DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have always understood that you do not agree to wrong doing when settling. You settle because you think the odds are to bad and loosing will cost more.

Probably depends on the specifics of each settlement.

In this case, perhaps they agreed because the cost of a full court case outweighs even the benefit of winning as you're not always guaranteed to be awarded costs when you win. They may also feel that the PR fallout from fighting the case isn't worth it.

Of course they may also feel that they did collude and just want out or that whilst they didn't collude the evidence still suggests they did and it'd be hard to argue otherwise?

[Barcey]

I find it interesting that people that are accused of violating copyright are immediately labelled thieves and criminals (when they aren't legally) but now we're supposed to give the publishers the benefit of the doubt, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Just saying there appears to be a double standard.

For the record I agree that they haven't admitted guilt but I think it's pretty obvious that they are guilty.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, well then it must be true.

I was thinking the same thing.

Carol

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Excellent and the linked blog is great too:

http://aprillhamilton.blogspot.com/2...-lets-get.html

Good one! We need more debunker links, analysis not beholden to the BPHs.

In that spirit, Nate the Great has gathered a few good recent ones:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...12/#more-32890
All worth looking into.

A couple of good quotes:

With the legal dispute over ebook pricing going on, one thing we've heard over and over again from the traditional publishing industry and their supporters is that higher prices for ebooks make sense because of all of the "costs" that the publishers have to cover. This is a fundamental error in how pricing (and economics) works. It reminds me of the MPAA folks who demand to know the business model for making $200 million movies. Years ago, someone who understood these things taught me why cost-based pricing will always get you into trouble. If you start from the overall pricing, including overhead and other fixed costs, then you're not basing the price on what the consumer values -- and, more importantly, you're taking away your own incentives to become more efficient and decrease costs. Instead, you're just "baking them in." But the most important reason not to base pricing on overhead costs is that your competitors won't do that, and they'll under cut your price and then you're in serious trouble.

In all the discussions about why book publishers demand that eBooks should be $15 and not $10, they say it is because they cannot afford to sell books at $10. That is, they cannot cover their legacy cost models on that number. Right. Which is why you must rebuild your cost structure for a digital goods industry with far lower prices. You start by paying your top execs much less than millions of dollars a year. Then you move your offices out of fancy midtown office buildings.

The negative coverage of Amazon is centered on them selling eBooks below cost in order to reach the $10 price point. But that is a function of publishers setting the cost higher than $10. If the profit-maximizing price for an eBook is $10, then publishers must adapt to set a wholesale price lower than that, even if it means your legacy cost structure doesn’t allow it. And that’s the rub. [By the way, as publishers continue to resist this market force, new "publisher" models are appearing and will replace the traditional functions of publishers with more digital-friendly models.]

Most of the linked articles bring up similar points the apologists would like to sweep under the rug.

The bottom line is that ebooks are a new medium and new mediums invariably bring new business models and trying to shoehorn legacy cost structures into a digital product is a surefire recipe for massive market share donation over time. Most of these people want *publishing* to prosper in the digital era--they just don't particularly care if the conspirator multinationals partake of that prosperity or whither away.

As for the prosperity issue, consider this:
http://agnosticmaybe.wordpress.com/2...een-the-lines/

BTW, the Kobo quote from above come from here:
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/ko...big-plans.html

It addresses the Amazon-is-invincible FUD. Specifically, Kobo is having none of it:

Kobo will launch its self-publishing platform this quarter and plans on expanding to “a dozen” new countries in 2012, the company’s c.e.o. Mike Serbinis has told The Bookseller.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Excellent and the linked blog is great too:

http://aprillhamilton.blogspot.co.uk...-lets-get.html

That blog sums up the majority of my thoughts on the matter more succinctly than I expect I've managed to in my posts in this thread

[stonetools]

500.
Ok its not as good as "First!!.
Kobo now has a deep pockets sugar daddy which means that they can slug it out in a prioce war with Amazon-which is of course the point. The rest dont have that cushion.

[Ninjalawyer]

I love this one in particular:

In all the discussions about why book publishers demand that eBooks should be $15 and not $10, they say it is because they cannot afford to sell books at $10. That is, they cannot cover their legacy cost models on that number. Right. Which is why you must rebuild your cost structure for a digital goods industry with far lower prices. You start by paying your top execs much less than millions of dollars a year. Then you move your offices out of fancy midtown office buildings.

If customers aren't willing to pay $15 for an ebook, all the moaning about cost structures is pointless. The publishers have it totally backwards - you start with what a customer is willing to pay and go from there, rather than deciding what you must charge and then telling the customer why your product is going to cost more than they want to pay. Customers don't care about your business, they just want the product.

Originally Posted by stonetools

500.
Ok its not as good as "First!!.
Kobo now has a deep pockets sugar daddy which means that they can slug it out in a prioce war with Amazon-which is of course the point. The rest dont have that cushion.

[HappyMartin]

Originally Posted by stonetools

500.
Ok its not as good as "First!!.
Kobo now has a deep pockets sugar daddy which means that they can slug it out in a prioce war with Amazon-which is of course the point. The rest dont have that cushion.

It would be good if the companies that wanted to compete with Amazon spent a bit of time on Google Earth. They would notice that there is a whole big place outside of the US called the rest of the planet. Amazon has become very well established in The Rest Of The Planet.

[ProfCrash]

Kobo seems to be taking on the challenge without too much bitching. They just flat out said that they will match anything Amazon does price wise.

Go Kobo!

Maybe someone from BN can go have a chat with the folks at Kobo and figure out how a smaller company with little capital was able to develop a new e-reader, a bookstore that uses coupons, and an international market before they were bought out by a larger company that has the money to expand the Kobo brand.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Maybe someone from BN can go have a chat with the folks at Kobo and figure out how a smaller company with little capital was able to develop a new e-reader, a bookstore that uses coupons, and an international market before they were bought out by a larger company that has the money to expand the Kobo brand.

Kobo received money from various investors.

[stonetools]

Wikipedia sez that Kobo started as a division of Indigo Books and Music, a big box retail store in Canada that sounds a lot like B&N. Last year it was sold to Rakuten, one of the world's largest Internet companies.
I admire Kobo, but I'm not sure you could describe it as a "smaller company with little capital."
I think its likely that Kobo is going to expand at the expense of BN.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

It would be good if the companies that wanted to compete with Amazon spent a bit of time on Google Earth. They would notice that there is a whole big place outside of the US called the rest of the planet. Amazon has become very well established in The Rest Of The Planet.

You should understand that you don't expand overseas by clicking your heels together and wishing real hard.It takes money-a lot of money.

BN planned to expand internationally before the DOJ lawsuit and settlement. Mike Shatzkin thinks it now will have to shelve or postpone those plans in order to defend against Amazon price cuts.

[DiapDealer]

Mike Shatzkin thinks it now will have to shelve or postpone those plans in order to defend against Amazon price cuts.

Are you Mike Shatzkin? C'mon, you can tell the truth.
If not... the infatuation you seem to have with him is getting a little embarrassing. You should rotate your pundits occasionally.

[ProfCrash]

BN has been slower to move into the international market then Amazon was. It is more then a bit silly that the Nook is still not available outside the US. To suggest that some how or another this lawsuit is going to be the next reason why the Nook does not go international strikes me as naive.

BN would be better able to compete with Amazon, and Kobo, if it were to go international. A well priced EPub reader, one that is less expensive then the Sony and has more features then the Kobo, would do great internationally. Because it can be used at the library, and the Kindle cannot, and it can read books from a variety of bookstores, which the Kindle can but it is easier with EPub, it would probably be well received.

Kobo announced that it is looking to add 12 more markets internationally. Granted, its new owners have more money then BN, but Kobo was international from day one and with a bookstore that was not that far from BN. Kobo had some investors and was backed by a Canadian box store, ok. Why do I have a feeling that BN was probably in a better position when the Nook initially came out than Kobo?

So fear not Mike Shatzkin and his followers. There is competition for Amazon even with the DOJ wrongfully pursuing the collusion case and trying to hand the market over to Amazon. Kobo seems to be happily stepping up to the plate.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Are you Mike Shatzkin? C'mon, you can tell the truth.
If not... the infatuation you seem to have with him is getting a little embarrassing. You should rotate your pundits occasionally.

I do cite him a lot, but I've also cited others. Heck , how often has JA Konrath been cited around here as the fount of all wisdom on publishing?