DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

wall street journo http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...YDsZJr75EFa76w

Well that's missing the forest for the trees. Apple can do whatever they want in their own ecosystem.

The issue is that Apple spearheaded the collusion with industry giants in forcing Apple's preferred sales model onto other companies.

The Wall Street Journal has really gone down hill if they print articles so devoid of basic critical thinking in favor of an obvious commercial interest.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

wall street journo http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...YDsZJr75EFa76w
The market determines the price, and Apple gets 30%. The Justice Department fails to acknowledge anywhere in its 36-page complaint against Apple and book publishers that this is the standard approach.

This is Apple's standard approach, not "the" standard approach. And there's nothing illegal about that. Where it crossed the line is in demanding the MFN clause--and allowing & encouraging publishers to coordinate their business plans so they'd all start on the new system, at the same percentage, on the same day.

They thought it made no sense for Amazon's Kindle to have a 90% market share and a single loss-leader price of $9.95 for consumers.

Simple solution: stop selling to Amazon, and they won't have 90% of the market anymore.

Over the past couple of years, thanks to the agency model, the Kindle's market share has fallen to 60% thanks to competition from iPads and Barnes & Noble Nooks,

Which is it--the agency model, or alternative device choices for consumers?

Why shouldn't some e-books cost 99 cents and others that come with video and hardcover editions be $49.95?

Which ebooks come with video and hardcover editions? (I mean, okay, Baen ebooks could maybe be said to come with hardcover editions, although most people would phrase that the other way around. But they're not $50.)

Why not give people the option to pay 10% more to access an e-book on all e-readers?

Ooh, I'll bite... where can I pay 10% more for in order to access my purchased ebooks on *all* e-readers?

Consumers should decide, not Amazon or the Antitrust Division.

I missed the part where consumers get to decide anything with agency pricing.

[tubemonkey]

Imagine MobileRead demanding a 30% share of all sales in the Flea Market?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

The issue is that Apple spearheaded the collusion with industry giants in forcing Apple's preferred sales model onto other companies.

Allegedly spearheaded.

Since 1996, not even half of all criminal antitrust defendants who have gone to trial have been convicted.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

The issue is that Apple spearheaded facilitated the collusion with industry giants in forcing Apple's preferred sales model onto other companies.

I like that change better.

The Agency 5 (at that time) needed a large successful company with a new product wanting to get into ebook sales in order to go get at Amazon. Apple was definitely that company.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Of course they can. They are charging each cable operator either a per viewer fee regardless of whether that viewer ever watches their channel or a high subscriber fee in the case of HBO.

You realize you're agreeing with my point?
That there is *big* money to be made off new distribution models if only you actually *embrace* them: The cable networks created an entirely new business model (gasp!) to suit the new transmission medium.

Instead of relying on madison avenue advertising fees, as they had since the earliest days of radio, they embraced the idea of a subscription service they can market direct to consumers through the cableco retailer. If you're HBO or Showtime you don't care if an advertiser finds a show foul-mouthed or risque; you just care if the viewers tune in and if your subscriptions actually go up when a given show is running. (There is a reason their shows have been running the table at Emmy Time.)

And yes, their network *is* ala carte ($9 a month); it doesn't rely on cable operators taxing non-viewers. (For the record: ESPN would *love* to go ala carte, too. It is the cablecos--and the government--who insist on the bundle mode because they understand that two thirds of the cable channels woud vanish overnight in a purely ala carte business model.)

Major League Baseball also has a new business model that is raking in money hand over fist; their MLB.TV online venture lets you watch any baseball game in the country (live or after the fact) in your choice of home or visitor broadcast, for $24 a month of $120 for a whole year. Now that their service is available via XBOX I'm sorely tempted.

Instead of huddling down to protect their broadcast networks, the media giants have adapted and created narrow-focus channels for Science Fiction, History, Biography, Nature, Soap Operas, News and sports.

They'll never again have a 30 million-viewers-a-week show like THE COSBY SHOW,
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133182...der-to-come-by
but they can now offer people a broader variety of content that better fits their needs. In publishing terms, the "print run" for a bestseller is smaller but by producing more shows across more channels they actually get more viewers and more money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/bu...03ratings.html

The big media companies have evolved with the times instead of looking to protectt the old ways at all costs. In the chaos of technological disruption, they found opportunity.
And profits.

[JoeD]

Whether it's news, games, apps or books, Apple's position is the same. The market determines the price, and Apple gets 30%. The Justice Department fails to acknowledge anywhere in its 36-page complaint against Apple and book publishers that this is the standard approach.

Doesn't that miss out that they do treat music, movies differently and that they didn't just offer 30% agency terms to each publisher and left it at that. Instead, they worked with ALL four of the publishers to ensure they'd all agree to it. If it was like apps/games, apple would have said to every publisher, it's 30% agency pricing, take it or leave it and left each to make up their own minds. They didn't.

