John Sargent, Macmillan's chief executive, said his company settled "Because the penalties became too high to risk even the possibility of an unfavorable outcome," though he still contends that his company did not actually do anything wrong.
That's not how it should work. The government should not be able to get it's way by threatening you in to submission, they should have to objectively prove their case is an impartial court of law.
I wonder if Apple is powerful enough (in terms of legal expertise and money) to not be intimidated.
That's not how it should work. The government should not be able to get it's way by threatening you in to submission, they should have to objectively prove their case is an impartial court of law.
I wonder if Apple is powerful enough (in terms of legal expertise and money) to not be intimidated.
I agree. I'm actually quite surprised that some of these publishing houses didn't wield some political clout in this matter.
You lost me here. Are you saying Apple is wrong because they could spend more lobbying than Amazon or they are wrong because they aren't spending more on lobbying?
Sorry about that, my fingers typed the wrong "A" word.
The claim regarding DOJ and them doing the bidding of Amazon aka "clearing the marketplace" for them is completely unproven. My point is that Apple is the type of that could afford to play that game stronger, longer and in a more expensive fashion than Amazon could ever do.
Apple wants 30% margin on books. Amazon is happy with break even or slight loss. Under Apple's model Amazon would also receive 30% margin. Amazon shouldn't mind making that much profit, but they do, because they know they would never be able to compete against Apple's ecosystem. From the DoJ perspective they think jacking the price of books by 30% across the board is bad for consumers. Consumers of course agree. They are now conditioned to believe that they are entitled to books at wholesale cost. They don't want to pay the markup they used to pay before they started shopping at Amazon. The fair price for retail book purchases, of course, is probably somewhere between 30% and 0% but Apple can't change their price structure as that would open a can of worms for their other app store and in app purchasing fees that they charge software developers.
Apple allowed the publishers to set their prices. The problem with Amazon is they held the Publishers hostage because of the volume of print books they sell. This is the company the single handedly kill mom and pop book stores by undercutting them on price. When ebooks came out they positioned themselves to corner the ebook market and made sure the competitors they had didn't stick around by pricing them out of the market. The only real competitor who was left was Barnes and Noble. They are by the way closing 30% of their stores this year. If it wasn't for their college book stores they would be completely gone like the others killed by money loosing Amazon. They are using the Walmart strategy, undercut the market until there is no one left then charge whatever you want. If Apple gets out of the book business and Barnes and Noble go under, suddenly ebook suggested retail prices will be the standard at Amazon. Apple's provides the service of hosting, payment processing, and advertising the store leaving at one count about 8-10 percent profit. Keep in mind their purchases can be downloaded forever at no additional charge. So one purchase is supported indefinitely by Apple. They also handle support issue on top of this. I don't support Amazon because I don't believe in what they represent. A company should not have free license to use smoke and mirrors to obtain funding to sustain themselves indefinitely while they continue to loose money and kill the markets of legitimate companies who deserve to survive.
Take the time to read the DOJ complaint and Apple's response. Clearly, Apple invented a novel way to fix prices. Instead of the publishers colluding with each other, they simply all colluded with Apple, individually. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Remember that one?
Nice try.
It is irrelevant whether Amazon can 'monopolize' the industry by selling product for low prices. Its up to the market to decide if that model will survive.
Apple can sell ebooks to iPhone users and people trapped in the Apple ecosystem for 30% higher than the exact same ebook that Amazon and other competitors sell for 30% less. I have no problem with that at all. When Apple tries to raise prices for *everyone* by 30% by getting suppliers to agree to that, that is a problem.
"We can't tell you you can't sell anywhere else, but if you sell anywhere else for less than the price you have listed on the Apple ecosystem, we'll kick you out of our store."
Publishers would have loved this.
You seem to be making out like Apple was the bad one here. As you point out, the publishers were happy with this, there was no sense that Apple was forcing them to do anything.
"According to the complaint, the five publishers and Apple were unhappy that competition among e-book sellers had reduced e-book prices and the retail profit margins of the book sellers to levels they thought were too low. To address these concerns, the department said the companies worked together to raise retail e-book prices and eliminate price competition, substantially increasing prices paid by consumers.
Before the companies began their conspiracy, retailers regularly sold e-book versions of new releases and bestsellers for, as described by one of the publisher’s CEO, the “wretched $9.99 price point.” As a result of the conspiracy, consumers were typically forced to pay $12.99, $14.99 or more for the most sought after e-books, the department said."
Apple is helping the suppliers maintain the value of their own products. Amazon forces them to go against their will:
"“They decided they wanted me to change my terms,” said Mark Suchomel, president of the Chicago-based I.P.G. “It wasn’t reasonable. There’s only so far we can go.”
With each side unwilling to yield, Amazon pulled the plug, and all of I.P.G.’s books for Kindle disappeared. The physical books were not affected. A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment."
"Amazon.com removed more than 4,000 e-books from its site this week after it tried and failed to get them more cheaply, a muscle-flexing move that is likely to have significant repercussions for the digital book market.
Amazon’s decision to remove the digital titles was its most drastic such action since it briefly removed the physical books and the e-books published by Macmillan in a pricing dispute two years ago."
