With Apple's hands tied in e-book market, Amazon stops taking some preorders from publisher Hachette

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 82
    future manfuture man Posts: 101member
    The judge who ruled against Apple e-Books need to re-examine her decision in light of Amazon becoming a bully with the publishing houses! DOJ should never have brought this suite against Apple, instead the DOJ target should have been Amazon.
  • Reply 22 of 82
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,916member
    trumptman wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon's margins are higher than Apple's? That would be the most absurd statement I've read in a while.

    Apple's goal with pricefixing was the raise margins for everyone by raising prices.

    Amazon is no more a monopoly in epub than Apple is with iTunes.

    1. Apple doesn't take 30% margins. You do realize they pay for servers, CC fees, etc.

    2. The avg ebook price fell after Apple got in the game.

    3. Prior to Apple, Amazon used its monopoly power to take up to a 70% discount off the wholesale price.
  • Reply 23 of 82
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,711member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

     

     

    Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon's margins are higher than Apple's? That would be the most absurd statement I've read in a while.

     

    Apple's goal with pricefixing was the raise margins for everyone by raising prices.

     

    Amazon is no more a monopoly in epub than Apple is with iTunes.


    Uhm, prior to Apple, et al competing, Amazon was 90% of the market for epub, and was getting a 70% share of the revenue from independent publishers. That's not to mention their predatory pricing especially on new releases to drive other retailers and online distributors out of the market and force pricing pressure on publishers.

     

    Gee, what changed?

     

    After Apple entered the market, Amazon matched the 30% take from independent publishers, same as Apple does for everyone, and still undercuts pricing on new releases to capture dead tree and epub marketshare.

     

    The difference now with this story is that Amazon is using its size to push publishers around yet again in an attempt to increase profits, not just share. Where art the DOJ now?

  • Reply 24 of 82
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Does anybody here realize that this dispute is over physical books, not ebooks?

     

    These new titles haven't been published yet - Amazon is preventing pre-orders of future physical books. There's no mention of Amazon and Hatchette fighting over ebooks. It's a whole different issue, though it does show how scummy Amazon is, and that they'll do anything to screw the publishers.

     

    The funny thing is that Amazon can't do the same thing against the publishers with ebooks, because of Apple being a strong competitor.

  • Reply 25 of 82
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,711member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elroth View Post

     

    Does anybody here realize that this dispute is over physical books, not ebooks?

     

    These new titles haven't been published yet - Amazon is preventing pre-orders of future physical books. There's no mention of Amazon and Hatchette fighting over ebooks. It's a whole different issue, though it does show how scummy Amazon is, and that they'll do anything to screw the publishers.

     

    The funny thing is that Amazon can't do the same thing against the publishers with ebooks, because of Apple being a strong competitor.


    It's ebooks as well.

     

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/amazon-escalates-its-battle-against-hachette/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

  • Reply 26 of 82
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,808member
    "Amazon needs competition."

    LOL! Who am I kidding? Only "Apple needs competition." /s
  • Reply 27 of 82
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member

    Can't fault Amazon for offering a low price. Apple should have simply undercut them, not raised prices. Problem solved.

  • Reply 28 of 82
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Future Man View Post



    The judge who ruled against Apple e-Books need to re-examine her decision in light of Amazon becoming a bully with the publishing houses! DOJ should never have brought this suite against Apple, instead the DOJ target should have been Amazon.

     

    Why?  The two have no legal correlation to each other.  

     

    My doctor charged me an outrageous medical fee.  That made me sad and broke and looking for a way out.  I went out and robbed a bank.  Can you believe I was tried and found guilty of robbing a bank?!  Clearly I did it because the doctor made things tough for me, he should be on trial, not me.

     

    Apple and the publishers colluded to raise ebook prices.  They were found guilty.  I don't doubt that Amazon put a lot of pressure on their models that made them sad and looking for a way out- but their solution to fixing their problem was illegal.

     

    Just as Amazon has no bearing or justification in the collusion case,  Apple and the publishers colluding has no bearing on whether Amazon is engaged in predatory pricing or not.

