Slashdot Mirror
Apple Raises E-book Prices For Everyone
Nom du Keyboard writes "I was informed by my publisher this week that they would have to raise my e-book prices because they planned to sell them through the Apple iBooks store. How could this happen? A lot of my individual stories sell in the $1 to $3 range, which is well within the impulse purchase amount for many people. In this price range a 50-cent price difference may well be the difference between a purchase and a pass. Meanwhile, Apple is touting its new 'agency model,' whereby the publishers set the prices. However, it seems that Apple requires books sold in its iBook store have prices ending in .99 — nothing else." (More below.)
"Furthermore, Apple requires that if you sell books through them that you absolutely cannot sell them for less through anyone else. To my understanding Amazon also requires this, so Apple and Amazon prices should be identical in the future, but Amazon doesn't force prices to end in .99. What this means is that an e-book that the author was quite happy to sell for $2.29 or $2.49 is now going to cost $2.99 from everybody. While that sounds like only a few extra cents, it adds up over time and can lead to resentment against authors for charging higher prices, even though they have little real control over pricing. I, for one, do not understand why Apple computers only understand numbers ending in .99, or just how Apple is making it better for the consumer this way."
I thought we'd all be used to spending more money for the same thing because Jobs slapped his gay little Apple logo on it.
Because you obviously couldn't charge $1.99 for that book both places?
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Which makes no sense to me. Apple gets to keep all of those pennies...
This is ridiculous , you perfectly know how Apple operates, so either conform to their wish or say to hell with you Jobs, I am taking my business elsewhere.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
I, for one, do not understand why Apple computers only understand numbers ending in .99, or just how Apple is making it better for the consumer this way.
Two thoughts come to mind:
1) Possibly, it's just for uniformity sake. When all the prices end in the same digits it might appear to Jobs that it looks cleaner in the store app?
2) It could also be to prevent snowballing pricing wars (thus keeping the costs of e-books somewhat buoyant which doesn't help the consumer at all). For example, publisher A lists a book for $1.99; publisher B lists a similar competing book for $1.97; publisher A strikes back pricing their book at $1.89, etc. This behavior is discouraged, if the publisher has to drop the books price by $1.00 when the price is only $1.99.
Except that 30% is actually really low.
I truly hate the .99 gimick. I actually wish they'd roll tax into the prices so what you see on the label is what you pay and its a nice round number $X.10 $X.20 $X.50 $X.00. Worse is the stupid gas stations with 9/10's of a cent. Why is it they can charge a fraction of a penny you can't possibly pay, ensuring they skim 10ths of a cent gazillions of times. I think they did that in Superman III or something. How is it after all these years, they're still stealing money?
About the only reason to sell through iBooks is that Apple is very good at marketing and riding on Apple coat tails could increase sales. The fear, as I get from the submission, is no one would buy any of these books if read some of it first, so the only hope is to sell it so cheaply that people will just read it, and not feel ripped off when they find out it is crap. The solution, then, is obvious. Write book that people are willing to pay for.
So it is not Apples fault or Amazons fault that the price is going up. There is no reason at all for anyone to sell books through them, except that Amazon, and soon Apple, are going to be selling a lot of books and both have already set up infrastructure and pay for advertising that is unfeasible for most authors. But that only matters to authors who want to sell a lot of crap. For the author in question, who obviously cares much more about the fact that Apple is out to rip off the public rather than volume sales, I think DRM free ebooks or Apps is the answer.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It sounds like the problem is really between you and your publisher, not between you and Apple. It may be time for you to find a publisher that shares your position on the situation, because it doesn't sound like your publisher does.
Did you RTFA? This is Apple's policy, not the publisher's. His options are:
1) Raise his prices across the board
2) Lower his already-low prices across the board
3) Lower his prices on the Apple iBooks store to below the prices on other stores
4) Not make his books available to iPad users
His publisher has chosen option 1 for him, but if he wanted to go with one of the other options, I'm sure an agreement could be reached. The problem is that none of these options are desirable.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You know why we can't watch any TV or Movie through iTunes? The content providers.
