And Apple is Coke then? Or just another restaurant?
No, Apple is Dr Pepper, and Amazon plays the part of Canada Dry. No wait, Apple is Pepsi and Amazon is Royal Crown. That can't be right... One is Cadbury Schweppes, oh fuggedaboutit.
I've read and read and read stories about this, but I still don't get what's going on. Maybe I'm just not made to understand the intricacies of anti-trust law. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I believed happened. Publishers were selling "rights" for Amazon to distribute ebooks through their store on a cost-per-unit basis. Amazon was then selling consumers the "rights" to read those books for the wholesale price or lower. At this point, the Kindle was the dominant ebook reader on the market.
Apple creates the iPad and in an attempt to compete in the ebook space with Amazon, develops iBooks and the iBookstore. The publishers are mad at Amazon for selling ebooks at or below wholesale. (Why they care, I have no idea ... maybe they see it as devaluation of their product?) The publishers then approach Apple looking for a better deal. Apple explains that they get a 30% cut on whatever they sell through their online distribution channels. In order to make the same profit that they were getting from Amazon, they have to raise their price to cover Apple's cut. (If they were selling to Amazon for $10, now they have to sell it at ~$14.28 to clear that same $10) On the iBookstore, a book previously selling for $10 on Amazon is now selling for $14.28. This would cover Apple's 30% cut and the publishers wholesale cost. The higher price on the iBookstore obviously hurts Apple against a competing platform (on a price competition basis ONLY), and thus an agreement is made between the publishers and Apple that the books will not be offered elsewhere under this wholesale+30% price point?
Is this correct? Am I even in the ballpark of understanding what the hell is going on?
If that's the case, is Amazon now required by the publishers to sell an ebook for at LEAST the wholesale+30% cost?
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.
What?
"Fixed the price", so how come a two second perusal of iBooks shows they are not at SET prices.
The presumption of innocence is a major part of a free and fair democracy.
Welome to the Soviet Socialist United States of America.
This is a lawsuit against a group of publishers, and apple happened to be in the mix as the leverage they required to achieve their goal.
The publishers had the desire to increase the consumder value of the ebooks. They were paid full wholesale prices, and Amazon would onsell these at cost or below-cost, as a loss leader to more profitable arms of their business. The publishers fear was that evne though they achieved the same income per sale as a paperback, the price of the ebook would make these more popular, and create a situation that writers would forgo the low margin world of the large publisher, and move to digital publishing houses, that provided larger margin to the writer.
A threat to their overall buiness.
So the publishers had been working together, colluding, to raise hte value of ebooks, and prevent any price competition.
In comes Apple, with the great big leverage they needed to force this price fixing into Amazon, and to the consumer.
Apple said 'yeah, we dont care as long as we get our 30% and Amazon cannot undercut us'
Apple has Agency contracts with pricing teirs setup, virtually identical across the publishers, and then siad publishers enter into the same pricing teirs.
The model itself is perfectly legal. The way they worked together to change models was not.
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.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
Don't confuse Amazon selling ebooks at a loss as "doing what's best for the customer." Trust me, they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't somehow beneficial to them.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
I think you'll find that Amazon is doing what's best for Amazon, product dumping in an attempt to gain a monopoly included.
There are plenty of iBooks available for less than $9.99.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
Just as MS was right by the customer by bundling IE for free so we wouldn't have to pay those greedy Netscape people.
Yet you feel qualified to make statements regarding iBook pricing, based on no evidence at all.
...other than evidence from press reports and the DoJ complaint, which apparently makes me more qualified to comment than those who haven't bothered to read the claims and continue to spread misunderstandings or outright fibs. You wouldn't be one of those that hasn't read the DoJ complaint would you, yet feels knowledgeable enough about it to comment?
DoJ hasn't batted an eye at the banking institutions that conspired to destroyed the US economy through fraud, but it sees a case in publishers selling ebooks on the open market for $13 rather than $10.
WTF.
What an incompetent bunch of morons. Or perhaps just tools of the system. It's getting hard to take America seriously anymore.
