I'm with Myapplelove on everything. I've been buying ebooks for years, and the price hikes of the big six is the problem. I was about to buy an ebook for a 2001 book seen http://amzn.to/KSfegJ
The paper back is 9.44 but the ebook version is 13.99. Why would anyone want to pay that big of a price difference?
Amazon is also kind enough to let you know the publisher set this ridulous price.
Amazon wasn't the only one discounting, fictionwise also had a very nice discount program and they were much smaller and in the ebook game longer then even Amazon.
Amazon had a few loss leaders to push people to the expensive kindles, now they have reversed this and sell the hardware cheaper. This was normally the release of best sellers, it wasn't all titles and after the book had been out a while it often went off sell.
I think once any company pays the publishers asking price then if they want to run a sell on it then they should be able to.
As to borders, they were late to the ebook game, their lack of vision is hardly Amazon's fault.
That's the great thing about competition and product differentiation. You don't actually have to buy anything besides food (and sometimes water). E-books are a convenience and if you don't like the pricing you can buy a real book, or an audiobook, or nothing at all.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that the average price of ebooks to the consumer increased after Apple entered the market.
You had it wrong (and still do) because you think that the publisher sets the price that the consumer sees in the Amazon model. They do not.
If you bought ebooks you wouldn't have to keep asking people who do to provide you with proof. The publishers themselves said they make LESS with this model, not more.
The publisher now, does set the prices, not amazon. They took amazon's control away to sell prices. Note, I said now.
Under the old wholesale model, the publisher set a whole sale price for a book. Amazon, paid what the publisher asked for then sold it for whatever price they wanted.
This isn't about the value of Ebooks, its about the value of protecting Hard cover prices..
Jragosta, it's pretty common knowledge that those publishers were alleged to have set a minimum floor price of between $12.99 and $14.99 on what they determined to be "Best-sellers". You've read the same sources and are well aware of that (or should be).
As for some evidence that average eBook prices had gone up, don't look for me to give you one. My linked sources, and the claim I made, was that had marginally gone down since 2007. Why do you bother planting false statements attributed to members? If you don't have anything honest to add to a discussion there's no forum rules that require you to post.
EDIT: If you truly are confused about the allegations rather than being dishonest (again!), TheVerge had a pretty good synopsis. You should take a couple of minutes and read it.
None of those were published by the 5 publishers who set agency pricing with a companion MFN clause were they? So no price controls are in place on those titles. Pretty sure I already had that discussion with you.
...and FWIW I don't have an issue with it either. I don't buy eBooks and not making any complaints.
Those are Random House books. Random House was the only publisher of the big six that ''at first'' refuse to join the agency pricing model. They did later join and got into iBooks after they did. But its because they were against it in the beginning that they aren't a part of this lawsuit.
Those are Random House books. Random House was the only publisher of the big six that ''at first'' refuse to join the agency pricing model. They did later join and got into iBooks after they did. But its because they were against it in the beginning that they aren't a part of this lawsuit.
The contention is that Apple somehow caused eBook prices to rise which is bad for consumers.
There has been no evidence on the effect on average prices of eBooks of Apple's entry into the market so the scope was narrowed to "best sellers" based on anecdotal evidence.
Now that I have shown that "best sellers" ARE still $9.99 the scope is further narrowed to only include specific publishers.
So what is it exactly that is wrong here, as it seems like a normal competitive market.
The DoJ seems to have no idea when it comes to the factual basis of law, they have succumbed to the emotional rantings of a small subset of eBook consumers using a legally worthless, cherry picked price list of examples.
The local jewellery store charges more for a Rolex than they do for a Seiko maybe the DoJ should examine this anti-competitive behaviour.
None of those were published by the 5 publishers who set agency pricing with a companion MFN clause were they? So no price controls are in place on those titles. Pretty sure I already had that discussion with you.
...and FWIW I don't have an issue with it either. I don't buy eBooks and not making any complaints.
They are best sellers, the issue is Apple caused the price of best seller eBooks to rise, clearly they did not, especially so as THEY DON'T SET THE PRICE.
Publishers do and they are obviously free to set it at whatever they want.
