Class-action Suit Filed Against Apple and 5 Book Publishers Over E-book Pricing

[pmz]

Huh?
I think you need some better straw for your straw man argument.

Did you even read what this thread is about or just dive in when someone questioned Apple???

This is circumventing free market, "hence" the lawsuit.

I'll explain it a different way that will make it clearer.

If every grocery store in your town decided to get together and charged $15 for milk, guess what that is???

I'm not even blaming Apple too much in this.
They want the same sweet deal they get with the music they sell but one problem, they got into the game way too late.
The publishers saw a chance, using Apple's power, to try to change the game.

I might even accept it but you don't even get week one discounts and specials that dead tree books get.

Actually you're completely wrong, because no one needs ebooks, at all. People "need" milk.

Amazon is to blame for cheating content creators out of what they're due, not the other way around. Someone who writes a book deserves whatever he can get for it. Publishers colluding to bring prices up is just a way of bringing some integrity to the content in question. Best sellers simply should not be $9.99 and lower, not in 2011.

 

[AppleFan1984]

It's hardly "magic", more like "market economics" and "retail 101". Even in China and Hong Kong, the home of ripoffs, forgeries and black market batches off the production line, I've seen queues of people lining up for city blocks waiting to pay full price for iPads. With demand like this, only an idiot would charge less than full price...

Some of those "idiots" might like to bring customers into their stores. It's "market economics" and "retail 101": provide a better value to the customer and they'll choose you over someone else.

This has been going on a long time with far less popular products.

I suspect as Apple grows in market share this will eventually become an item for review. You may believe otherwise, but let's reconvene here next year and see what happens. Interpretations of the Sherman Act may vary over time as market share changes.....

 

[TraceyS/FL]

While that may all be true (although I've yet to see any actual, official figures linked to by anyone to back that up) it still doesn't explain why you can buy a physical book on Amazon cheaper than the equivalent ebook either on Kindle or iBooks (and that goes for many titles, whether they are new release, old, whatever). The ebook should be the same price, at the very least, given that at least $2-3 per copy (according to posts here, anyway) is being saved by the publisher/retailer on distribution. And that's not even mentioning the advantage publishers gain with ebooks in that you can't lend an ebook to your friends or sell it secondhand once you've read it...

Amazon's business model is obviously in lines with "quantity over quality".

Sell more at a lower price than fewer at a higher price.

Amazon operates no differently than Wal Mart - those of you on Amazons side don't complain about them right???

 

[ssk2]

Actually you're completely wrong, because no one needs ebooks, at all. People "need" milk.

Amazon is to blame for cheating content creators out of what they're due, not the other way around. Someone who writes a book deserves whatever he can get for it. Publishers colluding to bring prices up is just a way of bringing some integrity to the content in question. Best sellers simply should not be $9.99 and lower, not in 2011.

Way to miss the point.

You simply cannot collude to fix prices, or artificially inflate them. This goes against the main tenants of competition law. Furthermore, it drastically goes against how any market economy should work.

 

[jordanjclay]

I'm sick of these greedy multinational corporations. It seems like they only want to make a profit! Nobody should be able to make money off things like books where other people enjoy them. And while we are at it...Let's sue Apple....I'm not sure why...but they need to be sued, they are making money and turning a profit, they have to be doing something wrong.

Pshhh...give me a freaking break

 

[Navdakilla]

hmmm I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one side I agree with the lawsuit against apple. On the other side alot of people use Idevices as a real source of income, so losing 30% to Apple tax isn't a big deal with there are x-million people having access to their content

 

[AdrianWerner]

Actually you're completely wrong, because no one needs ebooks, at all. People "need" milk.

Amazon is to blame for cheating content creators out of what they're due, not the other way around. Someone who writes a book deserves whatever he can get for it. Publishers colluding to bring prices up is just a way of bringing some integrity to the content in question. Best sellers simply should not be $9.99 and lower, not in 2011.

First of all..fixing prices is illegal whether the product is necessary for life or no.

And second, you obviously have no clue how Amazon sold the books. They were the ones that took the whole price hit. The publisher and creators were getting exactly the same money as they are are getting now. Amazon was covering for the lower price entirely out of their own pockets.

 

[doctor-don]

They did until Apple came in. This is why it looks like a shill lawsuit. i'm sure Amazon has lost a lot of market share and would like it back.

1. The lawsuit is NOT from Amazon.
2. Collusion took place that INCREASED the cost of ebooks to the consumer.
3. ebooks do NOT cost what it costs to print a book on paper. Consequently, we the consumers are being gouged as long as ebooks are priced the same as paper books. Even $9.99 for an ebook through Amazon was excessive given the lack of a physical book and all that involves - or does not involve.

 

[doctor-don]

Actually you're completely wrong, because no one needs ebooks, at all. People "need" milk.

Amazon is to blame for cheating content creators out of what they're due, not the other way around. Someone who writes a book deserves whatever he can get for it. Publishers colluding to bring prices up is just a way of bringing some integrity to the content in question. Best sellers simply should not be $9.99 and lower, not in 2011.

ebooks do NOT cost what it costs to print a book on paper. Consequently, we the consumers are being gouged as long as ebooks are priced the same as paper books. Even $9.99 for an ebook through Amazon was/is excessive given the lack of a physical book and all that involves - or does not involve.

Do you really believe writers of books are not getting paid the same as they did before ebooks were born?

 

[Acorn]

most short stories ect are like 10 bucks. but if you get into computer books, IT books, and many others the digital version is like 3 dollars cheaper then a hard copy. thats freaking stupid imho.

 

[procksa49er1120]

So...

You want to compare a staple portion of the food pyramid to a purely luxury item... That is fine and your opinion and all, but it also summarizes exactly what is wrong with today's society. It / they want something for nothing because profit is BAD, Rich people are BAD sue a business who you think is charging too much rather than just buy your product elsewhere. If this pricing model doesn't suit you go out of your way to find a hard copy "boycott" ebooks send the message to the pubs and if enough people get in things change thats capitalism. If not deal with it.

Huh?
I think you need some better straw for your straw man argument.

Did you even read what this thread is about or just dive in when someone questioned Apple???

This is circumventing free market, "hence" the lawsuit.

I'll explain it a different way that will make it clearer.

If every grocery store in your town decided to get together and charged $15 for milk, guess what that is???

I'm not even blaming Apple too much in this.
They want the same sweet deal they get with the music they sell but one problem, they got into the game way too late.
The publishers saw a chance, using Apple's power, to try to change the game.

I might even accept it but you don't even get week one discounts and specials that dead tree books get.

 

[Dbrown]

As far as Amazon goes, it has fairly little to do with Apple.

Publishers only used Apple as leverage to put pressure on Amazon.

Apple basically said, you guys set the price, and I get 30% cut. Apple is under no obligation to do whatever Amazon did.

But Amazon has to do what apple does? Fact of the matter is that ebooks were cheaper before apple came along with the agency model. How does the agency model benefit the consumer?

 

[procksa49er1120]

If you can "fix prices" as you say

Then how was it legal for Amazon to "fix" them at the magical 9.99 no one complained about them fixing a low price???!!!!

Way to miss the point.

You simply cannot collude to fix prices, or artificially inflate them. This goes against the main tenants of competition law. Furthermore, it drastically goes against how any market economy should work.

 

[procksa49er1120]

So...

It is okay to screw the author and peoples out of profit, but not okay to pay a little more and appreciate the handwork it took to publish the book? whether ebook or print? Again you are missing the point there are way more significant costs like the legal, editors etc etc, plus the edesign layout artists for ebooks.

There is a reason people charge what they charge and 9.99 was a loss for all except the consumer so get over it to stay in business a business needs profit don't like it move somewhere with socialism and then report back in 20 years see how you like that for better or worse.

1. The lawsuit is NOT from Amazon.
2. Collusion took place that INCREASED the cost of ebooks to the consumer.
3. ebooks do NOT cost what it costs to print a book on paper. Consequently, we the consumers are being gouged as long as ebooks are priced the same as paper books. Even $9.99 for an ebook through Amazon was excessive given the lack of a physical book and all that involves - or does not involve.

 

[divinox]

Then how was it legal for Amazon to "fix" them at the magical 9.99 no one complained about them fixing a low price???!!!!

They did not "fix" them, they decided to sell books at 9.99. Very simple. Think before posting, please.

 

[procksa49er1120]

... simply wrong

They did not "fix" them, they decided to sell books at 9.99. Very simple. Think before posting, please.

Neither has apple "fixed" them so why are they being sued and not the big 5?

Please think before replying it only makes you sound like an even bigger idiot than facts prove you are.

And what is the difference between deciding to sell at (in terms of amazon), and deciding to sell at (in terms of the publisher)? Either way a decision to sell at $x.xx was made now it is up to the consumer to "decide" whether or not to buy at $x.xx I fail to see the wrong in either decision $9.99 or $xx.xx

Again there are still too many options and EVEN TODAY Amazon just releasing (quietly) a way to buy their books on the iPad through the browser... Wow man ANOTHER decision to make.. SUE AMAZON!!!!!

 

[liphonearth]

More power to the suit. When companies who hold a monopoly on distribution come together to force a price point, the consumer loses. Amazon wasn't forcing the publishers to take less for their books. The publishers could have said no.

But when they all colluded, they forced Amazon to raise their prices.

I'm all for profitability for businesses, but the only winners here were the publishers and Apple. This created a dis-incentive to buy Amazon and its products.

Incidentally, I own an Ipad and am an Apple fan. However, consumers didn't gain better access to their books as a result of this deal. The e-ink display kindle remains a better reader, and all Kindle book prices went up as a result of this collusion.

If its legal so be it. But if it monopolistic, the consumer should win this suit. The courts will decide.

 

[macUser2007]

Neither has apple "fixed" them so why are they being sued and not the big 5?

Please think before replying it only makes you sound like an even bigger idiot than facts prove you are.

And what is the difference between deciding to sell at (in terms of amazon), and deciding to sell at (in terms of the publisher)? ...

Wow! The complete lack of understanding and the mental thickness in the above excerpt are just astounding!

Community college, I guess....

I know it's difficult for some to grasp basic economic concepts, but price competition and collusion are really, really, really different.

 

[procksa49er1120]

Wow! The complete lack of understanding and the mental thickness in the above excerpt are just astounding!

Community college, I guess....

*crying crying due to hurt feelings...* smdh

Explain something to me then OH ENLIGHTENED ONE... AGENCY MODEL: Where the agency sets the price and Apple just takes a cut.. Here is a quote from ZDNET article Jan 25 2010

"Michael Shatzkin writing for Idealog agrees that Apple’s “agency” model is better suited than Amazon’s “wholesale” model for e-book sales.

The “agency” model is based on the idea that the publisher is selling to the consumer and, therefore, setting the price, and any “agent”, which would usually be a retailer but wouldn’t have to be, that creates that sale would get a “commission” from the publisher for doing so.

The wholesale model, on the other hand, is when the publisher “sells” the book to an intermediary (i.e. Amazon, Borders, B&N) based on the publisher’s established retail price and a discount schedule, typically around 50 percent. Then the purchaser resells that e-book at whatever price they like."

So again tell me where Apple is at fault for price gouging? As opposed to the Big 5 publishes? Apple just takes a 30% cut of the "PRICE THE PUBLISHERS (agent) SETS"

And yes I understand the concept of price competition, but it is not Apple who is setting the prices it is the publishers "colluding" to "gouge" consumers.... So why is it Apple getting sued and not the publishers....

Or to use a popular word these days, let's "compromise" on my statement and say why are "BOTH" Apple and the publishers not on this Class Action Suit as Defendants??? Why are the plantiffs only concerned with Apple? That is why I think the suit it frivolous attempt to steal others money for their own bank accounts... If Both Apple and Pubs had been on the suit I would say OKAY cool.

Ivy League University (Snobbish Enlightened ones of Modern society) I guess... <---Dripping with sarcasm and satire.

 

[macUser2007]

.... Why are the plantiffs only concerned with Apple? That is why I think the suit it frivolous attempt to steal others money for their own bank accounts... If Both Apple and Pubs had been on the suit I would say OKAY cool....

Quote:

Hagens Berman has filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit claiming that Apple Inc. and five of the nation’s top publishers, including HarperCollins Publishers, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan Publishers, Penguin Group Inc. and Simon & Schuster Inc. illegally fix prices of electronic books, also known as e-books.

Is it "OKAY cool" now?

 

[procksa49er1120]

Quote:



Is it "OKAY cool" now?

I find it funny this rating system and the old skool folks can insult us newbies and get thumbs up, but n00bs get downed.


But for the sake of ending this stupid thread where a bash Apple ignore Pubs is happening, let's all sue the pants off Big Corp sure "Ok Cool" :/ ....

EDIT: Not you...take it all personally geez.. I mean other posts not you personally macuser2007

 

[macUser2007]

...
But for the sake of ending this stupid thread where a bash Apple ignore Pubs is happening, let's all sue the pants off Big Corp sure "Ok Cool" :/ ....

Dude, seriously....

Look at the bolded part of my post above: the five publishers are named in the lawsuit, together with Apple.

Get it now?

 

[citi]

People "need" milk.
.

People don't "need" milk.

 

[acorder]

... Ultimately, the change to digital should be good for everyone except big publishing companies. So it confuses me when we the consumer, don't see the benefit from it.

I think that's probably true. And on the consumer side, remember that price is not the only thing (we're mac users, remember?). As larger publishers streamline and smaller publishers become more profitable, you'll see higher quality manuscripts on the marketplace. Of course, you'll also have zillions of unedited, poorly formatted debacles to sift through, but that's kind of a different discussion. The quality of books that publishers are able to offer goes up as they are able to make more money (which, hopefully, goes toward more/better editorial staff, designers, and marketers).

 

[acorder]

Publishers are not the problem. It's retailer's like Apple who take a 30% cut and the others who take a 50% cut. Yes editors do make a book better but you can rent a good editor for $5,000. It's a one-time cost.

Editing is one of the costs. Depending on a book's needs, hiring a good freelancer (not your neighbor ex-English-teacher) can cost anywhere from $3000-$15000. Plus design, layout, and everything else I mentioned in my quoted post. Those one-time costs add up to a lot. Let's say $10k, just to have a round number. How many books do you need to sell to make up that $10k, before you start making a profit? Well, if you price your book at $2.99 on the kindle store, you're looking at close to 5,000 copies. What percentage of kindle books sell 5,000 copies? (Just for reference, the typical fiction paperback sells 4-500 copies.)

Publishing is cheap; publishing well is not.