[JoeD]

Major League Baseball also has a new business model that is raking in money hand over fist; their MLB.TV online venture lets you watch any baseball game in the country (live or after the fact) in your choice of home or visitor broadcast, for $24 a month of $120 for a whole year. Now that their service is available via XBOX I'm sorely tempted.

I wish football clubs would sort out a setup like that. I'd jump at the chance to pay £5 a month to watch every home and away game of even just the one team I support. If it included any team for a higher sub even better.

They fear it'll eat into gate receipts, but that's not likely to happen imo. Those who go watch matches live do so for the day out, the athmosphere and meeting other fans and will still go even with such a service in place. Only difference would be the time they can't go, they'd still get to see the game.

As for me, I'd go now and then, but rather than missing 95% of the games I'd see them all through a combination of in person and streamed.

Shame clubs have no say here though, the rights are decided by the football league and they're stuck in the pre-internet era atm.

[stonetools]

As a result of the DOJ action, certain things are clear and others disputed.

WHATS CLEAR


1. Agency pricing is here to stay. The DOJ could have forbidden agency pricing going forward. They didn't and the reason is that they have accepted the logic of agency pricing: that the creator should control the sale price of their product. What the DOJ seems most concerned about the "appearance of collusion". Had the publishers simply spaced out their moves to agency at three month intervals, there would have been no lawsuit, even though we would have ended up in the exact same place.

2. The DOJ and consumer advocates are unconcerned with idea of a monopoly being established through predatory pricing. We will see what happens after Amazon re-establishes its monopoly. ( For DOJ purposes, a company effectively hs a monopoly if it attains 80 per cent market share).

WHATS DISPUTED.

1. Whether Amazon's monopoly was based on its ability to out discount its rivals , as most business analysts (and I) believe, or whether its rivals can mantain market share, even if they don't discount as much as Amazon. We will know the answer for sure next year.

2. What Amazon will do if (I would say when) It regains an effective retail monopoly.
3. Whether BN can survive in competition with Amazon ( Most business analysts and investors are skeptical).
4. Whether Apple and Google are in for the long haul ( Although they are best able to price war with Amazon, they don't need to or want to). Right now, they are willing to hang around and Apple is actually an innovative force .
5. What the publishers will do next in order to escape a world in which Amazon becomes the only pipe to the consumer.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

1. Agency pricing is here to stay. The DOJ could have forbidden agency pricing going forward. They didn't and the reason is that they have accepted the logic of agency pricing: that the creator should control the sale price of their product.

No.
They are not judging the industry.
They are not saying what is a good and bad idea.
They are investigating whether something illegal was done.
The are not saying that they have accepted the logic or that the creator should control the sale price. They are saying that an Agency type agreement is not in itself illegal. Logic is irrelevant. Should is irrelevant. Legal or illegal is the standard.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by stonetools

1. Agency pricing is here to stay. The DOJ could have forbidden agency pricing going forward. They didn't and the reason is that they have accepted the logic of agency pricing: that the creator should control the sale price of their product. What the DOJ seems most concerned about the "appearance of collusion". Had the publishers simply spaced out their moves to agency at three month intervals, there would have been no lawsuit, even though we would have ended up in the exact same place.

Then sure hope this catches on to other industries. Imagine agency groceries. All grocery stores charging the same inflated prices. Mustn't let stores do their own pricing, because it would devalue the worth of food.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

No.
They are not judging the industry.
They are not saying what is a good and bad idea.
They are investigating whether something illegal was done.
The are not saying that they have accepted the logic or that the creator should control the sale price. They are saying that an Agency type agreement is not in itself illegal. Logic is irrelevant. Should is irrelevant. Legal or illegal is the standard.

OK, then they have accepted that agency pricing is legal. The point is that AP will continue going forward in the book industry and will in the future become the norm-although Amazon will resist it with all of their considerable might.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then sure hope this catches on to other industries. Imagine agency groceries. All grocery stores charging the same inflated prices. Mustn't let stores do their own pricing, because it would devalue the worth of food.

Agency pricing doesn't make sense for groceries. It does for some forms of media.
You should understand that there is agency pricing in the App Store, and prices have gone down.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Agency pricing doesn't make sense for groceries. It does for some forms of media.
You should understand that there is agency pricing in the App Store, and prices have gone down.

It makes sense for nothing. I favor a model where the final seller sets the price.

Apple is the final seller, so I fully support their pricing. It doesn't mean that I'd buy at those prices; just that I support the principle.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then sure hope this catches on to other industries. Imagine agency groceries. All grocery stores charging the same inflated prices. Mustn't let stores do their own pricing, because it would devalue the worth of food.

Yep and Agency priced sewer service and plumbing, wow Agency Priced garbage collection and gasoline.



I think this is going to spread like wildfire!
NOT!