DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[bjones6416]

I would have sworn to you that I haven't let the agency pricing affect my shopping, but I just looked back through all of my Kindle orders. Guess how many books I have paid over 9.99 for? Five. Just five. And I've got about 400 books. So no big check for me, I guess!

[ProfCrash]

I thought Kobo was but it couldn't have been for too long. I had forgotten about the indie bookstores.

The bookstores are not going to have negative PR. They are going to receive the compensation because they were the ones harmed. Passing on said compensation to their customers will also be good PR.

The negative PR is hitting the BPH as we speak. They are the ones paying the $151 settlement. That number is likely to be larger for the two that did not settle and Apple if they lose the case.

[John F]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

...

The bookstores are not going to have negative PR. They are going to receive the compensation because they were the ones harmed. Passing on said compensation to their customers will also be good PR.

...

How weren't the customers harmed? The customers were the ones who had to pay more. Amazon (and others), actually made more money (per book). Are you talking about lost sales?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

The bookstores are not going to have negative PR. They are going to receive the compensation because they were the ones harmed.

How were B&N and Kobo harmed?
Their market share went up during agency pricing.

[johnnyb]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How were B&N and Kobo harmed?
Their market share went up during agency pricing.

But, one could argue, less than without agency pricing. They went up because of a general market trend...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by johnnyb

But, one could argue, less than without agency pricing. They went up because of a general market trend...

Sales would go up because of a general market trend.
Market share going up is not part of the general market trend.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by johnnyb

But, one could argue, less than without agency pricing. They [B&N and Kobo share] went up because of a general market trend...

Really?

Aren't most arguing that Amazon lost market share because of Agency pricing (because they couldn't use their dominant position to undercut their competitors)?

That would suggest that Kobo and B&N gained market share because of Agency pricing. If so, why should they get compensation?

Graham

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Graham

Really?

Aren't most arguing that Amazon lost market share because of Agency pricing (because they couldn't use their dominant position to undercut their competitors)?

That would suggest that Kobo and B&N gained market share because of Agency pricing. If so, why should they get compensation?

Graham

They won't. Any compensation will go to consumers.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by stonetools

They won't. Any compensation will go to consumers.

Again. Good point.

I'm slow today.

Graham

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Despite B&N introducing their Glowlight Nook.
Dragged down by the BPH moaning most likely.
Trying to portray the settlement as a disaster is not going to help the stock of publishers or retailers. They'd better get to that seventh stage fast.

Despite your best attempts, I don't think tthis can be spun as any way but a major setback for publishers, authors, BN, Kobo( maybe) and independent booksellers. Its a big victory for Amazon and consumers ( in the short term). To portray it any other way is unrealistic at least.

[DiapDealer]

Despite your best attempts, I don't think tthis can be spun as any way but a major setback for publishers, authors, BN, Kobo( maybe) and independent booksellers. Its a big victory for Amazon and consumers ( in the short term). To portray it any other way is unrealistic at least.

To pretend that the outcome and future repercussions of this ongoing investigation are already a given is what I find unrealistic. Just because the naysayers make more sense to you, doesn't mean the naysayers make more sense. Perhaps this will provide the impetus for BPH to finally look inward at things they may need to do instead of only focusing on what's being done to them. Maybe it's a watershed moment.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by stonetools

They won't. Any compensation will go to consumers.

Which is what I was saying. That compensation will have to come through the bookstores because they have the records. So the bookstores will get some more good PR.

[kennyc]

Boy I tell ya, they've got the spin doctors working overtime today on this issue. I've seen bunches of high-profile articles saying that the DOJ filing is the worst thing in the world for the ebook market. What a bunch of malarky!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_1422386.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...?newsfeed=true

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...roke-amazo.DTL

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,6062761.story

....

[afv011]

[sarcasm]The DOJ got it wrong, Apple actually helped lower prices.[/sarcasm]

The DOJ's accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry.

Source

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To pretend that the outcome and future repercussions of this ongoing investigation are already a given is what I find unrealistic. Just because the naysayers make more sense to you, doesn't mean the naysayers make more sense. Perhaps this will provide the impetus for BPH to finally look inward at things they may need to do instead of only focusing on what's being done to them. Maybe it's a watershed moment.

Although no one can predict the future with certainty, you can certainly make foreasts based onn past experience. I don't know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that's the way to bet. The business press and the stock market universally predict that this is bad news for BN , eg.

Industry executives and Wall Street analysts say a return to aggressive discounting of best-selling e-books by Amazon could undermine rival Barnes & Noble, which in the past couple of years has taken an estimated 27% of the e-book market through its Nook digital book store.

Just as importantly, Barnes & Noble sold most of those titles profitably, since it didn't have to worry about having to match discounted books that might otherwise have been sold at a loss.

"This is a huge problem for Barnes & Noble," said Forrester analyst James McQuivey. "Amazon is building a tremendous customer relationship that they can monetize across many categories of goods, not just books. Even if they decide to take a hit on e-books, they can find other places to make up that margin. Barnes & Noble doesn't have that same luxury."

LINK

Every analyst thinks of this as a disaster for publishers and authors, who will just make less in the new regime. All this airy talk of "new business models" , "best practices", etc. are just gauzy attempts to disguise the fact that publishers and authors are gonna lose out. I think its better if folks who are happy about the DOJ action just own that upfront, and then go on from there.