Amazon, B&N, Kobo: iOS aps to be pulled in June

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ApK

D'Oh! You guys were talking about about the Xoom! I though we were talking about the iPad!

Never mind!

Ah! Sorry about the confusion.

Thx.

[Visuddhi]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

.
Once again:
Cost1 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer
Cost2 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer + Apple

This got me thinking:
This is a little bit of a side track but bear with me.

1) Authors and publishers want/need to make money on the books they sell.
2) Generally most people are happy to pay money for the books they read.
3) It’s a pain in the backside to have to add your details each time you want to buy something.

Problem how can these be integrated so that the publisher (including author) feels confident that their product and hard work will not be handed out like free newspapers.

The best solution they have come up with is DRM, and everybody knows how this is not in the best interests of the reader. And it really isn’t very satisfactory for the publisher either because in reality DRM is useless at preventing ‘unauthorized copying’

So there needs to be a method so that the honest consumer can easily buy an ebook, the publisher will get paid for most of their books people read.

I can see iTunes supplying that service as it is available on most if not all platforms.
Will some/many people copy books and give to their friends? Yes
Will many people pay for the books? Yes
Will the publisher make a profit? Yes
Could this be one way to end DRM? Yes

People who are strapped for cash won’t be buying a lot of books anyway, so if they read the books through ‘alternative channels’ the publisher isn’t really losing money. They can run steady campaigns encouraging people to pay for the books they have read whenever their finances improve. Nobody can argue that advertising doesn’t work, so here is something that can be good for everyone: publishers, customers, free loaders…

Of course apple would coincidently make shit loads of cash too.

If publisher don’t like iTunes, then perhaps they can set up their own bTunes and then cut out amazon, apple, adobe, sony…and sell them on iTunes as well for 30% more

Cost3 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher

[vaughnmr]

I absolutely hate iTunes! That's one of the worst programs I've tried to use in the last few years.

[Visuddhi]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

I absolutely hate iTunes! That's one of the worst programs I've tried to use in the last few years.

Me too, its the main reason i won't use apple stuff, my favorite description of itunes i heard was 'infinitely irritating'
but if it was a way to coax the publishers away from DRM i might be able to ignore it for a while.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

I absolutely hate iTunes!

I only use it to get my free iPod apps.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Visuddhi

Cost3 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher

There's a misunderstanding here. In my formula the components are roles not actual organizations, persons or other entities. So the cost always will be 'Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer' even if some of the roles in the formula are performed by the same player.

So there are some problems with your scenario. For one it is not clear what Apple would be in it. Also the formula 'Cost3 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher' can never be real. A retailer is absolutely necessary otherwise you cannot buy the content. And while it happens that sometimes the copyright owner and the publisher is the same or the author and the copyright owner is the same it almost never happens in practice that the publisher and the retailer is the same. It is not complicated though: retailer is the player who collects the money from the customer and who has a contract with the publisher. Apple indeed has this role in some cases but for other content than music it is a negligible ratio of the whole content business. This is exactly why it is unacceptable that Apple wants to collect money for more content: it has simply no role in the business.

[Visuddhi]

Yeh i know the equation isn't exactly true, i was just following on from your post, but that's not really so important.

The point i was making is that as it is iTunes sells digital media (mp3, video..) meaning that the music fat cats feel comfortable to sell their music without drm through that horrendous software.
Thus it might be possible that publishers could do the same.
I would certainly prefer if it were some other program or platform, however if it means that publishers can make a profit by selling better quality products then that would be good.

The publishers do not need to have a separate retailer, they can set up their own ebook store using the itunes model (if they don't want to use the already functioning itunes), all publishers and newspapers can then carry on their business and make a profit (which is necessary to stay in business). It would be in their own interest to work together setting up the 'mulipub' estore.
However the chances of them actually doing that are pretty slim!

So they could give apple 30% (which is a fairly good deal compared to what the discounts they give stores) and everyone (especially apple) is happy. (well everyone except amazon sony and the others)
Wouldn't it be nice if we could buy ebooks and read them as we please?

But yes it is pretty shitty for apple to take 30% from other companies for doing bugger all

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Visuddhi

the music fat cats feel comfortable to sell their music without drm through that horrendous software.
Thus it might be possible that publishers could do the same.

You are right: it would be absolutely in the best interests of the customers if publishers could give up the stupid idea that DRM is useful. Music industry has gone through the same and finally learned that the lack of DRM does not mean the end of business. Apparently the decision makers of publishing companies are even stupider than that of the music industry, they are not able to learn from others' mistakes and good practices, they need to learn the lesson themselves.

The publishers do not need to have a separate retailer,

This is not realistic. Retail is a completely different business than publishing and requies different expertise, different business methods etc. Moreover people want to buy different stuff at the same place that's why Amazon and the likes are so successful. So publishing companies would need to become a big store selling TVs, computers and other products in order to be able to successfully handle their own retail.

they can set up their own ebook store using the itunes model

In iTunes model it is exactly Apple who is the retailer not the music publisher. So the formula is the same as I wrote only in this case Apple has the role of retailer not B&N or Amazon. Publishers are almost never retailers and probably they should not be. At least it is not realistic.

