Publishers propose payout of $3 per NYT bestseller in e-book settlement

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Samnuva View Post


    What is so hard to understand about what happened in this case: Amazon is pushing prices to unprofitable levels in order to corner the market and gain a monopoly. Apple said no, and is now a criminal company  because of that?


     


    Apple made a massive heroic move here. Do you really want Amazon controlling the world literature market? That's what's going to happen if looneys like some people around here get their way. Apple broke the law for everyone's benefit. Stop hating on those trying to protect you, it's pretty scummy.



     


    Price fixing is illegal.


     


    Look, I don't think that Apple was trying to do anything nefarious here - but I do think that in this case they were on the wrong side of the law, and probably some members of their legal team are looking for jobs after this.


     


    The problem is that ending competition based on price is bad for consumers.


     


    Consider - imagine that all of the major manufacturers of displays got together and decided that displays will now be sold for $1000 each, making the claim that Apple pushed their profit margin too thin and wanted more breathing room. They wanted to pay their employees more, and pay their suppliers more so that their suppliers get a healthier amount of profit. By your argument, you seem to think this would be okay.


     


    Short term, this would hurt both Apple and consumers. Apple's profit margins would fall, and the price of iPads would more than double, if they were sold at all. Apple's high end products might not be hurt at all - Apple might reduce profit margins on their MacBook Pros but could probably sell them for a similar price.


     


    Long term, competition would fix this problem - at the very least, Apple would start manufacturing their own displays, or other manufacturers not part of the cartel would gain manufacturing capabilities needed by Apple, but this would take several years.


     


    Again, I don't think that Apple was trying to do any harm, and they realized that they couldn't compete on price alone with Amazon and so tried to find another way, and their legal team did a poor job advising the business. At the same time, I think it's a good thing for everyone that they got smacked down here.

  • Reply 22 of 28

    Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post


    Is it possible to setup the forum in such a way that I will not see anymore posts from this individ called "Tallest Skil"?


     


    You'd think you'd want to learn the truth before deciding you don't want to hear it in the first place, yeah?

  • Reply 23 of 28
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    nelsonx wrote: »
    Is it possible to setup the forum in such a way that I will not see anymore posts from this individ called "Tallest Skil"?

    You could also try a setup of yourself called self control and not read posts of people you don't agree with, but then that would defeat the purpose of coming into a forum full of comments of varied opinions.
  • Reply 24 of 28
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,991member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post


    Consider - imagine that all of the major manufacturers of displays got together and decided that displays will now be sold for $1000 each, making the claim that Apple pushed their profit margin too thin and wanted more breathing room. They wanted to pay their employees more, and pay their suppliers more so that their suppliers get a healthier amount of profit. By your argument, you seem to think this would be okay.


     



     


    So Walmart and other retailers are responsible for the price fixing that occurred in the display industry and should also have to pay out the difference?

  • Reply 25 of 28
    So, iBooks generally raised the price of eBooks? I was looking for a particular popular novel and found it in iBooks for $8.50. Then I thought I should check for it on Amazon because it was sure to be cheaper after all the fuss of this case. Though, I preferred to get it on iBooks so that it goes right onto my iPad instead of downloading to Mac and getting it in through iTunes. It was $12.50 on Amazon for the Kindle version.

    I promptly bought the boxed set of all four novels in the series for $26 on iBooks. The Kindle set is $55.95 on Amazon!

    On Amazon, one of the four novels in the set is $19.84 for the Kindle version, while the actual hardback book is on sale for $18.69 (down from $27.00)!
  • Reply 26 of 28
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,748member
    krabbelen wrote: »
    So, iBooks generally raised the price of eBooks? I was looking for a particular popular novel and found it in iBooks for $8.50. Then I thought I should check for it on Amazon because it was sure to be cheaper after all the fuss of this case. Though, I preferred to get it on iBooks so that it goes right onto my iPad instead of downloading to Mac and getting it in through iTunes. It was $12.50 on Amazon for the Kindle version.

    I promptly bought the boxed set of all four novels in the series for $26 on iBooks. The Kindle set is $55.95 on Amazon!

    On Amazon, one of the four novels in the set is $19.84 for the Kindle version, while the actual hardback book is on sale for $18.69 (down from $27.00)!

    So it shows Apple competing on price too and not just convenience. Dey don need no stinkin MFN clause.
  • Reply 27 of 28

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    So it shows Apple competing on price too and not just convenience. Dey don need no stinkin MFN clause.


    Right.


     


    Apple must have paid 6.00 - 6.30 (70% of 8.50 or so) in order to sell it at the current 8.50 - 9.00. At first glance it would appear that the publisher sold the book through Apple at MFN terms (though that is now dissolved) in order for Apple to be "competitive" and meet the 9.00 that was apparently the going rate for ebooks set by Amazon. Apparently 9.00 was a common wholesale rate paid by Amazon, and they often sold it at break even or slightly less in order to gain customers and put the competition out of business. But that novel on Amazon isn't 9.00 right now, it's twice the price!


     


    So, it might be that the price on iBooks is consistent and predictable, starting at the current price and remaining at the current price, with Apple taking a known cut. While the retail price on Amazon seems to have moved from the 8.50 region to what it is now. 


     


    So, both by court verdict now, and according to original MFN clause, the publisher doesn't have to let Apple (continue to) pay $6.00 or $6.30 to retail it at 8.50 when the competition retails it for lots more; but there it is on iBooks at just under 9.00, and we understand Apple gets its 70%. Instead, the book could have retailed on iBooks at 12 (an 8.40/3.60 split) and still beat Amazon's current price (Apparently the publishers would have been happy with Apple's proposed price points and caps at 9, 12, and 15 depending on the novel and its popularity). Since Amazon probably continues to pay no more than the 9.00 wholesale rate (if not less), then Amazon is selling them at a loss or making a 50% - 100% profit on them when it suits them!


     


    Therefore, in the absence of much competition and with the verdict against Apple in which Apple and the publishers were slapped down (less competition than ever), Amazon appears to have raised ebook prices significantly (well above Apple's suggestions, in fact). Just as everyone always said -- Amazon as the monopolist is the one to watch out for, not Apple.

  • Reply 28 of 28
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,748member
    ...or Apple is now using the same wholesale model as Amazon.

    ...or you chose to use a book example that was never price controlled to begin with.

    The prices you're using have never been mentioned with regard to the "best-seller ebooks" agency pricing
Sign In or Register to comment.