Yes. Because they are higher quality and offered a better experience than Amazon. You are not overcharged if you've agreed to pay and have a choice to shop elsewhere.
Odd though, now that the government is keeping an eye on Apple's ebook shenanigans, the ebook prices on Amazon have come down again (they are still too high though, no ebook ought to cost more than $4).
You're a moron and have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The prices came down BEFORE the ruling against Apple. They came down AFTER the publishers settled with the DOJ out of court.
What really needs to happen though is the world's governments looking into Apple's iTunes (music) business -- if that is not a monopoly then I don't know what is...
The latest figures, just came out yesterday: Apple sells 40.6% of U.S. albums. That's the market for new albums, and doesn't include used CD sales (a big business), or streaming music subscriptions. Apple sells 63% of paid music downloads (of course, that doesn't include CD sales or subscriptions). That's a monopoly? I buy well over a hundred CDs a year, and maybe 10 downloaded albums from Apple. That's a monopoly?
Amazon had 90% of the ebook market, and was threatening publishers that they would stop selling their books if publishers didn't give them special pricing . Tell me again - which one is a monopoly?
Odd though, now that the government is keeping an eye on Apple's ebook shenanigans, the ebook prices on Amazon have come down again (they are still too high though, no ebook ought to cost more than $4).
Why pay four bucks when you can get them free as torrents or steal real copies from a library.
What really needs to happen though is the world's governments looking into Apple's iTunes (music) business -- if that is not a monopoly then I don't know what is...
Damn, if only I had known that when buying music from Linn & Amazon for my iPhone in the last few weeks!! /s
When various governments punished Microsoft for including IE with Windows, other browsers were available...
Isn't this the same as with iPhone (the number one selling smartphone in the US) and iTunes (the application) and iTunes songs?
Actually it is worse, Microsoft "bundled" OS + browser, but Apple "bundles" hardware + OS + iTunes + iTunes songs.
I thought you were just playing dumb to drum up a conversation, but you really don't know and you're not playing.
MS wasn't punished for including IE with Windows. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly because they made it difficult to install other browsers. If you weren't careful after installing another company browser, IE could end up as your default browser. Even if you never installed IE because IE came pre-installed and the user could not uninstall it. And it's no secret that MS would keep updating their Java (javascript) codes and only after the fact would inform other browsers of it. So to Windows users, other browsers always seems "buggy".
Having the lion share of the market only in the US does not a monopoly make. As long as Android keep touting that they are 80% of the World cell phone market, Apple do not have to worry about becoming a monopoly with the iPhone (and iOS) for quit a while.
Microsoft Windows is a monopoly, Apple OSX is not. Different rules for monopoly. I'm hoping for the day that Apple will have to follow the same rules the MS does. But with OSX being less than 10% of the World computer market, I may not live that long.
Yes. Because they are higher quality and offered a better experience than Amazon. You are not overcharged if you've agreed to pay and have a choice to shop elsewhere.
If that's the case then why push for the same price?
If that's the case then why push for the same price?
Ostensibly because it removes the price factor from the equation. The assumption is that a consumer will [almost] always opt for what they deem the 'better' product/service/experience when price is not a consideration. Apple has long targeted (and attracted) buyers that favor perceived quality over price (or at least don't weight the price tag too heavily in their purchasing decisions), so it stands to reason that if they can take the dollar cost issue off the table, then they can likely attract an even wider audience.
Ostensibly because it removes the price factor from the equation. The assumption is that a consumer will [almost] always opt for what they deem the 'better' product/service/experience when price is not a consideration. Apple has long targeted (and attracted) buyers that favor perceived quality over price (or at least don't weight the price tag too heavily in their purchasing decisions), so it stands to reason that if they can take the dollar cost issue off the table, then they can likely attract an even wider audience.
Sorry but I don't buy that. Apple has made a lot of money on that 'assumption', at this point they know people will pay more for a better product. I believe that in this case the 'product' isn't of a much higher quality than the competitors, and since Apple didn't set the price this time around like they did with music their next best choice was to get the competition to the price they preferred.
Not how it works, Apple. You don't get to remove the monitor because you don't like what he's saying.
Not how it works Bromwich. You're not allowed to question Apple employees that aren't involved in eBooks nor are you allowed to discuss issues that were not part of the original trial.
If most paperbacks cost $8 to $10 on Amazon, then $4 would be a reasonable ebook price (and a ebook version should come for free with every hardcover or paperback purchase).
Thank you Apple! Not.
You can't compare it to paperbacks. Paperbacks aren't released until well after the hardcover sales while ebooks are released when the hardcover edition is. The publishers, authors, editors need to make money and a $4 ebook won't. Producing, storing, and shipping of the hardcovers are only a small fraction of the cost of the book ($3.25 for a book that costs around $26)
I thought you were just playing dumb to drum up a conversation, but you really don't know and you're not playing.
