The article says Apple (and others) are paying out as part of the settlement, then later the article states Apple is not part of the settlement. Really, AI?
They aren't, they are a retailer paying out the publisher's settlement to their customers.
The others were caught, and when faced with the prospect of an expensive legal battle, without admitting guilt, chose to agree to pay as part of a settlement. Apple did not agree to settle and is not part of the settlement.
Apple was ordered to pay because they were found guilty.
Perhaps as a punishment for standing up to City Hall, a warning to others who pursue their rights.
If Amazon were to exhibit monopolistic behavior and drive prices up, the DOJ would be on them in a heartbeat. They have not, and they won't because they can't. There are near zero barriers to entry in the ebook market.
Instead, Amazon leverages its size (and investors that apparently don't care about corporate profit) by selling ebooks at a loss to eliminate competition. Once competitors are wiped out, Amazon will be free to do (charge) anything it wants in the ebook world. And yes, there is a major barrier to entry in the ebook market: it's called "You can't sell products at a profit because Amazon will simply undercut you with a loss." Try getting around that barrier.
Apple, please hire more lobbyists and put more money behind political candidates and lawmakers who will support Apple's interests. This is how the whole corrupt game is played.
Absolutely not. If the major publishers had all sat in a room and said, "Let's all raise prices by 30% overnight together" That would have been stupidly illegal. Instead they each talked to Apple and said get all the others on board and we'll be on board too. Once they all knew they were on board together by not talking to each other, but instead working through Eddy, they achieved the end result through a pretty well thought out plan that would indirectly prevented anyone from being allowed to undersell. Just because they used Apple as an intermediary doesn't make it legal, but it sure made it a lot smarter and more difficult to prove. In the end I think it is pretty hard to come up with prices jumping 30% overnight, with the 'Woah, what are the odds of that??! Sheesh we just kind of all magically independently all did the same thing at once which would have been disastrous for any one of us if we hadn't all decided to just indepentently jump at the same time. That is crazy odds your honor, like greater odds than picking a perfect bracket. Can you believe the coincidence your Honor?" Apparantly the judge didn't think there was much coincidence.
It was brazen and brilliant. It was terrible for consumers, and made them pay more for books, but as Steve said to the publishers "but that's what we all want!" I'll let the legal system take care of itself, and Apple may have deep enough lawyer pockets to dig themselves out yet. Either way I don't fault Apple for trying, although I'm happier for consumers with the end result. Only *after* the DOJ stepped in, but because there are more entrants, pricing is even more competitive now.
Go into a bookstore, if you can still find one, look at the back cover of the book for the recommended price, it is what publishers started charging when free to set their own prices for eBooks.
Wow, I haven't seen that detailed a "direct observation" since Rain Man. Good job.
If you bothered to read his post, he referenced the eReaderIQ web service which can, I presume from a quick glance at their site, let you get notifications when books prices drop and see the price history of X books.
If you bothered to read his post, he referenced the eReaderIQ web service which can, I presume from a quick glance at their site, let you get notifications when books prices drop and see the price history of X books.
I'm not questioning the price tracking of eReaderIQ. I'm questioning the validity of this statement:
"Occasionally selling a book below cost (maybe 0.000001% of their listings or less at any one time"
That stat very well may be true. I doubt it, but it may be. But it's certainly not a number you can validate by tracking the price fluctuations of 100 books.
I'm not questioning the price tracking of eReaderIQ. I'm questioning the validity of this statement:
"Occasionally selling a book below cost (maybe 0.000001% of their listings or less at any one time"
That stat very well may be true. I doubt it, but it may be. But it's certainly not a number you can validate by tracking the price fluctuations of 100 books.
Certainly not the very small subset which is 'NYT Bestsellers'.
I'm not questioning the price tracking of eReaderIQ. I'm questioning the validity of this statement:
"Occasionally selling a book below cost (maybe 0.000001% of their listings or less at any one time"
That stat very well may be true. I doubt it, but it may be. But it's certainly not a number you can validate by tracking the price fluctuations of 100 books.