     

    Amazon was examined, but it was found they had no evidence to meet the Sherman Act criteria for predatory pricing.  "Low prices" in and of themselves are certainly not the criteria since that benefits consumes.  Specifically to meet the 'crime' criteria the predatory pricing must be targeted to drive competitors out of the market, must be priced at a loss, and the big toughie, it must be proven that there is potential for a 'payoff' from the predatory pricing- a high barrier to entry must exist so you can raise prices once there is no competition.  A classic example would be steel dumping.  The low prices drive competitors out and they shut down their very expensive steel mills and lose their specialized workers.  The predator can than safely raise prices and recoup their losses because new entrants have a huge barrier to entry (no knowledgeable workers, and no steel mills).

     

    The barriers to trying Amazon under the Sherman act would be:

    Amazon's pricing has not forced competitors out of the market.  Since its entrance to the market and despite its pricing, *more* competitors have entered the market (including: B&N,  Kobo, Google, Samsung, Apple, Baker & Taylor).

    Amazon has shown slight profits on ebooks (not all titles specifically, but overall).

    There are nearly zero barriers to entry on ebooks.  If Amazon set prices at $1 and drove all the above competitors out of the market, they could not recoup their losses by setting a ridiculously high price and reaping the rewards.  Competition would spring up immediately at lower prices.  There are almost no barriers to entry.

     

    If the DoJ had evidence which could meet the criteria, they would have a case.  They don't.

     

    Whether Apple colluded with publishers also obviously has zero impact on the issue of whether Amazon is engaged in predatory pricing.

  • Reply 29 of 82
    future manfuture man Posts: 101member

    Really!   You must also agree with COMCAST also acquiring Times-Warner and furthering its telecommunications monopoly even though it is not defined as one legally, yet in practice it is.

     

    Law is not only that (legislation) which exists in print on the books, it is also the practice, acceptance and implementation of laws that manifest 'legality'.   Amazon looks, sounds and acts like a monopoly as far a e-books is concerned,  They have no really large competitors and they have an 85%+ market share in area of business.  They have agreements with publishers to sell many, if not he majority, of the prices low, for market penetration and client retention.  Apple tried to get higher prices along with a group of publishers and DOJ goes after Apple and the book publishers.    DOJ, like the Supreme Court can ether decide or not entertain to take on a case as being monopolistic, they choice in this matter is apparent.  

     

    Amazon is a great on-line retailer, I use them all the time.  Yet they can get too big for their britches.  

  • Reply 30 of 82
    future manfuture man Posts: 101member

    Competitors such as "B&N,  Kobo, Google, Samsung, Apple, Baker & Taylor"- these are 'marginal' players in the e-Book arena and many are even being challenged for their very existence in the hard-copy book business.    The publishers joined with Apple because the prices that Amazon was demanding of them for their books was too low in their opinion, so they thought that they could get a better deal with Apple e-Books.  As long as the consumer had a choice of vendors to purchase books, I do not see for the intervention of the DOJ action.  

  • Reply 31 of 82
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,916member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    Can't fault Amazon for offering a low price. Apple should have simply undercut them, not raised prices. Problem solved.

    Then Amazon would have cried that Apple is engaging in predatory pricing. DOJ would investigate as well.
  • Reply 32 of 82
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,916member
    frood wrote: »
    Why?  The two have no legal correlation to each other.  

    My doctor charged me an outrageous medical fee.  That made me sad and broke and looking for a way out.  I went out and robbed a bank.  Can you believe I was tried and found guilty of robbing a bank?!  Clearly I did it because the doctor made things tough for me, he should be on trial, not me.

    Apple and the publishers colluded to raise ebook prices.  They were found guilty.  I don't doubt that Amazon put a lot of pressure on their models that made them sad and looking for a way out- but their solution to fixing their problem was illegal.

    Just as Amazon has no bearing or justification in the collusion case,  Apple and the publishers colluding has no bearing on whether Amazon is engaged in predatory pricing or not.

    Amazon was examined, but it was found they had no evidence to meet the Sherman Act criteria for predatory pricing.  "Low prices" in and of themselves are certainly not the criteria since that benefits consumes.  Specifically to meet the 'crime' criteria the predatory pricing must be targeted to drive competitors out of the market, must be priced at a loss, and the big toughie, it must be proven that there is potential for a 'payoff' from the predatory pricing- a high barrier to entry must exist so you can raise prices once there is no competition.  A classic example would be steel dumping.  The low prices drive competitors out and they shut down their very expensive steel mills and lose their specialized workers.  The predator can than safely raise prices and recoup their losses because new entrants have a huge barrier to entry (no knowledgeable workers, and no steel mills).

