Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You mean that Apple should be whacked for agreeing to let the publishers to use a price model that is perfectly legal and was already being negotiated by B&N, one of those other ebook sellers who you say that Apple was conspiring to attack using this model? The publishers have been pushing the agency pricing for a while, it's just with Amazon's monopoly (90+% of the market at the time) they couldn't get any leverage.

Once again, you can't fix prices if you aren't setting prices. Yes, I get that you hate Apple's walled garden and thus Apple is evil and should be punished. But look at the facts. Apple wasn't setting the prices, the prices didn't go up, there was zero evidence shown that Apple made any attempt to fix prices.

It wasn't legal. It was conspiracy and collusion. You just don't get it. B&N may have been negotiating, but they didn't do it. Apple did it. So Apple should be the one severely punished.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ottdmk

I've said it before, and I'll say it again now: I am grateful that the Agency model came in.

That's not to say that there aren't many, many irritating things about the Agency model. Chief amongst them is the lack of ebook sales. (As in "20% off the latest Dresden Files", etc.)

Without Agency though, Amazon was very, very close to establishing a monopsony in the ebook retail market. Without Agency, I wouldn't have Kobo. Barnes & Noble's ebook division probably would've folded ages ago. Sony? Likely the same.

Before agency, Fictionwise was going very well. Agency took that away from us. So how is this a good thing?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Sounds plausible. But showing it would require making accounting assumptions about how to allocate, between business areas, items like taxes, corporate buildings, executive pay, and software development. Did they release all that?

Before agency, Amazon took losses on books widely sold by competitiors while keeping prices high on less popular books. Here's an example of the sort of book (and one I've been meaning to read) that they wouldn't likley sell at a loss.

I see the same author now has a popular book -- one I'll definitely read -- that is published by Bloomsberry of Harry Potter fame:

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Fel...1950543&sr=1-1

Kindle edition is $9.89. Kobo sells it for $11.99. I wonder what Amazon and Kobo pay.

But, the difference is that while Kobo's price is higher, Kobo allows promo codes. 20% off is going to make that eBook cheaper from Kobo then from Amazon.

I've been looking at eBooks from Google Play and finding that Google has been matching Amazon on price and doing one better then Amazon by offering ePub.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not my friend, Amazon is MY friend!

And that's NOT a link to anything other than another report of a claim which started this. Please provide proof that Apple has 20% of the market as you claimed or admit that you don't have a clue. That link is just one more restatement of the claim. [inappropriate comment deleted - MODERATOR]

I find a lot of these "amazon has x% of the market" reports to be total guesswork. Amazon doesn't release numbers. So there's no way to know for sure that the numbers are. And one thing that's not taken into account with these numbers is that the world doesn't start and end in the US. So these numbers are even more wrong because they are US only numbers (in most cases). It's total BS. It's also BS to say that Amazon is #1. Take into account the world and it's wrong.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But it would be what's right because Apple caused harm to people all over the world. Apple caused money to be taken from our pocket by getting the BPHs together and causing prices to be raised to silly amounts.

"Silly amounts" -- a price was put on a product, customers paid the price. We aren't talking about food, milk, gas, electricity. No on HAS to buy a just released NYT's best selling ebook.

This very forum is flooded with messages where people have boycotted the "Agency 5" (which became 6). The publishers put a stop to Amazon UNDERPRICING their products...but they have NO POWER WHATSOEVER to coerce someone into buying their books.

Steve Jobs even said that it MAY have turned out that Amazon was right and $9.99 was the best price for ebooks. What the threat of Apple's entry into the business did was give the publishers the power to TRY and set a higher price.

By "TRY" you realize that just pricing a book at $14.99 does not mean it will SELL (in sufficient quantities). Market forces have not been thwarted. There are a near infinite supply of ebooks at all prices from free on up. If a customer bought a book at $14.99, they were not "harmed"...they made a choice that they valued the price for the book that was offered.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

All I can say is that this is the figure that Apple used in court filings. If it isn't accurate, then I would have expect the Gov't to pile on a charge of perjury. I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of their sale is to the occasional reader, rather than the dedicated reader, i.e. beach books and best sellers.

HI:

I really, really don't want in the middle of this, because it's just a quagmire, particularly here on MR. However, aside from the pro- and con-Apple arguments, simply making an assertion in a filing isn't the same thing as committing perjury. (I say this based upon spending some professional time in courtrooms.) Apple is saying this as part of their case. This is not a submission backed up by dispositive evidence. It's simply part of the position, nothing more.

Moreover, how can they know? To know what percentage of the ebook market they "own," they would have to know the sales of every other ebook seller. Without them having the sales from every other ebook retailer, it's simply an assertion that's being made as part of their position.

I'll leave the fight to you guys, but I simply wanted to say, a) the 20% figure seems highly unlikely to me, given my own experience, for whatever that is worth, and b) in response to this post, something said in a position statement made to the court is not the same thing as providing documented evidence to the court. If the judge (somehow magically) were to find out that Apple had 5% of the eBook market, it would not be perjurious, particularly as Apple would be making these statements "to the best of its knowledge and belief."

