I am confused, why doesn't your publisher deal with Apple? If the governments allegations are true, Apple would be a publishers best friend.
As far as Apple pointing the finger at the publishers, they all settled: it doesn't hurt them at all.
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.
Apple Blames Book Publishers in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am confused, why doesn't your publisher deal with Apple? If the governments allegations are true, Apple would be a publishers best friend.
As far as Apple pointing the finger at the publishers, they all settled: it doesn't hurt them at all.
Textbooks are a entirely different animal. Unlike Novels that can be relevant for decades or longer. Most textbooks have a shelf life of a few years and take a lot of time to write, and unlike a novel they also have a very limited market. You're not going to see any textbook on a best sellers list and that's okay, but you pay the price.
What tactics were wrong? The only controversial clause was the most favored nations clause. Apple, however, merely wanted the same price set for new releases as other retailers received. If Apple asked that today when dealing with music companies, that would be anti-competitive because of its position as market leader. However, Apple did not hold a market dominant position with books, so Apple asking for this clause was not an abuse by Apple. Apple was the underdog. The publishers had the power.
Moreover, retailers like Amazon could elect to not deal with publishers or they could pay for the rights for exclusives, which meant the most favored nations clause was not triggered.
----------
True, but Europe operates under different rules then the US. In Europe, nobody was charged. The matter was merely investigated and settled during the informal stage. Moreover, if all the publishers in Europe agreed to drop the agency model, there was no point for Apple to hold out. If the matter moved to a formal proceeding, Apple would have risked a penalty of up to 10 percent of its global sales with no gain as the publishers agreed with the EU to drop the contracts.
In the US, Apple was actually charged and accused of acting illegally. It obviously doesn't think it acted illegally.
What I hate about textbooks is that revised editions are not always improvements. Many are poorly written, and much of the time they re-arrange the flow of material to reduce the viability of used markets.
Yes, and occasionally, the man in prison is right.
Since you brought it up, ask yourself this: how could Apple abuse its market power in a market it did not operate? Apple wasn't selling books. At the time, Amazon held over 90 percent of the market. Moreover, it did not have any power over the publishers to force them to agree to Apple's terms.
This case is nothing like classic anti-trust cases. For example, Microsoft using its market power through selling Windows to force hardware manufacturers to carry Explorer over Netscape by threatening to end Windows discounts if they didn't do as it wished. LG, Samsung, Sharp colluding to set display prices they charged to companies like Apple.
Unlike with music, Apple had no market power to force the publishers do anything they didn't wish to do.
Manufacturers do already set prices so that is a bad example. Retailers who buy wholesale have a bit more leeway in adjusting prices but ony to what the contract with the manufacturer stipulates. Just because you purchase something doesn't automatically mean its the resellers right to do with it what it pleases. It all depends on the terms of what the contract stipulates.
For example, amazon or bestbuy cannot post prices lower then the suggested manufacturers price online due to contractual obligations with the manufacturers. They can offer to sell it for less but they cannot list the price as such. So yes the manufacturer does set the terms.
For example, amazon or bestbuy cannot post prices lower then the suggested manufacturers price online due to contractual obligations with the manufacturers. They can offer to sell it for less but they cannot list the price as such. So yes the manufacturer does set the terms.
Corrected for truth.
Publishers hated Amazon because it GAVE steep discounts to consumers on e-books, the publishers fought back by refusing to let Amazon sell the publishers books if the discounts were not ended.
^That is how the publishers made Amazon agree to switch to the agency system. I know this for a fact because 3 publishers pulled their books from Amazon to force this.
Prices before Apple = low with some variation between outlets (B&N, Amazon, Sony)
Prices after Apple = higher with all being the SAME (Apple, Amazon, B&N, Sony)
THAT is price fixing. Unfortunately for Apple their normal system, agency, that they offered to the publishers, gave the publishers the tool they needed to screw the consumer, while Apple KNEW that would be the end result. Thusly Apple is just as guilty of collusion as the publishers and should be punished for it.
