Making it that a competitor's price is eventually the same as yours is not a free market. If you can't compete on price then make a better product.
You got that backwards. It's making your prices eventually the same as your competitors. The model Apple wanted was that they could sell their iBooks at the same price as the lowest eBook being advertised. Natually that would be on Amazon. So eventually, Apple iBooks would cost the same as Amazon lower priced eBooks. Not the other way around. The only way for publishers to raise the prices on iBooks would be to force Amazon to raise the prices of their eBooks. Whether the publishers could or would do that is out of Apple's control. Amazon tend to get their ways with publishers because over half of the very profitable hard covers are sold through Amazon. So publishers seems willing to let Amazon screwed them on their eBooks sales, in exchnge for favoritable treatment on their very profitable hard covers sales.
Making it that a competitor's price is eventually the same as yours is not a free market. If you can't compete on price then make a better product.
Predatory pricing isn't free market either.
"Depending on the outcome, consumers may only recoup $50 million and lawyers $20 million..."
What's Amazon's share?
Making it that a competitor's price is eventually the same as yours is not a free market. If you can't compete on price then make a better product.
Predatory pricing isn't free market either.
"Depending on the outcome, consumers may only recoup $50 million and lawyers $20 million..."
What's Amazon's share?
Predatory pricing isn't free market either.
"Depending on the outcome, consumers may only recoup $50 million and lawyers $20 million..."
What's Amazon's share?
Sure it is. It wasn't fair market, but it was free market.
You got that backwards. It's making your prices eventually the same as your competitors. The model Apple wanted was that they could sell their iBooks at the same price as the lowest eBook being advertised. Natually that would be on Amazon. So eventually, Apple iBooks would cost the same as Amazon lower priced eBooks. Not the other way around. The only way for publishers to raise the prices on iBooks would be to force Amazon to raise the prices of their eBooks. Whether the publishers could or would do that is out of Apple's control. Amazon tend to get their ways with publishers because over half of the very profitable hard covers are sold through Amazon. So publishers seems willing to let Amazon screwed them on their eBooks sales, in exchnge for favoritable treatment on their very profitable hard covers sales.
The way you described is the normal way of doing things, but not the route Apple took. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Jobs had a problem with Amazon's pricing, and didn't want to play their rules.
Using Apple as leverage the publishers did indeed force Amazon into the agency model.
You got that backwards. It's making your prices eventually the same as your competitors. The model Apple wanted was that they could sell their iBooks at the same price as the lowest eBook being advertised. Natually that would be on Amazon. So eventually, Apple iBooks would cost the same as Amazon lower priced eBooks. Not the other way around. The only way for publishers to raise the prices on iBooks would be to force Amazon to raise the prices of their eBooks. Whether the publishers could or would do that is out of Apple's control. Amazon tend to get their ways with publishers because over half of the very profitable hard covers are sold through Amazon. So publishers seems willing to let Amazon screwed them on their eBooks sales, in exchnge for favoritable treatment on their very profitable hard covers sales.
The way you described is the normal way of doing things, but not the route Apple took. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Jobs had a problem with Amazon's pricing, and didn't want to play their rules.
Using Apple as leverage the publishers did indeed force Amazon into the agency model.
I truly think Amazon are in the wrong here, and Apple are in the right.
I've read a ton on this story from both sides of the argument, and that's my conclusion. I think that Apple realised that they were simply not going to get justice from Cote or anyone else in the current environment, so they settled. However, I don't think that they will forget this, and long-term, I don't think it will prove to have been a wise decision for Amazon's prospects.
I truly think Amazon are in the wrong here, and Apple are in the right.
I've read a ton on this story from both sides of the argument, and that's my conclusion. I think that Apple realised that they were simply not going to get justice from Cote or anyone else in the current environment, so they settled. However, I don't think that they will forget this, and long-term, I don't think it will prove to have been a wise decision for Amazon's prospects.
I think Apple went about doing the right thing in the wrong way. Ultimately it will be a good, and prosperous thing for all involved.
When Uncle Sam wants to get you, there is no justice. Since Apple's plan was just another legitimate way of doing business, and has been, where do Holder and Cote get off pre-judging Apple? Why didn't Apple go for a jury trial?