MS wasn't punished for including IE with Windows. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly because they made it difficult to install other browsers. If you weren't careful after installing another company browser, IE could end up as your default browser. Even if you never installed IE because IE came pre-installed and the user could not uninstall it. And it's no secret that MS would keep updating their Java (javascript) codes and only after the fact would inform other browsers of it. So to Windows users, other browsers always seems "buggy".
Having the lion share of the market only in the US does not a monopoly make. As long as Android keep touting that they are 80% of the World cell phone market, Apple do not have to worry about becoming a monopoly with the iPhone (and iOS) for quit a while.
Microsoft Windows is a monopoly, Apple OSX is not. Different rules for monopoly. I'm hoping for the day that Apple will have to follow the same rules the MS does. But with OSX being less than 10% of the World computer market, I may not live that long.
Agreed. And the rest of analogy makes just as much sense (none). Apple selling (DRM-free!) music though iTunes is as an "troubling" as if Honda started selling gasoline at its dealerships. When Apple first started selling music that only played on Apple devices, you could make the case that it was problematic from the perspective of using their strength in one market to compete "unfairly" in another market. But... you have to concede that Apple pushed the music industry to drop DRM not the other way around. This would be like MS insisting that MS Office by default saves to RDF and other non-propietary formats. Apple's the good guy here. They both saved the music industry from piracy and restrictive DRM. And make money doing so. Well done.
Funny seeing all the new trolls on AI the last week or so.
Surely they sprang from under the Golden Gate, as no normal bridge would be large enough to contain them.
It happens several times a year usually after a major tech event. There should be a probationary period and if their posts are nothing but hateful nonsense then the account should be automatically and permanently closed not temporarily banned.
You can't compare it to paperbacks. Paperbacks aren't released until well after the hardcover sales while ebooks are released when the hardcover edition is. The publishers, authors, editors need to make money and a $4 ebook won't. Producing, storing, and shipping of the hardcovers are only a small fraction of the cost of the book ($3.25 for a book that costs around $26)
I could see a $4-6 price point on older books, say 10 plus years and of which a physical copy is not easy to come by. I also think releasing the ebook at the same time as the hardcover is a mistake.
Keep in mind, Jobs' goal was to get the price of textbooks down. That's where the 14.99 price point comes in. Textbooks that sold for 100 dollars or more would now be $14.99 and NYT garbage best sellers would increase from 9.99 to 12.99.
I believe it laudable what Steve was trying to do. He was trying to get the price way down on textbooks.
$14.99 Physics textbook, or $9.99 Fifty Shades of Grey? You decide. Thank you DOJ and Amazon, job well done.
I hope Apple wins this, not because I want to spend more to buy books. I simply don't want a company that has no profit motive, Amazon, to put people out of business who do have one. I don't hate Amazon, but clearly they are using predatory pricing, by selling goods below their own wholesale cost. The cost of e-commerce that is involved is not even included in this effort. They are trying to put all other book sellers out of business. That is bad for everyone: Buyers lose an open market, publishers go out of business because Amazon dictates their prices, and Authors have less choice about where to sell their goods.
The reason Apple got in trouble for fixing prices is the government ignored Amazon's predatory prices. This is just not any way in agreement with current legal precedent. Apple deserved to lose the original decision if only for how arrogantly Steve Jobs was when they were negotiating this. On appeal they will win unless there is some crazy new precedent involved.
Comments
Yes. Because they are higher quality and offered a better experience than Amazon. You are not overcharged if you've agreed to pay and have a choice to shop elsewhere.
You're a moron and have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The prices came down BEFORE the ruling against Apple. They came down AFTER the publishers settled with the DOJ out of court.
What really needs to happen though is the world's governments looking into Apple's iTunes (music) business -- if that is not a monopoly then I don't know what is...
The latest figures, just came out yesterday: Apple sells 40.6% of U.S. albums. That's the market for new albums, and doesn't include used CD sales (a big business), or streaming music subscriptions. Apple sells 63% of paid music downloads (of course, that doesn't include CD sales or subscriptions). That's a monopoly? I buy well over a hundred CDs a year, and maybe 10 downloaded albums from Apple. That's a monopoly?
Amazon had 90% of the ebook market, and was threatening publishers that they would stop selling their books if publishers didn't give them special pricing . Tell me again - which one is a monopoly?
Why pay four bucks when you can get them free as torrents or steal real copies from a library.
iTunes on Windows, Samsung and other company provided sync software.
You were saying?
What really needs to happen though is the world's governments looking into Apple's iTunes (music) business -- if that is not a monopoly then I don't know what is...
Damn, if only I had known that when buying music from Linn & Amazon for my iPhone in the last few weeks!! /s
When various governments punished Microsoft for including IE with Windows, other browsers were available...
Isn't this the same as with iPhone (the number one selling smartphone in the US) and iTunes (the application) and iTunes songs?
