Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad market share doesn't translate into iBookstore market share.

I use the iPad as my eReader, and it's almost completely within the Kindle app. I very rarely use the iBooks app.

I know, but what I'm saying is that Apple is going to bring a lot of books onto a platform that is very popular and expandable. I know just one Kindle owner, and I've seen a few in public. I know a lot of iPad owners, and I see them everywhere in public.

Also, knowing Apple, they're going to bring a lot of cool things to the table with iBooks. Remember their wifi router that also allowed you to play music to speakers over wifi?
 
iTunes is an agency model, isn't? Brick and mortar music stores are healty, don't they?

Itunes is wholesale.

http://allthingsd.com/20120412/apple-fires-back-at-the-feds-amazon/

It’s worth noting that Apple’s pricing policy with books and apps differs from the setup it has with the music industry. In that relationship, Apple pays the music labels a wholesale price for their digital assets, and then sets the retail price itself.

That's why we see different prices for the same songs on Amazon MP3 and Itunes.

Somebody That I Used To Know - $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
We Are Young $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes
Glad You Came $0.99 on Amazon --$1.29 on Itunes

Same with digital movie rental. It's wholesale.

Amazon and Google Play recently competed against each others by pricing a several movies rental at $0.25.

If it's agency pricing, then the record labels/movie studios would set the price. And the price will have to be the same on every stores.
 
For those that say Amazon will raise prices after it became the dominant player, do you really believe that?

1) if Amazon raises prices, consumers will complain and the DOJ will start investigating and file an anti-trust lawsuit.

2) if Amazon raise prices, what would happen when a competitor come in and offer lower prices?

For example, Amazon buy book at $8, sell it at $10. It became dominant and greedy so it raise prices to $12.

Competitor comes in, buy the same books at $8, sell it at $10.

Buyers will flock to this store because this store sell it at $10 and Amazon sell it at $12.


If you're in Amazon shoes, would you raise prices?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-entrekin/doj-lawsuit-good-for-ebooks_b_1422380.html

In Sherman's words, the act was intended "To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer."


--------
Which exactly what happened (cost of goods to the consumers increased from $9.99 to $12.99/$14.99).
DOJ took action.



If Amazon abuse its huge marketshare and increase the "cost of goods to the consumer" (say 2-3-5 years from now), then it too will face an lawsuit from the DOJ.

If anything, Amazon's ultimate aim is to LOWER the prices of ebooks. How? Cutting out the middle man that takes 52.5%. In doing so, the authors get 70% instead of just 17.5%




Amazon CEO:

Kindle Direct Publishing has quickly taken on astonishing scale – more than a thousand KDP authors now each sell more than a thousand copies a month, some have already reached hundreds of thousands of sales, and two have already joined the Kindle Million Club. KDP is a big win for authors. Authors who use KDP get to keep their copyrights, keep their derivative rights, get to publish on their schedule – a typical delay in traditional publishing can be a year or more from the time the book is finished – and … saving the best for last … KDP authors can get paid royalties of 70%. The largest traditional publishers pay royalties of only 17.5% on ebooks (they pay 25% of 70% of the selling price which works out to be 17.5% of the selling price). The KDP royalty structure is completely transformative for authors. A typical selling price for a KDP book is a reader-friendly $2.99 – authors get approximately $2 of that! With the legacy royalty of 17.5%, the selling price would have to be $11.43 to yield the same $2 per unit royalty. I assure you that authors sell many, many more copies at $2.99 than they would at $11.43.
 
If this had happened in the beginning, there would be no lawsuit:

Agency pricing where the publishers set the price = okay
But allow any book stores (Amazon, Google, B&N, Apple, KOBO etc...) to discount up to its 30% commission fee if it wants to....as long as it doesn't make a loss overall from selling ebook from the publisher catalog.

If Apple want to keep its 30% "agent" commission. That's fine.
If Amazon want to give some of these 30% "agent" commission to customers, that's fine, as long as it doesn't lose money on it overall.



Here's the settlement. Very informative read.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57412592-93/whats-the-future-of-e-book-pricing/

HarperCollins, Hachette, and Simon & Schuster, which is owned by CBS, the parent company of CNET, will have a couple of pricing models to choose from. Either they can go back to the old way of charging wholesale pricing (retailers buy a book for right around half its list price and then sell it for whatever they want) or they can simply set the price for the book (as they are doing now under the "agency" model) and give a 30 percent cut to the retailer. Apple operates both its iBookstore and App Store under the latter terms.

