Apple Rebuts Antitrust Charges Over E-Book Pricing

[EbookReader]

someone had a link to this video where Jobs stated that Amazon will be forced to raise its ebook price from $9.99 to $14.99 but I can't find it anymore.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/100426fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all
April 26, 2010

Jobs, circling the room, stopped at one of several tables piled with iPads to talk with Walt Mossberg, the Wall Street Journal’s personal-technology columnist. Onstage, Jobs, demonstrating how Apple would sell books, had selected Edward Kennedy’s “True Compass” and clicked on a “buy” icon with the price $14.99 next to it. Why, Mossberg asked, should consumers “pay Apple $14.99 when they can buy the same book from Amazon for $9.99?”

“That won’t be the case,” Jobs said, seeming implacably confident. “The price will be the same.” Mossberg asked him to explain. Why would Amazon increase prices, when consumers were buying so many books? “Publishers may withhold their books from Amazon,” Jobs said. “They’re unhappy.”

Under such a model, the publisher would be considered the seller, and an online vender like Amazon would act as an “agent,” in exchange for a thirty-per-cent fee. Yet none of the publishers seemed to think that they could act alone, and if they presented a unified demand to Amazon they risked being charged with price-fixing and collusion.

And yet they did anyway.

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=41899

Cole explained how these developments unfolded. “The agency model in and of itself is not illegal,” he said. “But what really caught our eye was the fact that most of these publishers, especially of New York Times bestsellers, shifted [selling methods] pretty much at the exact same time. So that’s red flag number one.”

The regulators were trying to decide whether the contract changes were coincidence or a plan, and to Cole, it certainly looked coordinated. “Red flag number two was, boom, prices for NYT bestsellers on the Amazon web site, and elsewhere, shot up to $12.99 or $14.99.” As a percentage — 30 to 50 percent — “it is a lot of money,” said Cole.

 

[EbookReader]

http://www.cultofmac.com/161086/eve...-antitrust-allegations-against-apple-feature/
Everything You Need To Know To Understand The DoJ’s Antitrust Case Against Apple [Feature]

 

[ixodes]

This is far from the first time Apple's addiction to power & money has become revealed to the public. Of course they're going to fall back on their superb skills in the art of denial.

 

[BaldiMac]

So Amazon lowering prices is bad for consumers?

Possibly.

An ebook is a product. It needs just 3 things to get to readers

1. Authors to write it
2. Editors to edit it
3. A digital store like Amazon, Apple, Google Play, B&N, KOBO, an author's website etc...to sell it

Guess what's missing in that picture? (publishers who takes 52.5% of the book price).


A book priced at $7.99 will mean the author (self-published) will earn $5.593 per sale.
Assuming the author sells 50,000 ebooks at $7.99. That's $399,500 in earnings.
Editors are for-hire (i.e $5000 to edit the book). Same with cover designer ($500).

When you make up numbers it sounds very impressive. What about all the books that don't sell 50,000 copies?

And the real "earnings" for the author in your scenario is $279,650 (minus delivery costs on Kindle.)

But let's take your argument at its face. Publishers are not necessary. So why do authors continue to sign with them? Why are we worried about collusion among entities that aren't necessary to the process? And why do you think that I'm not in favor of self-publishing? I think it's great.

And why is it good to replace the publisher's 52.5% (for which they provide many useful services) with Amazon's 65% if you want to make more than $7 per book?

The Publishers want to raise ebook prices. Do you know why?
http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/dont-be-fooled-big-publishing-hates-competition/

Yep.

 

[tbrinkma]

A lot of the time, people/business settle suits (of any type) simply because they can't afford the money needed to defend the suit to completion in court. An anti-trust suit is even more expensive to defend against than a patent suit, and in the case of anti-trust, the prosecuting party has the advantage of being even more well funded, partly *by* the defendant in the form of taxes.

This isn't really accurate. Microsoft had plenty of money to fight their antitrust lawsuit, and still lost. They lost because they were actually guilty, and they'd have been better off settling with the government, because they were actually guilty. Small companies (without the resources to fight) do not get investigated for antitrust law violations.