Truth, before agency, I'd buy a book a week, after agency with prices being HIGHER than print, I'm down to a book every six months and thats just for books I really want to read.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR E-BOOKS TO COST THE CONSUMER ***MORE*** THAN THE DTB. NONE!
And if you can't understand this then you're part of the problem.No Amazon wasn't. Amazon was leaving giant holes where Amazon could unilaterally have "sales" on physical and ebooks and publishers were forced to take what Amazon paid.
The publishers ALLOWED Amazon to pick them off and play them against each other. Then Steve came along and the publishers saw their chance to "gang up" on Amazon using Apple's new service as the catalyst. Unlike Bezo, Steve had no problem allowing Physical bookstores first dibs because Apple isn't trying to ruin their businesses.
The DOJ must have a lot of Amazon fans. They didn't do anything when MUSIC publishers all pooled resources into Amazon's music store and have Amazon BETTER terms (allowed tedownloading, but forced a higher price per track) than they gave Apple.
Apples use wholesale for music not agency.
That's why Amazon MP3 can compete on prices versus Itunes. AmazonMP3 has 23% market share vs. Itunes 62% market share due to this. Remember Laga Gaga album that was discounted to $0.99? (Amazon lost millions of dollar from this).
From Steve Jobs bio (book):
Jobs acknowledged that he was trying to have it both ways when it came to music and books. He had refused to offer the music companies the agency model and allow them to set their own prices. Why? Because he didn’t have to. But with books he did.
There is retail price competition for digital music. There was none for ebooks after the price fixing until the DOJ step in.
Before: Price competition among ebook sellers. Discounts and whatnot.
After the price fixing: Price competition is eliminated. The price for the ebook is the same everywhere. All ebook sellers are guaranteed 30% margin.
All 5 Publishers have settled with the DOJ and the EU. The 5 Publishers also agreed to pay restitution for the price-fixing. $52 million from 2 Publishers with more to come from the other 3.
Last edited:
How about Amazon itself?
http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/...splayType=tagsDetail&ref_=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp
"Macmillan, one of the "big six" publishers, has clearly communicated to us that, regardless of our viewpoint, they are committed to switching to an agency model and charging $12.99 to $14.99 for e-book versions of bestsellers and most hardcover releases.
We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles."
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Amazon pulled MacMillian titles to fight back against the price-fixing.
Amazon caved in after 2 days and switched to agency model despite not wanting to.
Why? Because all 5 Big Publishers all signed the "agency" agreement with Apple that forced Amazon to go "agency" too. It had no choice. Either agency or no ebook to sell at all.
Though, going with agency does get Amazon 30% margin on all ebook sold. Customers got screwed since Amazon were not allowed to offer discount.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
^That is how the publishers made Amazon agree to switch to the agency system. I know this for a fact because 3 publishers pulled their books from Amazon to force this.
Please name the 3 publishers that did that.
----------
How does that relate to what I was replying to, which was showing proof that "Publishers hated Amazon because it demanded steep discounts on e-books by threatening to refuse to carry the publishers books if the discounts were not given. That is true anti-competitive behaviour."
The fact that Amazon gave it doesn't mitigate the fact that they first stopped selling MacMillian books to try and force MacMillian to not do what they wanted.
Amazon saying that they don't accept the Agency model is "it demanded steep discounts on e-books by threatening to refuse to carry the publishers books if the discounts were not given."?
Retail Price Competition went bye bye.
The price was the same everywhere.
Even Steve Jobs Admitted This.
Back in January 2010.
DOJ and the EU took action.
All 5 Publishers have settled.
And Agreed to pay restitution.
Price Competition is Back.
Now You Can Shop Around.
--------------------------
Biggest winners of Price Competition: Consumers who buy Ebooks
Biggest winners of the Elimination of Price Competition: Publishers who can now set the prices consumers would pay for e-books instead of retailers, EbookSellers who are guarenteed 30% margin and don't have to worry about price competition because the price is the same everywhere.
The price was the same everywhere.
Even Steve Jobs Admitted This.
Back in January 2010.
DOJ and the EU took action.
All 5 Publishers have settled.