The big change will be that retailers will be allowed to discount the price of e-books. Under the terms of the current agency model that caught the eye of the DOJ and precipitated the investigation and eventual antitrust lawsuit, no retailer could set a price for a book below Apple's price in its iBookstore. That so-called "most favored nation" (MFN) clause has been removed as part of the settlement.

So retailers are free to discount under the new terms -- but not without a caveat. The terms are only good for two years. After two years, publishers can negotiate a new agreement that would allow them to go back to the current terms and restrict discounting.

If that's not complicated enough, a retailer like Amazon, which was aggressively discounting titles to $9.99 under the former "wholesale" model (and losing money on bestselling titles), isn't permitted to take an overall loss on a publisher's catalog. In other words, a retailer's commissions have to at least equal the amount of discounts its offering. For example, if a retailer makes $100,000 from the 30 percent commission it gets from the catalog of publisher X, it can only discount (take a loss) of up to $100,000.


If Apple allowed Amazon to offer discount to customers, there would have been no lawsuit.

Apple wanted Amazon price for book X to be the same price as Apple price for book X.
If Apple was okay with Amazon offering a discount for book X to customer, would the DOJ sue?
 
Last edited:
Read it again. I never made any claims. I simply stated what the allegations were. I didn't even offer up an opinion as to whether or not Apple was guilty.

The claims that I was referring to were you statement of what the allegations are. I believe your description of the allegations to be incorrect.

Unfortunately, the emails (if they are legitimate) show that Apple is complicit in the price fixing, and that they not only profited from the scheme, but were rewarded for their complicity with a 'most favored' status by the publishers acting as a cartel.

Yes, it is a harder to case to prove, but those emails are like smoking guns. Once the publishers are found guilty, the judge won't let a complicit party like Apple (who enabled the price fixing) to escape punishment.

And yet, despite what you term "smoking guns", legal experts disagree with your analysis. Maybe your idea of smoking guns is different then mine.

If it's agency pricing, then the record labels/movie studios would set the price. And the price will have to be the same on every stores.

Agency pricing does not require the price be the same on every store. As have many people in this thread, you are confusing the agency model with the "most favored nation" clause that Apple negotiated with the publishers.
 
Best (economic, rather than legal) analysis of how silly the DoJ lawsuit is in this Slate article:

Lower prices enable horizontal predation; when a fatly capitalized retailer (like Amazon) wants to bankrupt its less-wealthy direct competitors, it simply undersells them day after day after day. Furthermore, lower prices can be used in vertical predation, against producers; when a powerful retailer (like Amazon) wants to extract more wealth from its now-captive suppliers, it can set prices to promote those firms who accept its terms and to punish those who resist.

That’s why Congress used the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 to restrict the pricing power of railroads.

For at least two decades I've watched as our economy, and society at large, has been ruined by Americans' obsession with "Low, low prices" and (these days) "Free." With the result that Wal-Mart has destroyed the charm of many rural communities; we've outsourced our manufacturing jobs to China; our jeans and kitchen gadgets fall apart after six months - and gallon tubs of pickles rot, uneaten, in Americans' refrigerators.

This self-inflicted wound has already taken its toll in the clothing and household goods businesses. Amazon is rapidly doing it in the publishing business. And Google and Facebook are in the process of gulling a generation into trading their privacy, their freedom, and their futures for the chance to play Farmville and Angry Birds on their smartphones.

Apple is, I believe, a shining counter-example. That by concentrating on quality - rather than obsessively lowering prices - one can create great American products that people will queue up for in Beijing and Berlin, Barcelona and Buenos Aires.
 
What is your source for the iPad marketshare? I found with a Google search a few sources claiming that the iPad has the highest tablet market share, 61% or so. This includes the Kindle Fire, but I don't know if it includes all Kindles.


iPad market share doesn't translate into iBookstore market share.

Indeed, that's what I'm referring to.

In terms of book sales, Amazon is dominating the market - Apple is in third or fourth place depending on the type of stats you look at.

Note how Apple hasn't ever really talked about the "success" of iBooks in its Keynotes.

Apple's approach is that book sales (iBooks) are there to help their platform/devices (iPad/iPhone/iPod touch).

Amazon sees it around the other way. Devices (Kindles) are there to help their book sales (Kindle Store). That's why you see a Kindle app on just about every platform going, but iBooks not even on the Mac or Windows.

