It's possible that most of iBook sales are for special applications - for example, for iPads in schools. In this case there is no need to view the content on other devices. The volume might be low but the prices high (hence 20%)
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
It's possible that most of iBook sales are for special applications - for example, for iPads in schools. In this case there is no need to view the content on other devices. The volume might be low but the prices high (hence 20%)
People are remarkably willing to embrace the idea that Amazon's prices still involve profit for the author or even the publisher but that is simply not a given. They change prices to suit their own agenda and that can mean selling below cost.
Wrong, Amazon was making a profit with their ebook division, they only sold at a loss some ebooks
Supposedly, Microsoft was officially a monopoly in 2001. I don't really think that's true, but even if you have a really large market share and not a monopoly, you can abuse the power. For example, it used to be that I would go to a site, and it would say that I NEED Internet Explorer to use something on the site because of ActiveX or whatever. But I'm on a Mac. There's also the whole BIOS vs EFI thing that's ticking me off today.
----------
Right, I don't see anything wrong with that as long as Apple is not required to do the same by law. Apple might not do well with iBooks because their prices are higher (I'm never buying an iBook), but why should it be illegal?
This is very good for authors. Amazon is using the Wholesale Model to artificially run it's prices down, well below cost, running it's competition out of business. The agency model prevents retailers from using their near unlimited resources to run the competition out of business.
Monopolies are bad.
I have given up on paper books. With an iPad, I can carry around a library with access to a good portion of the total books ever written. If I am out and I find out about some great new book, or I need a new reference book for work, I can download it in just a few seconds.
Monopolies are bad.
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.
I have given up on paper books. With an iPad, I can carry around a library with access to a good portion of the total books ever written. If I am out and I find out about some great new book, or I need a new reference book for work, I can download it in just a few seconds.
You can collude, but it wouldn't be anticompetitive. If anything, you'd just lose customers. Apple already lost me as a customer.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I suggest you take the time to dig into the details and look at it all objectively... not as someone who might generally believe Apple is all wonderful and caring but mentally replace the company name Apple with- say- Microsoft or Samsung. Let it be them that did what was done here. Then see how you interpret the events and if you would feel any differently if the Gov was taking this action against Microsoft or Samsung.
Changing the name of the company here often shifts the sentiment to the opposite extreme. Even the most diehard of Apple fans should try this and see if their view of this case remains the same or not.
Last edited:
Didn't I start off saying that colluding and being anti competitive weren't the same? I thought I did?
No, however, Amazon used the Wholesale Model to force, their competition to or near bankruptcy. Once Amazon becomes the only distributor, they can dictate any terms to publishers and authors they want.
Why do people assume Amazon would do that. Do people assume that Apple would do that with the music industry? Do customers get enraged over Apple dominating the music industry?
----------
I would consider buying iBooks (heck - I have a ton of gift cards) if Apple provide apps for other devices and not just iDevices.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Figures. It's been a while since I have checked comparison prices. Bugger...
3001: The Final Odyssey Apple iBook: $8.99, Kindle: $6.83. Diff of $2.16
Same for 2061: Odyssey Three.
Inferno Apple iBook: $12.99, Kindle: $12.99 BUGGER! Same price!
Every other book I checked, including some much older ones, were the same price! Bugger, bugger, bugger...
Yes, and one might find that if they try to order some of those lower-priced books, they are "out of stock" at the lower price. How one can be "out of stock" on a digital eBook is completely beyond me (hard drive crash???). It's like the old joke:
A man goes into a fish market to buy some Salmon. The fish market has a great selection priced at $9.95/lb. The customer says, "The market down the road is out of stock, but their price is $5/lb." The store clerk says, when we're out of stock, our price is $1.95."
I didn't say they were. But there's no denying Amazon was dominating. I didn't say they had the entire market.
So two fallacies in one. One that market share is the ultimate measure of success (it isn't) and two, that price is the only determining factor in a customers purchasing decision (far from it). Once again, the argument is irrelevant. They don't need to argue "need". They need argue that there was collusion, and that Apple was involved. This doesn't do any of that.
The "need" argument doesn't make sense anyway. Once Apple got their deal with publishers, they didn't need Amazon's business model to change at all. Their prices would match Amazons no matter what it was. You could argue that the publishers needed Amazon's business model to change, but they're not the ones in court here. It's the DoJ's job to prove that there was collusion between Apple and the publishers to raise Amazons eBook price, not collusion between the publishers (they've already settled). This argument they brought forth doesn't do that at all.
Which evidence of that? Don't look at how the gov't gave the data, look at the whole evidence and the context behind it and you'll see that it's not as bad as they make it out to be.
Based on reading most of their *evidence* released, I don't believe there was any collusion.
Apple was just doing business with 5 cutthroat publishers at the same time in order to open up their store in time for a presentation. The gov't is intentionally making it seem like collusion because of all the timing and paper trials but it isn't collusion based on the context of the evidence they used.
Are you sure about that? I need to re-read the information but as far as I know. all publishers settled with the gov't without admitting any guilt.
It was just cheaper for them to settle than to go to court against the gov't and they wouldn't have to admit they colluded.
Except in the Agency model, publishers are not allowed to set different pieces for different store. Forcing them to use the same price everywhere can be seem as price-fixing because they all starting talking about it once Apple steps in. The thing is, it was just pure business, I don't see it collusion but I can understand it looking like it.
I think Apple should get into the oil business and launch a string of Apple gas stations with gas priced at about $10/gallon. What is a gouge by existing oil companies will probably be spun into comments like "but my car is snappier when I use Apple gas" or "I've noticed a significant improvement in how my car runs with Apple gas" and probably some "Die, Exxon Die", etc.
Then, a few months later, out comes Samsung Oil with bigger screen gas pumps at about 2/3 of the price of Apple-branded gas. And of course, that will be substantially inferior gas even if Samsung is the underlying supplier to themselves and Apple's gas stations.
All
That was cute & funny... all the way up til the 2/3 price comment. Can we please quit perpetuating this lie??! In this country people buy phones on contract.. NOT outright. When they speak of the "cost" of a phone, they mean the subsidized cost. Almost nobody knows or cares the technical "retail cost", because nobody pays that. So... Apple's flagship phone is $199, please.. oh pretty please show me a link to the new Galaxy S4 for $132 or ****.
Apple does not sell songs at below their price If you use your market position to sell below your cost, it is destructive. If you use a new model to reduce your cost, making it hard for your competitors, it is the market at work.
The only reason to drop your price below cost and run everyone else out of business is to jack your prices up later. If you keep your prices below cost, you eventually run out of business yourself.
Reduced cost due to better efficiency and better business model, good. Reduced price due to having more money than everyone else and selling for a loss, bad.
I tend to think Amazon's long-term strategy is to minimize the role of the publisher. Whether or not that's good for the industry or authors remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic. You can almost imagine a pseudo-Wiki model where self-published e-books are easily corrected/updated (with author approval of course).
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The most important (and most expensive) part of the publishing process is not printing and shipping books. It is not marketing books. It is editing books. Editing is a very difficult skill to learn. Most new authors don't understand how to pace a book. Most new authors tend to write works that are way to long. (Quite often cut the book in half, you get a far better book.)
Cut out the professional editors, the quality of writing goes way down.
----------
They did and they do. Even more so for newly published books from top authors.