Maybe the $52 million can be invested into the domestic army seeking to invade citizens' homes looking for marijuana. It would probably buy two paramilitary tanks or a set of flack jackets and rocket launchers for the ATF to pursue its policy of prohibition via domestic terrorism.
Next up: investigate the Facebook conspiracy to sell virtual farmland for nonsense points. Then take down the tech cabal offering free email accounts in an effort to bankrupt the US Postal Service.
Maybe rig the election for Romney and send the US from quasi-fascist republic to a full on military theocracy where you get thrown in prison unless you tithe the mormons.
Keep the knee jerk reactions in check. Research and read the briefs when they are actually filed. Otherwise, you'll give yourself an unnecessary ulcer.
By the way, their are hundreds of cases pending against Wall Street.
So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Let's try to get some perspective, lining the pocket of the companies lead the companies staying in business, authors have more time to write books, keeping the mum and pop bookstores alive. Yes more people keep their jobs thus pump back more money into the economy.
With better profits more bookstores will open thus leading to higher employment.
Now since you want to pay less and it only benefit Amazon because they are the cheapest, you only keep them in business and their predatory pricing kill off the mum and pop bookstores in the mean time leading to higher employment.
The choice is yours to make I have made mine. I pay for my stuffs to keep the people who matter in business.
One more thing pay 2 bucks more is not going to impoverish me if it has so many benefits.
Comments
No. The restaurant in the example is Amazon.
And Apple is Coke then? Or just another restaurant?
Let me just drop this right here:
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/top-us...20120209-01506
$25 billion settlement...I would say they have done something against the banks.
How much of that $25 billion is a clawback of the bailout the government gave these guys?
F*%k governments are dumb, almost as dumb as the people who swallow this s#@t.
And Apple is Coke then? Or just another restaurant?
No, Apple is Dr Pepper, and Amazon plays the part of Canada Dry. No wait, Apple is Pepsi and Amazon is Royal Crown.
Maybe both should go for a cold Bud instead.
Apple creates the iPad and in an attempt to compete in the ebook space with Amazon, develops iBooks and the iBookstore. The publishers are mad at Amazon for selling ebooks at or below wholesale. (Why they care, I have no idea ... maybe they see it as devaluation of their product?) The publishers then approach Apple looking for a better deal. Apple explains that they get a 30% cut on whatever they sell through their online distribution channels. In order to make the same profit that they were getting from Amazon, they have to raise their price to cover Apple's cut. (If they were selling to Amazon for $10, now they have to sell it at ~$14.28 to clear that same $10) On the iBookstore, a book previously selling for $10 on Amazon is now selling for $14.28. This would cover Apple's 30% cut and the publishers wholesale cost. The higher price on the iBookstore obviously hurts Apple against a competing platform (on a price competition basis ONLY), and thus an agreement is made between the publishers and Apple that the books will not be offered elsewhere under this wholesale+30% price point?
Is this correct? Am I even in the ballpark of understanding what the hell is going on?
If that's the case, is Amazon now required by the publishers to sell an ebook for at LEAST the wholesale+30% cost?
Amazon's prices are often significantly lower for books.
Do you have any figures to back that statement up?
A comparison of the average price of books sold by Apple vs average price of books sold by Amazon would be a good place to start.
In the meantime the presumption of guilt seems to be strong in this case.
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.
What?
"Fixed the price", so how come a two second perusal of iBooks shows they are not at SET prices.
The presumption of innocence is a major part of a free and fair democracy.
Welome to the Soviet Socialist United States of America.
What?
"Fixed the price", so how come a two second perusal of iBooks shows they are not at SET prices.
The presumption of innocence is a major part of a free and fair democracy.
Welome to the Soviet Socialist United States of America.
Are any of the publisher's listed in this complaint offering new release books at less than $12 in iBooks
Are any of the publisher's listed in this complaint offering new release books at less than $12 in iBooks
Why don't you go take a look?
This is a lawsuit against a group of publishers, and apple happened to be in the mix as the leverage they required to achieve their goal.
