Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Here is what you asked -
"This is the first time I have come across this characterisation of what occurred. Publishers approaching Apple? I always thought Apple had wanted in to the market but only on condition it would not have to compete with Amazon on price. Would you please provide the source or sources from which you reached this "understanding"? "
I provided a source. You then changed to goal line from source to proof.
I also recall reading transcripts that have Eddie Cue testifying that he proposed price points and the publishers suggested Agency pricing, but frankly I have no desire to waste any more time hunting up links just so you can dismiss them out of hand. We will see how the appeals court rules.
|
The reason I asked for a source is because I wanted to understand how you had come to your interpretation of what had happened. The reason one asks for a source is to examine it critically, not blindly accept it. Your original post said:
My understanding is that the publishers wanted agency pricing and had wanted it for a number of years. Apple said sure, as long as we get a most favored nations clause. IMPO, a company would be less than wise to agree to agency pricing without some guarantee that they wouldn't be sold for less elsewhere.
No. The Publishers just wanted to break Amazon's pricing. Apparently by any means. Eddie Cue did indeed testify that Agency was first raised by Harper Collins. Here is the relevant quote from the judgement:
For example, Penguin in its meeting with Apple shared its view that a $9.99 e-book was not a “sustainable model.” The next day, S&S frankly admitted “hating” Amazon pricing, and HarperCollins revealed that it was interested in the agency model in order “to fix Amazon pricing.” HarperCollins advocated that e-book prices be set in the range of $18 to $20, which Cue viewed as utterly unrealistic. Listening to the Publishers, Cue understood that they were afraid that Amazon’s pricing strategy threatened their overall business.
On December 15 Cue reported to Steve Jobs what had happened and, to quote again from the judgement, Cue told Jobs that "clearly,the biggest issue is new release pricing and they want a proposal from us." Apple then considered its position, and rejected asking for an across the board discount of 25% of the wholesale price from the print book wholesale price. Apple then "
embraced the model that Hachette and HarperCollins had proposed -– the agency model. Apple was already familiar with this model since it used the agency model to sell apps through its App Store."
Just like eschwartz, I'm not concerned with who first raised Agency during the "publisher-Apple chats". That is not the issue. The fact is, Agency was proposed during those chats, and it formed the basis of the position Apple put as invited. Your characterisation of the publishers aggressively driving agency with Apple simply acquiescing is a total distortion of what happened, and a misinterpretation not only of the judgment but also of the Arts Technica article you linked to. The relevant proposal was Apple's put in response to the invitation for Apple to present its proposal.
The result of the Appeal is unlikely to further advance this discussion. Quite frankly, to me and many others, the facts speak for themselves. A clearer case of collusion is hard to imagine. If the decision is overturned on some point of law it says something about the law, its drafting or the way the prosecution was brought. It would not make the conduct of either Apple or the publisher's involved any less reprehensible.