How so? Is this ruling preventing Apple from having the option to sell eBooks? I don't understand.
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 E-Book Price Fixing Decision Could See Return of Direct Links from Kindle and Other Apps to Their Stores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How so? Is this ruling preventing Apple from having the option to sell eBooks? I don't understand.
I'm not defending Apple, here, clearly they broke the law and they were aware of it. At the same time, it's difficult to compete with Amazon in the book market because they're undercutting the competition and selling books below cost to drive competition out of business. Abusing that kind of power is also in violation of anti-trust laws.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but Amazon isn't the victim in this situation either. In a podcast I was listening to (I think it was MacBreak Weekly), someone said that it was probably Amazon that complained to the DOJ. And because Amazon spends a fair amount of time and money lobbying in DC (Apple doesn't), they got their hearing.
But the ruling doesn't suggest there should be an Amazon link in the iBookstore app, just to allow the Amazon app to directly link to Amazon's store. Am I missing something?
If consumers want to purchase something through IAP, outside of the appstore, let them. Its their choice. And guess what, in that case, Apple doesn't deserve a penny. As for hosting the app. Apple gets to boast about how many apps they have and the great ecosystem they have, allowing them to sell the gadgets at a premium. Apple is double dipping, and you're supporting them.
Here is a question: If Apple force everyone selling their Apps at App Store then force everyone give 30% of their proceed to Apple, what do you think?
It is like government to build a highway then pass a law mandate everyone use this road and you cannot use any other road. Then government wants 5 dollars from you for using the road.
If a App created choose to use App Store, then sure Apple can charge 30%, if App creator doesn't want pay 30%, then they have no way to publish their App other than by some other way (i.e. Cydina).
Why should everyone forced to use App Store and pay 30% to Apple?
Sortakinda, but it's not really due to Apple's good graces. Apple hosts the Kindle app on the App Store, and...well...that should be the extent of it. But Apple insists on having all apps that provide a paid for service use Apple's payment infrastructure, even if the app providers are perfectly capable of handing this themselves.
Like Netflix. They obviously have their own servers, their own methods of processing payments. Why should they give Apple 30% to do what they're already capable of themselves just so people can subscribe through the app? Same thing with Amazon. Why should they give Apple 30% of their cut just so people can buy books through the app?
And yeah, I know. Someone's gonna pop in and say "olol, it's for security. You don't want someone stealing your credit card and blaming it on Apple". Like this issue ever happened on their Macs and PC, where there is no centralized payment setup, and people rarely, if ever, blame Apple or Microsoft if something goes awry. Yet this is somehow completely different on the iPad, where everyone JUST MIGHT hold Apple culpable if someone steals their card because Dropbox's payment servers were compromised.
It's great that Apple hosts apps for these people. They deserve a 30% cut of that, since they're basically cultivating a store. It's also great that Apple provides payment servers for small to mid sized businesses. They deserve a 30% cut of that as well. But Apple forcing companies capable of processing their own payments and demanding 30% of all their sales is another issue entirely.
Last edited:
No, it was less expensive for them to do that than to fight. Apple chose to fight, and hence is appealing the verdict.
Who's to stop Apple from selling their eBooks at a loss too? It's called a free market. Apple could just as easily sell their eBooks at a loss thinking more people would then buy more ipads and iphones, which have a much healthier profit margin. But, Apple is making the conscious decision to see their eBooks at a higher price, which is fine, just don't go around "oh, poor Apple".
Last I looked, Apple gadgets are the same price as competitors. The Galaxy S4 ($649) and the iPhone 5 ($649) have the same retail prices.
Conjecture?
Because having been in the world of publishing for several years my take is a little different. Publishers didn't like the fact eBooks were diminishing the perceived value of PRINTED books. Why buy a hard copy when you can get an eBook for less. And publishers eat costs when there are physical books - on unsold copies. eBooks have no unsold copies.
That's why, in my opinion, they were willing to go with Apple and disliked Amazon's model. They were making more money with Amazon - but long term, it spelled doom for PRINT. Apple's model raised the value to where there was little difference between print and ebooks. And since everyone had to sell for the same price - it was a nicely "locked" model to keep it that way.
No, Amazon sells SOME books under wholesale. This is a perfectly legitimate business practice done in just about every business out there. Where do you think all the 'sales' come from. Businesses put some things on sale in order to get you in the door. These are typically under their cost. The business is willing to do this because they know that the vast majority of people will buy more than just the 'loss-leaders'.
But you're right, Amazon was not the victim initially. The consumer was. And it's the government's job to protect the consumer from price fixing. And frankly Apple is probably doing just fine with their eBook market. But they wanted more money and to put Amazon out of business because Jpbs himself stated that the publishers would withhold their books from Amazon.
In case you don't remember read this:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05...ly-going-to-withhold-their-books-from-amazon/
Exactly my point earlier.
I am not saying Apple was greedy - because every business wants to be as profitable as possible. But it's obvious from emails, etc that Jobs only wanted to launch iBooks if Apple could control the marketplace and pricing structure to their benefit.
I don't fault Apple for their model and desire to shake things up. I fault Apple for doing it (seemingly) in an illegal fashion.
As a CONSUMER - I'm glad things are back to the way they are because as a CONSUMER I prefer being able to shop around for the best price.
So, you think each and every publisher couldn't foot the bill for a 2 week trial with the DOJ? Instead, they thought it would be cheaper to pay the $500 million total fine? It must have been a coincidence that each of the publishing houses had the same financial situation where they could pay a fine over $100 million but couldn't afford the legal fees for a 2 week trial.
Do you have a shread of evidence supporting this notion, or are you just assuming this?
It actually not inaccurate to say this price fixing didn't occur. It obviously did. Even Apple didn't dispute this in their defense. Apple just denied that they were the central facilitator of the fixing.
Amazon sells some of books below cost while selling a majority above their wholesale cost. The eBook division does actually generate a profit.
They sell "best sellers" below wholesale to get people ti use their store, but there is nothing illegal about that. They're called loss leaders.
Most companies don't do this. Most promote mid-tier or even bottom tier crap below cost to try and get customers.
Amazon has proven that taking a loss on a best sellers to attract customers does actually work in the long run.
Yeah, Amazon makes amazing profits. Is it 9 million dollars per year? And they only make any profit because the workers in their warehouses are working under conditions that would make Foxconn ashamed.
I agree with your point. Clearly people have the Kindle app because they read books from Amazon's platform. Consumers aren't going to say "Well shucks, there is no link, I guess I'll buy an iBook." Apple's 30% demand is misguided. If they really want money from Amazon, then why not just charge some monthly hosting fee based on downloads?
Well, no. They are preparing for a retrial, and quite rightly so, because that judgement is just total rubbish.
My guess is Apple's "model" is ubiquity. And therein lies my issue with people saying the only way for Apple to have entered the eBook market (profitably) was to do what they did.
Motioning for a retrial is a forgone conclusion when the verdict is not in your favor. That has nothing to do with guilt, innocence or whether or not the party involved believes they are guilty or innocent.
To me, it seems like Amazon is going to be given what is effectively free advertising for their products on Apple's platform.