    The barriers to trying Amazon under the Sherman act would be:
    Amazon's pricing has not forced competitors out of the market.  Since its entrance to the market and despite its pricing, *more* competitors have entered the market (including: B&N,  Kobo, Google, Samsung, Apple, Baker & Taylor).
    Amazon has shown slight profits on ebooks (not all titles specifically, but overall).
    There are nearly zero barriers to entry on ebooks.  If Amazon set prices at $1 and drove all the above competitors out of the market, they could not recoup their losses by setting a ridiculously high price and reaping the rewards.  Competition would spring up immediately at lower prices.  There are almost no barriers to entry.

    If the DoJ had evidence which could meet the criteria, they would have a case.  They don't.

    Whether Apple colluded with publishers also obviously has zero impact on the issue of whether Amazon is engaged in predatory pricing.

    You're analogy is wrong.

    When has the govt acted so quickly in history to level anti trust accusations? This is a relatively new market. Why did The DOJ allow Amazon to set Market Price?

    Consumer protection is more than just price.
  • Reply 33 of 82
    tsun zutsun zu Posts: 72member

    Crying out loud here will not change anything. I doubt Judges or DoJ read Appleinsider.

     

    Why dont we buy some books of Hachette from iBooks to show that iBooks is a profitable platform as well. Amazon is able to play foul things because sales is not high in iBooks Store. Let's show them.

     

    No amount of money can prevent me from legally purchase a book from iBooks and help the publishers/authors earn some well deserved money.

  • Reply 34 of 82
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

     

    Can't fault Amazon for offering a low price. Apple should have simply undercut them, not raised prices. Problem solved.


    Apple doesn't enter a market to lose money.

  • Reply 35 of 82
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

     

    Crying out loud here will not change anything. I doubt Judges or DoJ read Appleinsider.

     


    They may read the New York Times, though. Hopefully the appeals court judges have a wider view of all this, and accept Apple's argument that what they did was legal (because it increased competition). The DoJ should be responding to Apple's appeals court filing very soon.

  • Reply 36 of 82
    peter.cpeter.c Posts: 5member
    There's a certain irony in one Hatchet-job spawning another.
  • Reply 37 of 82
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post

     

    Apple and the publishers colluded to raise ebook prices.  They were found guilty.  I don't doubt that Amazon put a lot of pressure on their models that made them sad and looking for a way out- but their solution to fixing their problem was illegal.

     


     

    That decision is under appeal, Apple will be exonerated mainly because they were a vertical entrant to the market and Denise Cote misapplied the law by treating Apple as a horizontal entrant, i.e. Apple was not another publisher, Apple did not set prices.

     

    The class action by the states has been stayed pending the appeal.

  • Reply 38 of 82
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Is better to lose money than Goodwill. Marketing 101.
  • Reply 39 of 82
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 736member
    Did we expect anything from our United States' government but to screw up yet again?
  • Reply 40 of 82
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Future Man View Post

     

    Really!   You must also agree with COMCAST also acquiring Times-Warner and furthering its telecommunications monopoly even though it is not defined as one legally, yet in practice it is.

     


     

    Being a monopoly isn't sufficient.  They have to harm consumers.  Amazon has no ability 'spring the trap' and harm consumers by raising prices.  If the DOJ can find evidence against that and prove that that is Amazon's intent I'm all for going after Amazon.

     

    Comcast/Time-Warner is an entirely different animal because there are *HUGE* barriers to entry.  If I wanted to become an 'ebook' seller today, I'd have to create a website.  If I wanted to become a cable provider, I would need to hire an army of skilled cable layers and spend years trying to get zoning permits to try and lay it.  There is probably a substantial argument that this will harm consumers.  Without knowing details, I'll let the justice system, under the close scrutiny of the media, sort it out.  My knee-jerk response is I'm against it.  Hopefully Google fiber or Loon will disrupt their grip, but that will take time.

     


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Future Man View Post

     

       The publishers joined with Apple because the prices that Amazon was demanding of them for their books was too low in their opinion, so they thought that they could get a better deal with Apple e-Books.  


     

    I'm in 100% agreement with you there.  And they worked together and came up with a much better deal for themselves.

Sign In or Register to comment.