Is there anything Apple can do to please Authors and make themselves even more attractive at this point? I wanna see some hard backlash. I wanna see books being pulled. I wanna see whole publishers boycotting this company.
I see Giggle is getting in on the action but we all know it's just selfish revenge (android tampering).
I have to admit, the way they put up the stats and work out the numbers on why this is better for everyone does make it seem reasonable. Until I read this line: "In fact, the 30% share of total revenue is what Hachette forced us to take in 2010 when they illegally colluded with their competitors to raise e-book prices." That's just unnecessarily venomous wording, and seems purposefully written to make the reader hate Hachette no matter what the true facts are. There's no reason to use phrases like "forced us" and "illegally colluded" - even if they did. Even if it were true and Hachette were the bad guy here, why not take the high road and simply say "they asked us to take a 30% cut, although we still weren't happy with how much they share with the authors"? When they write in such a manner to try to evoke negative emotions, it makes me trust them less. I don't know how others, who may not realize they're being written to in a very specific manner, will respond.
What I also question is, if it's so cut-and-dried, why *wouldn't* Hachette agree? They obviously want to make more money, both for themselves and their authors - that's their job. So if Amazon can guarantee that 33% price cuts lead to 16% more revenue, that would be the end of it. Since it hasn't been the end of it so far, there must be more to the story than what Amazon is revealing in that post.
Personally I kind of surprise the authors are backing the publishers. In today world they can self publish and promote themselves. I see that the publishers do a lot for the authors, but what they are do is becoming less and less important and capital intensive. You can write a book on your computer, install DRM in file and sell it online to anyone who wants to buy it and do not need all these middle men.
I guess most writes can only write so they do not know anything else so they are so dependent on the publishers taking more than half of their profits.
I found it funny also that musician back the record companies when in fact that made little to no money from a song being sold, they all made the big money doing concerts. Just go to show you people are easily lead by big companies.
and there is no secondary market -- e-books cannot be resold as used books. E-books can be and should be less expensive.
My wife buys books from Amazon and then loans them to all her sisters which is 5 of them. They all do it, No different than what they did in the past, they use to pass books around but it would take years before we saw the book back. Today they pass around a book in months time.
Amazon allows user to load books out to friends and families and allows it to be install in multiple devices at once. Because of this Amazon has made it easier for people not to buy books and just loan them to each other. Before my wife like having book selves filled with books, today she can care less.
This is some economist talking
Quote:
It's also important to understand that e-books are highly price-elastic. This means that when the price goes up, customers buy much less. We've quantified the price elasticity of e-books from repeated measurements across many titles. For every copy an e-book would sell at $14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $9.99. So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99. Total revenue at $14.99 would be $1,499,000. Total revenue at $9.99 is $1,738,000.
There is the real truth though, it all about moving more volume in Amazon's world, they need higher volumes to make their business model work, The author most like can care less their pay check is going to be about the same,
I do not believe the following to be 100% true, most people who read books especially Novels do so because this is what they enjoy, Amazon is attempting to say the book readers make purchase trade off decision between all these things. I doubt this very much. People buy books because they like the story the author is telling, playing a game is not the same thing.
Quote:
Keep in mind that books don't just compete against books. Books compete against mobile games, television, movies, Facebook, blogs, free news sites and more. If we want a healthy reading culture, we have to work hard to be sure books actually are competitive against these other media types, and a big part of that is working hard to make books less expensive.
I stopped buying stuff from Amazon when their free shipping slipped from 4-5 day deliver to 10-14 days because of Prime. I buy a lot of pro photo gear and have found the prices the same and the free shipping to be 2 or 3 times faster at other online stores. In the end of the day it comes down to service and why would anyone delay shipping product just to push a service I don't want. Good bye Amazon!
I stopped buying stuff from Amazon when their free shipping slipped from 4-5 day deliver to 10-14 days because of Prime. I buy a lot of pro photo gear and have found the prices the same and the free shipping to be 2 or 3 times faster at other online stores. In the end of the day it comes down to service and why would anyone delay shipping product just to push a service I don't want. Good bye Amazon!
My Prime experience is quite different from yours. It's rare not to get an order within 2 days and I've even recently had Amazon arrange for free Saturday delivery when their product didn't ship until Friday when it was supposed to go out Thursday. In fact isn't free 2 day shipping one of Primes' perks? I know I've saved hundreds on shipping so far.
I pretty much stopped buying anything from Amazon months ago. I make a (small) effort to buy from the more local retailers since the prices for many of the items I look for are about the same. At the same time, I don't want to support a company like Amazon with their predatory business practices. I have about as much respect for Amazon as I do for Samsung, which is zilch.
My point is I don't have Prime. I use Netflix and other services that are less expensive and usually better so have zero need for Prime. Why would I pay a $99 a year fee when faster shipping is the one and only benefit to me? I can order almost anywhere else with free shipping and get what is essentially 2-4 day shipping for zero extra cost. Good online stores now ship the same day you order and UPS or FedEx can deliver to most of the country in 2-4 days. You can call it Prime, but everyone else just calls it good customers service.....and does not charge you extra for it.