The publishers had the desire to increase the consumder value of the ebooks. They were paid full wholesale prices, and Amazon would onsell these at cost or below-cost, as a loss leader to more profitable arms of their business. The publishers fear was that evne though they achieved the same income per sale as a paperback, the price of the ebook would make these more popular, and create a situation that writers would forgo the low margin world of the large publisher, and move to digital publishing houses, that provided larger margin to the writer.
A threat to their overall buiness.
So the publishers had been working together, colluding, to raise hte value of ebooks, and prevent any price competition.
In comes Apple, with the great big leverage they needed to force this price fixing into Amazon, and to the consumer.
Apple said 'yeah, we dont care as long as we get our 30% and Amazon cannot undercut us'
Apple has Agency contracts with pricing teirs setup, virtually identical across the publishers, and then siad publishers enter into the same pricing teirs.
The model itself is perfectly legal. The way they worked together to change models was not.
Fun, games and collusion.
Should be a fun ol' law case.
Why don't you go take a look?
You can't sort for new releases or best sellers? I've never bothered looking at Apple's bookstore before.
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.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
You can't sort for new releases or best sellers? I've never bothered looking at Apple's bookstore before.
Yet you feel qualified to make statements regarding iBook pricing, based on no evidence at all.
Maybe you should apply for a job at the DoJ, kangaroo court division.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
Don't confuse Amazon selling ebooks at a loss as "doing what's best for the customer." Trust me, they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't somehow beneficial to them.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
I think you'll find that Amazon is doing what's best for Amazon, product dumping in an attempt to gain a monopoly included.
There are plenty of iBooks available for less than $9.99.
It is funny to hear the people that always tout that Apple does what best for the consumer to argue against something that obviously favors their pocket. In this case Amazon is doing best for the consumer and Apple is doing what's best for its pockets.
Just as MS was right by the customer by bundling IE for free so we wouldn't have to pay those greedy Netscape people.
Yet you feel qualified to make statements regarding iBook pricing, based on no evidence at all.
Maybe you should apply for a job at the DoJ, kangaroo court division.
I asked about iBook pricing that you found. I didn't tell you what you were going to find.
So I guess your non-answer is that you can't sort by best sellers or new releases?
Yet you feel qualified to make statements regarding iBook pricing, based on no evidence at all.
...other than evidence from press reports and the DoJ complaint, which apparently makes me more qualified to comment than those who haven't bothered to read the claims and continue to spread misunderstandings or outright fibs. You wouldn't be one of those that hasn't read the DoJ complaint would you, yet feels knowledgeable enough about it to comment?
DoJ hasn't batted an eye at the banking institutions that conspired to destroyed the US economy through fraud, but it sees a case in publishers selling ebooks on the open market for $13 rather than $10.
WTF.
What an incompetent bunch of morons. Or perhaps just tools of the system. It's getting hard to take America seriously anymore.
Maybe the $52 million can be invested into the domestic army seeking to invade citizens' homes looking for marijuana. It would probably buy two paramilitary tanks or a set of flack jackets and rocket launchers for the ATF to pursue its policy of prohibition via domestic terrorism.
Next up: investigate the Facebook conspiracy to sell virtual farmland for nonsense points. Then take down the tech cabal offering free email accounts in an effort to bankrupt the US Postal Service.
Maybe rig the election for Romney and send the US from quasi-fascist republic to a full on military theocracy where you get thrown in prison unless you tithe the mormons.
Keep the knee jerk reactions in check. Research and read the briefs when they are actually filed. Otherwise, you'll give yourself an unnecessary ulcer.
By the way, their are hundreds of cases pending against Wall Street.
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.
Ummm hello, news flash-they already do.
So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?
Let's try to get some perspective, lining the pocket of the companies lead the companies staying in business, authors have more time to write books, keeping the mum and pop bookstores alive. Yes more people keep their jobs thus pump back more money into the economy.
With better profits more bookstores will open thus leading to higher employment.
Now since you want to pay less and it only benefit Amazon because they are the cheapest, you only keep them in business and their predatory pricing kill off the mum and pop bookstores in the mean time leading to higher employment.
The choice is yours to make I have made mine. I pay for my stuffs to keep the people who matter in business.
One more thing pay 2 bucks more is not going to impoverish me if it has so many benefits.