Actually it is worse, Microsoft "bundled" OS + browser, but Apple "bundles" hardware + OS + iTunes + iTunes songs.
I thought you were just playing dumb to drum up a conversation, but you really don't know and you're not playing.
MS wasn't punished for including IE with Windows. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly because they made it difficult to install other browsers. If you weren't careful after installing another company browser, IE could end up as your default browser. Even if you never installed IE because IE came pre-installed and the user could not uninstall it. And it's no secret that MS would keep updating their Java (javascript) codes and only after the fact would inform other browsers of it. So to Windows users, other browsers always seems "buggy".
Having the lion share of the market only in the US does not a monopoly make. As long as Android keep touting that they are 80% of the World cell phone market, Apple do not have to worry about becoming a monopoly with the iPhone (and iOS) for quit a while.
Microsoft Windows is a monopoly, Apple OSX is not. Different rules for monopoly. I'm hoping for the day that Apple will have to follow the same rules the MS does. But with OSX being less than 10% of the World computer market, I may not live that long.
If that's the case then why push for the same price?
If that's the case then why push for the same price?
Ostensibly because it removes the price factor from the equation. The assumption is that a consumer will [almost] always opt for what they deem the 'better' product/service/experience when price is not a consideration. Apple has long targeted (and attracted) buyers that favor perceived quality over price (or at least don't weight the price tag too heavily in their purchasing decisions), so it stands to reason that if they can take the dollar cost issue off the table, then they can likely attract an even wider audience.
Sorry but I don't buy that. Apple has made a lot of money on that 'assumption', at this point they know people will pay more for a better product. I believe that in this case the 'product' isn't of a much higher quality than the competitors, and since Apple didn't set the price this time around like they did with music their next best choice was to get the competition to the price they preferred.
Surely they sprang from under the Golden Gate, as no normal bridge would be large enough to contain them.
Not how it works Bromwich. You're not allowed to question Apple employees that aren't involved in eBooks nor are you allowed to discuss issues that were not part of the original trial.
There, fixed it for you.
If most paperbacks cost $8 to $10 on Amazon, then $4 would be a reasonable ebook price (and a ebook version should come for free with every hardcover or paperback purchase).
Thank you Apple! Not.
You can't compare it to paperbacks. Paperbacks aren't released until well after the hardcover sales while ebooks are released when the hardcover edition is. The publishers, authors, editors need to make money and a $4 ebook won't. Producing, storing, and shipping of the hardcovers are only a small fraction of the cost of the book ($3.25 for a book that costs around $26)
I thought you were just playing dumb to drum up a conversation, but you really don't know and you're not playing.
MS wasn't punished for including IE with Windows. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly because they made it difficult to install other browsers. If you weren't careful after installing another company browser, IE could end up as your default browser. Even if you never installed IE because IE came pre-installed and the user could not uninstall it. And it's no secret that MS would keep updating their Java (javascript) codes and only after the fact would inform other browsers of it. So to Windows users, other browsers always seems "buggy".
Having the lion share of the market only in the US does not a monopoly make. As long as Android keep touting that they are 80% of the World cell phone market, Apple do not have to worry about becoming a monopoly with the iPhone (and iOS) for quit a while.
Microsoft Windows is a monopoly, Apple OSX is not. Different rules for monopoly. I'm hoping for the day that Apple will have to follow the same rules the MS does. But with OSX being less than 10% of the World computer market, I may not live that long.
Agreed. And the rest of analogy makes just as much sense (none). Apple selling (DRM-free!) music though iTunes is as an "troubling" as if Honda started selling gasoline at its dealerships. When Apple first started selling music that only played on Apple devices, you could make the case that it was problematic from the perspective of using their strength in one market to compete "unfairly" in another market. But... you have to concede that Apple pushed the music industry to drop DRM not the other way around. This would be like MS insisting that MS Office by default saves to RDF and other non-propietary formats. Apple's the good guy here. They both saved the music industry from piracy and restrictive DRM. And make money doing so. Well done.
It happens several times a year usually after a major tech event. There should be a probationary period and if their posts are nothing but hateful nonsense then the account should be automatically and permanently closed not temporarily banned.
I could see a $4-6 price point on older books, say 10 plus years and of which a physical copy is not easy to come by. I also think releasing the ebook at the same time as the hardcover is a mistake.
I believe it laudable what Steve was trying to do. He was trying to get the price way down on textbooks.
$14.99 Physics textbook, or $9.99 Fifty Shades of Grey? You decide. Thank you DOJ and Amazon, job well done.
The reason Apple got in trouble for fixing prices is the government ignored Amazon's predatory prices. This is just not any way in agreement with current legal precedent. Apple deserved to lose the original decision if only for how arrogantly Steve Jobs was when they were negotiating this. On appeal they will win unless there is some crazy new precedent involved.
That is no longer the case, Amazon can't sell ebooks at a loss since the ruling.