[tomsem]

I think Apple is bloviating about their claim that they 'broke Amazon's monopolistic grip'. If we go back to the pre-agency period (pre-2010), it's true Amazon was encountering little competition at that point (unless you count Microsoft or Sony). But B&N had just launched Nook, Kobo and Google's efforts were well underway (as well as Apple and dozens of smaller retailers). They all saw the opportunities associated with a rapidly expanding market, and were eager to jump in. Who actually was discouraged by Amazon's early dominance? Microsoft, maybe. Who has jumped in since then, attracted by the allure of agency pricing? Arguably, nobody of any size.

But in any case, these competitive plans were already underway in the pre-agency environment and would have come to fruition in any case. There was going to be competition without Apple's involvement.

I think Apple insisted on agency model because it was working for them in music, video, and apps, and they didn't want to invent anything new. Their expertise is in creating the ecosystem, not retailing, playing around with prices, putting on 'sales', etc. So $12.99/$14.99 was their attempt to standardize pricing of books so it looked more like music, video, apps are priced. They like "pretty pricing" to go along with their pretty products. They made the deals that would allow them to do this, and convinced publishers it was in their interest as well. Jobs and his reality distortion field, etc.

Going forward, it seems agency pricing will continue, though diminished. We will have a sort of natural experiment, where we'll be able to compare the fates of the 3 major publishers who continue with agency vs the 3 that have agreed to abandon it.