Author Earnings sheds light on ebook Agency redux

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I'm not too fussed over who first proposed Agency during the publisher-Apple chats. But i notice you seem to be finally accepting that Apple did engage in coordinating talks to have the publishers demand, en masse, an Agency model which included prices arbitrarily fixed at certain Apple-approved price points.

I am proud of you.

Not sure where you got that idea. It certainly wasn't from anything I said or wrote. Still haven't seen any evidence that Apple coordinated anything and that is certainly a gross misrepresentation of the Agency model.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Seriously? Your "proof" is an Arts Technica post which actually wasn't too bad but was perhaps a little carelessly worded. My response was taken directly from the judgment which was based on the actual evidence heard. I have not so far been able to find a copy of the actual grounds of Appeal but I would be amazed if Apple is even contesting this question of fact.

Here is what you asked -

"This is the first time I have come across this characterisation of what occurred. Publishers approaching Apple? I always thought Apple had wanted in to the market but only on condition it would not have to compete with Amazon on price. Would you please provide the source or sources from which you reached this "understanding"? "

I provided a source. You then changed to goal line from source to proof.

I also recall reading transcripts that have Eddie Cue testifying that he proposed price points and the publishers suggested Agency pricing, but frankly I have no desire to waste any more time hunting up links just so you can dismiss them out of hand. We will see how the appeals court rules.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not sure where you got that idea. It certainly wasn't from anything I said or wrote. Still haven't seen any evidence that Apple coordinated anything and that is certainly a gross misrepresentation of the Agency model.

I got that idea from the fact that you seem to be accepting an "Apple-hating" article as a source of valid information. Surely you don't think they are lying to you about Apple's guilt!
If so, maybe they are lying about who suggested what first...

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Here is what you asked -

"This is the first time I have come across this characterisation of what occurred. Publishers approaching Apple? I always thought Apple had wanted in to the market but only on condition it would not have to compete with Amazon on price. Would you please provide the source or sources from which you reached this "understanding"? "

I provided a source. You then changed to goal line from source to proof.

I also recall reading transcripts that have Eddie Cue testifying that he proposed price points and the publishers suggested Agency pricing, but frankly I have no desire to waste any more time hunting up links just so you can dismiss them out of hand. We will see how the appeals court rules.

The reason I asked for a source is because I wanted to understand how you had come to your interpretation of what had happened. The reason one asks for a source is to examine it critically, not blindly accept it. Your original post said:

My understanding is that the publishers wanted agency pricing and had wanted it for a number of years. Apple said sure, as long as we get a most favored nations clause. IMPO, a company would be less than wise to agree to agency pricing without some guarantee that they wouldn't be sold for less elsewhere.

No. The Publishers just wanted to break Amazon's pricing. Apparently by any means. Eddie Cue did indeed testify that Agency was first raised by Harper Collins. Here is the relevant quote from the judgement:

For example, Penguin in its meeting with Apple shared its view that a $9.99 e-book was not a “sustainable model.” The next day, S&S frankly admitted “hating” Amazon pricing, and HarperCollins revealed that it was interested in the agency model in order “to fix Amazon pricing.” HarperCollins advocated that e-book prices be set in the range of $18 to $20, which Cue viewed as utterly unrealistic. Listening to the Publishers, Cue understood that they were afraid that Amazon’s pricing strategy threatened their overall business.

On December 15 Cue reported to Steve Jobs what had happened and, to quote again from the judgement, Cue told Jobs that "clearly,the biggest issue is new release pricing and they want a proposal from us." Apple then considered its position, and rejected asking for an across the board discount of 25% of the wholesale price from the print book wholesale price. Apple then "embraced the model that Hachette and HarperCollins had proposed -– the agency model. Apple was already familiar with this model since it used the agency model to sell apps through its App Store."

Just like eschwartz, I'm not concerned with who first raised Agency during the "publisher-Apple chats". That is not the issue. The fact is, Agency was proposed during those chats, and it formed the basis of the position Apple put as invited. Your characterisation of the publishers aggressively driving agency with Apple simply acquiescing is a total distortion of what happened, and a misinterpretation not only of the judgment but also of the Arts Technica article you linked to. The relevant proposal was Apple's put in response to the invitation for Apple to present its proposal.

The result of the Appeal is unlikely to further advance this discussion. Quite frankly, to me and many others, the facts speak for themselves. A clearer case of collusion is hard to imagine. If the decision is overturned on some point of law it says something about the law, its drafting or the way the prosecution was brought. It would not make the conduct of either Apple or the publisher's involved any less reprehensible.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I got that idea from the fact that you seem to be accepting an "Apple-hating" article as a source of valid information. Surely you don't think they are lying to you about Apple's guilt!
If so, maybe they are lying about who suggested what first...

Well you know, not everyone dismisses out of hand anything that doesn't match their personal world view. I try to read both sides of the argument and decided from there. I also don't believe that everyone who doesn't match my world view is a liar. There are many topics on which honorable people can disagree and hold different opinions.

