I don't understand what's wrong here. The Agency Model is just how Apple does business. The iTunes store works the same whether it's an app or a book or a piece of music being sold. You set the price, they take 30% and the product is sold by them.
Now, if the publishers are trying to force Amazon to take the agency model or they don't want to sell them the books, that's a potential antitrust case. But I don't see where Apple is involved. Surely it should be allowed to sell books on the terms it offers and publishers accept? (I think this is why Apple is staying in the suit and the publishers are settling.)
Amazon's prices are often significantly lower for books. If the books are available on both iBooks and Amazon at roughly the same price, I will go with iBooks because the presentation is superior. Also, if you are an author, Amazon's terms are much less generous than Apple's. Apple pays you only 1/3 of sales in many cases. It will pay you 70% (which is what Apple pays) if you sign special agreements, but it charges you for bandwidth and has other fees. Apple's fees are a straight-up 30% and you will always get 70% (subject of course to minimum payments and other standard terms).
So if you want to support authors who self-publish, Apple is offering a significantly better deal and you should buy your books through the iBookstore instead of Kindle.
D
You are confused because this site did not offer a complete article with all the meat. Please refer to the website below. It should answer all your questions and clear up confusion.
OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.
Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.
Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by themu.
So Apple and the publishers should just be required to take a lOSS just because Amazon likes to take a loss?
Okay.......
I guess when the publishers close shop, Amazon will have to find other stuff to sell other than books and e-readers.
Nice try - but no I am not. I'm not blaming anyone for anything that pushed the price down in my favor. Apple in this case supposedly colluded with publishers to stangle eBook market share from Amazon by forced raising up of their price to match Apple's and at the same time getting more money for the greedy publishers hence driving my buying price up. Some else blamed Amazon for that which you've just mentioned. I blame neither- it's simple digital evolution. Same for Kodak film. But in your world nothing lasts forever- except Apple- right?
Without commenting on most of this, I'd just say that 'greedy publishers' seems overdone. Do they want to make more? Sure. Do most people want to earn more? Probably.
Is what they did illegal? Maybe - guess we'll see if there's a trial. Of course, given that most settlements never even include admission of wrongdoing, maybe we'll never have a solid answer. But if the goal was to keep more retailers in the game to keep prices higher, I'm sure the worry was that if they didn't break Amazon's stranglehold they would - at least long term - be at Amazon's mercy for pricing, so it may not be a crazy move in any case.
"A total of 16 states have also joined the fray against Apple and book publishers by filing their own lawsuits. They claim that the agreements made with Apple have cost consumers $100 million"
Another few hundred million and they will catch up to the banks.
So Apple and the publishers should just be required to take a lOSS just because Amazon likes to take a loss?
Okay.......
I guess when the publishers close shop, Amazon will have to find other stuff to sell other than books and e-readers.
You do understand that the publishers do not take a loss?
The publishers (just like everyone else) sells their goods to stores wholesale - lets say 9.99 a unit - the stores set a price depending at the profit they want to make - it can be 12.50 or 9.99 and not make any money (or give it away and take a loss) The publisher is not the one giving it away.
if you get a free can of soda with 2 slices of pizza at your local shop - that is not coca-cola giving you that can, it is the guy that owns that place - Coca-cola got their money at the warehouse.
Without commenting on most of this, I'd just say that 'greedy publishers' seems overdone. Do they want to make more? Sure. Do most people want to earn more? Probably.
Or. . . .
Damn, those consumers are greedy for wanting to pay less.
OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.
Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.
Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.
Do you work for a company, or even for yourself. You know your company or your customer pay your bills, so it is in your best interest that your company be successful and they should be allow to charge as much as the market will bare.
How would you like it if competitor was so big they used their market powers to drive pricing down such that your company could no longer survive thus putting you out on the street. At that point you no longer have to worry how much these things cost since you could no longer afford them.
I am all about lower pricing, but not to the point where it causes companies to go out of business (and I am not talking about poor management) This is the race to the bottom and everyone loose in these cases.
Also, look at this why, if apple and book industry can actually make what they product are really valued at then more people work and the company stock goes up and investors make money so I who invest in these company like to see their stocks raise since I make more money to buy more products.
What the publisher's and Apple did was take away an avenue for competition by fixing the price of e-books. Which again, is illegal. This has nothing to do with "price is the only way we can compete". This has everything to do with 7 companies getting together to FIX the price of e-books, which is illegal according to U.S. and E.U. laws.
Totally in agreement. Funny how a few on here are so appalled by this concept.
#1. The publishers shouldn't take a loss because Amazon takes a loss. The publisher should be paid the price he sets (wholesale price).
#2. Publishers shouldn't be colluding on the price of e-books. It's illegal in most countries I'm sure. If Apple was in on this, they shouldn't have been. I know it's illegal in Canada, because it always comes up as a topic when gas prices are mentioned.
?Apple convinced e-book publishers to switch to an "agency model" for sales, allowing them to set prices. Previously, Amazon used a "wholesale model" in which it would set its own prices, sometimes even at a loss, and upset publishers.?
Which is it? Did Apple have to convince publishers to switch away from the agency model to a model Apple wanted, or were the publishers themselves upset by the agency model?
Apple offered them an agency model where publishers would set the price instead of Amazon's model of Amazon setting the price. The publishers then demanded the same terms from Amazon or they would pull their titles
As for the headline, who cares what they considered, they didnt do it. Perhaps because the lawyers suggested there could be legal issues.
What you described is competition and it's perfectly legal. What Apple and the publishers are alleged to have done is collude to limit competition, which is illegal.
.
But did Apple. What I mean is did they do anything to force the publishers to demand the same terms from Amazon, nook etc. is there a smoking gun email from Apple saying they would use agency terms only if every service was forced to. I doubt it.
The most favored nation clause that basically says no one can be cheaper than Apple on the other hand I do agree should be out.
What you described is competition and it's perfectly legal. What Apple and the publishers are alleged to have done is collude to limit competition, which is illegal.
To use your example, if Coke, Pepsi and all other major soda makers agreed, among themselves, that neither would charge less than $5 per bottle of soda, then the restaurant would be forced to pay $5, even if it was possible for an established seller to sell at $3 per bottle. That's anti-competitive price fixing, and it's illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto
Do you see the difference between what Apple did and your example? In your example Pepsi could offer you that lower price and compete. No one forced Pepsi to set that price. Now if Pepsi and coke got together and said that they would only offer one price, then that would be collusion and it's illegal.
So the restaurant (Apple) is as guilty as the soda makers (publishers)?
But did Apple. What I mean is did they do anything to force the publishers to demand the same terms from Amazon, nook etc. is there a smoking gun email from Apple saying they would use agency terms only if every service was forced to. I doubt it.
The most favored nation clause that basically says no one can be cheaper than Apple on the other hand I do agree should be out.
Read this article. Apparently the government has a lot more evidence on this that most here realize. Very unlikely that Apple has entirely clean hands.
OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.
Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.
Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.
So how come a perusal of iBooks shows titles ranging from free upwards?
There are plenty of books at $9.99 or under, just like any free market system the price settles to what the market decides any given book is worth.
No-one has shown what the AVERAGE price of iBooks is before and after Apple came along.
The new Soviet Socialist United States of America's presumption of guilt before innocence is a very dangerous thing.
So if Amazon simply matches Apple's pricing model, they'd be making MORE money, not less. So why can't Amazon compete?
Higher cost = less sales = more impact on other segments of Amazons business that have higher input costs = lower overall margins.
Amazon was eating a loss on books, not the publishers, in order to drive the portfolio growth towards ebooks and kindles. Not trying to drive consumers back to paperbacks with free shipping.
Comments
I don't understand what's wrong here. The Agency Model is just how Apple does business. The iTunes store works the same whether it's an app or a book or a piece of music being sold. You set the price, they take 30% and the product is sold by them.
Now, if the publishers are trying to force Amazon to take the agency model or they don't want to sell them the books, that's a potential antitrust case. But I don't see where Apple is involved. Surely it should be allowed to sell books on the terms it offers and publishers accept? (I think this is why Apple is staying in the suit and the publishers are settling.)
Amazon's prices are often significantly lower for books. If the books are available on both iBooks and Amazon at roughly the same price, I will go with iBooks because the presentation is superior. Also, if you are an author, Amazon's terms are much less generous than Apple's. Apple pays you only 1/3 of sales in many cases. It will pay you 70% (which is what Apple pays) if you sign special agreements, but it charges you for bandwidth and has other fees. Apple's fees are a straight-up 30% and you will always get 70% (subject of course to minimum payments and other standard terms).
So if you want to support authors who self-publish, Apple is offering a significantly better deal and you should buy your books through the iBookstore instead of Kindle.
D
You are confused because this site did not offer a complete article with all the meat. Please refer to the website below. It should answer all your questions and clear up confusion.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...taxonomyId=144
OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.
Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.
Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by themu.
So Apple and the publishers should just be required to take a lOSS just because Amazon likes to take a loss?
Okay.......
I guess when the publishers close shop, Amazon will have to find other stuff to sell other than books and e-readers.
Nice try - but no I am not. I'm not blaming anyone for anything that pushed the price down in my favor. Apple in this case supposedly colluded with publishers to stangle eBook market share from Amazon by forced raising up of their price to match Apple's and at the same time getting more money for the greedy publishers hence driving my buying price up. Some else blamed Amazon for that which you've just mentioned. I blame neither- it's simple digital evolution. Same for Kodak film. But in your world nothing lasts forever- except Apple- right?
Without commenting on most of this, I'd just say that 'greedy publishers' seems overdone. Do they want to make more? Sure. Do most people want to earn more? Probably.
Is what they did illegal? Maybe - guess we'll see if there's a trial. Of course, given that most settlements never even include admission of wrongdoing, maybe we'll never have a solid answer.
Another few hundred million and they will catch up to the banks.
So Apple and the publishers should just be required to take a lOSS just because Amazon likes to take a loss?
Okay.......
I guess when the publishers close shop, Amazon will have to find other stuff to sell other than books and e-readers.
You do understand that the publishers do not take a loss?
The publishers (just like everyone else) sells their goods to stores wholesale - lets say 9.99 a unit - the stores set a price depending at the profit they want to make - it can be 12.50 or 9.99 and not make any money (or give it away and take a loss) The publisher is not the one giving it away.
if you get a free can of soda with 2 slices of pizza at your local shop - that is not coca-cola giving you that can, it is the guy that owns that place - Coca-cola got their money at the warehouse.
Without commenting on most of this, I'd just say that 'greedy publishers' seems overdone. Do they want to make more? Sure. Do most people want to earn more? Probably.
Or. . . .
Damn, those consumers are greedy for wanting to pay less.
OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.
Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.
Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.
Do you work for a company, or even for yourself. You know your company or your customer pay your bills, so it is in your best interest that your company be successful and they should be allow to charge as much as the market will bare.
How would you like it if competitor was so big they used their market powers to drive pricing down such that your company could no longer survive thus putting you out on the street. At that point you no longer have to worry how much these things cost since you could no longer afford them.
I am all about lower pricing, but not to the point where it causes companies to go out of business (and I am not talking about poor management) This is the race to the bottom and everyone loose in these cases.
Also, look at this why, if apple and book industry can actually make what they product are really valued at then more people work and the company stock goes up and investors make money so I who invest in these company like to see their stocks raise since I make more money to buy more products.
What the publisher's and Apple did was take away an avenue for competition by fixing the price of e-books. Which again, is illegal. This has nothing to do with "price is the only way we can compete". This has everything to do with 7 companies getting together to FIX the price of e-books, which is illegal according to U.S. and E.U. laws.
Totally in agreement. Funny how a few on here are so appalled by this concept.
If I "considered" robbing a bank, is that a crime?
It depends on the details of the applicable conspiracy laws. Often it is a crime. Sometimes conspiracy is a worse crime than the underlying offense.
if i "considered" robbing a bank, is that a crime?
✓+
...
#1. The publishers shouldn't take a loss because Amazon takes a loss. The publisher should be paid the price he sets (wholesale price).
#2. Publishers shouldn't be colluding on the price of e-books. It's illegal in most countries I'm sure. If Apple was in on this, they shouldn't have been. I know it's illegal in Canada, because it always comes up as a topic when gas prices are mentioned.
?Apple convinced e-book publishers to switch to an "agency model" for sales, allowing them to set prices. Previously, Amazon used a "wholesale model" in which it would set its own prices, sometimes even at a loss, and upset publishers.?
Which is it? Did Apple have to convince publishers to switch away from the agency model to a model Apple wanted, or were the publishers themselves upset by the agency model?
Apple offered them an agency model where publishers would set the price instead of Amazon's model of Amazon setting the price. The publishers then demanded the same terms from Amazon or they would pull their titles
As for the headline, who cares what they considered, they didnt do it. Perhaps because the lawyers suggested there could be legal issues.
What you described is competition and it's perfectly legal. What Apple and the publishers are alleged to have done is collude to limit competition, which is illegal.
.
But did Apple. What I mean is did they do anything to force the publishers to demand the same terms from Amazon, nook etc. is there a smoking gun email from Apple saying they would use agency terms only if every service was forced to. I doubt it.
The most favored nation clause that basically says no one can be cheaper than Apple on the other hand I do agree should be out.
What you described is competition and it's perfectly legal. What Apple and the publishers are alleged to have done is collude to limit competition, which is illegal.
To use your example, if Coke, Pepsi and all other major soda makers agreed, among themselves, that neither would charge less than $5 per bottle of soda, then the restaurant would be forced to pay $5, even if it was possible for an established seller to sell at $3 per bottle. That's anti-competitive price fixing, and it's illegal.
Do you see the difference between what Apple did and your example? In your example Pepsi could offer you that lower price and compete. No one forced Pepsi to set that price. Now if Pepsi and coke got together and said that they would only offer one price, then that would be collusion and it's illegal.
So the restaurant (Apple) is as guilty as the soda makers (publishers)?
But did Apple. What I mean is did they do anything to force the publishers to demand the same terms from Amazon, nook etc. is there a smoking gun email from Apple saying they would use agency terms only if every service was forced to. I doubt it.
The most favored nation clause that basically says no one can be cheaper than Apple on the other hand I do agree should be out.
Read this article. Apparently the government has a lot more evidence on this that most here realize. Very unlikely that Apple has entirely clean hands.
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-l...ks-2012-4?op=1
So the restaurant (Apple) is as guilty as the soda makers (publishers)?
No. The restaurant in the example is Amazon.
Premium price is simply an Apple standard so how can they be to blame for continuing same?
OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.
Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.
Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.
So how come a perusal of iBooks shows titles ranging from free upwards?
There are plenty of books at $9.99 or under, just like any free market system the price settles to what the market decides any given book is worth.
No-one has shown what the AVERAGE price of iBooks is before and after Apple came along.
The new Soviet Socialist United States of America's presumption of guilt before innocence is a very dangerous thing.
Good luck comrades.
So if Amazon simply matches Apple's pricing model, they'd be making MORE money, not less. So why can't Amazon compete?
Higher cost = less sales = more impact on other segments of Amazons business that have higher input costs = lower overall margins.
Amazon was eating a loss on books, not the publishers, in order to drive the portfolio growth towards ebooks and kindles. Not trying to drive consumers back to paperbacks with free shipping.