DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[DiapDealer]

You can't miss what never existed.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You can't miss what never existed.

And ya'd still have $35 in your pocket! Bonus!

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Synamon

I can't comment on what "people have said", but lower prices will allow people to buy more of the ebooks they read.

Right now people in overstuffed recliners have options like free public domain ebooks, library borrows, used paperbacks, and the darknet. At a lower price point, some of those will be forsaken for the convenience of shiny new ebooks.

Some may but probably not the majority.

Realistically, $12.99 down to $9.99 is $3. Is that $3 a big difference for the average reader? One book a month person? Even for the heavier readers that may save $12/month?

The library and used book prices will still be lower than Amazon's new prices. $9.99 or 50 cents or free?

I think it's more of a psychological barrier than a financial one for many people.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I think it's more of a psychological barrier than a financial one for many people.

The psychological ones are the really difficult ones to break down though.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Realistically, $12.99 down to $9.99 is $3. Is that $3 a big difference for the average reader? One book a month person? Even for the heavier readers that may save $12/month?

Shatzkin is implying that without agency pricing, publishers or retailers will be experimenting with $3-5 ebooks, which would directly compete with the $1-3 self-pub market, and this would knock indie authors out of the marketplace, because we all know that they couldn't possibly compete on the basis of quality writing. Everyone knows $3 ebooks by "unknown" authors only sell because they're not offered on equivalent terms with "popular" (read: BPH) authors.

Plz to ignore any data that implies "an author who sells a million books is no longer unknown, regardless of whether they're carried in bookstores."

Unlike Shatzkin, I don't believe that BPHs are going to start offering backlist genre ebooks at $4 each, no matter how much the market indicates they'd sell in the millions. I *also* don't believe that readers will turn entirely away from unknown authors if they do.

[FizzyWater]

I know I said this before, but I'd be a lot less unhappy about "agency priciing" if the publishers were consistent. Price the print and ebooks the same - allow or disallow the same potential for discounting - and I may grumble that "prices went up", but I do that all the time. You should hear me complain about the price of soda.

For the person who commented that "who buys solely on price", I can only speak from my own experience. Before "agency pricing", I spent more than $2000/year on ebooks. I bought books I could never get around to reading in that year. I bought because the sale price was good and the book description was tempting. I'm still ... slowly ... getting around to reading ebooks I bought in 2005.

In 2010, when agency pricing went into play, I spent a bunch early in the year and got a great deal at Target on Sony eBook gift cards ($15 for a $25 card - I "stocked up!") My ebook spending was around $1200.

I noticed while doing my taxes this year that I "only" spent about $500 on ebook last year. I've been borrowing from the library and browsing my "TBR pile".

Agency pricing saved ME money in the long run, but - at least from this one regular purchaser - it didn't benefit either the publisher or the authors for all those books I would have impulse-bought had it not been in place.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Lower prices for books usually means lower royalties for authors. That's a lot more realistic than lower prices= more books sold=more money for authors. What if more books DON'T sell?

Well, if they're ebooks, they won't be contributing to our landfills shortages, for one thing.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Unlike Shatzkin, I don't believe that BPHs are going to start offering backlist genre ebooks at $4 each, no matter how much the market indicates they'd sell in the millions. I *also* don't believe that readers will turn entirely away from unknown authors if they do.

What stops the BPHs from doing this now with agency pricing?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Fbone

What stops the BPHs from doing this now with agency pricing?

DO NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUE WITH FACTS.

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by Fbone

What stops the BPHs from doing this now with agency pricing?

They don't want to sell more ebooks, they want to protect the paper book market and exert control over Amazon. Authors might want to sell more ebooks, Amazon certainly wants to sell more ebooks, the publishers want ebooks to disappear. Everyone seem to forget that with the agency model the publishers increased ebook prices, but made less on every ebook sold.

[Fbone]

So now Mr Shatzkin believes ebooks are going to drop in price from $12.99 to $5.00? I guess his comments went right over my head.

___________________________________________


B&N finished the day down 1.8% slightly worse than the S&P 500 at 1.3%

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Fbone

So now Mr Shatzkin believes ebooks are going to drop in price from $12.99 to $5.00? I guess his comments went right over my head.

Of course. Amazon's going to blow right by their old $9.99 for bestsellers-only and shoot for 5 bucks for every ebook (out of pure spite), thus killing all competition stone-cold dead inside a month AND ruining all chances for self-pub authors to carve out a niche in that $0.99 - $4.99 market. The entire book industry should be completely destroyed by Memorial Day at the latest.

Plus they're going to drown kittens.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And he assumes that books by authors of the BPHs will be priced lower, which means, according to Shatzkin, that the indie authors will no longer be able to compete, because why would you buy a $4 book by an unknown author when you could get a $4 book by an author you know and like?

1) Because maybe you've already read that book. No author can keep up with my reading rate, and that's true for pretty much everyone, even very slow readers. After you've spent the $4 on Famous Author's New Book, you still have $6 left of the $10 you might've spent on it... and you might try an unknown with that money.

And don't forget that at one point, the famous author you like was once an author you've never read just like that indie author.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Fbone

What stops the BPHs from doing this now with agency pricing?

Stupidity and a strong hate for Amazon.

[FizzyWater]

Dear Author has a nice summary of all this (without the end-of-the-world hyperbole some of the other linked blogs have resorted to).

http://dearauthor.com/features/indus...-happens-next/

[plib]

From the dearauthor article:

• After each round of negotiations with Apple over the terms of their agency agreements, Publisher Defendants’ CEOs immediately contacted each other to discuss strategy and verify where each stood with Apple. They also used Apple to verify their position vis-a-vis other Publisher Defendants. Penguin, for example, sought Apple’s assurance that it was “1 of 4 before signing”—an assurance that Apple provided. Two days later, Penguin and two other Publisher Defendants signed Apple Agency Agreements.

• Initially, Amazon attempted to resist Macmillan’s efforts to force it to accept either the agency model or windowing of its e-books by refusing to sell Macmillan’s titles. Other Publisher Defendants, continuing their practice of communicating with each other, offered Macmillan’s CEO messages of encouragement and assurances of solidarity. For example, one Settling Defendant’s CEO e-mailed Macmillan’s CEO to tell him, “I can ensure you that you are not going to find your company alone in the battle.”
• Mr. Shanks, the CEO of Penguin, twice chastised Random House for continuing to sell ebooks under the wholesale model and criticized RH for “not helping the group.” “Mr Shanks also encouraged a large print and e-book retailer to punish the other publisher for not joining Defendants’ conspiracy. In March 2010, Mr. Shanks sent an email message to an executive of the retailer complaining that the publisher “has chosen to stay on their current model and allow retailers to sell at whatever price they wish.” Mr. Shanks argued that “[s]ince Penguin is looking out for [your] welfare at what appears to be great costs to us, I would hope that [you] would be equally brutal to Publishers who have thrown in with your competition with obvious disdain for your welfare…I hope you make [the publisher] hurt like Amazon is doing to [the Publisher Defendants]. Likely this is referring to Barnes and Noble

Sounds to me as though the DOJ has a pretty complete evidence file. Apple et. al may fight, but I can't see them winning.