DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You think $80 for a dinner for two is a budget buster for someone living in the Bay area?
I find that a bit much.Also, I notice you have THREE devices, two of which are the (premium priced)Sony.

If my job continues to improve, I may reach "middle class" in another few years. Plenty of us living in the Bay area consider $45 our limit for "couple's night on the town."

I have three devices because I'm an ebook fanatic. (Two of them were purchased used. The Sony was a gift from my husband.) I don't have a smartphone, any real estate, a second pair of glasses, nor a formal dress. Budgeting for a single luxury that makes life more bearable is not a sign of affluence. (I say single because I bought each one as the previous was dying. My Clie is still usable--sort of--but the connector pins are corroded enough to make charging it difficult. The Sony has a damaged spot on the screen, and the battery doesn't last as long as it should.)

And while I live in the Bay Area, and am aware how much I'm paying for good climate and access to public transportation, many of my friends don't. $80 per bookstore to be able to access all their books is a ridiculous expectation.

My point is that since DRM is not all that much of a lock-in anymore, ( because of falling prices and increasing options) , its not going to either help or hurt Amazon and its competitors going forward. That might be controversial round these parts, but there you are.

DRM is not that much of a lock-in because googling "remove DRM" will get plenty of sets of instructions. As more people get burned by DRM (book removed from the store, account locked, server authentication shut down, bought book & moved to a country where it can't be downloaded, whatever), they'll look for DRM-stripping options in the future.

I've heard of a lot more people who strip the DRM from their ebooks than who buy DRM'd books from several stores and leave the DRM on them all. Do you have any evidence that the "general public" is more likely to have multiple dedicated devices, with different books available to each, than they are to get Calibre with the third-party plugins that remove the DRM?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If my job continues to improve, I may reach "middle class" in another few years. Plenty of us living in the Bay area consider $45 our limit for "couple's night on the town."

I have three devices because I'm an ebook fanatic. (Two of them were purchased used. The Sony was a gift from my husband.) I don't have a smartphone, any real estate, a second pair of glasses, nor a formal dress. Budgeting for a single luxury that makes life more bearable is not a sign of affluence. (I say single because I bought each one as the previous was dying. My Clie is still usable--sort of--but the connector pins are corroded enough to make charging it difficult. The Sony has a damaged spot on the screen, and the battery doesn't last as long as it should.)

You know, I really hate it when people assume that someone else is "wealthy" because of a few items that they happen to see. It's like people have never heard of sacrificing for things that are important to them before. I bought a new bookcase this weekend. Does that mean I'm rich? No. It means that I've been saving up for bookcases for months on end and finally found the ones that look right and fit in my budget.

I would give you karma but I can't right now.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

You know, I really hate it when people assume that someone else is "wealthy" because of a few items that they happen to see. It's like people have never heard of sacrificing for things that are important to them before. I bought a new bookcase this weekend. Does that mean I'm rich? No. It means that I've been saving up for bookcases for months on end and finally found the ones that look right and fit in my budget.

I would give you karma but I can't right now.

Agreed. Different people have different circumstances. I don't really get how dinner worked its way into the conversation.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Can some one explain to me why Amazon should care about BN, Apple, or Google and their resources or lack of interest in competing?

Amazon shouldn't care. They are undoubtedly jumping for joy that half their major competitors aren't that interested in battling it out, and their biggest threat is headed straight for Chapter 11 or acquisition just trying to keep up.

Everyone else should probably care about Amazon monopolizing ebooks.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

The argument I am reading is that the DOJ is wrong to go after Apple and the Five Publisher for collusion because the action protected BN, Apple, and Kobo from a competitor that had the resources to discount books and was interested enough in the market to work at building the Kindle brand name and eco system.

The DoJ should investigate and, if required, prosecute for antitrust violations arising from collusion by the publishers.

The DoJ should also keep a closer eye on Amazon. Instead, the DoJ handed Amazon the ebook business on a silver platter with "Jeff Bezos Pwns Ebooks" engraved on it.

