Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 13, 2013, 01:35 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple SVP Eddy Cue Takes Stand in E-Book Trial, Admits Some E-Books Rose in Price




Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president in charge of internet software and services, took the stand today in the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple over the price of e-books following the launch of the iBooks Store in 2010.

Cue is Apple's chief negotiator and was in charge of all discussions with the major book publishing houses. The DoJ is alleging that Apple illegally worked with publishers to artificially increase e-book prices, a violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

In testimony today, Cue admitted that the prices of some e-books -- including many of those appearing on the New York Times best sellers list -- did rise after the iBooks Store was opened, but it was more the result of publishers being unhappy with Amazon's pricing of $9.99/book than anything untoward that Apple did.

Instead, Cue said that prices rose because publishers "expressed to us that they wanted higher prices". Apple's pricing model for e-books is the same agency model that it uses on the App Store -- publishers set book prices and Apple takes 30% of the revenue while returning 70% to the publishers.

He also said that he didn't know if publishers were working together on the negotiations with Apple and Amazon, but because all the publishers had issues with different parts of Apple's proposed contract Cue said that "if they talked together, I assumed it would be easier to get the deals done." Cue also said that he "wasn't trying to negotiate" for the entire e-book market and he wasn't attempting to fix issues the publishers had with Amazon.

Article Link: Apple SVP Eddy Cue Takes Stand in E-Book Trial, Admits Some E-Books Rose in Price
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 01:40 PM   #2
NoNothing
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Send a message via AIM to NoNothing
This entire trial makes you wonder who at Amazon bribed whom at the DOJ.
NoNothing is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 01:42 PM   #3
jfx94
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: where ever I am at.
I like that guy, Cue. He makes a lot of sense.

I'm glad some of the higher profile people are testifying and are able to set the record straight, hopefully limiting unfounded assumptions.
jfx94 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 01:43 PM   #4
lolkthxbai
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
I still don't understand what Apple allegedly did wrong. They set up shop a charged a higher price?
lolkthxbai is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 01:45 PM   #5
zman2100
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
The Verge reports that at one point the DOJ attorney asked Eddy Cue if Apple's customers thanked Apple for raising prices.
__________________
Late 2013 15" Retina MacBook Pro 2.3GHz // Space Gray 64GB AT&T iPhone 5s // 64GB Black WiFi 3rd Gen iPad
zman2100 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 02:03 PM   #6
street.cory
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
As much as I love Apple, there did seem to be something fishy going on with this whole pricing fiasco. I often found that some books that were digital were around the same price as a paperback version.

Although, I don't really use iBooks very much considering it isn't cross platform and they didn't have availability for use on computers.
__________________
no one cares


Last edited by street.cory; Jun 13, 2013 at 02:03 PM. Reason: grammar
street.cory is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 02:12 PM   #7
boomeringue
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjsterilite View Post
I still don't understand what Apple allegedly did wrong. They set up shop a charged a higher price?
It's illegal to collude in a monopolistic way to game a mature marketplace for more profit. If every airline were to get together and jointly decide to raise prices on a NY-LA route by $100, that's illegal.

The DOJ's argument is that Apple sat down with the 6 major book companies and colluded to raise prices on the ebook market. Their argument fails because a) it wasn't a mature marketplace, since the 'eBooks market' had been around only for a few years, and only had one main player (Amazon), who had like 90% of the market, and b) Amazon was selling many of their eBooks for far below the intended price for eBooks. In many cases, Amazon was selling eBooks on their store for at or below wholesale price, which they were doing essentially to keep pricing pressure on brick and mortar bookstores and eventually drive more of them out of business.

So essentially Amazon was the one using a monopoly to control prices. Funny how things work that way.
boomeringue is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 02:28 PM   #8
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
"Cue admitted that the prices of some e-books -- including many of those appearing on the New York Times best sellers list -- did rise after the iBooks Store was opened, but it was more the result of publishers being unhappy with Amazon's pricing of $9.99/book than anything untoward that Apple did."

So is he saying it was just a coincidence?

If publishers had been unhappy before Apple's involvement in the eBook market - why hadn't prices gone up?

"So essentially Amazon was the one using a monopoly to control prices. Funny how things work that way. "

Only Amazon never had a monopoly.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 02:54 PM   #9
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post

Only Amazon never had a monopoly.
But they certainly were attempting, it in my opinion. Looks like they will have to be happy with 65% of the U.S. market.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
If publishers had been unhappy before Apple's involvement in the eBook market - why hadn't prices gone up?
Publishers had no price control with the wholesale model.
TMay is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:05 PM   #10
Tigger11
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rocket City, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post

Only Amazon never had a monopoly.
Amazon met every necessary requirement for a Monopoly in the ebook market before Apple entered the market, they were the source of over 90% of the ebooks at that time. How exactly do you think they were not a monopoly?
Tigger11 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:13 PM   #11
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman2100 View Post
The Verge reports that at one point the DOJ attorney asked Eddy Cue if Apple's customers thanked Apple for raising prices.
They also reported Apple considered offering Amazon a you keep out of music and we keep out of books deal.
unlinked is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:19 PM   #12
AppleMark
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The CCTV Capital of the World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger11 View Post
Amazon met every necessary requirement for a Monopoly in the ebook market before Apple entered the market, they were the source of over 90% of the ebooks at that time. How exactly do you think they were not a monopoly?
Amazon and others settled this [paid-up $ for their part in this] so they would not need to explain themselves further.

Apple are claiming they did nothing wrong, so this has nothing to do with Amazon, only Apple right now.
__________________
Although I may not always reply to negative comments, this will not necessarily mean that I concede the point.
AppleMark is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:22 PM   #13
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
But they certainly were attempting, it in my opinion. Looks like they will have to be happy with 65% of the U.S. market.

----------



Publishers had no price control with the wholesale model.
Publishers could charge anything they wanted. Could they control what Amazon charged? No. And I'm not arguing against or for either model. But if Apple and the publishers are guilty of collusion - no matter how "good" it might have been or "bad" it might have been - it's illegal.

And every business tries to attain as much marketshare as possible. I'm not sure I get your point.

Look at Apple and the music business. Are you suggesting Apple wouldn't like to have 90 or more percent of the share?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger11 View Post
Amazon met every necessary requirement for a Monopoly in the ebook market before Apple entered the market, they were the source of over 90% of the ebooks at that time. How exactly do you think they were not a monopoly?
Again - Amazon did not have a monopoly. Did Apple have a music monopoly?
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:32 PM   #14
Mr.damien
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfx94 View Post
I like that guy, Cue. He makes a lot of sense.

I'm glad some of the higher profile people are testifying and are able to set the record straight, hopefully limiting unfounded assumptions.
Yeah he admitted during the trial that indeed Apple made the prices goes up and you like that.

Like DOJ said: 'Did your customers thank you for raising prices?'

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/44...raising-prices
  1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:37 PM   #15
tdmac
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Publishers could charge anything they wanted. Could they control what Amazon charged? No. And I'm not arguing against or for either model. But if Apple and the publishers are guilty of collusion - no matter how "good" it might have been or "bad" it might have been - it's illegal.

And every business tries to attain as much marketshare as possible. I'm not sure I get your point.
But, could the publishers charge anything they wanted? I don't believe so. Amazon decimated competition in the paper book market and had a huge share of the market. Thus, they were able to dictate terms on the ebook market. Thus, no windowing of ebooks and the lower cost of ebooks, which in turn were eroding the profits from the publishers hardcover books. Why would publishers want that. They had no choice since Amazon was the market leader in hardcover books and there wasn't anyone else in the marketplace to go to. By having the ebook market pretty locked up Amazon was killing the hardcover book market, thus pushing the industry in that direction. All funneling it to the Kindle platform and no viable competitor.
tdmac is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:47 PM   #16
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Publishers could charge anything they wanted. Could they control what Amazon charged? No. And I'm not arguing against or for either model. But if Apple and the publishers are guilty of collusion - no matter how "good" it might have been or "bad" it might have been - it's illegal.

And every business tries to attain as much marketshare as possible. I'm not sure I get your point.

Look at Apple and the music business. Are you suggesting Apple wouldn't like to have 90 or more percent of the share?



Again - Amazon did not have a monopoly. Did Apple have a music monopoly?
With Apple's business model, i.e. profit, and the Agency Model that Publishers' desired, there wasn't any barrier to entry for competitors. Similarly this has worked for music, video and most likely audio books.

The fact that Amazon uses the Agency model for newspapers and magazines indicates to me that Amazon didn't have any issues with the model per se, other than the desire, in my opinion, to take an early movers shareholder advantage in ebooks to a 90% shareholder position, at least long enough to disrupt brick and mortar competitors.

Whether Amazon would use that same shareholder position to control the Publishers seems to be a given; they did and it isn't illegal. Whether the Publishers colluded is now water under the bridge.

Whether Apple colluded is the question, and the answer so for appears to be, again in my opinion: no.

What the DOJ should be asking isn't what was the price that Amazon was offering Bestsellers at, but what was the natural pricing without the subsidized (i.e. Predatory) pricing of Bestsellers that Amazon brought to the market. That is what I as a consumer would expect to pay in a healthy ebook market.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.damien View Post
Yeah he admitted during the trial that indeed Apple made the prices goes up and you like that.

Like DOJ said: 'Did your customers thank you for raising prices?'

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/44...raising-prices
It's also true that Amazon created unnaturally low pricing.
TMay is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 03:55 PM   #17
Tigger11
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rocket City, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMark View Post
Amazon and others settled this [paid-up $ for their part in this] so they would not need to explain themselves further.

Apple are claiming they did nothing wrong, so this has nothing to do with Amazon, only Apple right now.
Applemark, samcraig is again arguing that Amazon NEVER had a monopoly on ebook distribution, that is a ludicrous and inaccurate statement, you really want to be part of the Amazon was never a monopoly crowd?
-Tig

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
If publishers had been unhappy before Apple's involvement in the eBook market - why hadn't prices gone up?
Because Amazon was selling at whatever price they wanted to, and was dictating what price they would buy books at, selling books at a loss in many many cases. See the Macmillan and Amazon dispute of 2010 or any of the small publishers they bullied starting back as long as 2007. Prices didn't go up because Amazon was selling the books at a loss, we've discussed that, at one point one of my wife's novels was selling for that amount she got per unit, that makes me real sure that Amazon was selling it at a loss as an Ebook.
Tigger11 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 04:19 PM   #18
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
Whether Apple colluded is the question, and the answer so for appears to be, again in my opinion: no.
in your opinion.

It's ok if I don't agree with you at the moment though based on everything I've read and the testimony so far, right?
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 04:20 PM   #19
GadgetDon
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post

"So essentially Amazon was the one using a monopoly to control prices. Funny how things work that way. "

Only Amazon never had a monopoly.
Amazon controlled nearly all of the "best seller" ebook market (some niches had the publishers selling their own ebook), engaged in predatory pricing by discounting to near or below cost to ensure no other retailer could enter the market, and used their market power in physical books to threaten publishers who didn't play ball with them on eBooks.

As such, the ebook market was the Kindle market. You can argue that wasn't a monopoly, but Amazon controlled the market and was taking active steps to ensure that didn't change. And not only did the DoJ ignore this anti-competitive behavior, the state department gave Amazon a non-bid contract to provide ebooks and ebook readers because of that control.

And since you compared it to Apple's music - Apple never gave up their 30% margin so when the publishers were unhappy with Apple's control of the online music business and gave Amazon both non-DRMed music (which Apple had been asking for) and a lower price, Apple didn't go running to the DoJ screaming "collusion".

Now I will say that if there had been a deal struck between Apple and Amazon, Apple gets music and Amazon gets books, that WOULD have been collusion and Apple would have been in deep trouble for it (and maybe Amazon would FINALLY have taken a step the DoJ couldn't ignore).
GadgetDon is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 04:39 PM   #20
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post
Amazon controlled nearly all of the "best seller" ebook market (some niches had the publishers selling their own ebook), engaged in predatory pricing by discounting to near or below cost to ensure no other retailer could enter the market, and used their market power in physical books to threaten publishers who didn't play ball with them on eBooks.

As such, the ebook market was the Kindle market. You can argue that wasn't a monopoly, but Amazon controlled the market and was taking active steps to ensure that didn't change. And not only did the DoJ ignore this anti-competitive behavior, the state department gave Amazon a non-bid contract to provide ebooks and ebook readers because of that control.

And since you compared it to Apple's music - Apple never gave up their 30% margin so when the publishers were unhappy with Apple's control of the online music business and gave Amazon both non-DRMed music (which Apple had been asking for) and a lower price, Apple didn't go running to the DoJ screaming "collusion".

