DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

That said, it's unclear that it was significant. Getting together at a restaurant and griping about Amazon and its prices might present a problem, but it's not necessarily the same thing as everyone agreeing to sell new ebooks at $12.99.

Getting together to gripe about Amazon and its prices and then simultaneously implementing a scheme to do something about it is a bit different though

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But the Agency model wasn't introduced until April 2010, so I'm not sure what the relevance is?

The relevance is that Amazon did not set prices that low, and decide to lose money on e-books, to drive out the competition. They had limited to no competition. They wanted to grow their user base as quickly as possible but they were not trying to take out BN or Kobo.

Since many of the folks who strongly dislike Amazon like to point to the evil side of Amazon (I still maintain businesses are not good or evil, they are out to maximize profit) I wanted to point out that the pricing that the Publishers objected to was not an effort to sink anyone. It was an effort to launch the Kindle.

The $9.99 price point did not apply to all books, only bestsellers were guarenteed at that price point. There were books priced over that, people would complain about that in topics and have folks point to the not so fine print that said only bestsellers were guarenteed at the $9.99 price point.

When BN entered the market, they could have adopted the same price points and competed with Amazon. They would take the initial hits that Amazon did in order to carve out a piece of the market. As far as I know, there was nothing in Amazon's price points that would have prevented BN or Kobo from competing with Amazon regarding the pricing of e-books. So I don't buy the argument that Agency Pricing leveled the playing field and allowed BN and Kobo into the game. I could be wrong, it happens more regularly then I would like to admit, but unless someone can point to a document that says BN and Kobo would have had to charge more then Amazon, I fail to see how Amazon's pricing would have prevented them from gaining a foothold in the e-reader market.

It might have hurt more but the Nook and Kobo would have been able to compete.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Who offer absolutely nothing other than leeching a small amount off every sale to provide DRM 'services' that almost everyone says they hate?
That is a good thing?

Kinda like Apple leeching 30% off in-app sales

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Getting together to gripe about Amazon and its prices and then simultaneously implementing a scheme to do something about it is a bit different though

At the same time as the IPad was launched and granting favored nation status to Apple with emails and phone records documenting conversations necessitating that at least three other companies had to be involved for Penguin to play along....

Or at least, that is what is alleged to have happened.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Yup. It would be nice to see the independent e-bookstores be able to provide more books for users....

Google offered that option... and just cancelled it. I doubt any other type of approach could work, since independent stores -- even ones as big as Powells -- can't afford to offer its own ebooks.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Do people really believe that BN would not have matched Amazon's discounts?

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.

http://inkmesh.com/blog/2009/11/30/a...ebook-pricing/

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...agency-market/

Again, B&N has poured lots of money into Nook development, and lost a big chunk of money last year as a result. They very likely could not afford to match Amazon on ebook prices.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

As for Apple, Jobs was late to the game because he did not believe people read enough to develop a dedicated e-reader....

[indent=20]"It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore,” said [Steve Jobs]. “Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”[/indent]That was early 2008, right around the time they were likely starting to develop the iPad.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I would also point out that Amazon established its price point long before BN, Kobo, or Apple entered the market. So Amazon's price was not established to take out the competition.

They were competing against Sony and smaller stores (like Fictionwise) as well as against paper books. They were also competing against B&N prior to the iPad release.

Apple explicitly demanded "most favored" status in order to ensure that Apple would not be undercut on price by Amazon. Kinda the whole point of the push for agency pricing....

[fjtorres]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled round of BPH spin and apologia for a reminder:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...col;subStories

The feds aren't the only ones suing today.
16 State Ag's are joining inn the fun. Here's an example:
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4026
(They went to *west* Texas. Hmm, they must think their suit is particularly strong.)

And these guys are talking *money* for refunds:

During a press conference earlier today, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said such a payback to buyers would take the form of either a credit toward a future e-book purchase, or a check. Publishers Hachette and Harper Collins, which were not listed as plaintiffs in the case, have already agreed to such a deal, Jepsen said.

I'm not eligible (I've been boycotting the BPHs) but for those that are: have fun!

