DOJ: Apple and B&N can continue to use agency pricing

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by khalleron

That isn't what was happening. Amazon was buying wholesale from the publishers and then selling their hardcover priced ebooks at trade paperback prices. Amazon was actually taking a loss on the most popular books. The publishers were getting the same price no matter what price Amazon sold them for.

Then Apple got involved, and Apple did not want to sell popular ebooks for $9.99, so they colluded with the BPH to force Amazon to sell books at a higher price or have no bestsellers.

Which was illegal, period.

Allegedly.

The point is Amazon wouldn't have taken those losses for ever. Steve Jobs:

Jobs “wrote to an executive at the parent company, in part”:


As I see it, [Conspiring Publisher] has the following choices:

1. Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream ebooks market at $12.99 and $14.99.

2. Keep going with Amazon at $9.99. You will make a bit more money in the short term, but in the medium term Amazon will tell you they will be paying you 70% of $9.99. They have shareholders too.

3. Hold back your books from Amazon. Without a way for customers to buy your ebooks, they will steal them. This will be the start of piracy and once started, there will be no stopping it. Trust me, I’ve seen this happen with my own eyes.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any other alternatives. Do you?

That convinced the publisher. Its arguable that the five publishers all saw that Amazon would likely offer unfavorable terms in the future and so did not collude, but independently decided to go with Apple. The courts will decide that.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Too bad. Amazon isn't a charity. They're not here to prop up anybody's business model but their own. They're also not here to be my friend, but they just happen to be an awesome experience with rock bottom prices for the customer. Too bad I'm too curmudgeonly to lease ebooks from them.





I don't think I've ever read anything funnier on this forum. The publishers are public businesses. They are beholden to their shareholders to turn a profit, as large a profit as they can. They only 'think' about their authors and staff at the bare minimum required to make a profit. Like every other public corporation out there.

Glad I amused you. The point is Amazon acted in their self interest and the interests of her shareholders , and the publishers acted in the interests of their shareholders, employees and authors. Its not in their interests to allow Amazon to get to a position where they can dictate prices to the publishers ( and thus less income to their authors).

[dgillette.rm]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

For me, an equal or better book for $6 at Baen.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Sorry - self-interest is not the be-all and end-all of rational arguments, Ms. Rand.

It is when you're a publisher.
Being a distributor of other people's "highly valuable, unique cultural material" excuses everything. It entitles you to blanket protection from antitrust and contract violations, among other trivialities.
It is an eternal "get out of jail free" card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Being a distributor of other people's "highly valuable, unique cultural material"

Like Snooki's book, no doubt. Or Lora Leigh's book a few years ago that completely dropped out vital scenes and was rife with bad grammar and spelling mistakes.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The point is Amazon wouldn't have taken those losses for ever.

It wasn't making losses. You have already accepted that the DoJ showed that, no?
They had loss-leading items, like any retailers, but they did not take an overall loss on the eBook business.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The point is Amazon acted in their self interest and the interests of her shareholders , and the publishers acted in the interests of their shareholders, employees and authors.

Check your zipper, your bias is showing
So Amazon is acting solely for itself and its shareholders, but the publishers are more honourable, also acting for their employees and authors?
Seems like you could have said that Amazon was also acting for its employees and customers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Like Snooki's book, no doubt.

The feds took note of that in a wry footnote...
...as a discerning reader around here pointed out elsewhere.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=27

Hopefully they'll keep their BS detector handy during the trial.
(I just wish I knew where they bought it--those things are hard to find but *useful*.)

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Not. Price-fixing is illegal. You can act in your own interest as long as you also act in Society's interest.

Agency pricing is legal -- as the DoJ is explicitly stating, by saying "retailers other than Amazon can stick with Agency if they like."

Nor is there any requirement to act in "society's interest" (a rather vague concept). The stipulation in the relevant laws is to prevent anti-competitive behavior, not "make life better for puppies."

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Check your zipper, your bias is showing
So Amazon is acting solely for itself and its shareholders, but the publishers are more honourable, also acting for their employees and authors?

I can't speak for stonetools, but:

• Amazon is pursuing its own interests (e.g. monopolizing ebooks; generating profits; staying in business)
• Publishers are pursuing their own interests (e.g. preventing an Amazon monopoly; generating profits; staying in business)
• Consumers are pursuing their own interests (e.g. demanding lower prices, regardless of how it affects the retailers, publishers and authors)

It sounds to me like ST is saying that no one is "more honorable" than anyone else. Everyone is pursuing their own agendas.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by joehunt

Amazon remained dominant even with agency pricing.

Amazon allegedly had 80% US market share of ebooks right before Apple launched the iPad. They are supposedly down to 60%.

Originally Posted by joehunt

Amazon is not the villain in this sorry tale.

This isn't about "heroes and villains." It's about preserving competition.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It sounds to me like ST is saying that no one is "more honorable" than anyone else. Everyone is pursuing their own agendas.

Well that isn't what he actually said, is it?
Amazon was acting in their own self-interested, while publishers were also out to help authors, apparently, not just perusing their own agendas.

Originally Posted by stonetools

The point is Amazon acted in their self interest and the interests of her shareholders , and the publishers acted in the interests of their shareholders, employees and authors.

You think that is an equally-fairly presented quote?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Amazon allegedly had 80% US market share of ebooks right before Apple launched the iPad. They are supposedly down to 60%.



This isn't about "heroes and villains." It's about preserving competition.

Actually it's about preserving the publisher's distribution channels and removing competition.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's about preserving competition.

It is about preserving price.
Lets not kid ourselves about anything else.
The publishers are concerned that without multiple viable retailers, they cannot maintain their pricing levels.
They are concerned about competition only in as much as it is required to maintain pricing.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Check your zipper, your bias is showing
So Amazon is acting solely for itself and its shareholders, but the publishers are more honourable, also acting for their employees and authors?
Seems like you could have said that Amazon was also acting for its employees and customers.

Actually, I was saying that both were acting in their own interests. As I said above, there are no villains here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.