It's a guestimate (see the word "maybe") based on the number of ebooks Amazon has available plus the fact that Amazon actively advertises the "below cost" specials. Specials / Number Available = Percentage
Edited to Add: I just checked Amazon's Kindle Books page. It says they currently have 2,501,582 Kindle books available. Their "Big Deal" page (defined as 85% off, likely below cost) lists 504 books. That means they are (assuming the publisher isn't giving a discount) selling 0.02% of their ebooks under cost. Obviously I had too many decimal places in my guestimate. However, even using the higher numbers shows that what Amazon is doing does not qualify as "dumping" by any reasonable measure.
It's a guestimate (see the word "maybe") based on the number of ebooks Amazon has available plus the fact that Amazon actively advertises the "below cost" specials. Specials / Number Available = Percentage
Edited to Add: I just checked Amazon's Kindle Books page. It says they currently have 2,501,582 Kindle books available. Their "Big Deal" page (defined as 85% off, likely below cost) lists 504 books. That means they are (assuming the publisher isn't giving a discount) selling 0.02% of their ebooks under cost. Obviously I had too many decimal places in my guestimate. However, even using the higher numbers shows that what Amazon is doing does not qualify as "dumping" by any reasonable measure.
The problem with your analysis is you are assuming the "normal" price is above cost simply because it is called "normal."
The fact is: you have no idea what amazons cost is or whether or not Amazon's price is above or below cost.
The problem with your analysis is you are assuming the "normal" price is above cost simply because it is called "normal."
The fact is: you have no idea what amazons cost is or whether or not Amazon's price is above or below cost.
Don't be silly. Just compare the ebook price to the paper book price. Compare the prices among platforms. The cost of producing each printed copy is necessarily higher than each copy of an ebook. The front end costs (editing, layout, paying the author, etc.) are the same. If the prices are in the same general range (and they usually are), then it's reasonable to conclude that they're not being sold below cost.
Where is your evidence to back up your claim that they are routinely selling below cost?
Don't be silly. Just compare the ebook price to the paper book price. Compare the prices among platforms. The cost of producing each printed copy is necessarily higher than each copy of an ebook. The front end costs (editing, layout, paying the author, etc.) are the same. If the prices are in the same general range (and they usually are), then it's reasonable to conclude that they're not being sold below cost.
Possibly. But publishers/media companies have been shown time and time again to push for higher profits on digital media despite lower production costs. It's infuriating to customers, but we see it day after day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
Where is your evidence to back up your claim that they are routinely selling below cost?
I think anyone who has followed Amazon's business model (or has been a customer) for any length of time realizes that this is sometimes/often/occasionally (who knows other than the Amazon folks themselves?) part of its business strategy. And other than the Amazon insiders who control the pricing and their suppliers, no one has any broad evidence for either side of the argument.
And if selling below cost isn't the general rule, they likely sell at cost (or at a typically-unsustainable margin) in many cases to squeeze out competitors.
Possibly. But publishers/media companies have been shown time and time again to push for higher profits on digital media despite lower production costs. It's infuriating to customers, but we see it day after day.
True. The antidote to that is competition, not price fixing, which was the case made against Apple and the publishers.
Quote:
And if selling below cost isn't the general rule, they likely sell at cost (or at a typically-unsustainable margin) in many cases to squeeze out competitors.
See "no one has any broad evidence for either side of the argument."
One thing we can say for sure is that Amazon would not be so large and profitable if they did not have excellent control of their own infrastructure costs. Using such an actual cost advantage in competition is neither illegal nor immoral.
True. The antidote to that is competition, not price fixing, which was the case made against Apple and the publishers.
How does one compete against an arbitrarily/artificially-standardized price ($9.99 (is that price fixing?)) that is either below cost, at cost, or priced at a profit margin that is unsustainable? How can Barnes & Noble compete (or survive) against an Amazon that makes little to no money selling online books but makes it up by selling non-book-related products? Or, in Amazon's case, doesn't make it up at all but continues to lose money year after year, to the apparent delight of investors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
Quote:
One thing we can say for sure is that Amazon would not be so large and profitable if they did not have excellent control of their own infrastructure costs. Using such an actual cost advantage in competition is neither illegal nor immoral.
