Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple E-Book Price Fixing Decision Could See Return of Direct Links from Kindle and Other Apps to Their Stores

ck2875 said:
Simple Fix to Piss off the Judge: Reject the Kindle App for Some Other Issue.
Click to expand...
Why do you care? What does this matter to you? Doesn't every bit of extra access to content from any provider mean a better experience for you and all users?

I love the iPhone but not enough to give up on things like Kindle - I'm a big Kindle (e-ink) user, and use the app when I don't have my Kindle with me. I'm not about to switch over to iBooks just because they force the app off the App Store. I'll switch to an Android phone and use the app there.
 
TMay said:
That's what this is about.

This is going to be the death of Barnes and Noble. Absolutely. Maybe it should die for being an insufficient business model.

Barnes and Noble won't be able to compete in an ecosystem that is primarily books with Amazon that sells practically everything and can subsidize ebooks indefinitely until it is back to it's peak ebook market share of some 90%. Let's call it what it is; predatory pricing.

The Justice Department is fine with monopolies.

Of course, there is that appeal process that Apple is going to pursue.
Click to expand...

Amazon ebook division is not subsidized by other divisions, it is profitable.

Do you have any single proof for saying that Amazon is doing predatory pricing?
 
Gaspode67 said:
I doubt you would have to. Take the Kindle App for example. At the moment, if you install the Kindle App, then it's already tied to your Amazon account. All you would need to do is allow a link through to the store. After all, that's how it already works if you have, say, a Kindle Paperwhite or the Kindle App installed on your Android phone. You don't have to enter in your CC details, as they are already linked to your Amazon account.

And I have yet to hear any clear and logical reason why Apple would "deserve" a cut of any book purchased through the Kindle App. What service has Apple provided at any stage of that transaction? Have they provided the ebook? No. Have they processed the transaction on behalf of Amazon? No. Have they provided the network infrastructure for the transfer of the file? No.
Click to expand...


I think the reasoning behind the decision is that if Apple allowed content purchases this way, it could be used as a way to provide IAPs without using iTunes' purchasing system.

That deprives Apple of their 30% cut from IAPs, which I'd guess are a significant part of their AppStore revenue by this point. If you buy a free App and unlock it via a web link to a third-party website, you've totally avoided paying Apple any kind of fees for distribution, etc. It also creates a terrible user experience, because you'll have to start entering payment details in all kinds of different apps that want to do the same thing.

Believe me, businesses hate giving away that 30% cut. I've worked at places that were trying to "transition to mobile", and the fact they'd have to ditch their own payment processing systems for Apple's 30% flat rate was a hard one to swallow. If there is any way for them to escape it, even at the cost of user convenience, they definitely will.

Apple wants to have control over IAPs. For one thing, it allows them to provide a consistent user experience: your IAP downloads are done through Apple, so they can guarantee server availability and that it continues to work in the future. Your November issue of Vogue will always be available, because their content is uploaded and distributed via iTunes. Smaller businesses wouldn't mind that so much if the rates were closer to what they're paying elsewhere (something like 12% is typical).
 
Last edited:
Oletros said:
What biased judge?
Click to expand...

The one who began writing her ruling before the trial began. The one who commented publicly that she thought the government would "prove" its case before the trial began. That one.
 
Rogifan said:
I hope it makes it all the way to the supremes court.
Click to expand...

So do I.

And I hope the DOJ is ordered to investigate past and current practices of Amazon in all arenas. Games like demanding exclusive rights to something or they won't carry it, or worse drop a whole publisher/label etc is just wrong. As a consumer I should be able to choose my store and such deals bar that.
 
jon3543 said:
The one who began writing her ruling before the trial began. The one who commented publicly that she thought the government would "prove" its case before the trial began. That one.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'm going to wager that a good number of the judges and Justice Department prosecution team members have some pretty nice ties to Amazon's bottom line here.