You know why we have DRM on iTunes? The content providers
You know why prices go up on iTunes? The content providers
Get sick and tired of people bitching about this, blaming Apple entirely. It's just not true.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
A 30% flat rate is really cheap, considering you don't have so set up and maintain distribution yourself, and that you are going to reach 80 million potential customers.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Did you RMFP?
The publisher made a decision the poster disagrees with. If it's a big enough deal then the poster should find a new publisher that refuses to sell through Apple until Apple changes their policy.
Seriously, will this .99 and .95 thing ever die? Does anybody really look at a price-tag that says $4.99 and not just think in their head "$5"?
You have a point in general, but in the context of eBooks, who is the content provider? Seems to me it's the guy bitching he can't sell his books for less. I think blaming the Cult for this is completely reasonable.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
OK. You write an app and put it on a webserver set up to take credit cards, pay-pal,etc, and charge $1.99 for it (as in you have to charge their card before they download it). I'll write a similar app and put it in the App store for $1.99. I guarantee you I'll make way more money than you even with the 30%.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
"Content provider" is a euphemism for publisher, to make it seem like they represent the actual creators. (And they actually do an important job — just look at the low quality of even the best blogs to see how important actual editors are — but most of these newfangled expressions are made up only to confuse.
There is a fair bit of indy music on iTunes. For example Openspace - I can't find what established record company they signed with. Nor is KFog to iTunes a record company at all
To get one's music on iTunes, getting one's music on CD Baby will get it on iTunes too.
Or, you could do it directly through iTunes connect
I believe that publishing a book would be the same process.
You know why we can't watch any TV or Movie through iTunes? The content providers.
I stream movies to my PC, 360, and PS3 from Netflix.. Tv through Hulu and others.
You know why we have DRM on iTunes? The content providers
There are MANY non DRM mp3 for sale by many online music stores and have been for years.
You know why prices go up on iTunes? The content providers
Maybe, maybe not. I have not compared prices with Rhapsody with iTunes for a while.
The more consumers that tie themselves into Apples way of doing things, the more Apple seems to tighten it down. Basically, the critical mass is there, now it's time to make more profit from it. The more Apple products you invest in and have "tied together", the more Apple has you by the balls. They know it and for some reasons, most consumers don't want to believe it or they blame it on someone else like the content providers. How many people with an iPad, iPhone, iTunes, and ebooks from Apple are going to give all of that up when the prices go up $1 or if Apple makes another change or declines yet another app from the app store? They won't, they will make excuses and pay $1 more.
What's wrong with that? Remember, the legitimate argument against DRM on commercial media is that it gets in the way of a user making legitimate use of media that he has bought. For example by stopping him making backup copies or playing the media on multiple devices. Having your identity embedded in the media metadata doesn't get in the way at all.
I see the "Let's place an ad in the New York Times and we'll be rich because SO MANY PEOPLE READ IT" fallacy made it to the net intact.
Your "exposure" to 80 million customers is bogus. There are tens of thousands of apps - how many people are going to see YOUR app?
And the more apps in the closed store, the less that being in that closed store is worth.
Think of it - if everybody had 10,000 friends on facebook, it would become even more useless than it already is. You'd have to filter out 99% of it somehow.
Network effects don't scale when the amount of time a person has doesn't scale.
If it's such a great model, and the best way to get your apps sold, then why is Apple afraid to let people install stuff from outside the App Store? They should welcome inefficient competition as a way of demonstrating their superior approach - except that, like any pyramid scheme, it's only superior for those at the top.
Well, if I have a well written app that serves a particular niche that isn't too crowded, then potentially a lot of people. If I have a 99 cent fart app or a tip calculator, then not probably not many.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
In the parent post it says the author did some trials and found out $2.49 was the price where he made the most profit. At a lower price, enough new customers weren't created to offset that lower price. A higher price caused customers to chose not to buy. Profit was optimized. So selling at $1.99 means forgoing revenue, as would selling at $2.99. Now if parent didn't say they had experimented with pricing, either pricing higher or lower could end up creating more revenue.
If only it weren't mandatory to sell on the Apple store. Oh wait, it isn't, and he can keep selling as he is now. Seriously, this guy is bitching because he wants to add another retailer, but doesn't like their rules - DON'T FUCKING ADD THEM THEN.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE