one guy that is thoroughly spamming and polluting this thread.
It has become unreadable.
I'm off....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
How is it collusion when the publishers aren't selling the same books? Would it be collusion if a car manufacturer talked with a real estate broker before coming to an agreement with Apple about how to price cars and real estate in iTunes?
I think the DOJ is nuts here (the equivalent of Javert from Les Miserables), but the collusion is fairly easy to understand.
In the wholesale model (what most retailers use), a publisher would sell books to a retailer for say $15 (wholesale price). The retailer is than free to sell it to end consumers at the MSRP, like $25, or $20, or loss lead for $10. The price competition arises because a publisher would sell their books to multiple retailers: like Barnes & Nobles, B. Dalton's (defunct) or Borders/WaldenBooks (defunct). The publisher sells books at agreed upon wholesale price to each of the retailers. The retailers, stocked with piles of these books in their stores, then compete for customers by being able to change the prices on the same books. Customers can shop at different retailers for the cheapest price.
Apple's deals with the publishers for ebooks did a couple of things. It moved the control of ebook prices from the retailer to the publishers with the agency model. By being a powerful enough new entrant into the ebook market (iPad et al), Apple enabled the publishers to move other ebook retailers (Amazon, B&N, Kobo) to agency models by threatening not to sell ebooks to retailers. The MFN is a red herring, as it was just a vehicle by which Apple guaranteed that publishers wouldn't stab them in the back (sell an ebook cheaper in one ebook store over another). The key thing was Apple's entrance into the market and that they were big enough for publishers to use as the stick to get other ebook retailers to change to agency.
With the publishers wanting higher prices for ebooks, and they got them by wresting control of prices from retailers to themselves, the prices did indeed rise instantaneously, only to gradually fall to basically where they were when Amazon was controlling the prices. With everyone on agency, there's no price competition on individual ebooks. When the DOJ says "price competition", they are talking about "price competition between retailers". The DOJ and the court apparently didn't think that basic demand/price curves was enough to change prices, but they aren't economists after all, but I digress.
The DOJ obviously did not like this. The judge agreed. The DOJ's remedy is to prevent this from happening again. We'll see how the judge decides on the remedy soon, and I think the DOJ's remedy will sale through with flying colors, and we'll all revisit this again on appeals and probably the SCOTUS if the remedy of Apple's IAP cut being eliminated will be put into effect.
Obviously, I disagree with the DOJ and the courts as the mechanics and dynamics of business in a digital goods market is totally different than in physical goods, and the laws developed through the years based on physical book sales really don't apply. Just to read an ebook, you need invest in a tablet that can cost anywhere between $50 to $500. Then you needed a reader application that has to be supplied by and supported in perpetuity by the platform vendor to be able to read the ebook. Just batpoop insane for the DOJ and the court to think they should apply traditional anti-trust law to this.
If they wanted price competition, mandate a standard format for ebooks, and enforce compatibility. That's about all they need to do.
Can't take the truth? It's ok most people can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
http://tidbits.com/article/13912
Good read. Best explanation by far. Sadly ebook prices still increased overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Oh man... there's one guy that is thoroughly spamming and polluting this thread.
It has become unreadable.
I'm off....
Self banned. Nice
Well written and I agree. The question I'd like the answer to is this, why did prices fall? Was it because Amazon had some ebooks overpriced or did sales die down enough to warrant a price drop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Can't take the truth? It's ok most people can't.
Does this apply to you also? Ever admitted when have ever been wrong on this Forum? no remote chance of you ever being wrong.. right? Because you are perfect.. and want respect. I recall you try to portray being open minded, reasonable and fair guy. However, when the going gets though you start throwing elbows and calling people dumb. Calling names like "Ivy League brain of yours", "The exiled moderator", and I am sure countless other things for which others have done a good job letting it pass. Maybe because they hae been here alot longer than I have and know your real MO. One I am just slowing learning about you now and putting the pieces together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'm a grown man so no I wasn't trying to be 'cute' I was being facetious, and thanks for your concern but it's none of your business if I want to embarrass myself.
Finally, I point we can agree with you on. You are a grown man and it is your right if you want to embarrass yourself by the way you are acting towards others.
No wonder people stop debating with you. You are not a man, you are a child and a bully at that when the going get though because your debate is flawed.
so go embarrass yourself all you want... its your business. Keep it up and you will have no-one to debate with, nor any respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Oh please… "socialist regime"?? Stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh. They are misinforming and misguiding you. That isn't "education". Socialism is an Economic System.
Please go and get a proper education about the nature of "Socialism" before posting silly, ignorant, politically laced commentary here. It clearly isn't what you think it is. SImple definitions are a good start. You could even try Wikipedia for basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."
That's it in a nutshell. See how NOT relevant that is?
The Government is the people, the DoJ acting on behalf of the Government is attempting "co-operative management of the economy" by setting prices.
Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of the United States of America.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will reel these unconstitutional scumbags in.
I have been mistaken quite a few times and did indeed admit that I was wrong on this forum. Certain people on this forum are incapable of having a decent conversation. You either see things their way or there's no productive dialogue nor even a 'let's agree to disagree'. I am not the bully, I'm the one fighting back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It leaves it intact. Yes I should have included Amazon in there but that would be stating the obvious and oft repeated on here so I omitted it. Yes it is the publishers that set the price but it's Apple's iBookstore you'd be competing with and not the publishers.
By the same token, I omitted the mention of the MFN (leaving only the "Agency Agreement" mention within which the MFN exists and not the other way around), but that too would have been stating the obvious, no? But that was the detail in your sole reply, which also ignored the rest of my premise.
If the publishers set the prices across the market, and I know that my prices won't be any better or worse than iBooks due to MFN, how is that making it impossible for me to compete with iBooks? I can compete in many ways aside from price, especially if I know that prices won't be different enough to be the primary determining factor.
Alternatively, if my competition is pretty much ONLY Amazon, who before could set the prices themselves to a level I CANNOT COMPETE WITH (because they can sustain a prolonged below-cost 'loss leader' campaign, whereas I cannot), then the significance of this "obvious statement" is so overwhelming, that it could only be construed as manipulative to leave it out. Get that?
And once again you are ignoring and/or redirecting from the core premise or point of my response, and again moving the goalposts.
I'm done with this. Spam away in solitude if you like...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I have been mistaken quite a few times and did indeed admit that I was wrong on this forum.
prove it.
I always try to be an optimist. I want to believe that justice is blind. But I'm really starting to think that Apple has pissed someone off in the current administration.
Yes most people can take BS.