If they aren't allowed to set the prices of their own products at a level they are happy with, maybe they'll just decide to pull the plug on Amazon. They can sell direct on iOS and Android and Amazon gets nothing. Suppliers are eventually going to get fed up with retailers like Amazon dictating the value of their products.
Also people go on about Apple's 30%, authors/publishers only got 35% of their revenue before Amazon had any competition:
It is irrelevant whether Amazon can 'monopolize' the industry by selling product for low prices. Its up to the market to decide if that model will survive.
Apple didn't allowed the publishers record companies to set their prices. The problem with Amazon Apple is they held the Publishers record companies hostage because of the volume of print books iPods they sell. This is the company the single handedly kill mom and pop book record stores by undercutting them on price.
I don't understand, but I admit I was not following the story.
If Apple allows any manufacturer to set their own price, what business is it of anyones? I know there must be more to it, but what of supply and demand? If they sell a mag for $50 but people are not willing to pay that and then they move it to $5 and people pay that, then the process is pure market.
I don't understand, but I admit I was not following the story.
If Apple allows any manufacturer to set their own price, what business is it of anyones? I know there must be more to it, but what of supply and demand? If they sell a mag for $50 but people are not willing to pay that and then they move it to $5 and people pay that, then the process is pure market.
Anyway...
Unfortunately this is something that Richard doesn't Getz. Lol sorry it was just too easy.
Apple didn't allowed the publishers record companies to set their prices. The problem with Amazon Apple is they held the Publishers record companies hostage because of the volume of print books iPods they sell. This is the company the single handedly kill mom and pop book record stores by undercutting them on price.
I amended that for you a little.
Your amendments resulted in something false and not analogous.
Apple sells lower fidelity versions without physical media of what mom and pop record stores sell. They should be expected to be cheaper.
The content of ebooks does not differ from the content of paper books to that extent.
Besides, it was the ability to buy only selected songs, as opposed to needing to buy the entire physical album, which was more responsible
for reduced sales for mom and pop, not so much the price.
Your amendments resulted in something false and not analogous.
Apple sells lower fidelity versions without physical media of what mom and pop record stores sell. They should be expected to be cheaper.
The content of ebooks does not differ from the content of paper books to that extent.
Besides, it was the ability to buy only selected songs, as opposed to needing to buy the entire physical album, which was more responsible
for reduced sales for mom and pop, not so much the price.
The ability to buy selected songs always existed they were called singles, remember that? The even existed in CD form. Digital music was still the product, and Apple still did did not let the music industry set the price that they wanted, so why now all of a sudden are they being so gracious with the publishing industry?
It wasn't the recording companies that dicated to Apple back in the day, it was Apple that told them that singles at $.99 and albums for no more than $9.99 were in their best interest.
That's a false corollary.
At that time, iTunes and the record companies were competing against "free" (i.e. music file sharing sites like Napster). 99¢ per track and $9.99 per album were designed to be priced low enough that most people would opt to do the honest thing and pay for their music, even with label-mandated DRM. And then they worked to get rid of the DRM.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
John Sargent, Macmillan's chief executive, said his company settled "Because the penalties became too high to risk even the possibility of an unfavorable outcome," though he still contends that his company did not actually do anything wrong.
That's not how it should work. The government should not be able to get it's way by threatening you in to submission, they should have to objectively prove their case is an impartial court of law.
I wonder if Apple is powerful enough (in terms of legal expertise and money) to not be intimidated.
I agree. I'm actually quite surprised that some of these publishing houses didn't wield some political clout in this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So you seen for yourself that Amazon does not have a stranglehold on the ebook market like many here would like one to believe.
Perhaps they don't have a monopoly on losing money on selling ebooks.
You're clearly missing his point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Apple wants 30% margin on books. Amazon is happy with break even or slight loss. Under Apple's model Amazon would also receive 30% margin. Amazon shouldn't mind making that much profit, but they do, because they know they would never be able to compete against Apple's ecosystem. From the DoJ perspective they think jacking the price of books by 30% across the board is bad for consumers. Consumers of course agree. They are now conditioned to believe that they are entitled to books at wholesale cost. They don't want to pay the markup they used to pay before they started shopping at Amazon. The fair price for retail book purchases, of course, is probably somewhere between 30% and 0% but Apple can't change their price structure as that would open a can of worms for their other app store and in app purchasing fees that they charge software developers.
Apple allowed the publishers to set their prices. The problem with Amazon is they held the Publishers hostage because of the volume of print books they sell. This is the company the single handedly kill mom and pop book stores by undercutting them on price. When ebooks came out they positioned themselves to corner the ebook market and made sure the competitors they had didn't stick around by pricing them out of the market. The only real competitor who was left was Barnes and Noble. They are by the way closing 30% of their stores this year. If it wasn't for their college book stores they would be completely gone like the others killed by money loosing Amazon. They are using the Walmart strategy, undercut the market until there is no one left then charge whatever you want. If Apple gets out of the book business and Barnes and Noble go under, suddenly ebook suggested retail prices will be the standard at Amazon. Apple's provides the service of hosting, payment processing, and advertising the store leaving at one count about 8-10 percent profit. Keep in mind their purchases can be downloaded forever at no additional charge. So one purchase is supported indefinitely by Apple. They also handle support issue on top of this. I don't support Amazon because I don't believe in what they represent. A company should not have free license to use smoke and mirrors to obtain funding to sustain themselves indefinitely while they continue to loose money and kill the markets of legitimate companies who deserve to survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Plenty of companies do just well with razor thin margins. Wall Street seems to like companies that thread water and keep their nose just above water.