Apple should spin off the iBookstore as a wholly separate, independent entity and locate the new business outside US legal territory...and slowly do the same for the rest of Apple (ideally, Apple would join with other likeminded corporations and form an independent country completely owned and operated by the corporations... A true system built by and dedicated to companies. Hey, at least we know Google would be on board). Atlas Shrugged finally realized.
The way you described is the normal way of doing things, but not the route Apple took. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Jobs had a problem with Amazon's pricing, and didn't want to play their rules.
Using Apple as leverage the publishers did indeed force Amazon into the agency model.
There was nothing wrong or illegal with the route Apple took. It is the same route they took with the Music labels and App developers, Apple takes a 30% cut and pricing in tiers to make online shopping easier. And there is nothing wrong with Apple wanting to insure that iPad owners did not have to pay a higher price for their iBooks than the same eBooks sold at Amazon. Publishers using the deal they made with Apple as leverage against Amazon is also not an issue.
What did the publishers in (and eventually dragging Apple into it) was that they all ganged up on Amazon and forced Amazon into an agency model by threating to pull all their books off of Amazon.com. This was where the collusion took place. Not with the deal they made with Apple. This would be collusion even if Apple was not in the picture. If the publishers had dealt with Amazon one at a time, on their own terms, then collusion would have been a lot harder to prove. If it can be proven at all. But each publisher dealing with Amazon one at a time may not have had the clout to force Amazon into an agency model. Which may have been the reason they ganged up on Amazon as one in the first place.
There is no collusion between Apple and the publishers, even if they all signed the same deal with Apple at the same time. After all, all the Music labels has the same deal with Apple in regards to how music is sold in the iTunes Store. The publishers deal with Apple, by itself, did not cause any increase in the price of eBooks. If the publishers didn't force Amazon into an agency model, the price of iBooks would be the same as Amazon's money losing eBooks. And if the publishers didn't act as one when they forced Amazon into signing an agency model, nothing illegal would have been committed.
The ironic thing is that Amazon gained the most money from this. By being forced to sell eBooks at a greater profit. Amazonn would like consumers to think that they are on their side when it comes to lowering prices and thus their cry of foul to the DOJ. But in reality, Amazon saw Apple as a threat to their near monopoly in eBook sales and would rather see Apple out of the picture, than to make more money selling eBooks.
There was nothing wrong or illegal with the route Apple took. It is the same route they took with the Music labels and App developers, Apple takes a 30% cut and pricing in tiers to make online shopping easier. And there is nothing wrong with Apple wanting to insure that iPad owners did not have to pay a higher price for their iBooks than the same eBooks sold at Amazon. Publishers using the deal they made with Apple as leverage against Amazon is also not an issue.
What did the publishers in (and eventually dragging Apple into it) was that they all ganged up on Amazon and forced Amazon into an agency model by threating to pull all their books off of Amazon.com. This was where the collusion took place. Not with the deal they made with Apple. This would be collusion even if Apple was not in the picture. If the publishers had dealt with Amazon one at a time, on their own terms, then collusion would have been a lot harder to prove. If it can be proven at all. But each publisher dealing with Amazon one at a time may not have had the clout to force Amazon into an agency model. Which may have been the reason they ganged up on Amazon as one in the first place.
There is no collusion between Apple and the publishers, even if they all signed the same deal with Apple at the same time. After all, all the Music labels has the same deal with Apple in regards to how music is sold in the iTunes Store. The publishers deal with Apple, by itself, did not cause any increase in the price of eBooks. If the publishers didn't force Amazon into an agency model, the price of iBooks would be the same as Amazon's money losing eBooks. And if the publishers didn't act as one when they forced Amazon into signing an agency model, nothing illegal would have been committed.
The ironic thing is that Amazon gained the most money from this. By being forced to sell eBooks at a greater profit. Amazonn would like consumers to think that they are on their side when it comes to lowering prices and thus their cry of foul to the DOJ. But in reality, Amazon saw Apple as a threat to their near monopoly in eBook sales and would rather see Apple out of the picture, than to make more money selling eBooks.
All my ebook purchases are from Amazon so I can read them on both my Kindle or iPad, iPhone or Mac so I'won't be getting any money back anyway. I would never buy an Apple ebook.
But bad Apple- thank god my ebook prices are lower again in a FREE market.