Amazing how they're so anti-monopoly except when it comes to looking the other way when it comes to Amazon.
 
jon3543 said:
The one who began writing her ruling before the trial began. The one who commented publicly that she thought the government would "prove" its case before the trial began. That one.
Click to expand...

Yep and then if you look at the reports of the evidence and testimony given compared to what she cherry picked to support her ruling it is clear she stuck with her original ruling
 
ck2875 said:
Apple provides one of the most crucial services of hosting the Kindle app itself on the App Store. The server space and bandwidth of people downloading the app and its updates isn't free to Apple. Apple needs to recoup that cost somehow, but instead of charging the developers directly per download or app update submitted and reviewed, they use a 30% contingency model. Apple is smart enough to realize that if they didn't take a cut of IAPs, all developers would simply offer a free app with IAPs to avoid paying any fees to Apple, which would cause Apple to take a huge operating loss on the App Store infrastructure.
Click to expand...
You forget that having things like the Kindle app is one of the reasons that people WANT iPhones. It's a mutual relationship and that's why it would be very, very bad for Apple to start attacking apps like this. They do it to the Kindle app, they have to do it for all the others that act like it.
 
charlituna said:
No monopolies are not against the law. It's how you get there and what you do with it that can be illegal. Like jailbreaking /rooting.

If Amazon got there legally simply by being the first or best that's fine. But there are questions of unfair exclusive title deals, threats of pulling paper books if publishers allowed their stuff on other stories, predatory pricing and price dumps.

However no one cares about that. Just what Apple does
Click to expand...

Because Apple doesn't spend any money lobbying or massaging politicians testicles. Amazon does. Thats how things work in this country unfortunately. They see Apples massive pile of money, and then they see how little Apple spends on political garbage, and it makes Apple a huge target
 
jon3543 said:
The one who began writing her ruling before the trial began. The one who commented publicly that she thought the government would "prove" its case before the trial began. That one.
Click to expand...

I think that you have the timing wrong, because the judge said nothing before she saw the evidence.

Perhaps you have to re read the news
 
gibbz said:
Just reject the apps. Why should Apple be forced to offer free infrastructure to Amazon so that Amazon can further the reach of their own store?
Click to expand...

And where is Apple offering "free" infrastructure to anybody? The last time I looked, people had to pay for their Apple products, developers had to pay an annual developer fee to even be allowed to submit their apps for later approval and Apple did not provide the Internet connection that people used to connect their Kindle app to the Amazon cloud.

So where is this free infrastructure?

Besides all that, Amazon has long since implemented a very smart workaround around this issue: read.amazon.com. Unless Apple implements Safari in a way to block all Amazon websites, Amazon and its customers do not need anything from Apple. At all.

And who wants to be tied to an ebook store that only works on one platform when you can be free to chose on what device or operating system you can read your stuff? The Kindle platform is everywhere, iBooks isn't.
 
Rocketman said:
One thing Apple is capable of is a rush to market to comply with the order ASAP so the time to end of the limit happens ASAP.

I am a believer in the agency model and consider the ruling to be a regulator in a monologue with itself to serve political interests.

That said, an order is an order. This country has too much government generally.



So now maybe Apple can deduct the net loss from their taxes and let the government pay for their own ruling.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

You do realize that it wasn't the agency model per se that caused the issue? It was to collusion and is very specifically against the law. If you will think about it price fixing (which is basically what this is about) is a real detriment to having a fair and free market. In fact any one who believes in 'market forces' should be applauding this ruling.

As I read this I highly doubt Apple will be forced to allow purchases via the Amazon/B&N app. It sounds like it will be for browsing and cost comparison only. Which doesn't make a lot of sense since you can't see the prices side by side. Browsing books via the web is just as easy.
 
jon3543 said:
Like harassing Gibson, for one.
Click to expand...

If you met henry juszkiewicz, you'd want someone to investigate him, too.