Wait, Amazon is profitable? Have you followed their earnings statements since their original founding???
Don't be silly. Just compare the ebook price to the paper book price. Compare the prices among platforms. The cost of producing each printed copy is necessarily higher than each copy of an ebook. The front end costs (editing, layout, paying the author, etc.) are the same. If the prices are in the same general range (and they usually are), then it's reasonable to conclude that they're not being sold below cost.
Where is your evidence to back up your claim that they are routinely selling below cost?
Using the subset you want to use there was also no eBook price rise, in fact based on your sample for eBook pricing, prices fell.
Apple is innocent, the publishers are innocent.
There was no increase.
The DoJ was wrong, the courts were wrong, the EU was wrong.
Comments
They aren't, they are a retailer paying out the publisher's settlement to their customers.
Perhaps as a punishment for standing up to City Hall, a warning to others who pursue their rights.
"We will make shit up to find you guilty."
Originally Posted by Frood
If Amazon were to exhibit monopolistic behavior and drive prices up, the DOJ would be on them in a heartbeat. They have not, and they won't because they can't. There are near zero barriers to entry in the ebook market.
Instead, Amazon leverages its size (and investors that apparently don't care about corporate profit) by selling ebooks at a loss to eliminate competition. Once competitors are wiped out, Amazon will be free to do (charge) anything it wants in the ebook world. And yes, there is a major barrier to entry in the ebook market: it's called "You can't sell products at a profit because Amazon will simply undercut you with a loss." Try getting around that barrier.
But I guess that is legal/moral/perfectly fine?
Occasionally selling a book below cost (maybe 0.000001% of their listings or less at any one time) is not a monopolistic practice.
Citation needed?
Apple, please hire more lobbyists and put more money behind political candidates and lawmakers who will support Apple's interests. This is how the whole corrupt game is played.
Citation needed?
Direct observation. You can do it too.
Go into a bookstore, if you can still find one, look at the back cover of the book for the recommended price, it is what publishers started charging when free to set their own prices for eBooks.
Coincidence?
I think not!
Direct observation. You can do it too.
Wow, I haven't seen that detailed a "direct observation" since Rain Man. Good job.
Wow, I haven't seen that detailed a "direct observation" since Rain Man. Good job.
If you bothered to read his post, he referenced the eReaderIQ web service which can, I presume from a quick glance at their site, let you get notifications when books prices drop and see the price history of X books.
http://bookriot.com/2013/11/27/track-kindle-ebook-bargains-ereader-iq/
I'm not questioning the price tracking of eReaderIQ. I'm questioning the validity of this statement:
"Occasionally selling a book below cost (maybe 0.000001% of their listings or less at any one time"
That stat very well may be true. I doubt it, but it may be. But it's certainly not a number you can validate by tracking the price fluctuations of 100 books.
I'm not questioning the price tracking of eReaderIQ. I'm questioning the validity of this statement:
"Occasionally selling a book below cost (maybe 0.000001% of their listings or less at any one time"
That stat very well may be true. I doubt it, but it may be. But it's certainly not a number you can validate by tracking the price fluctuations of 100 books.
Certainly not the very small subset which is 'NYT Bestsellers'.
I'm not questioning the price tracking of eReaderIQ. I'm questioning the validity of this statement:
"Occasionally selling a book below cost (maybe 0.000001% of their listings or less at any one time"
That stat very well may be true. I doubt it, but it may be. But it's certainly not a number you can validate by tracking the price fluctuations of 100 books.
