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.
Eddy Cue Speaks About iBooks Price-Fixing Case: 'We Feel We Have to Fight for the Truth'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you read all the testimony and evidence, you would see that Apple never cared about how cheap the publishers were going to sell ebooks for. In fact, Apple preferred a lower price. Apple is only interested in selling ebooks as a means to sell more iPads, iPods, iPhones, etc.
All apple wanted was 30% of the sale price. A straight cut. If publishers wanted to sell their ebooks for $1, Apple would get 30 cents. They just don't care. They just want to ensure content is available for the iDevices they sell. Apple was concerned that publishers wanted to price the ebooks too high. Higher prices = less people wanting ebooks = less people buying iPads, etc.
Apple's model wouldn't work if Amazon was able to continue to sell books as loss leaders so they insisted on the Most Favored Nation clause - something that MANY other large businesses do all the time, but don't get sued for price fixing.
They could have just matched Amazon's prices. That's how most businesses compete.
Instead Apple agreed to higher ebook prices in exchange for a most favored nations clause.
I don't understand the intricacies of this case but for someone who thinks Apple is in the right here, could they explain to me what is the problem if Amazon wants to sell some books at a loss in order to draw people into their shop. Isn't that like the normal supermarket practice of using 'loss leaders' to draw customers into their shop where they know that they'll likely purchase other stuff.
Personally I do not think it is wise business practice but if people are dumb enough to get tricked by this type of subterfuge then that's their own fault. It could be compared even to a shop offering interest free credit for 6 months, knowing full well that the loss will work to their long term advantage because people are weak. However if someone is not weak they can use it to their own advantage.
Personally I do not think it is wise business practice but if people are dumb enough to get tricked by this type of subterfuge then that's their own fault. It could be compared even to a shop offering interest free credit for 6 months, knowing full well that the loss will work to their long term advantage because people are weak. However if someone is not weak they can use it to their own advantage.
Definitely not an Eddie fan, and agree with most of your points, but this case is very wrong and I'm glad Apple is fighting it.
You've got it backward. In most cases, the publishers make more money from the agency model (utilized by Apple) than the wholesale model (utilized by Amazon).
Maybe it's just me but I have crazy lag (both on 5s and 6) and often times the app will randomly go into this weird album cover mode for several seconds and then go back to whatever song I was playing. Another example: I have the Beatles box set; some songs show up under the correct album, others show up under an album called The Beatles Boxed Set and most of the albums aren't displaying the correct album art. Just a mess.
The problem that some of the more fundamentalist Apple followers have with Amazon is simply that it is not Apple.
Then show a screenshot of these
But it could be anyone's screenshot! Just too hard to believe that anyone owning an Apple product could possibly be critical of it?
But you're precisely making my point. There was a time when Apple didn't care what I wanted - it knew the status quo was BS and went about disrupting it because it knew a better way.
I liked my Sony Walkman (look it up it you're under 35). Actually I loved my Walkman - I had the most beautiful one they ever made (yes I'm old). But then 10 years ago I got a second generation of what is now called the iPod Classic and my Walkman was history.
Now Apple just tinkers for money. I prefer the old arrogant, crazy Apple to the new corporate, boring one
There's the rub. Apple didn't mind if book publishers wanted to sell books at Amazon's $10 per book price. Apple just wanted 30% of that $10. Apple left it up to the publishers to decide. Publishers wanted to go much higher. Apple warned them that pricing books much higher than $12-$14 per book would turn people off.
The publishers then set the prices they wanted to sell the books at. I still fail to see how Apple fixed the price. Remember that when all this negotiation was taking place the iPad had not been released yet. There was no iBookstore. Apple had sold exactly zero ebooks. Yet, somehow Apple is price fixing? I don't get it.
There is no problem w/ Amazon wanting to use predatory pricing to drive their competitors out of business. Point is, Amazon was using their leverage with Kindle (which at the time was the dominant ebook reader - something along the lines of 90% of all ebook tablets were kindles) to force book publishers to sell their books for less money. If you don't play ball, well, Amazon would just not carry your other ebook titles and that would end your chances of selling ebooks.
