I don't know, is it? I am unaware that Apple is operating at a loss in order to maintain their dominance in music, which is what predatory pricing is and what Amazon was doing regarding digital Books. But that is a separate issue that would need to be looked into if it has any merit. Perhaps someone should look into it. Food for thought on a different topic.
Meanwhile, in the digital books case before us, would it be fair for me to assume that you concur that predatory pricing is a bad thing? Further, since you don't refute my assertion that Amazon engaged in the practice, then may I assume you agree? Following on from there, might it be true that breaking Amazon's strategy would be healthy for the marketplace? I look forward to receiving your thoughtful consideration.
Thompson
I believe Amazon gave us cheap eBooks to drive Kindle sales and Apple gave us cheap eMusic to drive iPod sales. Both were shrewd and looking out for their bottom line and both were embraced by the consumer for doing so because a smart shopper will always go for a better price. And both the music and publishing industries hated them for stealing into their pot. It seems you favor authors more than musicians?
No. Apple had no power to force music publishers to agree to 99 cents per song. The price was fairly negotiated without Apple holding monopoly power over the publishers. Amazon on the other hand forced ebook concessions by threatening not to carry publishers other books, which would have killed the publishers.
If memory serves Steve Jobs arm twisted and would not let you into the iTunes Store unless you agreed to sell your songs individually at 99cents which is why many artists at the time balked.
I believe Amazon gave us cheap eBooks to drive Kindle sales and Apple gave us cheap eMusic to drive iPod sales. Both were shrewd and looking out for their bottom line and both were embraced by the consumer for doing so because a smart shopper will always go for a better price. And both the music and publishing industries hated them for stealing into their pot. It seems you favor authors more than musicians?
Your statement ignores the fact that when iTunes came out it saved the music industry from rampant piracy that was growing by leaps and bounds while music sales tanked. Piracy still exists but huge amounts of pirates were converted to become digital customers. There was no comparable situation with eBooks and Amazon. Amazon didn't save the publishers from anything.
If the penalties are outweighing their iBookstore profits, they should shut it down.
Not sure about that, but I personally find reading on an LCD screen laborious. And I don't read enough books to warrant a kindle. I have owned one, but prefer the paper-book experience. I certainly do not agree with your book purchase being tied indefinitely to a single platform. I agree with this guy.
Your statement ignores the fact that when iTunes came out it saved the music industry from rampant piracy that was growing by leaps and bounds while music sales tanked. Piracy still exists but huge amounts of pirates were converted to become digital customers. There was no comparable situation with eBooks and Amazon. Amazon didn't save the publishers from anything.
I "ignore" the facts simply because more people listen to music than read books. Besides how would you have read an eBook back then- flipping pages on your laptop? MP3 players were long out before the iPod. What devices were our there before the Kindle to portably read an eBook? Amazon gave authors a wider audience with the pricing of books at $9.99.
Not sure about that, but I personally find reading on an LCD screen laborious. And I don't read enough books to warrant a kindle. I have owned one, but prefer the paper-book experience. I certainly do not agree with your book purchase being tied indefinitely to a single platform. I agree with this guy.
I have also found e-book reading a bit of a chore (and this from a voracious reader). I have heard good things about the Paperwhite Kindle, so I'd at least like to compare.
I "ignore" the facts because more people listen to music than read books. Besides how would you have read an eBook back then- flipping pages on your laptop? MP3 players were long out before the iPod. What devices were our there before the Kindle to portably read an eBook? Amazon gave authors a wider audience with the pricing of books at $9.99.
Not only does the point not make sense in the context of my post I don't know that it's even true. How do you know more people listen to music than read books?
Also, Sony had e-readers (2004) and e-ink readers (2006) long before Kindle (2007) and other companies did as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book
For what it’s worth, Apple’s official position on the $0.99 price tag was/is that the company takes 30%. And at first that was in order to break even with their expenses and fees. So iTunes was meant as a way to provide their hardware with a competitive advantage, more than being their core business. They never willfully sold music at 25-30% loss in order to create the market. They wound up making money with the iTunes Store after a few years of operation and they have diversified the price points since then, but Apple has’t used their buying power in order to undercut newcomers or sell at a loss.
Also, Apple was fighting against piracy (basically $0 a song) when the $0.99 a song iTunes Store first came in.