And Agreed to pay restitution.
Price Competition is Back.
Now You Can Shop Around.
--------------------------
Biggest winners of Price Competition: Consumers who buy Ebooks
Biggest winners of the Elimination of Price Competition: Publishers who can now set the prices consumers would pay for e-books instead of retailers, EbookSellers who are guarenteed 30% margin and don't have to worry about price competition because the price is the same everywhere.
You are right that Apple doesn't use a strict agency model for music. However, it does let publishers choose between a range of prices. More importantly, though is that Apple negotiated comparable contracts with all the music publishers.
Just because Apple asked for contract terms that ended up benefitting publishers, itself, and caused an increase in some e-books doesn't mean it did anything wrong. Anti-trust is about abusing market power. Apple did not have any market power in the arena of e-books. Publishers did not need Apple, but Apple needed them. If the publishers all got together and decided to go to an agency model collectively if anybody is at fault it is the publishers.
The only controversial clause in Apple's contract is the most favorable nations clause. However, if Apple as a start up in e-book sales asked for that, and the publishers agreed to it, Apple has not abused its market position as it did not have one.
Moreover, price competition is complex and is still a problem even after eliminating the most favored nation clause. For instance, Amazon frequently buys exclusives. For example, try finding James Bond books on iBooks or Barnes and Nobile.
Go on iBooks and try to find Hunger Games or Harry Potter.
The accused publishers often excluded iBooks from new releases thereby avoiding the most favored nations clause. If a new release book was on Amazon and Barnes and Noble, but not on iBooks, there would be price variation.
I personally would like to see a strong Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and iBooks. The agency model was accomplishing that goal. If it was in some way anti-competitive, it was so because of the publishers, not Apple.
"Macmillan, one of the "big six" publishers, has clearly communicated to us that, regardless of our viewpoint, they are committed to switching to an agency model and charging $12.99 to $14.99 for e-book versions of bestsellers and most hardcover releases.
We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles."
The last part - "We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles." would be refusing the carry the books would it not? If not how do you interpret it?
They don't carry the books because they don't accept the Agency Model. This is not a proof of "it demanded steep discounts on e-books by threatening to refuse to carry the publishers books if the discounts were not given."
Apple blames ___________
Fill in the blank with nearly anything & it would be appropriate
Unsurprising comment from you. Really, both of us know why you're here.
A Trust typically requires more than one company to be involved (like a cartel; for example OPEC in the Middle East). Amazon giving discounts like a loss leader (supermarkets discount things like milk all the time to bring in customers) is not a Trust. Asian steel was dumped on the U.S. market for years and the only way to protect against it is tariffs (which most companies HATE like a foul word). You can't file anti-trust or monopoly suits against giving discounts to bring in customers. If Amazon is taking actions to knowingly prevent competition beyond simply discounting products, then there might be something to look at, but as I've been told so many times on here, you need to be controlling a market before the department of justice will even look at you. Apple has snuck by for years by claiming to be a small insignificant market share company and therefore they don't go after them when they ship OSX with Safari with no Firefox option unlike Microsoft with Internet Explorer even though it's the EXACT SAME ACTION.
The charge here as a I understand it is that the publishers colluded with Apple in order to try and force Amazon to raise their prices. That does involve a conspiracy/collusion of more than one company to set prices and therefore does potentially fall under anti-trust law. Apple can play the "the only way I could do business with these publishers is to agree to their demands" card and try to shift all the blame onto them and that appears to be exactly what they're trying to do.
Read it again. You will get it eventually I guess. Let me try to spell it out for you...
1) Amazon wanted the wholsale model, the one that let them set the steep discounts
2) MacMillan said it would only sell at the agency model.
3) Amazon refused to carry MacMillan books.
Seems rather straightforward, not sure how you are missing it.
Lot like the Publishers who have settled are now providing evidence to the DOJ about Apple involvement.
Very damning if true!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/t...its-lawsuit-on-e-book-price-fixing.html?_r=1&
Very damning if true!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/t...its-lawsuit-on-e-book-price-fixing.html?_r=1&