The contention is that Apple somehow caused eBook prices to rise which is bad for consumers.
There has been no evidence on the effect on average prices of eBooks of Apple's entry into the market so the scope was narrowed to "best sellers" based on anecdotal evidence.
Now that I have shown that "best sellers" ARE still $9.99 the scope is further narrowed to only include specific publishers.
So what is it exactly that is wrong here, as it seems like a normal competitive market.
The DoJ seems to have no idea when it comes to the factual basis of law, they have succumbed to the emotional rantings of a small subset of eBook consumers using a legally worthless, cherry picked price list of examples.
The local jewellery store charges more for a Rolex than they do for a Seiko maybe the DoJ should examine this anti-competitive behaviour.
Its amazing what the well read and undoubtedly rich can accomplish, isnt it?
BTW you're jewelry store analogy was a bit asinine, the same can be said of just about everything sold in stores.
The contention is that Apple somehow caused eBook prices to rise which is bad for consumers.
There has been no evidence on the effect on average prices of eBooks of Apple's entry into the market so the scope was narrowed to "best sellers" based on anecdotal evidence.
Now that I have shown that "best sellers" ARE still $9.99 the scope is further narrowed to only include specific publishers.
So what is it exactly that is wrong here, as it seems like a normal competitive market.
The DoJ seems to have no idea when it comes to the factual basis of law, they have succumbed to the emotional rantings of a small subset of eBook consumers using a legally worthless, cherry picked price list of examples.
The local jewellery store charges more for a Rolex than they do for a Seiko maybe the DoJ should examine this anti-competitive behaviour.
There are no "most favored nation" clauses in a competitive market. Apple is seeking a static market not a dynamic one. Prices will remain high.
Hill60, you're either truly confused about the allegations or purposely being misleading.
Mixing titles and pricing from publishers not included in the DoJ claims to prove those 5 publishers named by the DoJ aren't/weren't setting minimum pricing on their titles?? How does one prove the other?
Of course the DoJ hasn't proven anything yet in a court of law, so simply because they say something happened a certain way doesn't make it necessarily true. With that said, you sir seem to have a complete lack of knowledge concerning the allegations based on what you consider proof of innocence.
The earlier link I posted is a basic rundown if you honestly just missed what the charges were all about. You should read it.
Hill60, you're either truly confused about the allegations or purposely being misleading.
Mixing titles and pricing from publishers not included in the DoJ claims to prove those 5 publishers named by the DoJ aren't/weren't setting minimum pricing on their titles?? How does one prove the other?
Of course the DoJ hasn't proven anything yet in a court of law, so simply because they say something happened a certain way doesn't make it necessarily true. With that said, you sir seem to have a complete lack of knowledge concerning the allegations based on what you consider proof of innocence.
The earlier link I posted is a basic rundown if you honestly just missed what the charges were all about. You should read it.
Harp on as much as you want, ALL of your sources point to ONE anecdotal example of a FEW titles.
There is not ONE shred of evidence that the price of eBooks in general has changed since Apple entered the market, NOT ONE, zero, zilch, the data does not exist.
Which begs the question, whose interests are the DoJ acting in because it certainly seems not to be consumers.
Harp on as much as you want, ALL of your sources point to ONE anecdotal example of a FEW titles.
There is not ONE shred of evidence that the price of eBooks in general has changed since Apple entered the market, NOT ONE, zero, zilch, the data does not exist.
Which begs the question, whose interests are the DoJ acting in because it certainly seems not to be consumers.
It's kind of hard to tell whether you're still in denial or you're shifting towards anger. The all caps suggest anger, so you're getting closer to acceptance then.
Harp on as much as you want, ALL of your sources point to ONE anecdotal example of a FEW titles.
There is not ONE shred of evidence that the price of eBooks in general has changed since Apple entered the market, NOT ONE, zero, zilch, the data does not exist.
Which begs the question, whose interests are the DoJ acting in because it certainly seems not to be consumers.
Did someone claim that eBooks "in general" have increased in price since 2010? I think you're creating your own argument.
Heck a book I paid 9.99 for jumped to 16.99 after this agency model went into place. Comparing what Random house does when they didn't even want to join the Agnecy model, but it was the only way to get into the ibook store-- is silly. Besides, they aren't a part of the doj's claims.