Sad. When the states run out of money and can't even afford to pay for public education properly, they just go after the one thing that is working in this country, and that's our corporations. This government is so corrupt.
I believe Amazon gave us cheap eBooks to drive Kindle sales and Apple gave us cheap eMusic to drive iPod sales. Both were shrewd and looking out for their bottom line and both were embraced by the consumer for doing so because a smart shopper will always go for a better price. And both the music and publishing industries hated them for stealing into their pot. It seems you favor authors more than musicians?
To be fair, I believe that your assessment here is qualitatively correct, i.e. that the music and publishing industries were unhappy seeing their products devalued in the eyes (and wallets) of the consumer, and both Amazon and Apple had their motives for negotiating their deals in the respective industries. I am not concerned about those motives, and I have no problem with either... even Amazon's. So to answer your question: no, I don't favor either industry. You may have a problem with those motives, but I do not.
The problem I have with Amazon's approach is that they purposely operated at a loss. They paid the publishers more per title than they charged the consumers. This artificially low price prevented any possibility of competition in the eBooks market, and that is illegal. In order for Apple to get into the game and not also operate at a loss, they modified their strategy in a way that broke Amazon's strategy. Thus Amazon was forced to stop its predatory pricing, and it got the competition it deserved. Note that this enabled not just Apple, but several other - albeit smaller - competitors to try their hand as well. Fair outcome, in my opinion. If there is an analogous situation in the music industry, whereby competition for iTunes was deterred by the price point - and whereby iTunes operated at a loss to secure this advantage - then I would be forced to argue the same against Apple. But the analogy simply isn't there.
Such is my perspective: I don't care about the low prices in and of themselves. I care about the deliberate stunting of a market place through predatory pricing.
Steve Jobs would have argued that without Apple's involvement, publishers would not have a legitimate alternative to Amazon, the eBooks would not have taken off they way it did, and the ripple effect could have caused millions of jobs in the publishing industry and beyond.
To focus the argument solely on consumer price and not pricing model or the actual contracts between Apple and publishers, is not only shortsighted but also clearly misunderstood how free market works.
To be fair, I believe that your assessment here is qualitatively correct, i.e. that the music and publishing industries were unhappy seeing their products devalued in the eyes (and wallets) of the consumer, and both Amazon and Apple had their motives for negotiating their deals in the respective industries. I am not concerned about those motives, and I have no problem with either... even Amazon's. So to answer your question: no, I don't favor either industry. You may have a problem with those motives, but I do not.
The problem I have with Amazon's approach is that they purposely operated at a loss. They paid the publishers more per title than they charged the consumers. This artificially low price prevented any possibility of competition in the eBooks market, and that is illegal. In order for Apple to get into the game and not also operate at a loss, they modified their strategy in a way that broke Amazon's strategy. Thus Amazon was forced to stop its predatory pricing, and it got the competition it deserved. Note that this enabled not just Apple, but several other - albeit smaller - competitors to try their hand as well. Fair outcome, in my opinion. If there is an analogous situation in the music industry, whereby competition for iTunes was deterred by the price point, then I would be forced to argue the same against Apple. But the analogy simply isn't there.
Such is my perspective: I don't care about the low prices in and of themselves. I care about the deliberate stunting of a market place through predatory pricing.
Thompson
Thompson - Apple could have simply offered the books at a even lower price and competed as Amazon does and most other companies do. And if what you say is fact and it was illegal then why didn't any publisher ever sue Amazon?
P
Comments
Having principles is always cheaper.
Politics as usual.
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry.
Frank Zappa
I believe Amazon gave us cheap eBooks to drive Kindle sales and Apple gave us cheap eMusic to drive iPod sales. Both were shrewd and looking out for their bottom line and both were embraced by the consumer for doing so because a smart shopper will always go for a better price. And both the music and publishing industries hated them for stealing into their pot. It seems you favor authors more than musicians?
If memory serves Steve Jobs arm twisted and would not let you into the iTunes Store unless you agreed to sell your songs individually at 99cents which is why many artists at the time balked.
I believe Amazon gave us cheap eBooks to drive Kindle sales and Apple gave us cheap eMusic to drive iPod sales. Both were shrewd and looking out for their bottom line and both were embraced by the consumer for doing so because a smart shopper will always go for a better price. And both the music and publishing industries hated them for stealing into their pot. It seems you favor authors more than musicians?