The court found that Apple played a part in the publishers collusion to increase the price of eBooks, (by ganging up and forcing Amazonn into an agency model), based on emails and communiation between the publishers and Steve Jobs. No where did the court determined that any deal the publishers made with Apple was the illegal. Up to the point of the publishers colluding to force Amazon into an agency model, there was no collusion involved. But the eMails and communication between the publishers and Jobs was interpeted by the court that Apple knew before hand and was part of the publishers plan from the beginning, to gang up and force Amazon into an agency model. Apple denied knowing, encouraging or being part of the publishers plan to gang up on Amazon in order to force Amazon into an agency model. But Jobs eMails hinted that he knew that would happen ( the forcing of Amazon into an agency model, not the ganging up part), and that's what got Apple in trouble. The publishers deal with Apple did not cause the price of eBooks to go up and wouldn't have. It was the publishers forcing Amazon into an agency model that cause the price increase and the publishers colluded to get that done. And if they ganged up as one, they could have done it without the Apple deal. Thus bringing the DOJ into this.
The way you described is the normal way of doing things, but not the route Apple took. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Jobs had a problem with Amazon's pricing, and didn't want to play their rules.
Using Apple as leverage the publishers did indeed force Amazon into the agency model.
Steve Jobs had a problem with the Kindle's ebook market share and tried to kill it when he released the iPad. In fact it's backfired royally as Kindles are more popular than ever, Apple has to pay this settlement, etc. . The original Kindle remains still the best e-reader on the market- bar none. I know you Amazon haters out there can't accept it but it's true- real readers prefer e-ink over a light source emitting from a tablet. Apple should have released a kick assed e-ink device or something even better in addition to the iPad. I would have bought on. But now I am locked into Amazon's ecosystem for buying ebooks. Also when you buy a hard cover from Amazon they let you also purchase the ebook edition as well for $1.99. It's a win-win situation.
Comments
Making it that a competitor's price is eventually the same as yours is not a free market. If you can't compete on price then make a better product.
You can't.
An e-book is the name for a digital book; it's not actually printed on paper.
Please, please, tell me you're being ironic.
How does one tear an e-book to shreds?
You can't.
An e-book is the name for a digital book; it's not actually printed on paper.
Umm, whoosh?
Making it that a competitor's price is eventually the same as yours is not a free market. If you can't compete on price then make a better product.
You got that backwards. It's making your prices eventually the same as your competitors. The model Apple wanted was that they could sell their iBooks at the same price as the lowest eBook being advertised. Natually that would be on Amazon. So eventually, Apple iBooks would cost the same as Amazon lower priced eBooks. Not the other way around. The only way for publishers to raise the prices on iBooks would be to force Amazon to raise the prices of their eBooks. Whether the publishers could or would do that is out of Apple's control. Amazon tend to get their ways with publishers because over half of the very profitable hard covers are sold through Amazon. So publishers seems willing to let Amazon screwed them on their eBooks sales, in exchnge for favoritable treatment on their very profitable hard covers sales.
Predatory pricing isn't free market either.
"Depending on the outcome, consumers may only recoup $50 million and lawyers $20 million..."
What's Amazon's share?
Sure it is. It wasn't fair market, but it was free market.
Predatory pricing isn't free market either.
?
Sure it is. It's arguably anti-competitive, and of dubious legality in some places, but it's something that can happen in a free market.
Curse you dasanman69!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The way you described is the normal way of doing things, but not the route Apple took. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Jobs had a problem with Amazon's pricing, and didn't want to play their rules.
Using Apple as leverage the publishers did indeed force Amazon into the agency model.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/amazon-agrees-to-agency-pricing-model-with-two-more-publishers/
I truly think Amazon are in the wrong here, and Apple are in the right.
I've read a ton on this story from both sides of the argument, and that's my conclusion. I think that Apple realised that they were simply not going to get justice from Cote or anyone else in the current environment, so they settled. However, I don't think that they will forget this, and long-term, I don't think it will prove to have been a wise decision for Amazon's prospects.
I think Apple went about doing the right thing in the wrong way. Ultimately it will be a good, and prosperous thing for all involved.
Apple should spin off the iBookstore as a wholly separate, independent entity and locate the new business outside US legal territory...and slowly do the same for the rest of Apple (ideally, Apple would join with other likeminded corporations and form an independent country completely owned and operated by the corporations... A true system built by and dedicated to companies. Hey, at least we know Google would be on board). Atlas Shrugged finally realized.
