DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[stonetools]

At which time or probably before then, the DOJ will promptly go after them and put a stop to it!

Depends on the DOJ. This is an activist DOJ. A Bush Administration type DOJ wouldn't care what Amazon did. Just injecting some real world politics into this happy vision that the DOJ would always come to save the day.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, discounting costs retailers. BN can't turn to selling other products to finance its discounts.

If this business model works for amazon then bn should copy it. they have the choice to do it

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Have we heard from Apple on this subject? I know we saw the one letter from a Publisher discussing why they were contesting, not that it contained anything useful in it. I have not seen anything from Apple.

Maybe Tim Cook is FedExing an iPad 3 to the Fanboy-in-chief.

Apple tends to be careful and deliberate with its public responses.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

If this business model works for amazon then bn should copy it. they have the choice to do it

THEY......................DON"T..................H AVE.............THE.....................FINANCIAL. ....................RESOURCES..................... ...TO .............DO ...............IT

There, is that slow enough for everybody??

[ScotiaBurrell]

Not Amazons fault. AMazon grew their business from under where BN at now.

BN needs to grow too.

[stonetools]

WSJ on Apple:

One question is whether Apple will remain in the bookselling business if it is forced to match Amazon's discounted prices. Apple's e-book market share is small and immaterial to its business, analysts say. But it may be unwilling to cede the entire category to Amazon.

"A more likely scenario is that they would switch their pricing policy," said Sarah Rotman Epps, an analyst with Forrester Research.

Whatever happens to Apple's bookstore, customers should still be able to read e-books on the company's devices. While Forrester says that slightly more than half of iPad owners say they use the device to read books, many do so on third-party iPad apps like the Kindle app.

LINK

FWIW, the talk on Mediagazer is that Apple will win against the DOJ.

[ProfCrash]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17685120

Interesting conclusion at the bottom of the article.

Amazon was barred from offering free delivery on books in France in 2007 because of this law, as booksellers said this amounted to an illegal subsidy.

This Lang Law was extended to cover e-books in 2011.

Germany and some Scandinavian nations also have some form of price fixing on their books, so there is the possibility that the Commission will be more tolerant of the agency model.

This could lead to a different set of prices for e-books in Europe and the US, if both authorities come to different conclusions.

So it is possible that more and more Europeans might be morally and ethically challenged with the question of paying the full price of an e-book in Europe or finding a way around the system and buying from the US.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THEY......................DON"T..................H AVE.............THE.....................FINANCIAL. ....................RESOURCES..................... ...TO .............DO ...............IT

There, is that slow enough for everybody??

Then......Maybe.....They.....Shouldn't.....Be..... In....The.....Business.

Should Amazon build it's business model on the abilities (or lack thereof) of their competitors?

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by stonetools: Well, discounting costs retailers. BN can't turn to selling other products to finance its discounts.

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

If this business model works for amazon then bn should copy it. they have the choice to do it

+1

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

Thanks. In my own self interest, I'm putting off buying any agency priced books until then.

Highly recommended.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

I'm curious - what is stopping Amazon from lowering prices today? It doesn't seem like the BPHs could take any action to prevent them from doing so.

The contracts that are still in place.
They signed them (under duress or not) and must honor them until the courts approve the settlement and voids them.
They're playing by the rules.
(This is a good time to stay on the straight and narrow.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Skydog

There is one important issue that is absent in all of the articles I have read thus far - windowing.

Windowing is fair game.
Perfectly legal.
Totally stupid and self-defeating but legal.
Remember, they tried it and it didn't help their cause any; folks screamed and headed for the library. (Or the darknet.)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Then......Maybe.....They.....Shouldn't.....Be..... In....The.....Business.

Should Amazon build it's business model on the abilities (or lack thereof) of their competitors?

Exactly. That's why they call it the FREE MARKET (and prohibit collusion and racketeering).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Since he is contesting the suit, I think he is in it for the long haul. I think one thing Apple does want to do is dominate the educational market, the source of future Apple consumers.

Apple is contesting because the settlement terms before them stick in their craw.
Wouldn't surprise me if in-app purchase were in play.
Also very tight antitrust compliance over their *entire* business and contract negotiations since this is the second conspiracy they've caught them at this year. The music studios will probably have a day or ten in court if it gets that far.

Apple will settle sooner rather than later because if it gets to trial (four or five years down the road) their expossure won't be limited to iBooks.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Exactly. That's why they call it the FREE MARKET (and prohibit collusion and racketeering).

More important: B&N is *already* selling other types of products.
(Remember the B&N carpets?)
http://moneyland.time.com/2011/10/24...-selling-rugs/

It is hard to argue they can't do something they are already doing, no?

The one thing I hope the lawsuit achieves is to (finally!) get the BPHs and their apologists thinking about how *they* do business instead of how Amazon does business. There is no magic bullet, there is no savior. The only solution is good, legal, modern business practices.

The past is done and gone; if they don't start looking *realistically* at the future, their finances are going to keep on suffering.

Already the five are at risk for $100 million in refunds. Unspecified fines. And that is before the class actin suits. And the other 35 state AGs.