As I mentioned earlier, I remember reading a quote from Eddie Cue that he originally went to the publishers with a tier of price points, much like the current music store, but they said they wanted to set the price (i.e. agency pricing). Given he is the guy who would know, I tend to take his word for it. (and no, I'm not going to waste my time going back and trying to find a link. Been there, done that and learned the futility of providing evidence to someone who doesn't what to change his mind.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

The reason I asked for a source is because I wanted to understand how you had come to your interpretation of what had happened. The reason one asks for a source is to examine it critically, not blindly accept it. Your original post said:

My understanding is that the publishers wanted agency pricing and had wanted it for a number of years. Apple said sure, as long as we get a most favored nations clause. IMPO, a company would be less than wise to agree to agency pricing without some guarantee that they wouldn't be sold for less elsewhere.

No. The Publishers just wanted to break Amazon's pricing. Apparently by any means. Eddie Cue did indeed testify that Agency was first raised by Harper Collins. Here is the relevant quote from the judgement:

For example, Penguin in its meeting with Apple shared its view that a $9.99 e-book was not a “sustainable model.” The next day, S&S frankly admitted “hating” Amazon pricing, and HarperCollins revealed that it was interested in the agency model in order “to fix Amazon pricing.” HarperCollins advocated that e-book prices be set in the range of $18 to $20, which Cue viewed as utterly unrealistic. Listening to the Publishers, Cue understood that they were afraid that Amazon’s pricing strategy threatened their overall business.

On December 15 Cue reported to Steve Jobs what had happened and, to quote again from the judgement, Cue told Jobs that "clearly,the biggest issue is new release pricing and they want a proposal from us." Apple then considered its position, and rejected asking for an across the board discount of 25% of the wholesale price from the print book wholesale price. Apple then "embraced the model that Hachette and HarperCollins had proposed -– the agency model. Apple was already familiar with this model since it used the agency model to sell apps through its App Store."

Just like eschwartz, I'm not concerned with who first raised Agency during the "publisher-Apple chats". That is not the issue. The fact is, Agency was proposed during those chats, and it formed the basis of the position Apple put as invited. Your characterisation of the publishers aggressively driving agency with Apple simply acquiescing is a total distortion of what happened, and a misinterpretation not only of the judgment but also of the Arts Technica article you linked to. The relevant proposal was Apple's put in response to the invitation for Apple to present its proposal.

The result of the Appeal is unlikely to further advance this discussion. Quite frankly, to me and many others, the facts speak for themselves. A clearer case of collusion is hard to imagine. If the decision is overturned on some point of law it says something about the law, its drafting or the way the prosecution was brought. It would not make the conduct of either Apple or the publisher's involved any less reprehensible.

I'm sure you don't consider the result of the Appeal likely to advice this discussion. You've made up your mind and aren't interested in changing it. If you think that a clearer case of collusion is hard to imagine, then you have a pretty poor imagination. A clearer case might be one in which there was something other than vague circumstantial evidence that collusion occurred. Yes, I know what Judge Cote said. But her opinion is just that, her opinion. It isn't actual evidence or fact. That is why the appeal is important.

[darryl]

@pwalker8. I have reached an informed opinion having done a reasonable amount of homework. In fact, I even read beyond Arts Technica. I would like to believe that my opinion is open to change by rational argument supported by facts, but am not in a position to impartially judge if this is so. My current belief is that you have not tested my opinion with either. I think, however, that we can probably both agree that having made our respective positions clear further posting back and forth between us on this topic is a fruitless and frustrating endeavour, apparently for both of us. Accordingly, my dear Pollyanna, I will try to refrain from devoting any more of my time to it. I wish you and Apple well.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. I have reached an informed opinion having done a reasonable amount of homework. In fact, I even read beyond Arts Technica. I would like to believe that my opinion is open to change by rational argument supported by facts, but am not in a position to impartially judge if this is so. My current belief is that you have not tested my opinion with either. I think, however, that we can probably both agree that having made our respective positions clear further posting back and forth between us on this topic is a fruitless and frustrating endeavour, apparently for both of us. Accordingly, my dear Pollyanna, I will try to refrain from devoting any more of my time to it. I wish you and Apple well.

Well, the wonderful thing about belief is that it doesn't have to be tested by facts. I'm sure it's a shock to you that I've read quite a bit about the case myself, including quite a few legal opinions on the matter, mostly because I'm more interested in the legal theory than the companies involved. I would feel the same way if it were Microsoft or any other company. I started following the case well before the trial even started.

[WT Sharpe]

Moderator Notice
Please feel free to disagree with a person's opinions, or dispute their facts or data, providing you do so politely. Likewise, please address your criticisms to those opinions, facts and data rather than the person. Refer to the MobileRead Guidelines, specifically the full text of the very first item. When posting, your attention to the Guidelines is required. Name calling and insults are not allowed.