The most common misunderstanding I am hearing about antitrust actions is that the government is somehow incentivized to take these cases to court. Quite to the contrary. The vast majority never see a courtroom because the government gets compliance with the law without it. If the company agrees to comply, the matter is typically closed out. Fighting it out in court is a dumb move on a company's part. The DoJ doesn't take a case to court if they think they are going to lose.

Ok, you said my post "isn't really accurate", and then fail to even indirectly address anything I said. The poster I was responding to inferred from the fact that some of the publishers had settled, that Apple's actions must somehow be illegal.

If you're going to start a response with "That isn't really accurate.", at least address the post you're responding to. I made three points.

1) People and companies often settle lawsuits (regardless of type) because it's cheaper than going to court.
2) Anti-trust suits are even more expensive than patent suits.
3) The government is better funded than most companies, and some of that funding comes from the taxes paid by the person/company being sued.

You attempted to dispute some (all?) of that by saying that Microsoft had enough money to go through an entire anti-trust suit from beginning to end. Please tell me what wasn't accurate about my post. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Ok, you said my post "isn't really accurate", and then fail to even indirectly address anything I said. The poster I was responding to inferred from the fact that some of the publishers had settled, that Apple's actions must somehow be illegal.

If you're going to start a response with "That isn't really accurate.", at least address the post you're responding to. I made three points.

1) People and companies often settle lawsuits (regardless of type) because it's cheaper than going to court.
2) Anti-trust suits are even more expensive than patent suits.
3) The government is better funded than most companies, and some of that funding comes from the taxes paid by the person/company being sued.

You attempted to dispute some (all?) of that by saying that Microsoft had enough money to go through an entire anti-trust suit from beginning to end. Please tell me what wasn't accurate about my post. I'm genuinely curious.

I believe that have already addressed these points. To clarify:

1) They settle because they are going to lose if they go to court.

2) Antitrust suits may be expensive to fight, but they aren't settled because the companies can't afford the cost of going to court. They settle because more often than not it's a waste of time, money and resources.

3) The Antitrust Division of the DoJ has a finite budget set by Congress. The companies they are up against typically have no practical limit to what they can spend on their defense. Further, try to imagine a scenario were a company facing antitrust charges has insufficient resources to fight them in court. Seems like a virtual oxymoron to me.

 

[tbrinkma]

The Publishers want to raise ebook prices. Do you know why?
http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/dont-be-fooled-big-publishing-hates-competition/

The applicable snippet from your quote:

A few days before that, in an article in the New York Times on the recent spate of high-quality hardbacks from large publishers, Nan Graham – Senior VP and Editor-in-Chief at Scribner – said: “We hoped that a handsome object would slow the migration to e-book for [Stephen] King.”

Oh, the horror! They wanted to slow the migration to e-books *for Stephen King*, by producing a high-quality, desirable, physical product that would attract more buyers of that product because e-books are low-profit enough that the adoption rate (low though it may be) is threatening the publisher's ability to stay in business! The humanity! How *DARE* they!?

Note: The publishers aren't trying to *stop* the e-book (unlike the music industry's equivalent actions in the beginning). They're trying to slow it down enough that they have time to adapt to the new demands of the new format without utterly killing their existing business before hand.

 

[EbookReader]

The applicable snippet from your quote:


Oh, the horror! They wanted to slow the migration to e-books *for Stephen King*, by producing a high-quality, desirable, physical product that would attract more buyers of that product because e-books are low-profit enough that the adoption rate (low though it may be) is threatening the publisher's ability to stay in business! The humanity! How *DARE* they!?

Note: The publishers aren't trying to *stop* the e-book (unlike the music industry's equivalent actions in the beginning). They're trying to slow it down enough that they have time to adapt to the new demands of the new format without utterly killing their existing business before hand.

Which is why they colluded to fix the price of ebooks....

That's their motive.

Ebooks at high prices = less customers switching to ebooks. They can't STOP the adoption of ebook. The genie is already out of the bottle. But if they control price, they can slow it down.

p.s. They priced that Steven King novel "sky high" as an ebook to slow down the adoption of ebook.