Your statement ignores the fact that when iTunes came out it saved the music industry from rampant piracy that was growing by leaps and bounds while music sales tanked. Piracy still exists but huge amounts of pirates were converted to become digital customers. There was no comparable situation with eBooks and Amazon. Amazon didn't save the publishers from anything.
If the penalties are outweighing their iBookstore profits, they should shut it down.
Not sure about that, but I personally find reading on an LCD screen laborious. And I don't read enough books to warrant a kindle. I have owned one, but prefer the paper-book experience. I certainly do not agree with your book purchase being tied indefinitely to a single platform. I agree with this guy.
I have also found e-book reading a bit of a chore (and this from a voracious reader). I have heard good things about the Paperwhite Kindle, so I'd at least like to compare.
I "ignore" the facts because more people listen to music than read books. Besides how would you have read an eBook back then- flipping pages on your laptop? MP3 players were long out before the iPod. What devices were our there before the Kindle to portably read an eBook? Amazon gave authors a wider audience with the pricing of books at $9.99.
Not only does the point not make sense in the context of my post I don't know that it's even true. How do you know more people listen to music than read books?
Also, Sony had e-readers (2004) and e-ink readers (2006) long before Kindle (2007) and other companies did as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book
They smell blood in the water.
Is 99cents a song "predatory pricing"?
More food for thought.
For what it’s worth, Apple’s official position on the $0.99 price tag was/is that the company takes 30%. And at first that was in order to break even with their expenses and fees. So iTunes was meant as a way to provide their hardware with a competitive advantage, more than being their core business. They never willfully sold music at 25-30% loss in order to create the market. They wound up making money with the iTunes Store after a few years of operation and they have diversified the price points since then, but Apple has’t used their buying power in order to undercut newcomers or sell at a loss.
Also, Apple was fighting against piracy (basically $0 a song) when the $0.99 a song iTunes Store first came in.
Sad. When the states run out of money and can't even afford to pay for public education properly, they just go after the one thing that is working in this country, and that's our corporations. This government is so corrupt.
I believe Amazon gave us cheap eBooks to drive Kindle sales and Apple gave us cheap eMusic to drive iPod sales. Both were shrewd and looking out for their bottom line and both were embraced by the consumer for doing so because a smart shopper will always go for a better price. And both the music and publishing industries hated them for stealing into their pot. It seems you favor authors more than musicians?
To be fair, I believe that your assessment here is qualitatively correct, i.e. that the music and publishing industries were unhappy seeing their products devalued in the eyes (and wallets) of the consumer, and both Amazon and Apple had their motives for negotiating their deals in the respective industries. I am not concerned about those motives, and I have no problem with either... even Amazon's. So to answer your question: no, I don't favor either industry. You may have a problem with those motives, but I do not.
The problem I have with Amazon's approach is that they purposely operated at a loss. They paid the publishers more per title than they charged the consumers. This artificially low price prevented any possibility of competition in the eBooks market, and that is illegal. In order for Apple to get into the game and not also operate at a loss, they modified their strategy in a way that broke Amazon's strategy. Thus Amazon was forced to stop its predatory pricing, and it got the competition it deserved. Note that this enabled not just Apple, but several other - albeit smaller - competitors to try their hand as well. Fair outcome, in my opinion. If there is an analogous situation in the music industry, whereby competition for iTunes was deterred by the price point - and whereby iTunes operated at a loss to secure this advantage - then I would be forced to argue the same against Apple. But the analogy simply isn't there.
Such is my perspective: I don't care about the low prices in and of themselves. I care about the deliberate stunting of a market place through predatory pricing.
Thompson
I guess I am not seeing how the states were damaged.
States sue on behalf of their residents. I have no problem with that.
Thompson
I have two questions.
First, what is the difference of the agency model in iBook store with the App Store?
Two, what has changed in the iBook agency model?
Steve Jobs would have argued that without Apple's involvement, publishers would not have a legitimate alternative to Amazon, the eBooks would not have taken off they way it did, and the ripple effect could have caused millions of jobs in the publishing industry and beyond.
To focus the argument solely on consumer price and not pricing model or the actual contracts between Apple and publishers, is not only shortsighted but also clearly misunderstood how free market works.
Thompson - Apple could have simply offered the books at a even lower price and competed as Amazon does and most other companies do. And if what you say is fact and it was illegal then why didn't any publisher ever sue Amazon?
P