It's a guestimate (see the word "maybe") based on the number of ebooks Amazon has available plus the fact that Amazon actively advertises the "below cost" specials. Specials / Number Available = Percentage
Edited to Add: I just checked Amazon's Kindle Books page. It says they currently have 2,501,582 Kindle books available. Their "Big Deal" page (defined as 85% off, likely below cost) lists 504 books. That means they are (assuming the publisher isn't giving a discount) selling 0.02% of their ebooks under cost. Obviously I had too many decimal places in my guestimate. However, even using the higher numbers shows that what Amazon is doing does not qualify as "dumping" by any reasonable measure.
The problem with your analysis is you are assuming the "normal" price is above cost simply because it is called "normal."
The fact is: you have no idea what amazons cost is or whether or not Amazon's price is above or below cost.
The problem with your analysis is you are assuming the "normal" price is above cost simply because it is called "normal."
The fact is: you have no idea what amazons cost is or whether or not Amazon's price is above or below cost.
Don't be silly. Just compare the ebook price to the paper book price. Compare the prices among platforms. The cost of producing each printed copy is necessarily higher than each copy of an ebook. The front end costs (editing, layout, paying the author, etc.) are the same. If the prices are in the same general range (and they usually are), then it's reasonable to conclude that they're not being sold below cost.
Where is your evidence to back up your claim that they are routinely selling below cost?
Don't be silly. Just compare the ebook price to the paper book price. Compare the prices among platforms. The cost of producing each printed copy is necessarily higher than each copy of an ebook. The front end costs (editing, layout, paying the author, etc.) are the same. If the prices are in the same general range (and they usually are), then it's reasonable to conclude that they're not being sold below cost.
Possibly. But publishers/media companies have been shown time and time again to push for higher profits on digital media despite lower production costs. It's infuriating to customers, but we see it day after day.
Where is your evidence to back up your claim that they are routinely selling below cost?
I think anyone who has followed Amazon's business model (or has been a customer) for any length of time realizes that this is sometimes/often/occasionally (who knows other than the Amazon folks themselves?) part of its business strategy. And other than the Amazon insiders who control the pricing and their suppliers, no one has any broad evidence for either side of the argument.
And if selling below cost isn't the general rule, they likely sell at cost (or at a typically-unsustainable margin) in many cases to squeeze out competitors.
Quote:
Possibly. But publishers/media companies have been shown time and time again to push for higher profits on digital media despite lower production costs. It's infuriating to customers, but we see it day after day.
True. The antidote to that is competition, not price fixing, which was the case made against Apple and the publishers.
See "no one has any broad evidence for either side of the argument."
One thing we can say for sure is that Amazon would not be so large and profitable if they did not have excellent control of their own infrastructure costs. Using such an actual cost advantage in competition is neither illegal nor immoral.
Quote:
True. The antidote to that is competition, not price fixing, which was the case made against Apple and the publishers.
How does one compete against an arbitrarily/artificially-standardized price ($9.99 (is that price fixing?)) that is either below cost, at cost, or priced at a profit margin that is unsustainable? How can Barnes & Noble compete (or survive) against an Amazon that makes little to no money selling online books but makes it up by selling non-book-related products? Or, in Amazon's case, doesn't make it up at all but continues to lose money year after year, to the apparent delight of investors?
Quote:
One thing we can say for sure is that Amazon would not be so large and profitable if they did not have excellent control of their own infrastructure costs. Using such an actual cost advantage in competition is neither illegal nor immoral.
Wait, Amazon is profitable? Have you followed their earnings statements since their original founding???
Oh, and don't forget all those $5 albums and $.69 songs in Amazon's MP3 store. You think they're making money on those?
Don't be silly. Just compare the ebook price to the paper book price. Compare the prices among platforms. The cost of producing each printed copy is necessarily higher than each copy of an ebook. The front end costs (editing, layout, paying the author, etc.) are the same. If the prices are in the same general range (and they usually are), then it's reasonable to conclude that they're not being sold below cost.
Where is your evidence to back up your claim that they are routinely selling below cost?
Using the subset you want to use there was also no eBook price rise, in fact based on your sample for eBook pricing, prices fell.
Apple is innocent, the publishers are innocent.
There was no increase.
The DoJ was wrong, the courts were wrong, the EU was wrong.