If it was wholesale, Amazon might have bought that Steven King 11/22/63 novel at $14.99 and sold it at $9.99 for a $5 loss. (under their loss-leader strategy).

Customer X has two option: buy the hardcover of Steven King for $29.99 (list price)
or buy the ebook for $9.99

If customer X doesn't have an ereader, it will be temping so switch


p.s.

Steven King's 11/22/63 is selling at $18.99 as an ebook
but the hardback is $17.46 on Amazon (with its discount)

see for yourself http://www.amazon.com/11-22-63-A-Novel/dp/1451627289

List Price: $35.00
Price: $17.46 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $17.54 (50%)

Kindle price: $18.99
Sold by: Simon and Schuster Digital Sales Inc
This price was set by the publisher




why is it that Amazon is allowed to discount physical book but not ebook?

 

[BaldiMac]

Which is why they colluded to fix the price of ebooks....

That's their motive.

Ebooks at high prices = less customers switching to ebooks. They can't STOP the adoption of ebook. The genie is already out of the bottle. But if they control price, they can slow it down.

p.s. They priced that Steven King novel "sky high" as an ebook to slow down the adoption of ebook.

If it was wholesale, Amazon might have bought that Steven King 11/22/63 novel at $14.99 and sold it at $9.99 for a $5 loss. (under their loss-leader strategy).

Customer X has two option: buy the hardcover of Steven King for $29.99 (list price)
or buy the ebook for $9.99

If customer X doesn't have an ereader, it will be temping so switch


p.s.

Steven King's 11/22/63 is selling at $18.99 as an ebook
but the hardback is $17.46 on Amazon (with its discount)

see for yourself http://www.amazon.com/11-22-63-A-Novel/dp/1451627289

List Price: $35.00
Price: $17.46 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $17.54 (50%)

Kindle price: $18.99
Sold by: Simon and Schuster Digital Sales Inc
This price was set by the publisher




why is it that Amazon is allowed to discount physical book but not ebook?

This information doesn't support your argument. First, an attempt by a single publisher to keep ebook prices high is not illegal. Second, if they all have a motive to keep ebook prices high, then why would collusion by necessary?

 

[Tumbleweed666]

Second, if they all have a motive to keep ebook prices high, then why would collusion by necessary?

Because if only one or two do it, their high prices drive customers to other publishers lower-priced eBooks, (and authors also get antsy as sales drop).

Its strange that we don't see many arguments here for other goods to be raised in price on the grounds its "good for us as consumers". Perhaps fruit prices should be raised 50% to encourage more fruit production? Gas 30% to get more out of the ground? Breakfast cereals 50% more since not enough eat breakfast? Whats so special about the book production cycle and keeping all its components? I dont believe I have any more of a "duty" to keep publishers in business, than caxton had to stop vellum manufacturers going out of business in the 1500's /

Authors will stay in business if their books are good enough to sell at a price that is economic for them. If they arent, its not my duty or role to keep Stephen King employed, (if you think its yours, just send him the money directly without involving me please )

As for the rest of the chain between author and reader, much of it has been made obsolete and there is no obligation to keep it going through artificial means.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

This information doesn't support your argument. First, an attempt by a single publisher to keep ebook prices high is not illegal. Second, if they all have a motive to keep ebook prices high, then why would collusion by necessary?

Problem is that the example provided is more of the norm than the expectation. Apple is only a minor target in this law suit but are in it because the are what caused and allowed this to start happening.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because if only one or two do it, their high prices drive customers to other publishers lower-priced eBooks, (and authors also get antsy as sales drop).

Sure, but the point I was responding to was that all the publishers have motives to keep ebook prices high.

Its strange that we don't see many arguments here for other goods to be raised in price on the grounds its "good for us as consumers". Perhaps fruit prices should be raised 50% to encourage more fruit production? Gas 30% to get more out of the ground? Breakfast cereals 50% more since not enough eat breakfast? Whats so special about the book production cycle and keeping all its components? I dont believe I have any more of a "duty" to keep publishers in business, than caxton had to stop vellum manufacturers going out of business in the 1500's /

Is it really that hard to see the difference between fruit and an artistic creation like a book? I couldn't care less about publishers, but I do see value in keeping money in the book industry to encourage variety, quality, and risk taking. When the money gets tight, is it so hard to imagine that books that don't follow the proven, mainstream money-maker formula are going to be the ones that get marginalized?

