Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
"
...
Publishers told Apple they were unhappy with Amazon's standard price of $9.99. Although they received the full wholesale value of each book sold by Amazon, publishers didn't want $9.99 to catch on as the new default price for e-books, especially since this was so much lower than hardcovers. One strategy they used to keep revenues up was to delay the release of e-book versions of new books, but Apple told publishers it opposed this tactic in its then-forthcoming e-books store. HarperCollins wanted to flat-out charge as much as $18 or $20 for e-books, but Apple Senior VP Eddy Cue also made it clear that this was unrealistic. Apple was more amenable, however, when HarperCollins suggested using an "agency model" instead of the wholesale model used by Amazon.
...
"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-judges-words/
There are numerous other articles as well that mention that the publishers wanted to set their own prices (i.e. the definition of agency pricing) for some time, especially if one goes back to stories that were written before or during the trial. All one has to do is do a bit of research. |
Prior to Apple coming on the scene Agency Pricing does not even seem to have raised its ugly head. Publishers were colluding monthly in private rooms of New York Restaurants. They were unhappy with Amazon's pricing, and actually tried eliminating discounts to booksellers including Amazon and Windowing as a means of trying to force Amazon to increase price. It was Apple who approached the Publishers to set-up initial meetings in relation to ITunes. It seems Agency Pricing was first proposed by Apple. Page 37 of the Judgment under the heading "F. Apple Switches Gears and Presents An Agency Model with 30% Commission" makes this abundantly clear based on actual evidence.
To quote your own statement "All one has to do is a bit of research". Please go and do it! I recommend the judgment you apparently so despise as an excellent starting point.