I pretty much stopped buying anything from Amazon months ago. I make a (small) effort to buy from the more local retailers since the prices for many of the items I look for are about the same. At the same time, I don't want to support a company like Amazon with their predatory business practices. I have about as much respect for Amazon as I do for Samsung, which is zilch.
I've limited my purchasing on Amazon to products I can't find locally. Stores change the brands, and merchandise that they carry, and many times I've looked to replace a item I purchased previously only to find out that they no longer sell that product, and that's when I turn to Amazon.
Amazon has little cost and almost no risk invested in the E-books they sell. Most of their 30% will go to profit.
Meanwhile, Hatchett spends money on author development, editing, book and cover design, preparation for a variety of e-book formats other than Amazons, for administrative cost. Very little of that 30% will go to profit, if there is any.
The amount for the author is probably insufficient at low sales volumes and ok at moderate volumes.
What Amazon proposes is not fair, particularly to Hatchett. And by undercutting what would be a reasonable price (8 to 13 or $14 as seen in iBooks,) that puts additional pressure on authors, Hatchett and others to drive the price down to commodity levels.
Good writing is not or should not be a commodity. It should reward all parties fairly. What Amazon is trying to do may look good to the consumer but it isn't. This world will be gar poorer if it loses quality authors and writing. In expletive, look at what has happened to quality journalism.
It isn't reasonable for two reasons. First, Amazon is using its monopoly status in traditional online book sales to force concessions in an entirely different market: Ebooks. That is anti-trust 101. Second, why should Amazon, a retailer, get to determine how much a book is worth? The authors and publishers put the real work in. Moreover, Amazons math is fuzzy. It starts from two numbers 14.99 and 9.99 and concludes 9.99 is better. It, however, leaves out the in between numbers like 12.99, 11.99, or even 10.99. Who's to say just as many books would sell at 10.99 as 9.99, which would net an even larger profit?
The bottom line is publishers should dictate price as it is their product. Apple dictates price at its resellers.
My Prime experience is quite different from yours. It's rare not to get an order within 2 days and I've even recently had Amazon arrange for free Saturday delivery when their product didn't ship until Friday when it was supposed to go out Thursday. In fact isn't free 2 day shipping one of Primes' perks? I know I've saved hundreds on shipping so far.
I think MidwestAppleFan is referring to 'free' shipping in general - meaning, free shipping outside of being a Prime subscriber. There are items you can purchase on Amazon that give you the option of 'Free' shipping, but that comes at the the price of having your item shipped S-L-O-W-est ground delivery possible. I believe he meant that the 'free' choice now takes even longer than it once did since Prime become an option.
WHEN Amazon is found to be illegally abusing their monopoly standing, Apple’s case could be overturned and Amazon could very well pay a huge fine.
Antitrust laws unfortunately don't prosecute monopolies that result from natural market forces (i.e., one competitor beating the rest) as opposed to monopolies formed by conspiracies between competitors. I'd argue that in either case, market pricing is effectively not set by the market.
Antitrust laws unfortunately don't prosecute monopolies that result from natural market forces (i.e., one competitor beating the rest) as opposed to monopolies formed by conspiracies between competitors.
Amazon has illegally conspired to “beat” the rest. Does that count?
Comments
The justice department gets a total crush on their BFF.
I see Giggle is getting in on the action but we all know it's just selfish revenge (android tampering).
You know, up until recently, I wasn't particularly impressed with Amazon either.
Until I read this:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx3J0JKSSUIRCMT
This sounds reasonable to me.
I have to admit, the way they put up the stats and work out the numbers on why this is better for everyone does make it seem reasonable. Until I read this line: "In fact, the 30% share of total revenue is what Hachette forced us to take in 2010 when they illegally colluded with their competitors to raise e-book prices." That's just unnecessarily venomous wording, and seems purposefully written to make the reader hate Hachette no matter what the true facts are. There's no reason to use phrases like "forced us" and "illegally colluded" - even if they did. Even if it were true and Hachette were the bad guy here, why not take the high road and simply say "they asked us to take a 30% cut, although we still weren't happy with how much they share with the authors"? When they write in such a manner to try to evoke negative emotions, it makes me trust them less. I don't know how others, who may not realize they're being written to in a very specific manner, will respond.
What I also question is, if it's so cut-and-dried, why *wouldn't* Hachette agree? They obviously want to make more money, both for themselves and their authors - that's their job. So if Amazon can guarantee that 33% price cuts lead to 16% more revenue, that would be the end of it. Since it hasn't been the end of it so far, there must be more to the story than what Amazon is revealing in that post.
Personally I kind of surprise the authors are backing the publishers. In today world they can self publish and promote themselves. I see that the publishers do a lot for the authors, but what they are do is becoming less and less important and capital intensive. You can write a book on your computer, install DRM in file and sell it online to anyone who wants to buy it and do not need all these middle men.
I guess most writes can only write so they do not know anything else so they are so dependent on the publishers taking more than half of their profits.