Authors will stay in business if their books are good enough to sell at a price that is economic for them. If they arent, its not my duty or role to keep Stephen King employed, (if you think its yours, just send him the money directly without involving me please )

That's a bit short-sighted. Stephen King isn't what the concern is about. It's about the author whose work, while fantastic, only has a limited market. Amazon's attempt to force prices down could inhibit the niche author's ability to live off of their work.

As for the rest of the chain between author and reader, much of it has been made obsolete and there is no obligation to keep it going through artificial means.

Absolutely.

----------

Problem is that the example provided is more of the norm than the expectation. Apple is only a minor target in this law suit but are in it because the are what caused and allowed this to start happening.

I agree. I'm not sure how it disagrees with what I said.

 

[vrDrew]

Problem is that the example provided is more of the norm than the expectation. Apple is only a minor target in this law suit but are in it because the are what caused and allowed this to start happening.

A Stephen King book published six months ago is cheaper as a hardcover than as an e-book?

That certainly isn't proof of collusion, or anything of the sort.

Book publishers and retailers, like every other profit-maximizing business, practice this little strategy called "price discrimination." They charge some people higher prices than others for the same goods.

And in the case of hardcover fiction, the people who will pay the most for a Stephen King novel have already bought it. They paid full list price the week it came out (and probably stood in line at Barnes & Noble to get it signed by the author.)

But now, several months after publication, you are left with a slightly pickier market. People who are less-avid King fans. People who've got a few titles already, and are maybe looking to fill out their bookshelves. So Amazon (and Barnes & Noble) reduce the price: The books are already printed, they are taking up space on shelves or in warehouses. Best to clear out stock to make room for whatever is next. From the retailer's point of view, keeping it in stock will cost them money. They've got an incentive to mark it down. (Note, this simply isn't possible with e-books. They take up no warehouse space. And the publisher only gets paid when the book sells.)

E-books, on the other hand, have a completely different appeal. What would you rather take on a plane? An 849-page tome (weighing in a at least a couple of pounds) - or a weightless Kindle version of the same thing?

To this particular market, at this particular juncture in the book's lifetime, the e-book version of 11/23/63 is worth more than the hardcover version. And its priced accordingly.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

A Stephen King book published six months ago is cheaper as a hardcover than as an e-book?

That certainly isn't proof of collusion, or anything of the sort.

Again it was an example of more the norm than the exception to the rule.

It is one of many red flags that have been raised that something is REALLY REALLY wrong. The publishing industry has had this coming for a while. Apple like I said is what was key player in letting it ebook crap really happen give the publishers the final weapon they needed to really jack up prices.

 

[BaldiMac]

Again it was an example of more the norm than the exception to the rule.

It is one of many red flags that have been raised that something is REALLY REALLY wrong. The publishing industry has had this coming for a while. Apple like I said is what was key player in letting it ebook crap really happen give the publishers the final weapon they needed to really jack up prices.

How is something that is a legal and easily justified business practice a red flag that something is REALLY REALLY wrong?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

How is something that is a legal and easily justified business practice a red flag that something is REALLY REALLY wrong?

On it own fine. It would of been a red flag that could of been written off but when all the big guys do stuff like that at the same time those are quite a few flags being raised at one time. It should send off all sorts of warning to really look into it.

What making this illegal is the fact all of the publishers did it at the same time.

 

[BaldiMac]

On it own fine.

Exactly. My point was that it did not support the claim the person that I was responding to was trying to make.

It would of been a red flag that could of been written off but when all the big guys do stuff like that at the same time those are quite a few flags being raised at one time. It should send off all sorts of warning to really look into it.

Stuff like that? The legal stuff that we already agreed was fine? That's not cause for warning.

What making this illegal is the fact all of the publishers did it at the same time.

No, what would make it illegal is if they colluded in their decisions to raise prices. The timing wasn't something trying to be passed off as a coincidence. It was Apple setting a deadline for a decision, so they could announce it at a press conference.

 

[Tumbleweed666]

Is it really that hard to see the difference between fruit and an artistic creation like a book?

Yes, whats so special about "artistic creations" that leaves them out of the supply and demand world? Can David Hockney insist that if I buy one of his works for $100,000 I can't resell it for $5 if thats what I want to do? And I'm not even sure that "artistic creation" comes into it since its the publishers getting paid more, not the authors, There is no direct link between this situation and authors getting paid less.

Amazon's attempt to force prices down could inhibit the niche author's ability to live off of their work.

Well tough, if they are that niche, the world does not owe them a living. Send money to charity for starving authors if it bothers you. Seriously. And in any case, the niche author has a much better chance self publishing and cutting the publisher out, than via the conventional route, where the publisher takes up much of any money they'd make. Not to mention, the publisher setup is often actually a block to niche authors. Who in any case can self publish easily and cheaply via this evil Amazon we keep hearing about. Publishers are the enemies, not the friends, of niche authors. I don't recall the big publishers setting up anything that allows these poor souls to prosper, indeed far from it, but they could easily have done so and stolen a march on Apple and Amazon by accepting not rejecting technology.


Do you recall the publishers putting in place a common eBook standard and a means for people to download books direct from them, cutting out third parties like Amazon? Something they could easily have done a few years back when there was limited competition? But its not in their interests, or at least they saw it that way, they see in their interests to keep prices up and restrict eBooks as much as possible and have doen everything they can to hold back teh tide, learning nothing at all from the music worlds debacle a decade prior.



Anyway, looks as if Apple (and 5 of the 6 publishers) are starting to cave in Europe.

In which case, how do only you folks in the USA feel like paying more for your books to keep the publishers 1900-style businesses ticking over* in accustomed style rather than accommodating 21st century (heck even late 20th century) technology?


*even increasing profits since they lose the overheads of physical books but get higher prices for them!! And these new books, in general, cant be resold or even loaned, so its a win-win-win for them

 

[EbookReader]

paragraph by paragraph reply to a New York Times article

http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-worst-article-about-the-ebooks-anti-trust-suit/
The Worst Article About The eBooks Anti-Trust Suit

It comes from the New York Times today — Book Publishing’s Real Nemesis — and is manufactured by David Carr, who has a shocking ignorance of eBook history, recent history, and is plainly biased towards the status quo.

which yielded better money

Wait. The Big Six were actually pulling in more money from Amazon under the Wholesale Model that had been in existence for several decades? Yet they wanted to control their prices so they could make less money?

Yes, publishing is that screwed up.

And notice how, again, the eight-dollar mass-market paperbacks they publish are never mentioned. They can make profits on eight-dollar paperbacks but not $9.99 eBooks? How stupid do they think people are? How stupid does Carr think we are?

p.s. A few of the publishers recently announced their annual financial statements.

Revenue is FLAT
Profits is UP (due to higher profit margin on ebooks).....and yet they want to slow down ebook adoption.

Motive...Motive...Motive...

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes, whats so special about "artistic creations" that leaves them out of the supply and demand world? Can David Hockney insist that if I buy one of his works for $100,000 I can't resell it for $5 if thats what I want to do?

Agency pricing is legal. It's the same thing Apple does with the App Store. The problem with this situation is the possibility of collusion by the major publishers.

And I'm not even sure that "artistic creation" comes into it since its the publishers getting paid more, not the authors, There is no direct link between this situation and authors getting paid less.

I don't care about the publishers. I was responding to a question about why letting Amazon force lower prices with their monopoly control of the ebook market could be bad for consumers.

Well tough, if they are that niche, the world does not owe them a living. Send money to charity for starving authors if it bothers you.

That's just a strawman argument. I didn't say the world owes them anything. But just because the content has a niche audience doesn't mean it isn't important or that it shouldn't be created.

Seriously. And in any case, the niche author has a much better chance self publishing and cutting the publisher out, than via the conventional route, where the publisher takes up much of any money they'd make. Not to mention, the publisher setup is often actually a block to niche authors. Who in any case can self publish easily and cheaply via this evil Amazon we keep hearing about. Publishers are the enemies, not the friends, of niche authors. I don't recall the big publishers setting up anything that allows these poor souls to prosper, indeed far from it, but they could easily have done so and stolen a march on Apple and Amazon by accepting not rejecting technology.

