mcarling - Apple (via Steve Jobs, not the company that stays politically neutral) was a big supporter of Obama. Either way, that has little to do with the DOJ.
Is price the only way a company can compete? Offer a better product or experience and customers will pay more. Apple does that quite well so why not this time?
Btw you're wrong, Apple does not use the agency model on all media, they use the wholesale model for TV shows, movies, and music.
If Apple uses a different model then what business does the DOJ have telling Apple how that side of their business runs?
As to the DOJ and Cote it's getting more bizarre.
Imagine you went to court and were convicted of burglary for sneaking into a jewelry store and stealing diamonds. When sentencing came around the prosecutor mentions the fact that two other jewelry stores were also hit in the last year and one had a bunch of watches stolen while another had gold stolen. The prosecutor then tells this to the judge and asks her to take these other crimes into account even though you were never convicted of them. This is essentially what the DOJ appears to be doing by bringing in facts and evidence that weren't presented at trial. If this is true (as Apples lawyer argues) then I am at a complete loss for words to describe how utterly ridiculous this whole situation is.
If Apple uses a different model then what business does the DOJ have telling Apple how that side of their business runs?
As to the DOJ and Cote it's getting more bizarre.
I totally agree with you but the publishers shouldn't be able to tell Amazon how to run their business either. These publishers should have never let Amazon get the upper hand on them. They were in the position of power initially but still they allowed themselves to be pushed around. Renegotiating terms is not a new tactic but flags went up when they all wanted new terms at the same time.
Is price the only way a company can compete? Offer a better product or experience and customers will pay more. Apple does that quite well so why not this time?
Btw you're wrong, Apple does not use the agency model on all media, they use the wholesale model for TV shows, movies, and music.
Really? Since when?
I'm not sure about movies and shows, but for music, they sell the music via iTunes, keep 30% and send the rest to the publisher. That's the agency model, not wholesale.
I'm not sure about movies and shows, but for music, they sell the music via iTunes, keep 30% and send the rest to the publisher. That's the agency model, not wholesale.
To be honest they've never publicly disclosed what model they use for music.
AGAIN, Sony, B&N, AND Amazon were in the game before Apple. But continue to tell yourself that ignorant story that Amazon was the only one and fixing prices. AFAIC if you support Apple & the publishers in raising prices YOU OWE ME MONEY for the increase in price!
So how many iBooks did you buy?
Ten, twenty?
It must be pretty tough that twenty or thirty bucks represents such a large amount.
Maybe you should head for a public library where you can read books for free.
Well we can tell you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Before Apple joined the party, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, AND Sony, had ebook readers AND stores, along with a few smaller groups. Sony was there well before Amazon started with the Kindle in 2007, charged way too much for ebooks, usually around $30 for a book that cost $6 for the paperback. Amazon joined in and priced retail at similar prices, Sony was also retail set prices, even though Sony's prices were so high. The Kindle was so successful both because of the prices AND the ease of use, in that you didn't need a stupid program on your computer to buy books, you only needed to head to the website, order, and download your file, you didn't even need to have your device hooked up to the computer you purchased from. They introduced wireless connectivity, when Sony was still ignoring it.
Because of the success of the Kindle, B&N released the Nook, with the SAME game plan as the Kindle, retail pricing, no computer needed, order from the web, wireless downloads. The publishers got scared because the ebooks started to cannibalize sales of PAPER BOOKS, that is the only reason they went with the iBookstore deal, they make LESS with agency than they were with retail pricing. It is ONLY because they did not want ebooks to be priced lower than hardcover books or the same as the paperback versions that they freaked out.
AGAIN, Sony, B&N, AND Amazon were in the game before Apple. But continue to tell yourself that ignorant story that Amazon was the only one and fixing prices. AFAIC if you support Apple & the publishers in raising prices YOU OWE ME MONEY for the increase in price!
Amazon had 90% market share because they were undercutting everyone prior to Apple entering. So you tell me how Amazon can dictate fair market value of an ebook when they had a near monopoly.
The publishers panicked when Amazon went below cost and devalued the hard covers by $15-20. They weren't worried about ebooks being less than hard covers otherwise they would have sold the ebooks to Amazon at hard cover prices. Again they worried that Amz sold them for extremely less than hard covers.
In the agency model, the publisher sets the price. There is no requirement that they can't sell it for less somewhere else (that's a most favored nation clause). Basically, publisher says 'price is $xxxx' and distributor gets a fixed percentage of the price while publisher keeps the rest. That's exactly the iTunes model.
The only twist is that Apple gives a range of acceptable prices. You can sell a song for $0.69 or $0.99 or $1.29, but not $1.17. That does not change it from being an agency model, though.
In the agency model, the publisher sets the price. There is no requirement that they can't sell it for less somewhere else (that's a most favored nation clause). Basically, publisher says 'price is $xxxx' and distributor gets a fixed percentage of the price while publisher keeps the rest. That's exactly the iTunes model.
The only twist is that Apple gives a range of acceptable prices. You can sell a song for $0.69 or $0.99 or $1.29, but not $1.17. That does not change it from being an agency model, though.
You and I have exactly the same definition for an agency model which is specified in my second sentence. So you'd be of the opinion that Amazon gets better terms than Apple? Just curious.
Anyone who thinks Amazon is looking out for the consumer is only looking at the short term. They will raise the prices to whatever insane amount they want once they've killed all competition, just as Walmart has done around the country.
Amazon had 90% market share because they were undercutting everyone prior to Apple entering. So you tell me how Amazon can dictate fair market value of an ebook when they had a near monopoly?
Do you have proof that it was because they were undercutting everyone? Did Apple get 90% of the tablet market by undercutting the competition or by redefining the market? eInk readers were very popular before the iPad and the eBook reader of choice was the Kindle and many people that bought a iPad and also owned a Kindle would most likely keep buying from Amazon because they could read their ebooks on both.
Anyone who thinks Amazon is looking out for the consumer is only looking at the short term. They will raise the prices to whatever insane amount they want once they've killed all competition, just as Walmart has done around the country.
They most certainly can raise prices but it doesn't mean that they will, and even if they did are they not allowed to have a healthy profit margin or is Apple the only one that can?
Do you have proof that it was because they were undercutting everyone? Did Apple get 90% of the tablet market by undercutting the competition or by redefining the market? eInk readers were very popular before the iPad and the eBook reader of choice was the Kindle and many people that bought a iPad and also owned a Kindle would most likely keep buying from Amazon because they could read their ebooks on both.
Fact: Amazon was selling ebooks for less than cost. Other companies actually needed to make money
Apple sold iPads with 40% margins. It wasn't selling them at cost. It was the best tablet available.
Fact: Amazon was selling ebooks for less than cost. Other companies actually needed to make money
Apple sold iPads with 40% margins. It wasn't selling them at cost. It was the best tablet available.
Another misconception. It was only a small selection of books that were being undersold. The vast majority of ebooks were the same price across all other ebook stores.
mcarling - Apple (via Steve Jobs, not the company that stays politically neutral) was a big supporter of Obama. Either way, that has little to do with the DOJ.
Anyone who thinks Amazon is looking out for the consumer is only looking at the short term. They will raise the prices to whatever insane amount they want once they've killed all competition, just as Walmart has done around the country.
Walmart keeps their prices low, even after they manage to undercut and destroy their competition. They are the best company in the world at squeezing their suppliers.
Walmart keeps their prices low, even after they manage to undercut and destroy their competition. They are the best company in the world at squeezing their suppliers.
I avoid selling to them anymore. No matter what price I would determine they still tried to get even deeper discounts. Oddly I don't ever recall them making quality as important. Add waiting at least two months for your money and it wasn't worth it. I have other clients to take up the slot.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Is price the only way a company can compete? Offer a better product or experience and customers will pay more. Apple does that quite well so why not this time?
Btw you're wrong, Apple does not use the agency model on all media, they use the wholesale model for TV shows, movies, and music.
If Apple uses a different model then what business does the DOJ have telling Apple how that side of their business runs?
As to the DOJ and Cote it's getting more bizarre.
Imagine you went to court and were convicted of burglary for sneaking into a jewelry store and stealing diamonds. When sentencing came around the prosecutor mentions the fact that two other jewelry stores were also hit in the last year and one had a bunch of watches stolen while another had gold stolen. The prosecutor then tells this to the judge and asks her to take these other crimes into account even though you were never convicted of them. This is essentially what the DOJ appears to be doing by bringing in facts and evidence that weren't presented at trial. If this is true (as Apples lawyer argues) then I am at a complete loss for words to describe how utterly ridiculous this whole situation is.
I totally agree with you but the publishers shouldn't be able to tell Amazon how to run their business either. These publishers should have never let Amazon get the upper hand on them. They were in the position of power initially but still they allowed themselves to be pushed around. Renegotiating terms is not a new tactic but flags went up when they all wanted new terms at the same time.
Really? Since when?
I'm not sure about movies and shows, but for music, they sell the music via iTunes, keep 30% and send the rest to the publisher. That's the agency model, not wholesale.
To be honest they've never publicly disclosed what model they use for music.
It appears Apple doesn't use a strict agency model since by definition it would be the music publisher's setting the minimum selling price. That's unless Amazon was given better terms than Apple gets which would be darn surprising. Amazon sells some of the same music choices for less than iTunes.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2013/0731/iTunes-vs-Amazon-Where-to-get-the-cheapest-music
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Mazzone
AGAIN, Sony, B&N, AND Amazon were in the game before Apple. But continue to tell yourself that ignorant story that Amazon was the only one and fixing prices. AFAIC if you support Apple & the publishers in raising prices YOU OWE ME MONEY for the increase in price!
So how many iBooks did you buy?
Ten, twenty?
It must be pretty tough that twenty or thirty bucks represents such a large amount.
Maybe you should head for a public library where you can read books for free.
Amazon had 90% market share because they were undercutting everyone prior to Apple entering. So you tell me how Amazon can dictate fair market value of an ebook when they had a near monopoly.
The publishers panicked when Amazon went below cost and devalued the hard covers by $15-20. They weren't worried about ebooks being less than hard covers otherwise they would have sold the ebooks to Amazon at hard cover prices. Again they worried that Amz sold them for extremely less than hard covers.
You have a strange definition of 'agency model'.
In the agency model, the publisher sets the price. There is no requirement that they can't sell it for less somewhere else (that's a most favored nation clause). Basically, publisher says 'price is $xxxx' and distributor gets a fixed percentage of the price while publisher keeps the rest. That's exactly the iTunes model.
The only twist is that Apple gives a range of acceptable prices. You can sell a song for $0.69 or $0.99 or $1.29, but not $1.17. That does not change it from being an agency model, though.
So you were wrong when you said that they don't use the agency model. :smokey:
Furthermore, they do disclose the model. Their terms are quite clear. Publisher gets 70% and Apple gets 30%. That's agency model.
You and I have exactly the same definition for an agency model which is specified in my second sentence. So you'd be of the opinion that Amazon gets better terms than Apple? Just curious.
Anyone who thinks Amazon is looking out for the consumer is only looking at the short term. They will raise the prices to whatever insane amount they want once they've killed all competition, just as Walmart has done around the country.
Do you have proof that it was because they were undercutting everyone? Did Apple get 90% of the tablet market by undercutting the competition or by redefining the market? eInk readers were very popular before the iPad and the eBook reader of choice was the Kindle and many people that bought a iPad and also owned a Kindle would most likely keep buying from Amazon because they could read their ebooks on both.
They most certainly can raise prices but it doesn't mean that they will, and even if they did are they not allowed to have a healthy profit margin or is Apple the only one that can?
Fact: Amazon was selling ebooks for less than cost. Other companies actually needed to make money
Apple sold iPads with 40% margins. It wasn't selling them at cost. It was the best tablet available.
Not necessarily. The music industry doesn't get to set the price. Apple didn't give them that option.
Another misconception. It was only a small selection of books that were being undersold. The vast majority of ebooks were the same price across all other ebook stores.
Yes, one of the biggest mistakes Steve ever made.
Walmart keeps their prices low, even after they manage to undercut and destroy their competition. They are the best company in the world at squeezing their suppliers.
I avoid selling to them anymore. No matter what price I would determine they still tried to get even deeper discounts. Oddly I don't ever recall them making quality as important. Add waiting at least two months for your money and it wasn't worth it. I have other clients to take up the slot.