A razor thin margin is still a positive number though. Selling at a loss is not a razor thin margin.
Actually, the two are not necessarily different.
"Margin" most commonly refers to gross margin - the difference between the revenue you receive and the price you pay for an item.
"profit" is generally used to describe what's left from your gross margin after you pay all your overhead expenses (administrative costs, etc).
So it's not uncommon to have a razor thin margin (or even a moderate margin) and still sell at a loss.
Nice try.
It is irrelevant whether Amazon can 'monopolize' the industry by selling product for low prices. Its up to the market to decide if that model will survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Fortunately if the DoJ is true to form they'll let Apple settle too without admitting they did anything wrong. That's seems to be the norm.
Yeah, that's what they always do with Google.
You seem to be making out like Apple was the bad one here. As you point out, the publishers were happy with this, there was no sense that Apple was forcing them to do anything.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/13-at-171.html
"According to the complaint, the five publishers and Apple were unhappy that competition among e-book sellers had reduced e-book prices and the retail profit margins of the book sellers to levels they thought were too low. To address these concerns, the department said the companies worked together to raise retail e-book prices and eliminate price competition, substantially increasing prices paid by consumers.
Before the companies began their conspiracy, retailers regularly sold e-book versions of new releases and bestsellers for, as described by one of the publisher’s CEO, the “wretched $9.99 price point.” As a result of the conspiracy, consumers were typically forced to pay $12.99, $14.99 or more for the most sought after e-books, the department said."
Apple is helping the suppliers maintain the value of their own products. Amazon forces them to go against their will:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2012/04/12/could-amazons-greed-be-its-undoing/
"“They decided they wanted me to change my terms,” said Mark Suchomel, president of the Chicago-based I.P.G. “It wasn’t reasonable. There’s only so far we can go.”
With each side unwilling to yield, Amazon pulled the plug, and all of I.P.G.’s books for Kindle disappeared. The physical books were not affected. A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment."
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/amazon-pulls-thousands-of-e-books-in-dispute/?hpw
"Amazon.com removed more than 4,000 e-books from its site this week after it tried and failed to get them more cheaply, a muscle-flexing move that is likely to have significant repercussions for the digital book market.
Amazon’s decision to remove the digital titles was its most drastic such action since it briefly removed the physical books and the e-books published by Macmillan in a pricing dispute two years ago."
If they aren't allowed to set the prices of their own products at a level they are happy with, maybe they'll just decide to pull the plug on Amazon. They can sell direct on iOS and Android and Amazon gets nothing. Suppliers are eventually going to get fed up with retailers like Amazon dictating the value of their products.
Also people go on about Apple's 30%, authors/publishers only got 35% of their revenue before Amazon had any competition:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9820251-2.html
They changed it in 2010:
http://gizmodo.com/5452658/amazons-new-plan-for-ebooks-70-cut-for-publishers-10-max-price
Originally Posted by stylusx
It is irrelevant whether Amazon can 'monopolize' the industry by selling product for low prices. Its up to the market to decide if that model will survive.
You don't really get monopolistic behavior, huh.
I amended that for you a little.
If Apple allows any manufacturer to set their own price, what business is it of anyones? I know there must be more to it, but what of supply and demand? If they sell a mag for $50 but people are not willing to pay that and then they move it to $5 and people pay that, then the process is pure market.
Anyway...
Unfortunately this is something that Richard doesn't Getz. Lol sorry it was just too easy.
Your amendments resulted in something false and not analogous.
Apple sells lower fidelity versions without physical media of what mom and pop record stores sell. They should be expected to be cheaper.
The content of ebooks does not differ from the content of paper books to that extent.
Besides, it was the ability to buy only selected songs, as opposed to needing to buy the entire physical album, which was more responsible
for reduced sales for mom and pop, not so much the price.
The ability to buy selected songs always existed they were called singles, remember that? The even existed in CD form. Digital music was still the product, and Apple still did did not let the music industry set the price that they wanted, so why now all of a sudden are they being so gracious with the publishing industry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
It wasn't the recording companies that dicated to Apple back in the day, it was Apple that told them that singles at $.99 and albums for no more than $9.99 were in their best interest.
That's a false corollary.
At that time, iTunes and the record companies were competing against "free" (i.e. music file sharing sites like Napster). 99¢ per track and $9.99 per album were designed to be priced low enough that most people would opt to do the honest thing and pay for their music, even with label-mandated DRM. And then they worked to get rid of the DRM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Unfortunately this is something that Richard doesn't Getz. Lol sorry it was just too easy.
wow, I never heard any Getz jokes before, how original