Again, you are fighting the wrong battle here. Self publishing is great. The role of publishers should be marginalized whenever possible (especially when it comes to academic publishing.) But Amazon is manipulating the self publishing market as well. Their terms basically eliminate pricing between $10 and $20 in an attempt to force pricing to $9.99 and below.

Do you recall the publishers putting in place a common eBook standard and a means for people to download books direct from them, cutting out third parties like Amazon? Something they could easily have done a few years back when there was limited competition? But its not in their interests, or at least they saw it that way, they see in their interests to keep prices up and restrict eBooks as much as possible and have doen everything they can to hold back teh tide, learning nothing at all from the music worlds debacle a decade prior.

Yep.

Anyway, looks as if Apple (and 5 of the 6 publishers) are starting to cave in Europe.

In which case, how do only you folks in the USA feel like paying more for your books to keep the publishers 1900-style businesses ticking over* in accustomed style rather than accommodating 21st century (heck even late 20th century) technology?

Sounds like they are making headway.

*even increasing profits since they lose the overheads of physical books but get higher prices for them!! And these new books, in general, cant be resold or even loaned, so its a win-win-win for them

Increasing profits is what they are supposed to do. They just are not supposed to collude with other market leaders to do it.

paragraph by paragraph reply to a New York Times article

http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-worst-article-about-the-ebooks-anti-trust-suit/
The Worst Article About The eBooks Anti-Trust Suit

p.s. A few of the publishers recently announced their annual financial statements.

Revenue is FLAT
Profits is UP (due to higher profit margin on ebooks).....and yet they want to slow down ebook adoption.

Motive...Motive...Motive...

Again, this information doesn't actually support your argument.

 

[Tumbleweed666]

That's just a strawman argument. I didn't say the world owes them anything. But just because the content has a niche audience doesn't mean it isn't important or that it shouldn't be created.

Nope, no strawman argument, you clearly implied they should be supported through higher prices otherwise why raise the point at all? You cant have it both ways. Either niche authors (=ones that very few people want to read?) get special treatment, or they don't. If they do, well thanks but I decline to contribute. If they don't, whats your argument exactly?

Again, you are fighting the wrong battle here. Self publishing is great. The role of publishers should be marginalized whenever possible (especially when it comes to academic publishing.) But Amazon is manipulating the self publishing market as well. Their terms basically eliminate pricing between $10 and $20 in an attempt to force pricing to $9.99 and below.

If that's true, so what, it means they eliminate pricing between $10 and $20 on their own website only. Not on Fictionwise or a host of other sites. You say the publishers should be allowed to set prices, then complain when Amazon do!

 

[EbookReader]

Amazon will use its power in the ebook world to

A) Raise prices and screw the consumers
or
B) Lower prices by eliminating the large inefficiencies of the "print" world

http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2012/04/publishings-amazon-powered-future.html

Amazon is fundamentally a company about scale. The common thread between AWS and the internet book seller of 1995 is the identification of markets with large inefficiencies that could be eliminated by using the internet to amass scale. Amazon has alway been willing to lose money to achieve that scale. But this isn't predatory in the sense that having achieved market dominance, they raise prices. Instead, it's ruthless in that once scale is achieved, the resulting efficiencies can't be matched by anyone else.

It seems clear that Amazon has identified the publishing industry as a target ripe for further forcible efficiency improvements. But the nightmare narrative being spun by the publishing echo chamber is tragically unaware of how Amazon works. Maybe it's because publishers imagine that Amazon will do what they would do if they had Amazon's market power. But Amazon won't extort huge sums of money from powerless consumers. Instead, they will ruthlessly bring efficiency to every process involved in publishing. And then they'll invite everyone to use their ruthlessly efficient services.

print world: author - lot of middlemen - bookseller - reader
digital world: author - bookseller - reader

print world royalties for author: ~10-15%
ebook royalties for author: ~70%

 

[BaldiMac]

Nope, no strawman argument, you clearly implied they should be supported through higher prices otherwise why raise the point at all? You cant have it both ways. Either niche authors (=ones that very few people want to read?) get special treatment, or they don't. If they do, well thanks but I decline to contribute. If they don't, whats your argument exactly?