The way you described is the normal way of doing things, but not the route Apple took. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Jobs had a problem with Amazon's pricing, and didn't want to play their rules.
Using Apple as leverage the publishers did indeed force Amazon into the agency model.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/amazon-agrees-to-agency-pricing-model-with-two-more-publishers/
There was nothing wrong or illegal with the route Apple took. It is the same route they took with the Music labels and App developers, Apple takes a 30% cut and pricing in tiers to make online shopping easier. And there is nothing wrong with Apple wanting to insure that iPad owners did not have to pay a higher price for their iBooks than the same eBooks sold at Amazon. Publishers using the deal they made with Apple as leverage against Amazon is also not an issue.
What did the publishers in (and eventually dragging Apple into it) was that they all ganged up on Amazon and forced Amazon into an agency model by threating to pull all their books off of Amazon.com. This was where the collusion took place. Not with the deal they made with Apple. This would be collusion even if Apple was not in the picture. If the publishers had dealt with Amazon one at a time, on their own terms, then collusion would have been a lot harder to prove. If it can be proven at all. But each publisher dealing with Amazon one at a time may not have had the clout to force Amazon into an agency model. Which may have been the reason they ganged up on Amazon as one in the first place.
There is no collusion between Apple and the publishers, even if they all signed the same deal with Apple at the same time. After all, all the Music labels has the same deal with Apple in regards to how music is sold in the iTunes Store. The publishers deal with Apple, by itself, did not cause any increase in the price of eBooks. If the publishers didn't force Amazon into an agency model, the price of iBooks would be the same as Amazon's money losing eBooks. And if the publishers didn't act as one when they forced Amazon into signing an agency model, nothing illegal would have been committed.
The ironic thing is that Amazon gained the most money from this. By being forced to sell eBooks at a greater profit. Amazonn would like consumers to think that they are on their side when it comes to lowering prices and thus their cry of foul to the DOJ. But in reality, Amazon saw Apple as a threat to their near monopoly in eBook sales and would rather see Apple out of the picture, than to make more money selling eBooks.
There's a court decision that states otherwise.
All my ebook purchases are from Amazon so I can read them on both my Kindle or iPad, iPhone or Mac so I'won't be getting any money back anyway. I would never buy an Apple ebook.
But bad Apple- thank god my ebook prices are lower again in a FREE market.
There's a court decision that states otherwise.
The court found that Apple played a part in the publishers collusion to increase the price of eBooks, (by ganging up and forcing Amazonn into an agency model), based on emails and communiation between the publishers and Steve Jobs. No where did the court determined that any deal the publishers made with Apple was the illegal. Up to the point of the publishers colluding to force Amazon into an agency model, there was no collusion involved. But the eMails and communication between the publishers and Jobs was interpeted by the court that Apple knew before hand and was part of the publishers plan from the beginning, to gang up and force Amazon into an agency model. Apple denied knowing, encouraging or being part of the publishers plan to gang up on Amazon in order to force Amazon into an agency model. But Jobs eMails hinted that he knew that would happen ( the forcing of Amazon into an agency model, not the ganging up part), and that's what got Apple in trouble. The publishers deal with Apple did not cause the price of eBooks to go up and wouldn't have. It was the publishers forcing Amazon into an agency model that cause the price increase and the publishers colluded to get that done. And if they ganged up as one, they could have done it without the Apple deal. Thus bringing the DOJ into this.
The way you described is the normal way of doing things, but not the route Apple took. There's plenty of evidence that Steve Jobs had a problem with Amazon's pricing, and didn't want to play their rules.
Using Apple as leverage the publishers did indeed force Amazon into the agency model.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/amazon-agrees-to-agency-pricing-model-with-two-more-publishers/
Steve Jobs had a problem with the Kindle's ebook market share and tried to kill it when he released the iPad. In fact it's backfired royally as Kindles are more popular than ever, Apple has to pay this settlement, etc. . The original Kindle remains still the best e-reader on the market- bar none. I know you Amazon haters out there can't accept it but it's true- real readers prefer e-ink over a light source emitting from a tablet. Apple should have released a kick assed e-ink device or something even better in addition to the iPad. I would have bought on. But now I am locked into Amazon's ecosystem for buying ebooks. Also when you buy a hard cover from Amazon they let you also purchase the ebook edition as well for $1.99. It's a win-win situation.