I don't think it will be an unmitigated disaster. However, all the people who are screeching about the Evil Publishers will almost certainly find themselves squealing about Evil Amazon in a few years, and many many years after that.

I.e. there's a lot more to this than "consumer prices," and antitrust law is supposed to ensure competition rather than keep consumer prices low (at any cost) or pick industry winners.

Here's David Carr's spin on the matter....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/bu...high-cost.html

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Agreed. Different people have different circumstances. I don't really get how dinner worked its way into the conversation.

Dinner for two at a nice place (not olive garden) or a Kindle. about same price.

tank of gas on suv or kindle. about same price.

[stonetools]

I've heard of a lot more people who strip the DRM from their ebooks than who buy DRM'd books from several stores and leave the DRM on them all. Do you have any evidence that the "general public" is more likely to have multiple dedicated devices, with different books available to each, than they are to get Calibre with the third-party plugins that remove the DRM?

Hey, I'm not trying to attack or comment on anyone's lifestyle. My point is that the prices for dedicated devices have come down to a level that its not prohibitive to have more than one device. According to the recent Pew study , most avid ebook readers tend to have a couple of devices. some analysis:

3. One of the most startling data points reported is that both tablet ownership and ereader ownership had just about doubled over Christmas, from 10% in mid-December to 19% in mid-January in both cases. With overlap accounted for, Pew estimates that 28% of Americans 18 and over own one or both.

Device ownership is still climbing fast, although it is likely that the overlap, a single person owning both devices, grew faster over this Christmas than it had before. When people get a second device, a replacement or a complementary device, they probably don’t indulge in the same buying spurt as they do when they get their first device. The data summary I saw didn’t correlate the rise in ownership of each of the two devices with the rise in ownership of either of the two devices, which limits our ability to forecast how much content growth we should see following the increase in device penetration

9. One question delivered the most startling answers considering how far along we are in device penetration. The most commonly employed ebook reader is a plain old computer, on which 42% of people read ebooks as opposed to 41% on Kindles and Nooks. That’s surprising. Perhaps even more surprising is that more people (29%) read ebooks on a cell phone than on a tablet computer (23%).

Obvously there are lots of folks out there reading on multiple devices, including PCs, for Pete's sake.My guess is that the general public has never heard of Calibre, doesn't know what a plugin is and doesn't strip DRM. Since a third of Americans own smartphones and increasing number own tablets, I think DRM is becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway.

Even if I am wrong about that, its clear that DRM is a two edged sword here. On one hand, It plays a small part in keeping Amazon customers on the reservation. However, it also plays a role in keeping BN and Kobo customers on THEIR reservations, so its kind of a wash

[ProfCrash]

The DoJ should also keep a closer eye on Amazon. Instead, the DoJ handed Amazon the ebook business on a silver platter with "Jeff Bezos Pwns Ebooks" engraved on it.

If Amazon breaks the law than the DOJ should get involved. I fail to see how enforcing the law is a bad thing.

It is up to BN, Apple, Kobo, Google, Sony and the like to find a way to compete against Amazon within the law. It is up to Amazon to compete while following the law.

The DOJ is enforcing the law. They are not taking sides in a business venture. They are saying that there was collusion between Apple and five Publishers. Three Publishers felt that the DOJ had a strong enough case that it made sense to settle, probably providing the DOJ with even more evidence against Apple and the remaining two Publishers.

I am sorry that BN ran its business poorly enough that it is struggling. I am happy to see that they are trying to innovate their way out of trouble. I hope that the Nook sticks around but I don't think that the DOJ should choose not to pursue a lawsuit against Apple and the Five Publishers because it had the side benefit of propping up BN.

That BN is in a crappy position financially should not matter to the DOJ. That the settlement might hurt BN should not matter to the DOJ. That the law was broken is all that should matter.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Can some one explain to me why Amazon should care about BN, Apple, or Google and their resources or lack of interest in competing?

Amazon shouldn't care but the DoJ should care. The DoJ is supposed to represent the interests of the consumer in this fight, not the interests of Amazon. It isn't in the consumer's interest for only Amazon to be left standing.

I think that is the essence of the argument.

[ProfCrash]

No, the DOJ is suppose to enforce the law. The law says you cannot collude.

Note: It wasn't BN who went to the Publishers to try and collude. BN was playing the game by the rules as established. It was Apple who went to the Publishers. They went to the Publishers because they did not want to be undersold and did not want to have to worry about setting prices themselves. Recently, Apple has said that it might leave the E-book business if there is a return to the wholesaler pricing because it does not want to be involved in that.

Either BN knew it would be illegal to set up a deal with the Publishers that would make BN the MFN and would increase e-book prices so they did not do that or BN was ok with competing under the existing rules. One way or the other, it took Apple stepping in with IBooks in 2010 to make this move. The Publishers were desperate enough to go for Apple's idea.

DOJ is enforcing the law. That is what they do. Apple and the BPH breaking the law to benefit Apple as being ok because it had the side benefit of helping BN does not make their actions legal. They can try this argument out to win a PR war, and it appears some folks are buying it, but it still does not get around the fact that they broke the law.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You think $80 for a dinner for two is a budget buster for someone living in the Bay area?
I find that a bit much.Also, I notice you have THREE devices, two of which are the (premium priced)Sony.

Yet another thing you are uninformed about.

According to the 2010 Census, the median household income for San Francisco City was $71,304 (Source). That means that combined that with a median housing unit price of $785,200, and you just don't have a whole ton of discretionary income.

Oh, and 11.9% of people in The City are below the poverty level. Bet they have a hard time paying $80 for a dinner for two, despite your fantasy world.

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

They can try this argument out to win a PR war, and it appears some folks are buying it, but it still does not get around the fact that they broke the law.

Did I miss the news of a conviction? I didn't know it had even gone to trial yet.

[ProfCrash]

Three Publishers settled. As part of the settlement, they are each going to pay $51 million. So, half the defendents have agreed to wrong doing and are taking a decent size financial hit in the process.

On top of that, their contracts will be voided and they will have to renegotiate with Amazon, Apple, BN, and all the other bookstores. And they have to have their contracts and dealings monitored and approved for the next five years.

So, yeah, there has been an admission of wrong doing by half of the denfendants complete with some decent penalties. Sure sounds to me like someone is admitting that they broke the law.

[heySkippy]

^^ Sorry, I thought the topic was the DOJ suing Apple.

[stonetools]

If Amazon breaks the law than the DOJ should get involved. I fail to see how enforcing the law is a bad thing.

I think the problem is that it looked like a one sided enforcement of the law. As to who should care , its authors and then consumers. SF author Charles Stross:

Monopoly

exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity ... Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.

Monopolies suck for their customers because they don't have to give a shit about product quality or price: they have you, the customer, over a barrel with nowhere else to go.

A monopoly is a consumer-side problem. In contrast, there is a less-well-known corresponding supplier-side problem ...

Monopsony

is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. It is an example of imperfect competition, similar to a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers. As the only or majority purchaser of a good or service, the "monopsonist" may dictate terms to its suppliers in the same manner that a monopolist controls the market for its buyers.

Monopsonies suck for their suppliers because the suppliers are systematically starved of profits by the middle-men running the monopsony. Which can lead to suppliers going bust, and a reduction in the diversity and quality of goods available (via the monopsony) to consumers.

AMAZON STRATEGY

I don't agree with all of his analysis, but there's a lot of truth here, IMO

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

^^ Sorry, I thought the topic was the DOJ suing Apple.

Apple and Five Publishers who colluded. Apple is but one of the defendants. Three of the Five Publishers have already settled. In a few months that settlement will go before a judge and it will be determined if the settlement is fair, acceptable, allowable (sorry not a lawyer.) Apparently interested parties can attempt to argue that the settlement should not be allowed for whatever reason. There is already indication that the Authors Guild is going to fight the settlement because of the logic that the collusion allowed BN and others to gain a foothold in the e-book world.

I could be off on those details, if I am, I am sure someone on the baord will happily correct me.