I found it funny also that musician back the record companies when in fact that made little to no money from a song being sold, they all made the big money doing concerts. Just go to show you people are easily lead by big companies.
You know, up until recently, I wasn't particularly impressed with Amazon either.
Until I read this:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx3J0JKSSUIRCMT
This sounds reasonable to me.
This is not an accurate statement made by Amazon
My wife buys books from Amazon and then loans them to all her sisters which is 5 of them. They all do it, No different than what they did in the past, they use to pass books around but it would take years before we saw the book back. Today they pass around a book in months time.
Amazon allows user to load books out to friends and families and allows it to be install in multiple devices at once. Because of this Amazon has made it easier for people not to buy books and just loan them to each other. Before my wife like having book selves filled with books, today she can care less.
This is some economist talking
There is the real truth though, it all about moving more volume in Amazon's world, they need higher volumes to make their business model work, The author most like can care less their pay check is going to be about the same,
I do not believe the following to be 100% true, most people who read books especially Novels do so because this is what they enjoy, Amazon is attempting to say the book readers make purchase trade off decision between all these things. I doubt this very much. People buy books because they like the story the author is telling, playing a game is not the same thing.
My Prime experience is quite different from yours. It's rare not to get an order within 2 days and I've even recently had Amazon arrange for free Saturday delivery when their product didn't ship until Friday when it was supposed to go out Thursday. In fact isn't free 2 day shipping one of Primes' perks? I know I've saved hundreds on shipping so far.
I pretty much stopped buying anything from Amazon months ago. I make a (small) effort to buy from the more local retailers since the prices for many of the items I look for are about the same. At the same time, I don't want to support a company like Amazon with their predatory business practices. I have about as much respect for Amazon as I do for Samsung, which is zilch.
My point is I don't have Prime. I use Netflix and other services that are less expensive and usually better so have zero need for Prime. Why would I pay a $99 a year fee when faster shipping is the one and only benefit to me? I can order almost anywhere else with free shipping and get what is essentially 2-4 day shipping for zero extra cost. Good online stores now ship the same day you order and UPS or FedEx can deliver to most of the country in 2-4 days. You can call it Prime, but everyone else just calls it good customers service.....and does not charge you extra for it.
I've limited my purchasing on Amazon to products I can't find locally. Stores change the brands, and merchandise that they carry, and many times I've looked to replace a item I purchased previously only to find out that they no longer sell that product, and that's when I turn to Amazon.
It's basically the same target audience, but now how do we let Republicans know?
Meanwhile, Hatchett spends money on author development, editing, book and cover design, preparation for a variety of e-book formats other than Amazons, for administrative cost. Very little of that 30% will go to profit, if there is any.
The amount for the author is probably insufficient at low sales volumes and ok at moderate volumes.
What Amazon proposes is not fair, particularly to Hatchett. And by undercutting what would be a reasonable price (8 to 13 or $14 as seen in iBooks,) that puts additional pressure on authors, Hatchett and others to drive the price down to commodity levels.
Good writing is not or should not be a commodity. It should reward all parties fairly. What Amazon is trying to do may look good to the consumer but it isn't. This world will be gar poorer if it loses quality authors and writing. In expletive, look at what has happened to quality journalism.
It isn't reasonable for two reasons. First, Amazon is using its monopoly status in traditional online book sales to force concessions in an entirely different market: Ebooks. That is anti-trust 101. Second, why should Amazon, a retailer, get to determine how much a book is worth? The authors and publishers put the real work in. Moreover, Amazons math is fuzzy. It starts from two numbers 14.99 and 9.99 and concludes 9.99 is better. It, however, leaves out the in between numbers like 12.99, 11.99, or even 10.99. Who's to say just as many books would sell at 10.99 as 9.99, which would net an even larger profit?
The bottom line is publishers should dictate price as it is their product. Apple dictates price at its resellers.
My Prime experience is quite different from yours. It's rare not to get an order within 2 days and I've even recently had Amazon arrange for free Saturday delivery when their product didn't ship until Friday when it was supposed to go out Thursday. In fact isn't free 2 day shipping one of Primes' perks? I know I've saved hundreds on shipping so far.
I think MidwestAppleFan is referring to 'free' shipping in general - meaning, free shipping outside of being a Prime subscriber. There are items you can purchase on Amazon that give you the option of 'Free' shipping, but that comes at the the price of having your item shipped S-L-O-W-est ground delivery possible. I believe he meant that the 'free' choice now takes even longer than it once did since Prime become an option.
WHEN Amazon is found to be illegally abusing their monopoly standing, Apple’s case could be overturned and Amazon could very well pay a huge fine.
Hahaha, you left off the sarcasm tag.
Antitrust laws unfortunately don't prosecute monopolies that result from natural market forces (i.e., one competitor beating the rest) as opposed to monopolies formed by conspiracies between competitors. I'd argue that in either case, market pricing is effectively not set by the market.
Amazon has illegally conspired to “beat” the rest. Does that count?