Publishers just wanted to break Amazon's monopoly. Why? To make more money. To sell books at higher prices. But, the publisher's greedy motives does not mean *APPLE* was trying to fix prices. Again, Apple doesn't care how cheap publishers wanted to set the price. They just wanted their 30% cut on the retail price. Apple is in the business of selling iPads, computers, iPhones, etc. They make a relatively small amt of profit from iTunes and their iBookstore. They just want to ensure content is price competitive with Amazon so that people would not have a disincentive to buy an iPad over a kindle. So, Apple insisted on the MFN clause. Go ahead and sell your books on Amazon for $10... but you need to also sell the ebooks through iBookstore for $10 too. Publishers didn't want to do this. They wanted $12-$14. So, the MFN clause forced Amazon to also have to sell books at $12-$14.
Publishers colluded to fix prices. Apple's iPad offered an alternative to Kindle that the publishers used to break Amazon's monopoly. Doesn't mean Apple was trying to raise book prices or fix book prices.
I got it right, IN THIS case, publishers got less money at it was made clear by the documents released in the case
----------
Wrong, all the categories went up
----------
Apple's model wouldn't work if all the other stored were able to continue to sell books with wholesale model so they were forced to change to agency model.
And this is the what the case is about and not the MFN, they forced all the stores to one model and they set the price the same for all the stores.
----------
Well, the 160 pages ruling contradicts you
OK thanks for that explanation.
Here's an hour discussion on the subject that explains the position from lots of different standpoints. It's more complex than it first appears. http://www.oreilly.com/pub/e/2296
Last edited:
Only they didn't. Court documents showed that they actually made less overall. It was more about disrupting Amazon's influence/power over the industry then making more profits (at least initially)
No, it's not. It's about collusion.
Cote: "If Apple is suggesting that an adverse ruling necessarily implies that agency agreements, pricing tiers with caps, MFN clauses, or simultaneous negotiations with suppliers are improper, it is wrong. As explained above, the Plaintiffs have not argued and this Court has not found that any of these or other such components of Apples entry into the market were wrongful, either alone or in combination."
Cote: "It is also not illegal for a company to adopt a form click-through contract, negotiate with all suppliers at the same time, or share certain information with them."
Emphasis mine.
Wow, so many posts about Amazon becoming a monopoly in books. So many posts showing/stating ebook pricing before and after....
Most of you simply don't get the whole purpose of the case. Collusion between some of the biggest publishing houses and Apple to basically 'fix' pricing. It's not about what prices did or did not do (although those stats are included in the case info). It's not about which pricing structure is right/wrong. It's simply about the collusion, which is against the law.
I read most of the documents involved. MR had a big article about it months ago. There are email trails that are very explicit. The publishing houses even settled because they knew they were caught.
Don't get caught up in which pricing model you think is more fair. That is not what this case is about. And Apple will lose. They are simply drawing things out as long as they can. Why not? They get to keep their $$$ longer. Basic legal maneuver.
Most of you simply don't get the whole purpose of the case. Collusion between some of the biggest publishing houses and Apple to basically 'fix' pricing. It's not about what prices did or did not do (although those stats are included in the case info). It's not about which pricing structure is right/wrong. It's simply about the collusion, which is against the law.
I read most of the documents involved. MR had a big article about it months ago. There are email trails that are very explicit. The publishing houses even settled because they knew they were caught.
Don't get caught up in which pricing model you think is more fair. That is not what this case is about. And Apple will lose. They are simply drawing things out as long as they can. Why not? They get to keep their $$$ longer. Basic legal maneuver.
Ouch. Maybe it's because my music library is so small (<500 songs) that it doesn't bug out on me. Fingers crossed for a fix! You wouldn't think it was a lot to ask from the company that made the iPod.