Judge rules that mediation needed in etailers vs the "Price-fixers."

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

If you look around here at deal threads from 2008-2009 around you'll find that Amazon prices were *NOT* always the lowest. On some books they were, sometimes, but not always and not on everything. Through micropayment rebates, coupons, loyalty programs, or just short-term sales, it was often possible to get ebooks cheaper than at Amazon. There were entire websites dedicated to tracking promotions so readers could find the best prices.

I did not mean to say that they were cheapest for everything. But that they had the biggest discounts total across all titles on average all the time, or to put it in different words: Amazon was operating with the lowest profit margin for their ebook division. That is probably not correct either since Amazon never had to worry about paying Adobe anything to DRM their books.

The reality was that there was a healthy, competitive market where *in aggregate* if you *only* bought from one ebookstore, Amazon was cheapest. But if you shopped around and bought from whomever had the lowest price on a given day, you would save more than just going with Amazon.

Was this also true for books from the NYT bestseller list? Or was there a really good chance that Amazon would have the lowest price on those? As far as I understand (please correct me) those NYT bestsellers were the ones that Amazon primarily concentrated on for their discounts. (and still do?)

It was also a reality that Amazon's mythical 90% share (from early 2009, after the Oprah endorsement coup) was already gone [..] on the eve of agency was really in the 56-60% range by some published estimates.
[..]
Amazon is holding steady at 60-66% (they have actually *grown* their share thanks to their exclusive indie titles) of a much bigger market than in early 2010

Thank you, that makes a lot more sense. I have read the 90% right before agency, and that they about kept their market share afterwards, but that it went to about 60 . So if they were already down there by march, then it looks even more impressive for Amazon - it did not matter much to Amazon whether agency was coming or not. The bad part is where Apple picked up market share from the indie stores. That makes me want to see Apple lose this particular case in this thread even more - for what they did they should pay.

Now it looks like that we are going back again to agency once the court ordered discounts run out. And Amazon may just in time have something up their sleeve with the indie dominated Kindle Unlimited. Very smart planning, or just a natural evolution? Anyway, doesn't matter, I have my front seat with my Kindle Unlimited subscription.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Amazon is holding steady at 60-66% (they have actually *grown* their share thanks to their exclusive indie titles) of a much bigger market than in early 2010, Nook has lost half their peak share but seems to be hanging on to 12-15% and Apple has picked up Nook and the small players' lost share and also have 12-15%.
Kobo peaked at 8% or so and are probably under 5%.
Add it up and 4 players control 90-96% of the market.

According to Data Guy, Amazon's share has increased substantially this year.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

According to Data Guy, Amazon's share has increased substantially this year.

All the bad news at B&N is scaring a lot of folks.
Especially as tablets get lighter and cheaper, making it easier to move to Kindle and still have access to their library of Nook ebooks.

Plus, indies on the rise give Kindle a leg up since DRM-free kindle exclusive books are easy to convert.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Now it looks like that we are going back again to agency once the court ordered discounts run out.

Not necessarily.
That is not a given: Apple won't be able to do agency for a long time and Amazon has no motivation to agree to agency while Apple is free to discount.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

All the bad news at B&N is scaring a lot of folks.
Especially as tablets get lighter and cheaper, making it easier to move to Kindle and still have access to their library of Nook ebooks.

Very possible.

With Sony (and their ereaders) leaving the US and Kobo (and their ereaders) virtually absent in the US, there aren't many companies left.

Google isn't bragging about ebook sales and they love to brag. B&N digital sales down 22%. This leaves only Apple with possible growth in market share.

It wouldn't surprise me if Amazon had 80-85% of ebook market.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Very possible.

With Sony (and their ereaders) leaving the US and Kobo (and their ereaders) virtually absent in the US, there aren't many companies left.

Google isn't bragging about ebook sales and they love to brag. B&N digital sales down 22%. This leaves only Apple with possible growth in market share.

It wouldn't surprise me if Amazon had 80-85% of ebook market.

Not yet but if Nook doesn't recover it is possible.
I can see an 80/20 market evolving.

Whereas before the conspiracy the odds were 60/40 Adobe/Amazon.
Right now Amazon is expanding into a near vacuum.

[Manabi]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I have no idea how Apple and the publishers thought that this was going to hurt Amazon. I never used to buy at Amazon, but when agency first went away Amazon was the first to discount again so I bought from them. Were the non agency contracts slow to get to other sellers too?

It wasn't really about hurting Amazon, that was mostly trotted out for the trial defense. The BPH's goal was to control pricing. They felt (and still do) that lower pricing on E-books devalues physical books too. I really don't buy that argument myself, but some people do.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The reality was that there was a healthy, competitive market where *in aggregate* if you *only* bought from one ebookstore, Amazon was cheapest. But if you shopped around and bought from whomever had the lowest price on a given day, you would save more than just going with Amazon.

This is very much like Wal-mart and grocery prices. You can save money if you hit up sales at other stores instead of just going to Wal-mart, but overall, if you're only going to shop one place, you'll save money at Wal-mart most of the time. (But be sure you pay attention to prices, I've seen name brands cheaper than generics, most notably in soups.)

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not necessarily.
That is not a given: Apple won't be able to do agency for a long time and Amazon has no motivation to agree to agency while Apple is free to discount.

Amazon's spat with Hatchette shows that Amazon is very unwilling to go back to the way things were, even if they take a PR beating.

Overall on this issue, I've noticed that some people feel that there was no conspiracy, and nothing will convince them otherwise. Other people feel the opposite, and nothing will convince them otherwise either. I'm not even sure a verdict from the Supreme Court will change either side's opinions on the matter. Personally, I felt the whole thing with Apple & the BPHs was fishy from the get-go.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Manabi

It wasn't really about hurting Amazon, that was mostly trotted out for the trial defense. The BPH's goal was to control pricing. They felt (and still do) that lower pricing on E-books devalues physical books too. I really don't buy that argument myself, but some people do.

Amazon's spat with Hatchette shows that Amazon is very unwilling to go back to the way things were, even if they take a PR beating.

1- Lately, the BPHs and their supporters have finally started admitting that the conspiracy and the higher ebook prices are about propping up pbooks at BM. Which is why B&N was willingly supporting the conspiracy at the peak of their ebook success. Lower ebook prices don't devalue books but they do devalue the BPHs pbook business model in the eyes of authors. And if newer authors stop submitting to the BPH standard contract, things get very ugly very fast in BPH-land. Witness the fate of Harlequin.

2- Amazon is a lot more flexible than their demonizers care to admit. I can easily see them agreeing to Agency again--just not on Apple's terms. Rather it would be on the same terms they offer indie publishers, who are in fact quite free to set their ebook prices above $9.99 as high as $200.

https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A301WJ6XCJ8KW0

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by rhadin

The smaller stores never really undercut Amazon.

Sure they did. Many times Books on Board was cheaper than Amazon before taking into account any rewards program and on mainstream popular books. Now if you took 100 random titles Amazon was probably cheaper overall, but for folks who shop around BoB was often better on specific titles.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Apple may now have a chance to be destroyed over anti-trust issues. This should be even more fun than Microsoft.

I wonder if Apple can dig themselves out of this hole? Antitrust = nasty.

Destroyed destroyed? I don't think there's any legal way for that to take place.

Most likely is that these three defunct bookstores are looking for a free handout.