----------

I know, but what I'm saying is that Apple is going to bring a lot of books onto a platform that is very popular and expandable. I know just one Kindle owner, and I've seen a few in public. I know a lot of iPad owners, and I see them everywhere in public.

The iBookstore has fewer books than Amazon.

They're usually more expensive too.

Also, knowing Apple, they're going to bring a lot of cool things to the table with iBooks. Remember their wifi router that also allowed you to play music to speakers over wifi?

Apple hasn't done anything exciting with iBooks. The platform is simply restricted too much due to their approach to the market. They don't want you to be able to read your books on Windows or Android.

Consumers don't want that, hence the lower sales.

Apple could do things to make the platform better, but they don't want to.

If Apple TV is their hobby, iBooks is thing the novel they wish they had time to read.
 
Agency pricing does not require the price be the same on every store. As have many people in this thread, you are confusing the agency model with the "most favored nation" clause that Apple negotiated with the publishers.

Agency pricing does require the same price of this particular case because of the MFN clause.

Book price set by the publishers has to be the SAME everywhere.

If Amazon was allowed to discount some of its 30% commission cut, there might not have been a lawsuit.

You can't force a store to keep 30% commission if it doesn't want to, especially at the expense of the customers.
 
Apple is, I believe, a shining counter-example. That by concentrating on quality - rather than obsessively lowering prices - one can create great American products that people will queue up for in Beijing and Berlin, Barcelona and Buenos Aires.

Quality as in Made in China for a higher price point with the same parts as the other 3 big PC makers? Sadly the only thing American touching Apple products is its design team mock-ups. If it was put together in the US then I could see Apple being able to boast about quality,but not when the quality equals a 16yr old hand soldering things into place for 14 hrs a day. Up until switching to Intel, Apple assembled in the USA.
 
Here's why Amazon can't abuse its monopoly power in ebook (even if it has more than 95% market share) by gouging the customers (aka raise prices after it drives out ALL competitors).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/15/charlie-stross-on-amazon-and-e-books/

The reason is that for a monopoly to be maintainable, for it to be stable, it isn’t enough to just be the only seller in the market. It also has to be impossible for a competitor to enter the market. That is, your monopoly cannot be contestable.

But it would be darn near impossible for anyone to establish an uncontestable monopoly is something digital like e-books. Sure, they might have great contracts, lovely network effects, all sorts of things which tend towards monopoly but if that monopoly is contestable then it’s not possible for them to gouge the customers for fear of someone contesting the market.

That is, even if Amazon did become a monopoly they couldn’t act like one: it’s just too easy to stick a few e-books on a server and contest that monopoly.

As I pointed out in another post, if Amazon raises prices (buy for $8 and sell for $12), it will be immediately CONTESTED.

Google, Apple, Samsung, MSN etc.. could jump in and buy ebooks for $8 and sell for $10.

Maybe even Facebook, Twitter, Paypal or your next door neighbor who working in his garage on an internet delivery system.....

etc....


It's impossible to be an uncontestable monopoly when selling digital contents.
 
I still think the DoJ may have a case when I cite the following:

1. Before Apple's deal with the five major publishers, the maximum price of a new e-book was US$9.99 on the Amazon Kindle platform.

2. Once Apple got that deal, which allowed new e-book pricing to be set by the publisher's whim using the agency model pricing on the iBookstore, these five publishers told Amazon that they either accept the new pricing or they would not allow the e-book from the publishers on the Kindle platform. Amazon, who knew losing these five publishers would essentially kill the Kindle platform, had no choice but to acquiesce on the pricing. As a result, the price of new e-books went from US$9.99 to sometimes as high as US$17.99. This new pricing also applied to the Barnes & Noble Nook e-book readers, too.

If this isn't a violation of the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act in regards to companies getting together to force a price floor on a product, I don't know what is. It's the same issue that plagued the RIAA during the late 1990's when it was accused of setting a price floor for album-length Compact Discs.
 
I still think the DoJ may have a case when I cite the following:

1. Before Apple's deal with the five major publishers, the maximum price of a new e-book was US$9.99 on the Amazon Kindle platform.

2. Once Apple got that deal, which allowed new e-book pricing to be set by the publisher's whim using the agency model pricing on the iBookstore, these five publishers told Amazon that they either accept the new pricing or they would not allow the e-book from the publishers on the Kindle platform. Amazon, who knew losing these five publishers would essentially kill the Kindle platform, had no choice but to acquiesce on the pricing. As a result, the price of new e-books went from US$9.99 to sometimes as high as US$17.99. This new pricing also applied to the Barnes & Noble Nook e-book readers, too.

