Amazon has the greatest marketshare for ebooks (last I heard around 60%); the other 40% is dominated by Apple and Barnes & Noble, with Kobo and Sony also managing small percentages. Google is gaining (small) ground, as well.
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 Claims 20% of U.S. E-Book Market, Double Previous Estimates
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Amazon has the greatest marketshare for ebooks (last I heard around 60%); the other 40% is dominated by Apple and Barnes & Noble, with Kobo and Sony also managing small percentages. Google is gaining (small) ground, as well.
Here is how it works. Government used $0.02 from your taxes to pay the lawyers who sue Apple. That's $0.02 of your investments. As a result of this government action e-book prices dropped by $3.00. If you buy one e-book, your return on investment is 15000%. Compare this to investing in AAPL. This year (and for many years to come) the return will be negative.
Cannot understand all this fuss over e-books. I buy all of my hard copies from the two dollar bargain bin, and then pass them around to family and friends. That's value for money!
Of course, i wouldn't lower myself to go rummaging through the one dollar bin.
Of course, i wouldn't lower myself to go rummaging through the one dollar bin.
This is the strangest anti-competitive trial I've ever seen. Apple is not a monopoly in the e-book market, Apple acted to break Amazon's stranglehold in that market, and by the government's own admission was a "failure." The only reason the government appears to be suing is that Apple's actions allowed publishers to increase prices for their books, which they were unable to do under Amazon's monopoly because Amazon often sold their ebooks at a loss, which artificially decreased the public's perception of ebook value.
Some conspiracy!
Some conspiracy!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
When a government is for-profit, you have a government like the old USSR or any of the dictatorships (remember guys like Marcos or Gaddaffi?), where the very few at the top of the government pockets most of the money and the masses are essentially financially enslaved/oppressed. We may think the U.S. is like that but there is still lots of opportunity within the U.S. for the tiniest of companies (think even Apple circa 1996) to become huge successes. Netflix was only an idea in the late 1990's. Etc.
If the U.S. government had a for-profit mandate, we would be much worse off. We could definitely use a mandate to not spend more than they take in (without using any debt) to solve part of the problem you posted but it would probably never be good to charge the gov with being a for-profit gov. The gov has huge advantages over their "competitors" in that the gov isn't taxed and similar. That's how dictatorships can have the dictators living in luxury far beyond our elected officials while the people generally suffer the oppression to support that luxury. A for-profit government's approach to a success like Apple might be to nationalize Apple (take over and run Apple itself) much like dictatorships will often nationalize all kinds of private enterprises that find a way to capture a lot of revenue.
Yes, social security is a total failure. Just ask tens of millions of people whose lives totally depend on it. Contrast this with Apple spending billions of dollars on creating pretty icons for their UI. That's a real achievement. Sometimes people just lose any perspective.
You sound like one of Apple's lawyers. Don't forget all of Apple's so-called co-conspirators have admitted guilt and settled. There is also quite the paper trail indicating Apple's guilt, even down to instructions to destroy such emails. The new email from Jobs to Cue released today doesn't bode well for Apple either. Pretty damning. Plus, there is no jury for the lawyers to manipulate.
True. All did, at most, was advocate that sellers switch to a different retail model and in their contracts with guarantee they would commit to that model. Pointing out it was against their own self interests to be using the model they were is not illegal, neither is asking them to commit to a model in their contracts with .
Actually they know it very well in some regards. Whether they choose to acknowledge it is another matter. Companies work the same way.
'The government' is both right, and wrong...
It (the iBookstore) has not been a failure, yet the pricing IS a burden.
I have read far more since the iPad, and the iBookstore came out than before they existed, and I know many people that say the same thing. The pricing is what gets me. The same 'book' on the iBookstore, and Amazon can differ by quite a few dollars in some cases (sometimes it's the same with music too, especially albums). Granted, I'd have to suffer with a Kindle (or the Kindle app) to read the 'book', but it's sometimes less costly on the Kindle platform.
That the inherent 'cost' of an ebook is substantially less than that of a traditional book (no paper/printing cost, warehousing, shipping, stocking, distribution, handling, etc) makes me wonder what, besides Apple's profit, I'm really paying for by continuing to purchase content from the iBookstore. I doubt somehow that the actual author is getting more money for their work. Well, and some 'books' are not available through the Apple store.
I was waiting for this to work its way through to see if Apple would have to reimburse money to people that have purchased content through the store. Maybe Amazon will actually now have to raise their prices? Interesting...
It (the iBookstore) has not been a failure, yet the pricing IS a burden.
I have read far more since the iPad, and the iBookstore came out than before they existed, and I know many people that say the same thing. The pricing is what gets me. The same 'book' on the iBookstore, and Amazon can differ by quite a few dollars in some cases (sometimes it's the same with music too, especially albums). Granted, I'd have to suffer with a Kindle (or the Kindle app) to read the 'book', but it's sometimes less costly on the Kindle platform.
That the inherent 'cost' of an ebook is substantially less than that of a traditional book (no paper/printing cost, warehousing, shipping, stocking, distribution, handling, etc) makes me wonder what, besides Apple's profit, I'm really paying for by continuing to purchase content from the iBookstore. I doubt somehow that the actual author is getting more money for their work. Well, and some 'books' are not available through the Apple store.
I was waiting for this to work its way through to see if Apple would have to reimburse money to people that have purchased content through the store. Maybe Amazon will actually now have to raise their prices? Interesting...
It is relevant in the following way. Apple's share is 20% now. It's losing miserably to Amazon because Amazon's business model is better. But if Apple (and publishers) were allowed to keep their cartel prices Apple's share would be much higher. Government says that Apple needed price fix in order to succeed in e-book market.
Far from...
Maybe it's a matter of personal preference but my iPad is far from useless. I routinely read it on the beach when I lived in Hawaii a few years back.
Maybe it's a matter of personal preference but my iPad is far from useless. I routinely read it on the beach when I lived in Hawaii a few years back.
We have yet to witness the demise of SS. But, there's one thing certain in Washington, both Dems and the GOP are in firm agreement, SS will not survive at its current rate - insolvency is projected to occur by 2033. The differences lie within exactly how to fix it.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
That wasn't released today. And this isn't directed at you - but there are people commenting in this thread that clearly indicates they haven't read the PDF of all the evidence (the link is in the other thread about the trial).
As you said - the paper trail between Apple and publishers is pretty damning. The government isn't having to work too "hard" on trying to connect any dots. A lot is spelled out in the communications and timing of those communications.
Then why don't they go after something that we are forced to buy? Like fuel and food. This seems ridiculous. Was anyone even complaining about the price of ebooks? Ludicrous. If you think the price is high just get a kindle, there are other cheaper options. Things like taxes, transportation, food, and housing we are forced to buy with no cheaper alternative are the things that need to be looked at.... not freaking ebooks.. are you kidding me?
Should Apple sell things at a loss, to make money on the device? An interesting question, especially if the government is effectively saying that is what Apple should do. An interesting position the government is in...
"The government called the iBookstore "a failure," and charged that "Apple pricing was unfair to consumers," and that "Apple sold fewer books because of the higher price caps.""
Buuurn. Reminds me of the British judge's comments on Samsung tablets.
Buuurn. Reminds me of the British judge's comments on Samsung tablets.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Do you work for Amazon
No, I actually own a ton of Apple stuff and no Amazon stuff. But I appreciate capitalism getting to function as it's supposed to, which, in this case, would have fierce competition from players like Amazon driving down costs for consumers as low as possible. Capitalism fails when the big entities are allowed to conspire to sock it to consumers for their own greedy objectives. We're the losers in that scenario. If Apple happens to be be one of those big entities conspiring, as much as I love much of what Apple seems to be about, I can easily fault them for taking actions that help other big corporations (publishers) at our expense.
When companies like Apple work solely for us consumer's benefit, great things come to market. When they work to help big corporations at our expense, great things can still seem to come to market but at a needless added cost to us.
So in this situation, I side with Amazon's argument when Apple did this. If Apple wanted to crush competitors like Amazon, they could fight Amazon at it's own game. Instead, Apple wanted to change the game by working with the publishers so that Amazon would have raise eBook pricing and Apple could get it's margin. Win for Apple. Win for the publishers. Win/Loss for Amazon. Lose for us consumers who foot the bill for that kind of activity.
In this case, the Gov is flexing muscles on something that can be seen as a wrong done to consumers. If they were after anyone else- especially the usual "villains" vilified here, we would cheer them on. But since it's Apple, they must be wrong (even if it costs us consumers more in eBook pricing).
I like Apple as much as anyone. They were just wrong in their part of this. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes in the run to maximize profits, players can lose sight of what's best for consumers... especially if it helps themselves and weakens a dominant competitor. I know the sentiment here will be overwhelmingly favorable to Apple- as it always is- but anyone who digs in, looks at this objectively and cares about consumers like themselves over a massive corporation's profits should come to the same conclusion.
Last edited: