DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by sabredog

OF course it was!

We can see what the DoJ does to price fixers.

So how was it shown? I have not seen any evidence for it.

And having an agency price is perfectly OK according to DoJ.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by tompe

And having an agency price is perfectly OK according to DoJ.

Exactly, which is why that comment from Penguin yesterday was disingenuous misdirection:

Makinson said that Penguin was the only firm who hadn't had any settlement discussions with the DOJ.

"The agency model is the one that offers consumers the prospect of an open and competitive market for e-books," he said.

The lawsuit is about collusion to raise prices and giving Apple most favoured nation status. But if you can misdirect the public into a debate about agency pricing this will get lost in the fog...

Graham

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

No, they have not embraced the change sin the markets that say that the way they sold paper books will work for selling e-books. They want prices that reflect the costs needed to maintain the paper book market and not the e-book market.

You (and other ebookers) keep making pronouncements like this regarding pricing and profitability in the publishing industry. I'm wondering -- aside from your opinion on the matter -- what factual bases you have to support these statements that are given as if they are fact. How do you know, for example, (a) what it really costs to produce an ebook and (b) that publishers want ebooks prices high enough to "maintain the paper book market"?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Very much so.

The Agency 6 have been seen to be all about profit. Amazon may not be perfect, but they do provide for indie publishing and for the customer.

Are you saying that Amazon is a nonprofit company? Are you saying, aside from the fact that it has not made a profit, Amazon has no intention of ever making a profit? I suspect its shareholders would be distressed to learn that.

I guess I also do not understand why a publishing company should provide for indie publishing. Amazon as a retailer would be expected to provide for any form of publishing that would bring in revenue, but I miss where there is an obligation on the part of a publisher to provide for its competitors. Under that logic, Amazon should be providing for B&N and other booksellers.

As regards the customer. It has not been clearly settled sho actually is the customer. In Amazon's case, the consumer is the customer -- after all, that is the purpose of retail businesses, to purchase product at wholesale from a manufacturer and resell it at retail to the consumer. In the case of the BPHs, their customer has always been the retailer, not the consumer. That may be changing in today's Internet world, but even today, most, if not nearly all, of the sales the BPHs make are wholesale sales, not retail sales, so their customer is still the retailer, not the consumer.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

You (and other ebookers) keep making pronouncements like this regarding pricing and profitability in the publishing industry. I'm wondering -- aside from your opinion on the matter -- what factual bases you have to support these statements that are given as if they are fact. How do you know, for example, (a) what it really costs to produce an ebook and (b) that publishers want ebooks prices high enough to "maintain the paper book market"?

This is clearly evident in their actions. This conclusion is supported by other transitions to digital media. This conclusion is supported by the new publishers which are emerging in the ebook publishing world that are not tied to the traditional print distribution model.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If publishers are adapting, they are doing it the "Kodak way". Too little, too late.

We are talking 9.99, not 0.99. If you cannot make money at that price, then Amazon will indeed eat you for breakfast.

That's a statement based on wishes not fact. Amazon should be able to sell its Kindle for $19.99 and make a profit. That statement has as much validity as saying that a publisher plus the author plus the retailer can all make money selling no book for more than $9.99. A bold statement unsupported by any factual basis.

I know that a lot of ebookers make the statement but repeating it a million times doesn't make it true. It MAY be true, but no one has yet PROVEN it is true. All of us base our pricing statements on pure conjecture. I admit I do not know that a Random House cannot be profitable selling all of its books at no more than $9.99, but I do know that when I was the head of a small publishing company in the early 1990s, we couldn't.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, they are not the same. E-book are much better. They take no space, you can search them, you can comment in the book and let your friends see the comment and so on.

I find it very strange that people have a strong opinion about what the price should be based on the value to them. I do not understand why people think so strongly that the ebook should be cheaper.

I am one of those people who thinks that ebooks should be cheaper than hardcovers and no more than the paperback price. I don't care that you can search an ebook -- I've never done it; I don't care that you can annotate it -- I've never done it; I don't care that I can share annotations with friends -- I don't do that; I don't care that I can look up something on Wikipedia or Google with the touch of button -- I don't do it. These are meaningless "values" to me and thus have no price value.

I equate the value of an ebook with that of a pbook in the sense that of more value to me is that I be able to own the ebook rather than license it, that I be able to read it forever on the devise of my choice which I can change daily, that I can lend it to as many friends as I want albeit one friend at a time. IOW, the reading and ownership experience I value is that which pbooks provide. I want ebooks to emulate that experience or be priced less.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's really only a matter of looking at Amazon's top 100. There are both independent and BPH controlled titles.

No, kenny, looking at Amazon's top 100 is no guarantee that the indie book is a quality book. All it means is that it sold well. I could have sold well for a lot of reasons, for example, explicit sex scenes. The quality that Harry, I, and others look for are such things as correctly using your and you're, not having a sentence repeat itself 18 times, better dialogue than "D'uh", not writing anecdote when you mean antidote, etc. Being on Amazon's top 100 list does not address these quality issues.

Don't misunderstand. There are quality indie books available. I've come across a good number of them. But Harry is right when he says they are hard to find. For every quality book I have found, I have had to delete 25-30 of horrendous quality. When the price is free, I'm willing to do that; when the price is $3.99 or higher, I'm not.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is clearly evident in their actions. This conclusion is supported by other transitions to digital media. This conclusion is supported by the new publishers which are emerging in the ebook publishing world that are not tied to the traditional print distribution model.

No, it is not supported by new, emerging publishers. If I publish one ebook my costs will be less than that of a BPH. That does not prove that a BPH can therefore sell for less and still be profitable. If I am an emerging publisher and do not have to pay a million-dollar advance to Stephen King for his next novel, I can sell Joe Schmoe's Tales froma Dripping Bed Frame for less than the BPH can sell King's new novel. That doesn't prove that the BPH can make a profit at $9.99.

The BPHs publish more than 80,000 new titles every year. Their costs by scale alone are higher than the emerging publihser who publishes 3 ebooks alone and only does POD for pbooks.

Your bases are still not fact-based.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Are you saying that Amazon is a nonprofit company? Are you saying, aside from the fact that it has not made a profit, Amazon has no intention of ever making a profit? I suspect its shareholders would be distressed to learn that.

You can twist my words all you like so it fits to your logic.

I never said Amazon are not a profit making company. Not once, not ever.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No, it is not supported by new, emerging publishers. If I publish one ebook my costs will be less than that of a BPH. That does not prove that a BPH can therefore sell for less and still be profitable. If I am an emerging publisher and do not have to pay a million-dollar advance to Stephen King for his next novel, I can sell Joe Schmoe's Tales froma Dripping Bed Frame for less than the BPH can sell King's new novel. That doesn't prove that the BPH can make a profit at $9.99.

The BPHs publish more than 80,000 new titles every year. Their costs by scale alone are higher than the emerging publihser who publishes 3 ebooks alone and only does POD for pbooks.

Your bases are still not fact-based.

Nor are yours, they are based on tradition and not the future. (an appeal to authority/history) Last year Amazon sold more ebook than paperbacks.

The sea is changing, I suggest you make sure your boat is sea-worthy.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No, kenny, looking at Amazon's top 100 is no guarantee that the indie book is a quality book. All it means is that it sold well. I could have sold well for a lot of reasons, for example, explicit sex scenes. The quality that Harry, I, and others look for are such things as correctly using your and you're, not having a sentence repeat itself 18 times, better dialogue than "D'uh", not writing anecdote when you mean antidote, etc. Being on Amazon's top 100 list does not address these quality issues.

Don't misunderstand. There are quality indie books available. I've come across a good number of them. But Harry is right when he says they are hard to find. For every quality book I have found, I have had to delete 25-30 of horrendous quality. When the price is free, I'm willing to do that; when the price is $3.99 or higher, I'm not.

Nor does the fact that they were traditionally published as has been clearly pointed out to you. The quality of many traditional published books is atrocious.

Don't misunderstand. There are quality traditionally books available. I've seen them. And it's can be hard to find them.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nor does the fact that they were traditionally published as has been clearly pointed out to you. The quality of many traditional published books is atrocious.

Really, I have actually not moticed any such books. Do you have any titles?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No, kenny, looking at Amazon's top 100 is no guarantee that the indie book is a quality book. .

Also please note that the statement addressed by my response was "If you can find good independent authors, good for you."

My claim is that you can find them as stated, by simply looking at the Amazon top 100 list. This is true. It is not my issue if the most popular books do not appeal to you or you do not consider them good.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really, I have actually not moticed any such books. Do you have any titles?

I've never moticed any either.