Did someone claim that eBooks "in general" have increased in price since 2010? I think you're creating your own argument.
That is the ONLY thing that matters IF the DoJ is really interested in "protecting" consumers, which is why this lawsuit is fundamentally flawed.
The only solution as I have mentioned before, is for the Government to legislate pricing of specific eBooks on the best sellers list sold by certain publishers.
Why should the Government stop there, if businesses should not be allowed to set their own pricing with eBooks then NOT including other goods being sold in the US is discriminatory.
Heck a book I paid 9.99 for jumped to 16.99 after this agency model went into place. Comparing what Random house does when they didn't even want to join the Agnecy model, but it was the only way to get into the ibook store-- is silly. Besides, they aren't a part of the doj's claims.
Aren't the DoJ's claims that Apple entering the market caused a price increase of best sellers?
Obviously it didn't as 'best sellers" are available in iBooks for $9.99, which is the price the DoJ alleges Apple somehow increased despite PUBLISHERS NAMING THEIR OWN PRICE, Random House demonstrated that by selling their books for $9.99.
Now is this competitive pricing the reason why Random House holds the top three spots?
In which case iBooks is working as it should, an open market where publishers are free to compete based on price.
Aren't the DoJ's claims that Apple entering the market caused a price increase of best sellers?
Obviously it didn't as 'best sellers" are available in iBooks for $9.99, which is the price the DoJ alleges Apple somehow increased despite PUBLISHERS NAMING THEIR OWN PRICE, Random House demonstrated that by selling their books for $9.99.
Now is this competitive pricing the reason why Random House holds the top three spots?
In which case iBooks is working as it should, an open market where publishers are free to compete based on price.
You can't use one publisher who didn't participate in the collusion as a proof that collusion didn't occur.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergi
I'm with Myapplelove on everything. I've been buying ebooks for years, and the price hikes of the big six is the problem. I was about to buy an ebook for a 2001 book seen http://amzn.to/KSfegJ
The paper back is 9.44 but the ebook version is 13.99. Why would anyone want to pay that big of a price difference?
Amazon is also kind enough to let you know the publisher set this ridulous price.
Amazon wasn't the only one discounting, fictionwise also had a very nice discount program and they were much smaller and in the ebook game longer then even Amazon.
Amazon had a few loss leaders to push people to the expensive kindles, now they have reversed this and sell the hardware cheaper. This was normally the release of best sellers, it wasn't all titles and after the book had been out a while it often went off sell.
I think once any company pays the publishers asking price then if they want to run a sell on it then they should be able to.
As to borders, they were late to the ebook game, their lack of vision is hardly Amazon's fault.
That's the great thing about competition and product differentiation. You don't actually have to buy anything besides food (and sometimes water). E-books are a convenience and if you don't like the pricing you can buy a real book, or an audiobook, or nothing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that the average price of ebooks to the consumer increased after Apple entered the market.
You had it wrong (and still do) because you think that the publisher sets the price that the consumer sees in the Amazon model. They do not.
If you bought ebooks you wouldn't have to keep asking people who do to provide you with proof. The publishers themselves said they make LESS with this model, not more.
The publisher now, does set the prices, not amazon. They took amazon's control away to sell prices. Note, I said now.
Under the old wholesale model, the publisher set a whole sale price for a book. Amazon, paid what the publisher asked for then sold it for whatever price they wanted.
This isn't about the value of Ebooks, its about the value of protecting Hard cover prices..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Jragosta, it's pretty common knowledge that those publishers were alleged to have set a minimum floor price of between $12.99 and $14.99 on what they determined to be "Best-sellers". You've read the same sources and are well aware of that (or should be).
As for some evidence that average eBook prices had gone up, don't look for me to give you one. My linked sources, and the claim I made, was that had marginally gone down since 2007. Why do you bother planting false statements attributed to members? If you don't have anything honest to add to a discussion there's no forum rules that require you to post.
