[roberthoffman]

I don't understand. If the publisher charges Apple or Amazon $10.00 for the book and Apple what its 30% for a total of $13, why shouldn't Amazon be able to sell it for a 15% markup or $11.50. What diff should it make to the publisher.

[RobertCurl]

QUADICON, on 13 April 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

JayPre, on 13 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Blah blah blah... The only reasons Amazon owned this market is because there was no one else to compete with. Apple dictates its terms, and people listen, because they're right. They're trying to save these Publishers while Amazon was taking advantage of them. When will people realize that Technology is a major driver, and that some old "Most Favorable Nation" Clause is what needs to be updated? Shame on you for being a technology writer..

You are wrong.

Quote

It did that by requiring the publishers to lower the price of any e-book sold in the iBookstore to match the lowest price of any retailer, even if a publisher didn't have any control over that retailer's price.

So Apple's suggestion that publishers had a free reign to set prices at the iBookstore is a bit disingenuous. Apple indirectly dictated the pricing of e-books at the iBookstore by requiring publishers to sell their wares there at the lowest price found on the Internet.

If you go to a retailer JayPre and they sell 10 different types of laundry soap, does that retailer force the seller to make their price match the lowest one? Even if their product coudl be better? NO THEY DON'T. You need to learn to read. Apple claims they allow selles to sell their book for whatever, yet the facts show they force the sellers to match the lowest cost PERIOD. That si price fixing and thet si illegal. Learn to read with common sense and not fanatic eyes.

Here is a BETTER example for you. We all know we can get computers that are less than Apple's by a marhin of average 20% - 40%. Suppose BesT Buy told all the OEM's including Apple; "Acer has the lowest prices. If your hardware is identical to their PC, you must sell yours at the same low cost for us to carry it"...you think the OEM's woudl like that? You think Apple would want to sell their over-priced computers for a more reasonable cost? NO THEY WOULD'NT.

Look in the app store, devs set the cost of whatever they want to sell their app for. If Rovio wants to sell Angry Birds for .99 cents and I make an app similar called Angry Ants and I want to sell mine for 1.99...I can do so. I don't have to match that lowest cost even if the game is nearly identical.

Being greedy will get you caught and likely someone inside got tired of the game and hinted to the DOJ what Apple was doing. You ever thought that maybe a publisher felt their book was better than someone elses and didn't want to be force to sell it at a lower cost, knowing he could get more?

I think you misunderstand the MVN. It's not that that Apple forced Publisher A to sell their best seller, XYZ, at the same low price as Publisher B is selling their best seller, ABC. It's that Apple said if an eBook retailer (read: Amazon) sells the best seller, XYZ, for $9.99, then Publisher A must match that price in the iBooks store. The rub here is that Amazon used to work on a Wholesale model, and use eBooks as loss leaders. For instance Publisher A might have a Suggested Retail Price of $20 for their besteller XYZ, but offer Amazon it for a Wholesale cost of $11. Amazon would then take a loss on it, and market the bestseller, XYZ, for $10. Amazon did this to gain market share in the eBook and eReader markets. Although Apple's agency model isn't illegal, what the DOJ is claiming is that when Apple was rallying all the publisher's to sign agreements for iBooks, they facilitated a situation which lead to publishers forcing Amazon to adopt the agency model, which took away Amazon's ability to price the eBooks they sell and in turn preventing them from using eBook bestsellers as loss-leaders.

Oh yeah, and while this whole transition to the agency model was taking place, there were communications between the CEOs publishers and then between them and Apple on what a 'standard' price should be for a best seller in the agency model.

[nonseq]

RobertCurl, on 13 April 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

I think you misunderstand the MVN. It's not that that Apple forced Publisher A to sell their best seller, XYZ, at the same low price as Publisher B is selling their best seller, ABC. It's that Apple said if an eBook retailer (read: Amazon) sells the best seller, XYZ, for $9.99, then Publisher A must match that price in the iBooks store. The rub here is that Amazon used to work on a Wholesale model, and use eBooks as loss leaders. For instance Publisher A might have a Suggested Retail Price of $20 for their besteller XYZ, but offer Amazon it for a Wholesale cost of $11. Amazon would then take a loss on it, and market the bestseller, XYZ, for $10. Amazon did this to gain market share in the eBook and eReader markets. Although Apple's agency model isn't illegal, what the DOJ is claiming is that when Apple was rallying all the publisher's to sign agreements for iBooks, they facilitated a situation which lead to publishers forcing Amazon to adopt the agency model, which took away Amazon's ability to price the eBooks they sell and in turn preventing them from using eBook bestsellers as loss-leaders.

Oh yeah, and while this whole transition to the agency model was taking place, there were communications between the CEOs publishers and then between them and Apple on what a 'standard' price should be for a best seller in the agency model.

Well stated.

Quote

E-Book Prices Headed Back Down?
By Tom Dupree

...Among the government’s contentions is that competing publishers regularly met with each other over this matter in restaurant private rooms. I can believe that. John Sargent of Macmillan, which denies collusion, is adamant that he made his decision to migrate to Apple’s “agency model” (in which the e-retailer takes a flat fee and cannot discount books below the publisher’s price) by himself, on his exercise bike, “the lonelist decision I have ever made.” I can believe that too. But the combined action, spurred on by Apple, unilaterally raised consumer prices across the board. Pearson, which was also named in the suit, has not responded. Random House, the largest publisher, retained the “wholesale model” (in which the e-bookseller pays approximately half the retail price and can then discount further if it likes; physical books have always been, and continue to be, sold this way), and made tons more money, for about a year, only adopting the agency model at the release of the iPad 2. Thus it was not party to this lawsuit and had no comment...

