don't be silly
i read kindle books on my ipad all the time
they all have apps for ipad
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Government Warns Apple and Publishers of Antitrust Lawsuit over e-Book Pricing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
don't be silly
i read kindle books on my ipad all the time
they all have apps for ipad
Anti-Trust is a very complicated legal area. Even more so when you are dealing with companies that operate across multiple industries.
The key here is the word "Collusion": Did Apple conspire with the major publishers to set prices?
Thats going to be very hard to prove. There would need to be some evidence that there was communication between them saying "If you agree to these terms, we've got all the other publishers agreeing to do the same thing, etc. etc."
There is also the market-share argument: Apple certainly is far from the largest e-book seller (both Amazon and Barnes & Noble have extensive similar operations.)
Also, I think the publishers are going to push back with the argument that Amazon's business model, which pushed huge volumes of best-sellers at rock bottom prices, was essentially bad for publishing in general. IOW, publishers *need* to make a little more money selling Ann Rice and Tom Clancy, in order to pay for the lesser-known writers.
Bottom line: If all that Apple did was say: "We're going to operate on the Agency Basis, but if you sign with us you agree NOT to sell cheaper online someplace else" - then I think its hard to say that they "colluded" with the publishers. The publishers certainly could figure out that "cheaper someplace else" probably meant Amazon. But that, IMHO, doesn't meet the standard of "collusion."
The key here is the word "Collusion": Did Apple conspire with the major publishers to set prices?
Thats going to be very hard to prove. There would need to be some evidence that there was communication between them saying "If you agree to these terms, we've got all the other publishers agreeing to do the same thing, etc. etc."
There is also the market-share argument: Apple certainly is far from the largest e-book seller (both Amazon and Barnes & Noble have extensive similar operations.)
Also, I think the publishers are going to push back with the argument that Amazon's business model, which pushed huge volumes of best-sellers at rock bottom prices, was essentially bad for publishing in general. IOW, publishers *need* to make a little more money selling Ann Rice and Tom Clancy, in order to pay for the lesser-known writers.
Bottom line: If all that Apple did was say: "We're going to operate on the Agency Basis, but if you sign with us you agree NOT to sell cheaper online someplace else" - then I think its hard to say that they "colluded" with the publishers. The publishers certainly could figure out that "cheaper someplace else" probably meant Amazon. But that, IMHO, doesn't meet the standard of "collusion."
The U.S. Government conducted an Antitrust investigation and came to the conclusion that there is ground for a lawsuit. Their experts might be wrong but I doubt they are not aware of the court decision you mention (since it basically was game-changing).
That court decision stated that price restraint are not illegal per se, but can be illegal if they breach the Rule of Reason. That's obviously what the government concluded with the investigation, we'll see what happens if and when they actually file the lawsuit.
Proving it is not as hard as you think. All that has to be proved is what was the behavior of the publishers after entering into the business model deal. And what will be shown is that prices for those publishers rose dramatically and were not allowed to be discounted by any seller. By the way, that's exactly the tact that was used to break up the Standard Oil price fixing monopoly in the 1960's and there is plenty of case precedent since then.
----------
And this is exactly the issue. I was buying these same books for between $7.99 and 9.99 before the agency deal. If you look at books offered by smaller publishing houses who are not a part of this arrangement their prices are substantially lower and drop over time as the book ages. Agency model books don't go sown in price nearly as much but are held to artificially high prices.
The agency model is the same concept as OPEC and I hardly think OPEC has many fans outside the Arab world. What's being missed in all of the arguments that has been presented is that this is not free enterprise at work, as some have contended. But quite the opposite. These conspirators have colluded to thwart the forces of the free market in determining the price of their books through the interaction of supply and demand in the marketplace.
Thanks, I did not understand that is what an Agency model was. That makes a lot more sense now of why this is bad for consumers and a free market.
I agree that a free market does not currently exist but I disagree wholeheartedly about everything else.
A free market does not need regulations, standards or a referee. The consumer will purchase what is the best value to them, and something that does not meet the consumer standards would ultimately not survive. The regulation of products, quality and price comes from consumers and their purchasing choices.
Oligopolies are bad because the can raise prices and stem advancement. In a true free market new competitors can enter the space and set their own prices. If they offer the innovation then they should succeed in the market. This keeps a much better balance than any government regulation could.
I agree that certain things (such as Windows allowing non IE web browsers) are good rules and regulations because it does allow other companies in where otherwise they would not really have a market, but for top tier products I do have to disagree with you.
If it were as easy as you suggest, then the Justice Department wouldn't be negotiating with the publishers and with Apple. They'd have already sued them.
There are a number of complicating factors: One, Amazon's policy of selling new bestsellers for $9.99 was actually below their cost. (Amazon was trying to goose sales of their Kindle e-reader. Of course how they plan to use this business strategy to make money with their subsidized Fire is totally beyond me..)
That might sound great (Hey, I'm getting a book below cost!) - but it was in danger of putting the physical bookstore industry out of business. And, believe it or not, many people find tremendous value in being able to visit and browse actual bookstores. It also posed a real longer-term threat to the publishing industry: Book publishers basically underwrite the 90% of titles and authors that aren't Amazon best sellers. If you never read anything that can't be found in the book aisle at your nearest Wal-Mart, this is isn't problem. But if your literary tastes are perhaps a little broader, within a couple of years you would see a real drop-off in the quality of available content.
Lastly, I think many people don't understand the fact that the cost of physically printing and distributing books makes up only between 10% and 25% of its total cost. Editing, proofreading, marketing, author advances and royalties make up the vast majority of the rest.
I like getting a good deal as much as the next person. But if I allowed the low-cost retailer to put everyone else out of business - then I ought not to be surprised if I wake up one day to find my choices severely limited. As the sign outside a (shuttered) Borders Bookstore said: Go use Amazon's bathroom
The fact that the Justice Department is negotiating means nothing; they always do that. Trials are time consuming and very expensive and if they can get the same result and save money then their first inclination is to try and settle the matter.
As far as the costs you've cited, that's no longer true. Since the agency agreement was put into place those book publishers have shifted the bulk of the marketing costs to the author and totally or at least severely curtailed author advances. I know, because I am a published author. Why have they done this? Because they can when they've created a monopoly in the market. Authors have no place to go, except to smaller publishing houses who couldn't afford to pay for those things before.
The fact that Amazon was selling some books at a loss is irrelevant to the issue germane to this matter. If the market allows them to do that, then so be it. The problem with this arrangement is that supply and demand forces of the market are being thwarted by an iron fisted agreement by the six largest publishers.
MS got busted for bundling, not dumping.
There's a difference.
Amazon makes a few bucks on each of their tablets. They just don't price them at 400+% manufacturing markup like Apple does.
Selling something at cost or even below cost is not illegal.
Actually, Amazon loses $81 on each tablet. A Kindle Fire costs $280 to make and they sell it for $199. They are counting on content purchases to make up the difference.
----------
You make a good point. The tablet itself is more of a loss leader. What Amazon is doing by contracting Authors directly and selling their content at bottom-barrel prices is "dumping" designed to put the publishers out of business. Dumping is the practice of selling at a loss when you are the market leader to put a competitor out of business and then raising the prices after you put them out of business. Amazon wants to remove the publishers from the equation and they are doing a very good job of it by offering more money to authors to sign on with Amazon and then selling books cheaper than the traditional publishers could sell them and still make a profit. Amazon is using the rest of their retail business to support that effort. So the Kindle Fire is indeed a loss-leader designed to help push content that Amazon is dumping so eventually Amazon can be the one and only publisher and eliminate the out-dated middle men who no longer serve as much purpose as they used to.
Hmmm... last breakdown I saw was roughly $180.
As a Kindle owner (the E-Ink version), trust me... they'll make it up.
My daughter goes through books like crazy and the free lending libraries for kids her age suck.
Even with Amazon prime, you can only get one book a month from their free library. Are they effin serious? My kid goes through one book in a day or two.
The public library is ridiculous too. Waiting for a digital copy to become available is like waiting for grass to grow.
So we buy.
I can't argue about record labels, because they don't quite hold the same cards that the publishers still do. You can, for under $10k *buy* everything you need to record, edit, and publish your own music. And that assumes you don't already have a computer. For a couple grand, well within the range of a normal person to save up, you can buy a machine which will burn, *and print* CDs in bulk (1000+ to a run). Book publishers, on the other hand, are still largely useful because the primary way most people still buy books is from 'brick & mortar' book stores, and it's very difficult to get a self-published book into those channels.
Yes, e-books are starting to catch on, but it's still a small segment of the industry. High end printing and binding equipment is still impractically expensive for individuals (authors) to own, run and maintain. Print on demand has become marginally affordable, but it still eats a large share of the revenue (and therefore profits) involved in producing and distributing a paper book to stores. (I'm not entirely sure who you're referring to when you say 'disk manufacturers', so I can't comment on that either.
As for your contention that "there were no costs involved" in publishing your own e-book (beyond the Scrivener license). Great. I wish you all the luck in the world, but without advertising, you're unlikely to sell enough copies to pay for that license, much less actually live on. And if you didn't hire an editor, I can be quite confident that (despite your best efforts), your book isn't as good as you think it is. I'll concede that you may well be the exception that makes the rule, but virtually no one is capable of properly editing their own work simply because they're too familiar with it. Basic spelling and grammatical errors slip past authors simply because the author is subconsciously aware of what the text is *supposed* to say. Inconsistencies in the text commonly escape the author's notice for the same reason. Additionally, authors are notoriously bad at recognizing the sections of a work that are 'cool' in the author's, but serve no actual purpose in the story, leading to poor pacing and other issues. A good editing cycle includes someone who understands good structure, but is not intimately familiar with the work in question. They'll spot the errors, inconsistencies, and poorly written sections that the author will miss.
Additionally, sad though it may be, if your book doesn't have an interesting cover, most potential buyers are going to pass on it. If you didn't pay for the artwork on your e-book's 'cover', you're likely violating copyright, and that could cost you more than you could ever *hope* to earn from the book.
On the other hand, maybe you managed to actually get all of that for 'free', and you're running a grass-roots campaign to draw attention to your book instead of having someone else do it for you. Congratulations, you're not an author, you're an advertiser/agent/publisher/art director/etc. You're spending a bunch of time where you should be writing doing things that *prevent* you from writing.
Again, I wish you all the luck in the world. As an author, you'll need it. As an author who is actively ignoring the realities of the profession, you'll need it more than most.