You see the logic problem, right? Apple cannot know how much of the eBook market it really commands; it can only be making educated guesses in any event.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by leebase

"Silly amounts" -- a price was put on a product, customers paid the price. We aren't talking about food, milk, gas, electricity. No on HAS to buy a just released NYT's best selling ebook.

This very forum is flooded with messages where people have boycotted the "Agency 5" (which became 6). The publishers put a stop to Amazon UNDERPRICING their products...but they have NO POWER WHATSOEVER to coerce someone into buying their books.

Steve Jobs even said that it MAY have turned out that Amazon was right and $9.99 was the best price for ebooks. What the threat of Apple's entry into the business did was give the publishers the power to TRY and set a higher price.

By "TRY" you realize that just pricing a book at $14.99 does not mean it will SELL (in sufficient quantities). Market forces have not been thwarted. There are a near infinite supply of ebooks at all prices from free on up. If a customer bought a book at $14.99, they were not "harmed"...they made a choice that they valued the price for the book that was offered.

One thing I did forget to mention...geo-restrictions. It was enforced because of agency and people who had legally bought eBooks outside of their home country no longer had access to them. How's that for causing harm to the consumer? Why is it I can order a pBook on Amazon.co.uk and have it sent here in the US yet the same book as an eBook, I am not allowed to buy because I am not in the UK. This just smacks of stupidity because it is.

I know people didn't have to buy at the higher prices, but it's like smoking, it's an addiction and people pay for their addictions. The problem is that American MR users are only a very small portion of the population of America. So getting the population of America to stop buying books from agency publishers wasn't going to happen. I wish it did so the agency publishers would have had to give up agency to get sales back.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Apple cannot know how much of the eBook market it really commands; it can only be making educated guesses in any event.

Hitch

Educated guesses. Ha! Those guesses are not educated. They are as stupid as you can get.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One thing I did forget to mention...geo-restrictions. It was enforced because of agency and people who had legally bought eBooks outside of their home country no longer had access to them.

Geo-Restrictions were around before Agency and really started being enforced more when the UK eBook market started getting more active. The enforcement really started in early in 2009 when Hachette temporarily pulled all of their books from some retailers until they beefed up how geo-restrictions were enforced.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Geo-Restrictions were around before Agency and really started being enforced more when the UK eBook market started getting more active. The enforcement really started in early in 2009 when Hachette temporarily pulled all of their books from some retailers until they beefed up how geo-restrictions were enforced.

But other than Hatchette, the others didn't really enforce the restrictions in the US until agency came into being. That's when I read of others not being able to access their eBook libraries that they paid for at some of the eBook shops.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Hitch

HI:

I really, really don't want in the middle of this, because it's just a quagmire, particularly here on MR. However, aside from the pro- and con-Apple arguments, simply making an assertion in a filing isn't the same thing as committing perjury. (I say this based upon spending some professional time in courtrooms.) Apple is saying this as part of their case. This is not a submission backed up by dispositive evidence. It's simply part of the position, nothing more.

Moreover, how can they know? To know what percentage of the ebook market they "own," they would have to know the sales of every other ebook seller. Without them having the sales from every other ebook retailer, it's simply an assertion that's being made as part of their position.

I'll leave the fight to you guys, but I simply wanted to say, a) the 20% figure seems highly unlikely to me, given my own experience, for whatever that is worth, and b) in response to this post, something said in a position statement made to the court is not the same thing as providing documented evidence to the court. If the judge (somehow magically) were to find out that Apple had 5% of the eBook market, it would not be perjurious, particularly as Apple would be making these statements "to the best of its knowledge and belief."

You see the logic problem, right? Apple cannot know how much of the eBook market it really commands; it can only be making educated guesses in any event.

Hitch

Yep. Thanks Hitch for explaining that.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But other than Hatchette, the others didn't really enforce the restrictions in the US until agency came into being. That's when I read of others not being able to access their eBook libraries that they paid for at some of the eBook shops.

I seem to remember Macmillan & Penguin getting tough about the same time as Hachette. Their UK divisions were on them about not enforcing things once they started really doing a lot of books themselves.

[JSWolf]

[removed quote of post no longer in thread - moderator]

I'm not disagreeing to what Apple said in court, I'm disagreeing that it's true. I don't think Apple has 20% of the eBook market because (IMHO) I think that if we were able to tally up ePub (including B&N but not Apple) and Amazon into one, we'd have more then 80% (in the US and world wide).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

I seem to remember Macmillan & Penguin getting tough about the same time as Hachette. Their UK divisions were on them about not enforcing things once they started really doing a lot of books themselves.

I was looking at Geo-restriction from the US side and only Hachette really pushed before agency. But to be fair, I think this was during the Apple talks so agency may have had a part to play in that before they officially went agency.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I was looking at Geo-restriction from the US side and only Hachette really pushed before agency. But to be fair, I think this was during the Apple talks so agency may have had a part to play in that before they officially went agency.

The US side is where all the enforcement started happening in late '08, early '09 due to pressure from the UK side who were starting to put out their own editions. I just don't see ho Agency had much to do with it.