If this isn't a violation of the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act in regards to companies getting together to force a price floor on a product, I don't know what is. It's the same issue that plagued the RIAA during the late 1990's when it was accused of setting a price floor for album-length Compact Discs.

But who should the case be against? Apple's contract says that the publishers set the price, not apple. The most favored nation says if another sells for less, then the publishers have to lower the price in the ibookstore too (that part added because of amazon and the record companies, strickly my opinion). Everything in the contract, as written in the complaint, says the publishers set the price.
 
Apple's approach is that book sales (iBooks) are there to help their platform/devices (iPad/iPhone/iPod touch).

Amazon sees it around the other way. Devices (Kindles) are there to help their book sales (Kindle Store). That's why you see a Kindle app on just about every platform going, but iBooks not even on the Mac or Windows.

----------



The iBookstore has fewer books than Amazon.

They're usually more expensive too.



Apple hasn't done anything exciting with iBooks. The platform is simply restricted too much due to their approach to the market. They don't want you to be able to read your books on Windows or Android.

Consumers don't want that, hence the lower sales.

Apple could do things to make the platform better, but they don't want to.

If Apple TV is their hobby, iBooks is thing the novel they wish they had time to read.

Is the iBookstore not a developing project still? They just recently released a tool to make iBooks.
 
I just want cheap e-books. How in the world can a e-book be more expensive than a physical book? Don't you have to pay for the materials, pay for the labor, pay for the gas and then pay for a clerk to sale a physical book? Same can be said about CDs and movies. E-media should be cheaper. No question that the arthurs should get paid for their work. But where is the rest of the money going?
 
Is the iBookstore not a developing project still? They just recently released a tool to make iBooks.

Of course, but it is so far behind its competitors - even behind them after they had been on the market for the same amount of time.

If everyone else is moving forward at a sprint and Apple's still learning to walk, they're never going to catch up.

This also combines with Apple's approach to the market, that means they will NEVER be able to offer what everyone else does - simply because they'll never want to.

I don't see iBooks coming to Android!
 
Last edited:
Consumers are the second big winner:

http://mashable.com/2012/04/16/apple-amazon-ebooks/

But the government called shenanigans on the publishers’ deal with Apple, so it looks like Amazon is free and clear to drop prices again. Which brings us to Winner Number Two: consumers. Anyone interested in buying ebooks should be happy about the lawsuit, since it means you’ll be spending less for ebooks. Yay!

Will Amazon raise prices?

But then what? Once it has de facto control of the market, will it raise prices in a “gotcha” move on consumers? Extremely doubtful. More likely, it’ll use its dominant position to force publishers to lower their wholesale prices. Then Amazon can actually start to make money on the ebooks themselves — what it wanted all along. It doesn’t matter if the margins are thin, either — there will be so many Kindles out there that it’ll add up to real dollars for the company.
 
http://seekingalpha.com/article/499081-google-and-amazon-the-non-monopoly-monopolies

Google and Amazon both have something in common that I have been struggling with for awhile. First of all I am not a lawyer, so this is strictly my opinion. I believe that their business models are so innovative that it borders on monopolistic, but not in the commonly perceived manner. Traditionally monopolies are companies that have attained so much power and control that prices are raised to the detriment of their customers. Amazon before Apple's iBooks had a 90% market share in e-books. Clearly enough power to raise prices if they chose, however they did the opposite and lowered prices. What monopoly lowers prices?
 
Agency pricing does require the same price of this particular case because of the MFN clause.

Sure, but that's not the case that I was responding to.

Book price set by the publishers has to be the SAME everywhere.

It could be cheaper at Apple if they are the only one with an MFN clause.

If Amazon was allowed to discount some of its 30% commission cut, there might not have been a lawsuit.

Yep.

You can't force a store to keep 30% commission if it doesn't want to, especially at the expense of the customers.

Sure you can. A supplier can set both the wholesale and the retail price. Happens all the time. But the MFN doesn't require specific wholesale pricing or margins, so publishers can allow the retailers to take a smaller commission if they want. :D
 
Actually there's a simple solution that should be legal even if it doesn't sound fair. (I am not a lawyer, so this may not be worth much.)

Since eBook sales from publishers to sellers is done under a contract, there is no reason the contract and the price needs to be the same for each contract.

So the publishers can use a mix of agency and non-agency contracts... And have a clause in the agency contracts that the prices will be temporarily adjusted when someone on a non-agency contract drops there price below what the agency contracts specify for the sales price of the book(s) in question.
 
Actually there's a simple solution that should be legal even if it doesn't sound fair. (I am not a lawyer, so this may not be worth much.)

Since eBook sales from publishers to sellers is done under a contract, there is no reason the contract and the price needs to be the same for each contract.

So the publishers can use a mix of agency and non-agency contracts... And have a clause in the agency contracts that the prices will be temporarily adjusted when someone on a non-agency contract drops there price below what the agency contracts specify for the sales price of the book(s) in question.

That is essentially what Apple did. However, it does not address the publishers' concerns, so they used the Apple contract as leverage to force agency pricing at other retailers.
 
I'd really recommend Chip Kidd's recent TED talk (17 minutes) for some perspective on this issue.

Chip Kidd is probably the most famous book designer in the world. He designed, (among many others) the T-Rex skeleton image that became indelibly associated with Jurassic Park (both the book and the film).

A book, and a book's success, in virtually all cases, requires much more than some text on a page. It needs proofreaders, editors, typographers, designers, legal advisers, and yes, marketing.

A world in which Amazon totally dominates the book business will almost inevitably be a poorer one, at least from a literary perspective.

Much as I like my iPad, I don't want to lose the option, and the experience, of going into a bookstore, and browsing. Seeing an intriguing cover, from an author I don't know, and learning something new about the world.

Some more perspective on the DoJ AntiTrust Lawsuit here

I’d be lying if I said I didn’t get a little thrill when I found out on Amazon that I could get an e-book version of “Fifty Shades of Grey,” the No. 1 book on the New York Times best-seller list, for just $9.99. But after a week of watching the Justice Department and Amazon team up, I’ve learned that low prices come with a big cost. Maybe I’ll order it at my local bookstore instead.

And here:

What happened in February to Christy Reed, a sales consultant in Pleasanton, Tex., was becoming all too routine. Her school district decided to order 16 copies of a science encyclopedia and a science dictionary but then completed the deal on Amazon.

“I worked so hard to sell those books,” Mrs. Reed said. “I had to talk to so many different people. Then I lost the sale to a couple of clicks on the computer.”
 
You keep posting the same arguments against Amazon raising pricing, when the main concern voiced by the industry and people in this thread is that Amazon will keep lowering prices.

So Amazon lowering prices is bad for consumers?

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).



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/

Why did the large publishers want higher e-book prices? Well, it’s simple. They were desperate to protect print sales and slow the changeover to digital (and to keep readers frequenting bricks and mortar bookstores for as long as possible).

I laid out that particular argument back in December, but, in case there is any doubt, let me quote from that piece:

Evan Schnittman – Bloomsbury’s worldwide MD of Sales and Marketing, Print and Digital – was speaking at The Bookseller’s Futurebook conference in London, when he said, “For every print book we lose to an e-book, we lose money.”

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.”

In a print world, large publishers control distribution. They control (most of) the slots in chain stores, airport stores, box stores, and supermarkets, as well as the co-op therein.

In a digital world, they lose that control. There is less co-op, there is a level playing field for titles not from the large publishers, and, as a result, much more competition.


p.s. How many were defending the record labels/music stores when Apple introduced the Itunes store?

and blame Apple for keeping music prices low ($0.99 per song)?
 
Last edited:
A world in which Amazon totally dominates the book business will almost inevitably be a poorer one, at least from a literary perspective.

How so?

Will there be less authors? Will there be less diversity in literature?




It can be argued that more authors will write because they can earn 70% instead of 17.5%. And they don't need publishers to determine if a book is worth publishing or not. It will be the readers who decide. (by buying or not buying a book).

It can be argued that there are more diversity now than ever before thank to self-publishing. More authors are having their books published. There are some poor books but there are some real gems too.

1,000 authors are selling 1,000 self-published ebooks EACH MONTH on Amazon Kindle store. This wouldn't happened 5 years ago. Is this bad for "literacy" too?




A book, and a book's success, in virtually all cases, requires much more than some text on a page. It needs proofreaders, editors, typographers, designers, legal advisers, and yes, marketing.

All of which the author can hire:

proofreaders: free if you can get friends/family to read the manuscript
editors: cost will vary
cover designer: around $300-500 per cover
legal advisers: ?????
marketing: only the BIG FISH get marketing from the publishers. Mid-list or decent sellers get almost no marketing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.