[david_e]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

There's a misunderstanding here. In my formula the components are roles not actual organizations, persons or other entities. So the cost always will be 'Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer' even if some of the roles in the formula are performed by the same player.

So there are some problems with your scenario. For one it is not clear what Apple would be in it. Also the formula 'Cost3 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher' can never be real. A retailer is absolutely necessary otherwise you cannot buy the content. And while it happens that sometimes the copyright owner and the publisher is the same or the author and the copyright owner is the same it almost never happens in practice that the publisher and the retailer is the same. It is not complicated though: retailer is the player who collects the money from the customer and who has a contract with the publisher. Apple indeed has this role in some cases but for other content than music it is a negligible ratio of the whole content business. This is exactly why it is unacceptable that Apple wants to collect money for more content: it has simply no role in the business.

So Apple is the retailer, as they are the final link in the transaction with the buyer, and Amazon, or others, are now wholesalers. The wholesalers have their contracts with the product suppliers, the publisher, and Apple has contracts with the wholesalers.

Now we still have to wait and see who gets what as far as percentages.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by david_e

So Apple is the retailer, as they are the final link in the transaction with the buyer, and Amazon, or others, are now wholesalers.

No, there is no wholesaler in this story. Amazon and B&N has the contract directly with the publishers (there is no middle link) just as Apple has the contract directly with music publishers for iTunes. So if you like, Amazon and B&N is the retailer + wholesaler for e-books/magazines and Apple is the retailer + wholesaler for iTunes music.
So once again, Apple has no role in the business of e-books and magiznes except for the ones for which it has the contract directly with the publisher. Which is almost an invisible ratio. So it is easy to calculate Apple's cut for the vast majority of e-book and magazine sales: the percantage for doing zero is zero.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

I absolutely hate iTunes! That's one of the worst programs I've tried to use in the last few years.

Absolutely. I detest it. I tried it and it interfered with other applications on my machine, trampled over ports I was using for other things, and felt clunky compared to other music management tools that I was already using.

I do not want it on my machine just to buy books.

Graham

[Visuddhi]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

This is not realistic. Retail is a completely different business than publishing and requies different expertise, different business methods etc. Moreover people want to buy different stuff at the same place that's why Amazon and the likes are so successful. So publishing companies would need to become a big store selling TVs, computers and other products in order to be able to successfully handle their own retail.

Amazon became popular at the beginning because people could buy basically any book they wanted, and it was delivered straight to their door.

If you print books it sure is a very different and difficult task to get them into the hands of each and every customer

This is not the case with digital stuff- you just need some website/platform

What does amazon really do? Have a website that people can easily download or buy books.

In iTunes model it is exactly Apple who is the retailer not the music publisher. So the formula is the same as I wrote only in this case Apple has the role of retailer not B&N or Amazon. Publishers are almost never retailers and probably they should not be. At least it is not realistic.

Why not? Computer makers were almost never retailers...

If i were the CEO of a publishing co i would call up my publisher and newspaper CEO friends (or arch enemies) and suggest making a platform to sell their digital books.
they are the ones who own the copyright so they can do as they choose. Leave the paper books to amazon and book shops and cut out the middle man for the digital.

Spend a $1million between all of them and they'll get a system up and running (they could even employ people to do it should they not have any IT experts on their workforce). Get every book that is for sale up there and they're made.

Make an app for apple and sell their own copyrighted products as they like, if apple doesn't like it then screw them, see how many people will continue to buy ithingys if they can't read books and newspapers.


People only buy their book from amazon because it has all the stuff they need, if people can buy all their ebooks from somewhere else they will go there even if they can't buy a tv and a spare tire for their yacht

but if they continue to insist on drm then let the high seas lurkers do what they will.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Visuddhi

This is not the case with digital stuff- you just need some website/platform

What does amazon really do? Have a website that people can easily download or buy books.

No offense but this is an extremely naive notion about how this actually works. Business to customer (B2C) type of business is utterly different from business to business (B2B) type of business. Different CRM and billing processes different regulations to adhere to etc. There is no way a serious publisher wants the trouble of B2C.

Why not? Computer makers were almost never retailers...

They are not retailes now either.

if people can buy all their ebooks from somewhere else they will go there even if they can't buy a tv and a spare tire for their yacht

Exactly. Customers want to buy ALL books. Not just from one publisher. The chances that the wannabe retailer publisher will get contracts with other publishers is not too high. And this is an understatement.

[Visuddhi]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

Customers want to buy ALL books. Not just from one publisher. The chances that the wannabe retailer publisher will get contracts with other publishers is not too high. And this is an understatement.

I think you missed my point

I was saying that the publishers set up their own joint company (or they could use some existing platform).

if small software companies are able to handle selling digital files to individual customers i think the guys would be able to figure it out if they wanted.

There are also some publishers that sell directly.

Anyway i don't really care anymore, its not my problem, there is plenty of stuff i have to read for many many years, and i won't be buying any icrap for the foreseeable future.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Visuddhi

I was saying that the publishers set up their own joint company

I am afraid that would be quite illegal. A joint company of publishers would be an archetype of cartel.

Anyway i don't really care anymore, its not my problem, there is plenty of stuff i have to read for many many years, and i won't be buying any icrap for the foreseeable future.

Same here.