...If book publishers are worried that a $9.99 e-price point devalues their product, they can console themselves with the fact that Amazon is losing money on every current bestseller sold at that price, and the publisher is making more on each sale than it would under the agency model. Plus, the villain in any future e-book price creep, an uncomfortable role largely foisted on the publishers by Apple, will now be the retailer: e.g., Amazon. No longer will it be able to shrug and say its hands are tied with the droll legend This price was set by the publisher...

...4/12/12: The Wall Street Journal, which has consistently beaten the Times on this story, reports an aspect of the settlement that I hadn’t previously understood. Although e-retailers are allowed to discount individual titles however they want, publishers can insist that they are not allowed to sell e-books at a loss overall over the course of a year. This means Amazon may have to pick and choose if it can only discount down to the overall break-even point (an average of 30% off under this new pricing model): some books would feature deep price cuts, others smaller cuts or none at all. If I’m reading this right, this stipulation might help others approach Amazon’s price point without falling victim to the company’s deep pockets, because the worst they could do would be to break even on e-books. Of course, Amazon still holds a huge advantage, because it can break even on all books and still record a profit on everything else it sells.

http://tomdup.wordpr...aded-back-down/

This post has been edited by nonseq: 13 April 2012 - 02:56 PM

[dreamerof]

JakeWaxelbaum, on 13 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Here are the facts of what happened (numbers are rounded):

Amazon in 2009 - Selling ebooks at $10 because they determined this price themselves

Publishers in 2009 - We aren't making enough money because of lower cost ebooks on Amazon

Apple in 2009 - Approaches publishers with an idea, prior to the release of the iPad. Come sell your books in our ebook store because you know you will reach $the millions you want faster, after all everyone is obsessed with Apple.

Apple and Publishers in 2009 - Documents which the DOJ will provide show Apple would allow the sale of ebooks but only if it gets a 30% cut of every book sold.

Example: For a $10 book Apple gets $3 and publisher gets $7. Publisher just lost $3 to Apple for the priveledge of selling in their ebook store. So what do the publishers do? That's right they raise the price of books to $13 or higher so they can make their minimum $10 cut per book.

But guess what Apple continued it's anticompetitive ways and said Apple exclusively gets the lowest prices on ebooks than any other store and publishers determine the prices for the stores now.

Example: Apple sells the book for $13, Amazon is now forced by the publisher to sell the exact same book for $15. Where are you going to buy from? The lower priced book store of course.

So Apple along with the publishers fixed the prices of ebooks so none of their competitors could compete and could just continue Apple's greed. Price fixing, which this is a blatant case of is ILLEGAL, and yet the publishers did it anyway, with Apple as the ring leader. This is why they are in trouble because rather than compete Apple chose to break the law instead. I sincerely hope their company gets severely damaged from this and we no longer have to deal with their Anti-Competition business practices.

Your argument is too full of holes to respond to without wasting a lot of time, so I'll only ask a question instead. If Apple sells a book for the $13 price, set by the publisher, why would Amazon be forced to sell it for $15? The agency model says that the price should be $13 from every source.

This post has been edited by dreamerof: 13 April 2012 - 05:42 PM

[AdamChew1]

JakeWaxelbaum, on 13 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Here are the facts of what happened (numbers are rounded):

Amazon in 2009 - Selling ebooks at $10 because they determined this price themselves

Publishers in 2009 - We aren't making enough money because of lower cost ebooks on Amazon

Apple in 2009 - Approaches publishers with an idea, prior to the release of the iPad. Come sell your books in our ebook store because you know you will reach $the millions you want faster, after all everyone is obsessed with Apple.

Apple and Publishers in 2009 - Documents which the DOJ will provide show Apple would allow the sale of ebooks but only if it gets a 30% cut of every book sold.

Example: For a $10 book Apple gets $3 and publisher gets $7. Publisher just lost $3 to Apple for the priveledge of selling in their ebook store. So what do the publishers do? That's right they raise the price of books to $13 or higher so they can make their minimum $10 cut per book.

But guess what Apple continued it's anticompetitive ways and said Apple exclusively gets the lowest prices on ebooks than any other store and publishers determine the prices for the stores now.

Example: Apple sells the book for $13, Amazon is now forced by the publisher to sell the exact same book for $15. Where are you going to buy from? The lower priced book store of course.

So Apple along with the publishers fixed the prices of ebooks so none of their competitors could compete and could just continue Apple's greed. Price fixing, which this is a blatant case of is ILLEGAL, and yet the publishers did it anyway, with Apple as the ring leader. This is why they are in trouble because rather than compete Apple chose to break the law instead. I sincerely hope their company gets severely damaged from this and we no longer have to deal with their Anti-Competition business practices.

"But guess what Apple continued it's anticompetitive ways and said Apple exclusively gets the lowest prices on ebooks than any other store and publishers determine the prices for the stores now"
Rubbish and a blatant lie.

They set up the agency model to ensure all books sellers have a level playing field and not a lopsided one with all the advantages going to Amazon which already holds a monopolistic control of the market.

Amazon blatant predatory pricing of ebooks mainly to lure the buyer to the other products which they are also selling. This enable them the advantage of selling books at a loss.

By leveling the playing field all bookstores have an competitive edge over each other without having to fear a predator which not only sells books and without fear of losing out a sale to a predator with its predatory pricing.Thus ensuring the survivability of the book retail industry.

Amazon with its predatory pricing has destroy the retail industry thus resulting in job loss and shuttling of many a book store.

Btw don't the publishers have the right to set the prices of products they sell?

[xyberviri]

Do all the commentors have to include the previous commentors comment in their reply.