I honestly don't think Gibson would have had any trouble with the feds if it weren't for that man and his personality/business philosophy.

I know some people who worked for him a few years ago. The only upper management positions at Gibson that aren't vacated every 6-12 months are the CEO and the general counsel.

Underlings outside of factory workers have an even shorter tenure. Go check out the glassdoor review for gibson if you don't believe me.

Henry "saved" a great company by turning it into a terrible place to work. And knowing how he treats people, I don't doubt for a second that he knew exactly what kind of wood he was buying, and exactly where it was from.
 
Todd B. said:
Exactly.

I'm going to wager that a good number of the judges and Justice Department prosecution team members have some pretty nice ties to Amazon's bottom line here.

Amazing how they're so anti-monopoly except when it comes to looking the other way when it comes to Amazon.
Click to expand...

Apart that you also have problems with timing, do you accuse judges and DoJ of bribery?

Really? do you people accuse others of illegal conduct when you don't like the rulings?
 
Corrode said:
I hate to say it but I think Apple's "price-fixing" was good in some respects, namely for authors, and to prevent things like the current pricewar between Amazon and Overstock. And it's not like they're price gouging (at least not what I can tell).

Just like we want to support the music we like by paying for it, support the devs we like by paying for the apps, I think it's a good thing to make sure authors are getting the support they need to keep writing.

But maybe I'm just a sucker...

Reference: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021521385_amazonoverstockxml.html
Click to expand...

I'm confused by your comment. Can you clarify. Regardless of which model is being used - the author gets the same amount.

Amazon bought books for X and sold them for less. The publishers didn't lose money - and in many cases - were making more money with Amazon then with the Agency model.

But the increase in book prices (in the short term) might have actually hurt overall sales with people opting not to purchase eBooks at all because of the higher prices. Conjecture.

If Amazon was paying LESS to the publisher - you might have a point. Which is why I am asking you to clarify how one model over another helps the author.
 
samcraig said:
I'm confused by your comment. Can you clarify. Regardless of which model is being used - the author gets the same amount.

Amazon bought books for X and sold them for less. The publishers didn't lose money - and in many cases - were making more money with Amazon then with the Agency model.

But the increase in book prices (in the short term) might have actually hurt overall sales with people opting not to purchase eBooks at all because of the higher prices. Conjecture.

If Amazon was paying LESS to the publisher - you might have a point. Which is why I am asking you to clarify how one model over another helps the author.
Click to expand...

I wondered the same about how each model ends up paying the author. There seems to be some discrepancy in opinion but the comments in this article (the comments of which appear to be actual authors) indicate that they do lose money amidst Amazon dropping its prices to ridiculous levels. Not sure on the specifics of ebooks vs. physical copies but I'm assuming it's relatively the same.

Reference (with comments below): http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...ar_great_for_consumers_and_authors_alike.html

EDIT: It appears that each author's contract is different so some might be affected while others aren't.
 
Can anyone who likes the agency model explain why? My understanding of it was that Apple told the publishers that they fixed the price and Apple got a 30% cut. They also said that there would be no "favoured nations" clause which meant that Amazon who were LOWERING prices were forced to raise them to comply with this Apple led collusion.

What is wrong with an in app link? It makes it more convenient to the user i.e. us to compare prices and buy books at a price that suits us.

What is wrong with any of this?
 
donnaw said:
In fact any one who believes in 'market forces' should be applauding this ruling.
Click to expand...

Unless that they believe that Amazon was manipulating the market with their ebook monopsony.

The judges ruling came down to this:

1) Apple knew that the publishers wanted to raise prices.
2) Apple implemented a completely legal pricing strategy.
3) However, Apple knew the publishers would use that legal pricing strategy to raise prices.
4) Apple should not have implemented that completely legal pricing strategy.

This logic does not leave any room for Apple to successfully enter the market, because any successful pricing strategy would be leverage for the publishers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back