Now I will say that if there had been a deal struck between Apple and Amazon, Apple gets music and Amazon gets books, that WOULD have been collusion and Apple would have been in deep trouble for it (and maybe Amazon would FINALLY have taken a step the DoJ couldn't ignore).
I can argue it wasn't a monopoly. I can also argue that Amazon has not been found guilty of anything illegal. Just like people can claim that Apple has not been found guilty of anything illegal.

Also - the issue is collusion. Not Monopolies.

Regardless of what marketshare Amazon had. That doesn't entitle other companies to collude. If that is what happened. TBD
samcraig is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 04:50 PM   #21
Plutonius
macrumors 601
 
Plutonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
I can argue it wasn't a monopoly. I can also argue that Amazon has not been found guilty of anything illegal. Just like people can claim that Apple has not been found guilty of anything illegal.

Also - the issue is collusion. Not Monopolies.

Regardless of what marketshare Amazon had. That doesn't entitle other companies to collude. If that is what happened. TBD
In a trial, it's important to get all the background information to arrive at a correct decision. Amazon's actions at the time are 100% pertinent to the trial. If Amazon is found to have a monopoly on the ebook market during the period in question, it does affect what's considered collusion.
Plutonius is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 04:59 PM   #22
GadgetDon
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
I can argue it wasn't a monopoly. I can also argue that Amazon has not been found guilty of anything illegal. Just like people can claim that Apple has not been found guilty of anything illegal.
But Apple has been drug through the mud with the charges first being tried in the public and now the courtroom, while Amazon has been anointed by the State Department. If the DoJ had both taken action against Apple and the publishers and Amazon, I'd take these charges more seriously.

Quote:
Also - the issue is collusion. Not Monopolies.

Regardless of what marketshare Amazon had. That doesn't entitle other companies to collude. If that is what happened. TBD
So if organized crime is collecting protection money and the police do nothing - the merchants just have to shrug and pay up?
GadgetDon is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 05:00 PM   #23
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post
But Apple has been drug through the mud with the charges first being tried in the public and now the courtroom, while Amazon has been anointed by the State Department. If the DoJ had both taken action against Apple and the publishers and Amazon, I'd take these charges more seriously.



So if organized crime is collecting protection money and the police do nothing - the merchants just have to shrug and pay up?
No. But if they do something illegal - then they are still accountable.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 05:42 PM   #24
Bubba Satori
macrumors 68040
 
Bubba Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B'ham
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNothing View Post
This entire trial makes you wonder who at Amazon bribed whom at the DOJ.
Bubba Satori is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 05:49 PM   #25
AppleMark
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The CCTV Capital of the World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger11 View Post
Applemark, samcraig is again arguing that Amazon NEVER had a monopoly on ebook distribution, that is a ludicrous and inaccurate statement, you really want to be part of the Amazon was never a monopoly crowd?
Really? Where did I make this statement?

Fact is this is not so much about monopolies, it is about creating a cartel [which is illegal] which engages in collusion to fix pricing. Price fixing, which Apple is accused of, which it duly denied and so is at the receiving end of legal action, with evidence being brought to that end.

It is Apple, not Amazon in the dock right now.

EDIT - Tigger11, I think I may have mis-read your post. I saw accusation, not perhaps a warning? However, my opinion on collusion still stands.
__________________
Although I may not always reply to negative comments, this will not necessarily mean that I concede the point.

Last edited by AppleMark; Jun 14, 2013 at 08:24 AM. Reason: Clarifying post response.
AppleMark is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eddy Cue: Best Product Pipeline in 25 Years Coming Later This Year From Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 119 Sep 9, 2014 08:52 AM
Tim Cook and Eddy Cue Receive Thousands of Shares of Apple Stock, Cue Nets Over $12M MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 33 Aug 29, 2013 06:43 AM
Apple SVP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue Cashes in $8.8 Million in Stock MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 37 Dec 19, 2012 03:22 AM
Apple's 'Master Negotiator and Product Resuscitator' Eddy Cue Profiled MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 71 Nov 5, 2012 09:49 AM
Apple vs. Samsung: Apple Executive Eddy Cue wants 7-inch tablet, Steve Jobs receptive ThatsMeRight iPad 3 Aug 4, 2012 07:04 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC