I could not stop laughing. I knew this would happen. Why do people constantly put it on a tee and hand you a bat?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Apple seemingly provided a way out/alternative market which - even though they were new to books - had a proven model (music) and millions of customers already involved in their ecosystem.
As it's applies to ebook's, the more money publisher's have, the more risk they can take on new author's: investing in books that may appeal to a smaller audience. It's why apple has been able to make drastic changes with IOS 7; because they have the money to fail. Reducing the price of book's will have a long term impact on the quality of book's. I'm not representing this as a legal stance, but Apple is taking a strong ethical stance: If Amazon is allowed to artificially lower the prices of book's, quality will suffer.
You make that sound like a good thing, yet you can't comprehend the benefits for ebooks.
Why do people insist that Amazon doesn't want to keep book prices low then?
Because it's Amazon? That's my point.
So... Apple's flagship phone is $199, please.. oh pretty please show me a link to the new Galaxy S4 for $132 or ****.
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.
No, not because it's Amazon, it's because people making these statements are mistaken. It's clear Amazon wants to price books as low as possible - sometimes below their costs. Like other large retailers such as Walmart, they can afford to have loss leaders to bring in customers and upsell them to other products and services.
Still, what Amazon does has nothing to do with Apple's model of taking a straight 30% cut. No matter what the publisher prices their books at, they still get 70% of the sales price.
I'm not saying Apple's model is consumer friendly. There is no dispute Amazon's model results in cheaper cost of some ebooks. I just don't think what Apple did amounts to price fixing.
Thanks for the suggestion. I can't help but notice that you chose not to answer the question I asked in my post but instead chose to insinuate that you know how I feel about this subject and who and what I believe in. I still do not see what Company "A", or Company "B" did here as being illegal. Starting a business by offering a loss leader product isn't illegal. Offering a competing business model to that business plan isn't illegal. If the DoJ wants to bust Apple's balls for the "most favored nation clause" go ahead. But at best that offense warrants a fine, and not this grandstanding dog and pony show under the guise about government caring about the consumer.
I disagree. For reasons I've said in this thread and in others.
Apple seemingly provided a way out/alternative market which - even though they were new to books - had a proven model (music) and millions of customers already involved in their ecosystem.
You're free to disagree, just remember that they have to prove collusion (particularly Apple's involvement), not that prices went up after Apple joined the market.
Amazon wasn't losing money. Only select titles Again - you can't assume Amazon would have raised prices. You also can't assume Amazon would have had a monopoly.
Can't you assume that, a few years ago when these events were taking place, that Amazon already had a monopoly on ebooks, or at least a near-monopoly? Even now, they have a probable dominant position in the marketplace (though it's difficult to say definitively).
In the short term, there's no question that Apple's efforts were harmful to the consumer - from a pricing perspective. Yet more choice did become available in the market, which can be a good thing for consumers. And with tablets sold in the many, many millions, far more people are likely exposed to ebooks on book-sized portable screens than when the Kindle and other purpose-built e-readers were the only game in town.
Agreed. Any standard book that doesn't need color I buy on Amazon so I can use it on a nice cheap kindle outside, at the beach or any other high light environment where an iPad is useless.
But then there lots of people like my sister who don't even know that iPads can read kindle books.
Can't you assume that, a few years ago when these events were taking place, that Amazon already had a monopoly on ebooks, or at least a near-monopoly? Even now, they have a probable dominant position in the marketplace (though it's difficult to say definitively).
In the short term, there's no question that Apple's efforts were harmful to the consumer - from a pricing perspective. Yet more choice did become available in the market, which can be a good thing for consumers. And with tablets sold in the many, many millions, far more people are likely exposed to ebooks on book-sized portable screens than when the Kindle and other purpose-built e-readers were the only game in town.
Are you sure? Who admits guilt in settlements these days?You sound like one of Apple's lawyers. Don't forget all of Apple's so-called co-conspirators have admitted guilt and settled.
Publishers were free to price them at far less than $13 everywhere. It is not illegal for publishers to sell to retailers on contracts forbidding sales at below MSRP levels.In the Amazon scenario (pre monopoly conspiracy), consumers buying Ebooks get them for about $10. In Apple scenario, nobody can get them anywhere for less than Apple sells them at about $13.
Are you sure? Who admits guilt in settlements these days?
----------
Publishers were free to price them at far less than $13 everywhere. It is not illegal for publishers to sell to retailers on contracts forbidding sales at below MSRP levels.
In the meantime, a large number of books (~25% of titles or something like that) are sold exclusively through Amazon, no other retailer can sell them at any price. Which is more competitive? Free competition on anything but price vs. no competition?
Do you think Amazon was selling ebooks at less than the "wholesale" price and taking a loss out of the goodness of its heart? How about the average prices falling after Apple's entry in categories other than new releases? Maybe, Amazon was taking a loss with new releases and making it up at higher prices on older books.
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.
Amazon's business model isn't better by any stretch of the imagination. Last calendar year (2012), Amazon lost 39 Million dollars, Apple for the same 12 months made 41.7 BILLION dollars. Last quarter (Jan-Mar 2013), Amazon made a whopping 82 Million Dollars for the quarter, Apple for the same time made 9.5 Billion dollars, to put that into prospective, Apple averaged more then 100 million dollars a day in profit last quarter, Amazon made less then a 100 million (82 million) for the entire quarter. Amazon's business model for books is a failing proposition, they are buying books at one price and selling them at a lower price then they are buying them, that is what the publishers new pricing was preventing, and what Amazon wanted stopped. Amazon doesn't make money on its ebooks, it loses money on ebooks, it has admitted that, but once they are a monopoly (and realize they are the main reason Borders is out of business), I can guarantee they won't be selling books at a loss.
Amazon's business model isn't better by any stretch of the imagination. Last calendar year (2012), Amazon lost 39 Million dollars, Apple for the same 12 months made 41.7 BILLION dollars. Last quarter (Jan-Mar 2013), Amazon made a whopping 82 Million Dollars for the quarter, Apple for the same time made 9.5 Billion dollars, to put that into prospective, Apple averaged more then 100 million dollars a day in profit last quarter, Amazon made less then a 100 million (82 million) for the entire quarter. Amazon's business model for books is a failing proposition, they are buying books at one price and selling them at a lower price then they are buying them, that is what the publishers new pricing was preventing, and what Amazon wanted stopped. Amazon doesn't make money on its ebooks, it loses money on ebooks, it has admitted that, but once they are a monopoly (and realize they are the main reason Borders is out of business), I can guarantee they won't be selling books at a loss.