EDIT: If you truly are confused about the allegations rather than being dishonest (again!), TheVerge had a pretty good synopsis. You should take a couple of minutes and read it.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2941053/inside-the-dojs-ebook-price-fixing-case-against-apple-an-analysis
Current NYT best sellers list:-
COMBINED PRINT & E-BOOK FICTION
FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, by E. L. James
FIFTY SHADES DARKER, by E. L. James
FIFTY SHADES FREED, by E. L. James
11TH HOUR, by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro
THE LAST BOYFRIEND, by Nora Roberts
iBooks price of the No 1
http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/fifty-shades-of-grey/id509857961?mt=11
No 2
http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/fifty-shades-darker/id509841099?mt=11
No 3
http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/fifty-shades-freed/id509841154?mt=11
Amazon price of the No 1
http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Shades-Grey-Book-Trilogy/dp/0345803485
No 2
http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Shades-Darker-Book-Trilogy/dp/0345803493
No 3
http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Shades-Freed-Three-Trilogy/dp/0345803507
So what's the f**king issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Would you still think so if Apple settles out of court?
They won't as they have done nothing wrong.
They also have the financial resources and legal strength to stand up for themselves.
None of those were published by the 5 publishers who set agency pricing with a companion MFN clause were they? So no price controls are in place on those titles. Pretty sure I already had that discussion with you.
...and FWIW I don't have an issue with it either. I don't buy eBooks and not making any complaints.
Those are Random House books. Random House was the only publisher of the big six that ''at first'' refuse to join the agency pricing model. They did later join and got into iBooks after they did. But its because they were against it in the beginning that they aren't a part of this lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergi
Those are Random House books. Random House was the only publisher of the big six that ''at first'' refuse to join the agency pricing model. They did later join and got into iBooks after they did. But its because they were against it in the beginning that they aren't a part of this lawsuit.
The contention is that Apple somehow caused eBook prices to rise which is bad for consumers.
There has been no evidence on the effect on average prices of eBooks of Apple's entry into the market so the scope was narrowed to "best sellers" based on anecdotal evidence.
Now that I have shown that "best sellers" ARE still $9.99 the scope is further narrowed to only include specific publishers.
So what is it exactly that is wrong here, as it seems like a normal competitive market.
The DoJ seems to have no idea when it comes to the factual basis of law, they have succumbed to the emotional rantings of a small subset of eBook consumers using a legally worthless, cherry picked price list of examples.
The local jewellery store charges more for a Rolex than they do for a Seiko maybe the DoJ should examine this anti-competitive behaviour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
None of those were published by the 5 publishers who set agency pricing with a companion MFN clause were they? So no price controls are in place on those titles. Pretty sure I already had that discussion with you.
...and FWIW I don't have an issue with it either. I don't buy eBooks and not making any complaints.
They are best sellers, the issue is Apple caused the price of best seller eBooks to rise, clearly they did not, especially so as THEY DON'T SET THE PRICE.
Publishers do and they are obviously free to set it at whatever they want.
Its amazing what the well read and undoubtedly rich can accomplish, isnt it?
BTW you're jewelry store analogy was a bit asinine, the same can be said of just about everything sold in stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
BTW you're jewelry store analogy was a bit asinine, the same can be said of just about everything sold in stores.
Such as eBooks sold in stores where publishers set the price?
Well yes, the DoJ's actions are rather asinine.
There are no "most favored nation" clauses in a competitive market. Apple is seeking a static market not a dynamic one. Prices will remain high.
Rubbish:-
a) under which precise statute
and
b) the examples I gave using the current three Best Sellers clearly show that:-
i) Amazon is charging a slightly lower price which is less than the $9.99 they used to charge.
ii) prices in the iBooks store vary depending on what the PUBLISHER WANTS TO CHARGE.
The DoJ has NOTHING on Apple.
Hill60, you're either truly confused about the allegations or purposely being misleading.
Mixing titles and pricing from publishers not included in the DoJ claims to prove those 5 publishers named by the DoJ aren't/weren't setting minimum pricing on their titles?? How does one prove the other?
Of course the DoJ hasn't proven anything yet in a court of law, so simply because they say something happened a certain way doesn't make it necessarily true. With that said, you sir seem to have a complete lack of knowledge concerning the allegations based on what you consider proof of innocence.
The earlier link I posted is a basic rundown if you honestly just missed what the charges were all about. You should read it.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2941053/inside-the-dojs-ebook-price-fixing-case-against-apple-an-analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Hill60, you're either truly confused about the allegations or purposely being misleading.
Mixing titles and pricing from publishers not included in the DoJ claims to prove those 5 publishers named by the DoJ aren't/weren't setting minimum pricing on their titles?? How does one prove the other?
Of course the DoJ hasn't proven anything yet in a court of law, so simply because they say something happened a certain way doesn't make it necessarily true. With that said, you sir seem to have a complete lack of knowledge concerning the allegations based on what you consider proof of innocence.
The earlier link I posted is a basic rundown if you honestly just missed what the charges were all about. You should read it.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2941053/inside-the-dojs-ebook-price-fixing-case-against-apple-an-analysis
Harp on as much as you want, ALL of your sources point to ONE anecdotal example of a FEW titles.
There is not ONE shred of evidence that the price of eBooks in general has changed since Apple entered the market, NOT ONE, zero, zilch, the data does not exist.
Which begs the question, whose interests are the DoJ acting in because it certainly seems not to be consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Harp on as much as you want, ALL of your sources point to ONE anecdotal example of a FEW titles.
There is not ONE shred of evidence that the price of eBooks in general has changed since Apple entered the market, NOT ONE, zero, zilch, the data does not exist.
Which begs the question, whose interests are the DoJ acting in because it certainly seems not to be consumers.
It's kind of hard to tell whether you're still in denial or you're shifting towards anger. The all caps suggest anger, so you're getting closer to acceptance then.
Here's another link with basically the same info:
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-lawsuit-against-apple-over-e-books-2012-4
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Harp on as much as you want, ALL of your sources point to ONE anecdotal example of a FEW titles.
There is not ONE shred of evidence that the price of eBooks in general has changed since Apple entered the market, NOT ONE, zero, zilch, the data does not exist.
Which begs the question, whose interests are the DoJ acting in because it certainly seems not to be consumers.
Did someone claim that eBooks "in general" have increased in price since 2010? I think you're creating your own argument.
Heck a book I paid 9.99 for jumped to 16.99 after this agency model went into place. Comparing what Random house does when they didn't even want to join the Agnecy model, but it was the only way to get into the ibook store-- is silly. Besides, they aren't a part of the doj's claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Did someone claim that eBooks "in general" have increased in price since 2010? I think you're creating your own argument.
That is the ONLY thing that matters IF the DoJ is really interested in "protecting" consumers, which is why this lawsuit is fundamentally flawed.
The only solution as I have mentioned before, is for the Government to legislate pricing of specific eBooks on the best sellers list sold by certain publishers.
Why should the Government stop there, if businesses should not be allowed to set their own pricing with eBooks then NOT including other goods being sold in the US is discriminatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergi
Heck a book I paid 9.99 for jumped to 16.99 after this agency model went into place. Comparing what Random house does when they didn't even want to join the Agnecy model, but it was the only way to get into the ibook store-- is silly. Besides, they aren't a part of the doj's claims.
Aren't the DoJ's claims that Apple entering the market caused a price increase of best sellers?
Obviously it didn't as 'best sellers" are available in iBooks for $9.99, which is the price the DoJ alleges Apple somehow increased despite PUBLISHERS NAMING THEIR OWN PRICE, Random House demonstrated that by selling their books for $9.99.
Now is this competitive pricing the reason why Random House holds the top three spots?
In which case iBooks is working as it should, an open market where publishers are free to compete based on price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Aren't the DoJ's claims that Apple entering the market caused a price increase of best sellers?
Obviously it didn't as 'best sellers" are available in iBooks for $9.99, which is the price the DoJ alleges Apple somehow increased despite PUBLISHERS NAMING THEIR OWN PRICE, Random House demonstrated that by selling their books for $9.99.
Now is this competitive pricing the reason why Random House holds the top three spots?
In which case iBooks is working as it should, an open market where publishers are free to compete based on price.
You can't use one publisher who didn't participate in the collusion as a proof that collusion didn't occur.