There's still the euros and the Class Action suits to be heard from, too, but it's early yet.

And this started out as such a slow boring ebook news week...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

When BN entered the market, they could have adopted the same price points and competed with Amazon. They would take the initial hits that Amazon did in order to carve out a piece of the market. As far as I know, there was nothing in Amazon's price points that would have prevented BN or Kobo from competing with Amazon regarding the pricing of e-books. So I don't buy the argument that Agency Pricing leveled the playing field and allowed BN and Kobo into the game. I could be wrong, it happens more regularly then I would like to admit, but unless someone can point to a document that says BN and Kobo would have had to charge more then Amazon, I fail to see how Amazon's pricing would have prevented them from gaining a foothold in the e-reader market.

It might have hurt more but the Nook and Kobo would have been able to compete.

I just know the reality of the UK market prior to the Agency agreements, which was that Amazon UK was consistently cheaper than Waterstones, the leading ePub seller. Waterstones either couldn't, or wouldn't, match Amazon's prices.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Kinda like Apple leeching 30% off in-app sales

But at least Apple (and Google, and Amazon, who also run in-app sales) provide the platform to makes the sales. Adobe truly offers nothing except DRM.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I just know the reality of the UK market prior to the Agency agreements, which was that Amazon UK was consistently cheaper than Waterstones, the leading ePub seller. Waterstones either couldn't, or wouldn't, match Amazon's prices.

And that was their business choice. Maybe they were willing to bank on there being more EPub readers and those users not knowing how to strip DRM and convert so they would not buy from Amazon.

Why should Amazon, and its users, be punished because other businesses were not willing to match Amazon's prices? I know why those businesses welcomed Agency Pricing, it allowed them to be priced the same as Amazon without having to explain to their users why they were not. So yes, it leveled the playing field but that ignores the fact that they had oppertunities to level the playing field themselves and choose not to.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

And that was their business choice. Maybe they were willing to bank on there being more EPub readers and those users not knowing how to strip DRM and convert so they would not buy from Amazon.

Well, if so they got that one wrong. Amazon went from 0 to domination of the UK market.

Why should Amazon, and its users, be punished because other businesses were not willing to match Amazon's prices? I know why those businesses welcomed Agency Pricing, it allowed them to be priced the same as Amazon without having to explain to their users why they were not. So yes, it leveled the playing field but that ignores the fact that they had oppertunities to level the playing field themselves and choose not to.

They shouldn't.
I'm not in favour of the Agency agreements, I said they were most likely illegal as soon as they were put in place, and it seems to have taken a very long time for that rather obvious fact to have been acknowledged.
I just think that an obvious result is going to be that Amazon go back to offering lower prices than everyone else, and increase their market share further.
As someone who buys all their books from Amazon anyway, that's fine by me.
But I don't see how this can be good news for the B&Ns, Kobo and Waterstones of the world, who how have to actually compete in a free market, rather than be cushioned from competition.

[JonathanH]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

They are breaking em dashes. It's only Mobipocket that botches this. ePub handles em dashes just fine. So can you please fix the grammatically incorrect en dashes back to em dashes without the spaces?

I love typographical arguments - it's like big-endian vs. little-endian all over again

I've reverted to em-dashes-without-spaces in the EPUB file. MOBI remains defiantly en-dashes-with-spaces.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by JonathanH

I love typographical arguments - it's like big-endian vs. little-endian all over again

I've reverted to em-dashes-without-spaces in the EPUB file. MOBI remains defiantly en-dashes-with-spaces.

Thanks.

So you've left the Mobi grammatically incorrect because of a bug in the Kindle's reading app.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Thanks.

So you've left the Mobi grammatically incorrect because of a bug in the Kindle's reading app.

Curious...you download and read and saw difference...or just want changes for purity?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Curious...you download and read and saw difference...or just want changes for purity?

I did not download any copy that had en dashes.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But at least Apple (and Google, and Amazon, who also run in-app sales) provide the platform to makes the sales. Adobe truly offers nothing except DRM.

Isn't that enough? Consider it a licensing fee.