No, you changed what I said. I didn't imply any special treatment of niche authors. I simply stated a potential consequence of artificially lowering prices.

If that's true, so what, it means they eliminate pricing between $10 and $20 on their own website only. Not on Fictionwise or a host of other sites. You say the publishers should be allowed to set prices, then complain when Amazon do!

Which ignores the fact that Amazon had 90% of the ebook market before Apple's entry and tremendous market power in the overall book market.

print world royalties for author: ~10-15%
ebook royalties for author: ~70%

Unless you want to sell your ebook for more than $9.99 on Amazon. Then you only get 35%. And you still have to deduct all your expenses (editing, etc.) from your cut.

 

[Tumbleweed666]

No, you changed what I said. I didn't imply any special treatment of niche authors. I simply stated a potential consequence of artificially lowering prices.

You said "Amazon's attempt to force prices down could inhibit the niche author's ability to live off of their work."

So, to me that implies "special treatment" in that you seem to be arguing by inference that this is one reason we all have to live with higher eBook prices, so that niche authors can continue to live off their work.

Or if that isnt your point, then why mention it ? Why not say instead "the people who make a living working in physical book distribution warehouses will find it harder to get jobs" ? Is that also a reason to raise prices?

Which ignores the fact that Amazon had 90% of the ebook market before Apple's entry and tremendous market power in the overall book market.

So what? You say this as if its a bad thing (unless its just another statistic you bandy around and will shortly say you dont mean anything by it) But that 90% is purely because they provided eBooks at a price people liked! Its not because they have a stranglehold on eReaders, authors, technological standards or anything other than a good price.

AIUI your argument is you wish them to raise prices so that i can buy exactly the same book at Amazon or Apple just at a higher price for what reason?
That Amazon dont have 90% ? So that niche authors can possibly make a living?

Whats the issue with Amazon having 90%? Whats the magic number under which its OK to allow prices to be set by Amazon?

Re niche authors, as I've said before, tough, but I think you are way off base anyway, I've bought dozens more books, most from niche authors, since the availability and lower prices came about thanks to Amazon (do you wonder why they got the 90%?).

An actual example, take John Locke, who I'd never heard of before Kindle, I've bought probably a dozen of his books, all around $2-3. So that niche author is getting some percentage of around $20-$30 in total from me, as opposed to the zero I'd have spent with him at $15 a book when I simply wouldn't have bought one of his books.

Unless you want to sell your ebook for more than $9.99 on Amazon. Then you only get 35%. And you still have to deduct all your expenses (editing, etc.) from your cut.

And your point is what exactly? If they don't like those terms, they can go elsewhere, there is no blockage to that. Why dont the 6 publishers provide a place where authors who wish to sell books at $15 each at 70% can go? Thats not Amazons job. Though as I said above, I think Amazon know what price people will spend hence why they discourage authors from setting that price point. But they dont forbid it and the author can publish elsewhere if she doesn't like it.

 

[vrDrew]

An actual example, take John Locke, who I'd never heard of before Kindle, I've bought probably a dozen of his books, all around $2.

I'm assuming you mean the John Locke who wrote How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months!, and not the other John Locke, whose contributions to the development of Western political and social philosophy are, shall we say, a little more substantial.

Let's just be very clear about this: Even if the DoJ allegations against Apple and the other publishers are true, this would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the ability of self-publishers like Mr Locke (the e-book writer) to sell his work on Amazon.

However, its also worth noting that How I sold 1 Million is also available as a Nook Book from Barnes & Noble.com; and many of Mr Locke's other works are available from the iTunes Store. Why is this significant?

Because without the entry of Apple, and its Agency-pricing model, competition with Amazon in the e-book business was going to be all but impossible. Only companies that were prepared to subsidize (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) the sale of new Bestsellers were going to be able to compete. Even if you are the strongest possible proponent of self-publishing, you cannot assert that having only one outlet for an author's work can be a good idea?