Amazon and Book Publishers Reach New Deals Ahead of iBookstore Launch

[Shasterball]

I hear you, but that's the difference between something not seeming right to a non-legal mind, and something that violates a law. Only the latter gets you in trouble. And since no one in the industry, least of all Amazon who would have all the motive in the world, is making any noises about Apple's actions being illegal tells me there is nothing there.

Oh yea, totally. That's why I wasn't saying it was illegal. Just seems off -- which does not mean they are doing anything wrong. I think we are on the same page.

Well MS never had an illegal monopoly either, but I'm sure plenty of people here were gung ho about all of that. Sorry, but Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive nature.

Microsoft DID have an illegal monopoly. They did some very bad and anticompetitive things to achieve monopoly status -- thus making it an illegal monopoly.

 

[gwangung]

That is more along the lines of resale price maintenance, which is not per se illegal. Those are examples of a company keeping prices the same for its product in different markets. But trying to set prices among competitors, seems fishy to me. You need to have an anticompetitive effect, which is hard to prove now since the iPad isn't even on the market yet. But, it just doesn't seem quite right.

What? Apple's saying, "Don't frackin' undercut us or we won't carry you." That happens all the time.

 

[Glideslope]

Well, guess who just blinked. Welcome to iPad Nation and HTML5!!!

 

[NebulaClash]

Well MS never had an illegal monopoly either,

Sorry, the courts disagreed with you. They were found guilty of having an illegal monopoly, and Microsoft appealed this decision. In the appeals, the decision was upheld, but the remedy was reduced. So in the end, the courts spoke: Microsoft was an illegal monopoly.

 

[Rootus]

This is a non-issue. If the e-book is worth less to you than a paperback, get the paperback. Or if you think convenience actually increases the value of the e-book, grab it. You, along with everyone else, will quickly determine where the value really is. There is no magic here. It may be that consumers decide that e-books actually have more value than paperbacks. I gather that there are a number of folks here who would be offended by that.

 

[NebulaClash]

I just read David Pogue's NYTimes Q&A article about the iPad, and he says most of the books in the bookstore are similar to Amazon's pricing. I suspect only the newest and bestselling books will be more, and that only for as long as people buy them at that price. If sales are down, the prices will drop.

 

[chromos]

This is getting a bit absurd. At what point is Apple going to get nailed for anti competitive practices? How can they INSIST that no one else sells at a lower price? It's not their content. They want to control books, music and movies? And on their little crippled device? Give me a break. Time for Apple to get sued. Seriously, they have gone insane.

The clause in the contract is generally termed "most favored nation". Not illegal at all. It just stipulates that the publishers give Apple the same (best) prices as they do any other retailer.

 

[Stephen123]

The article says Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins signed agency contracts with Amazon.com and most of the comments are about whether this is an evil move on Apple's part? That's just weird.

 

[theBB]

But trying to set prices among competitors, seems fishy to me. You need to have an anticompetitive effect, which is hard to prove now since the iPad isn't even on the market yet. But, it just doesn't seem quite right.

I kind of agree. Amazon does not like this, because it wants to be able to sell some books at a loss to attract customers who may buy other items on its site. The agency model, where publishers determine the price, is not good for Amazon. iTunes sells only a limited range of items, so Apple does not mind the same price across all retailers, as hardware and software is where it makes most of its profits anyways, not retailing. I don't know if it makes a big difference to publishers, but they are mostly on Apple's side now. I presume they don't want Amazon to be the only game in town, kind of how iTunes was on music downloads. Just like the recording industry supported and still supports Amazon, now the book publishers are supporting Apple.

It is quite funny actually. In many European countries the paper books are sold at a fixed price at every bookshop. Apparently, it is actually illegal to sell them at a lower price. The idea is to support lesser known books and independent bookshops to be subsidized by the high profit margins from the top selling books.

 

[theBB]

What? Apple's saying, "Don't frackin' undercut us or we won't carry you." That happens all the time.

Well, not exactly. Retailers normally want the best wholesale price, but they set their own retail price. Here, Apple's model seems to be fixing the eventual retail price for every retail outlet.

 

[Xibalba]

Kind of frustrating to see eBooks increase in price, but really none of us truly understand the entire behind the scenes picture. And, for me, it does not really matter because if I am really going to read a book, it will be the real thing and not a digital representation...and paperbacks are very very cheap. I will use the iPad to consume media and be productive in many other ways.

 

[ScottishDuck]

You guys are really scrambling to spin this one.

 

[DanielSw]

All the blabber in this article thread is downright silly.

The fact is that the iPad and the iBookstore are about to establish a new market all its own, and the simplicity of the matter is that its customers and what they buy will determine its success or failure.

Pricing will be monitored by factual demand coupled with the economics of e-book production.

Attempts to compare this new market to other markets are irrelevant.

 

[NebulaClash]

The article says Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins signed agency contracts with Amazon.com and most of the comments are about whether this is an evil move on Apple's part? That's just weird.

Not that weird. Microsoft couldn't compete against Apple with the iPod or the iPhone. Any time that happens to Microsoft, next comes the astroturf campaign against their competitor. So a year or two ago you started to see "spontaneous" comments all over the Web about how Apple is a "closed" company, an "evil" company, a "greedy" company, etc. In other words, all the things Microsoft is guilty of is what they had their folks go around the Web and say Apple is instead.

Now there are people who get fed up with Apple, and there are always people who are anti-Apple for whatever ideological reason, and they these folks aren't working for Microsoft but they see these comments and they pick up the meme and spread it some more.

So right now it's hip to say Apple is a closed, evil company. It's not factual, but that's the way propaganda works, and it's why Microsoft has used this technique in one form or the other since the 1980s. It's effective at drawing the heat from themselves, and it helps slow down mindshare for their competitors.

People in the MacRumors threads who slam Apple irrationally (as opposed to rationally airing a complaint with facts to back them up) are doing Microsoft's bidding whether they realize it or not.

 

[Henri Gaudier]

you really don't understand the model do you? and why they wanted the prices set by the publishers?

Perhaps not. I don't care about the iPad or eBooks; the Pad is yet another thing that stops Apple thinking about real computers for demanding users and as for eBooks .. I much prefer paper. Vinyl and paper over MP3s and glorified texts files any day. So yes my observation isn't that deep. But having re-read the snip it does say Apple are going to be, in some cases, 50% more. After that what is there to get? There's no extra cost incurred over another e-tailer so why more? It has to be Apple tax. Look at everything in their shop; the MP3 dock/hifi's and printers etc. They are always ridiculously more expensive than elsewhere and now it's the same with a tiny txt file.

 

[martynjd]

GQ

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/04/gq-goes-ipad.html

 

[joshhampstead]

GQ

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/04/gq-goes-ipad.html

This is getting a bit absurd. At what point is Apple going to get nailed for anti competitive practices? How can they INSIST that no one else sells at a lower price? It's not their content. Most book publishers don't care they want to control books, music and movies? And on their little crippled device? Give me a break. Time for Apple to get sued or publish a book. Seriously, they have gone insane.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Amazon once gain proving the suck giant donkey balls by their outright refusal to sell the Kindle to New Zealand customers. Bezos, in all due respect, take a high dive into a shallow rock pool and take your xenophobia with you.