Slashdot Mirror
Apple E-book Price-Fixing Trial Begins
An anonymous reader writes "Technology giant Apple is to begin its defence against charges by the US government that it tried to fix the prices of e-books. The iPad-maker is accused of working with publishers in 2009 to set prices in an effort to compete in the e-book market dominated by Amazon. Quotes from Steve Jobs' official biography have been cited as evidence in the case."
Yes please.
Fascinating comment at the end of one of the stories linked to here. The writer claims that Amazon's model is unsustainable and equivalent to the Standard Oil play of selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business. In his opinion, Apple should be commended for raising prices by a few dollars per book? What say you Slashdot? What I have trouble determining in this shift from physical media to digital is how the artists are making out in this brave new world.
They set an artificial floor price through contracts that ensured they can't be undercut by the competition. Price fixing doesn't just refer to the actual price, it refers to setting/fixing of minimum or maximum prices in an industry as well.
Apple's iBook publishing deals included a clause that no other eBook outlet could get a better price than Apple. So, yes, they were engaged in price-fixing that directly favoured them as a seller. In a wholesale bookselling model that's not quite so terrible - you can compete by eating into your margins - but in an agency model where the selling price is set by the publisher isn't allowed to be any lower than on iBooks, you're fucked.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If it's anything like Europe, Apple will be required to end their most-favoured clause immediately, and publishers will be required to offer Amazon discounted prices on their books for a few years to offset the elevated prices that they'd been forced to accept under the anticompetitive regime that existed.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Except that's not what's happening here. It's "I'll sell quantities at a higher price you choose at a fixed margin, but you can't sell via anyone else at a lower price or better margin". That's why it's anti-competitive; the new system they put in place prevents their retail competitors from ever competing on price. To me, that seems entirely unreasonable.
The case has nothing to do with that. Do you really think that going to a supplier and saying "I'll buy huge quantities at a reasonable price, but if you sell to someone else for less then I instead get that price" is in any way illegal or even unreasonable?
Apple didnt organize fixed wholesale pricing with publishers. They organized fixed retail pricing via publishers.
Not just illegal.. obviously illegal. The fact that you dont see that tells us something about you...
"His name was James Damore."
Would you leave it to companies like Apple or Google they could, like in this example, brute force their ways on smaller business partners.
When you don't trust your politicians, don't complain here but go voting.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
First off, Amazon built the e-book market. When e-books started they were just niche amusements people got for their Palm Pilots and Windows PDA's. Publishers didn't care about them at all and made zero effort to establish them.
Amazon laid the groundwork, connected their store to a decent e-book reader and made e-books into the market it is today.
They were also not bankrupting any publishers. They paid the wholesale price for the books that the publishers asked for and then CUT THEIR OWN PROFIT MARGIN by selling lower than what they paid. The publishers already made a profit off the hardcover, the paperback and the e-books.
The problem wasn't that publishers were getting paid, in fact e-book sales were keeping alive books that were decades out of print and creating new profit where none had existed before. It was that they didn't feel they were getting enough. These are the same publishers that have said publicly that Libraries are stealing profits from them, btw. They are the reason an e-book now retails the same price as the hardcover even when the paperback is being sold simultaneously. Publishers are the reason an e-book can retail for $9.99 when the paperback sells for $7, if it's still even in print.
The publishers jumped into Apple's arms when they proposed their deal because it gave them a way to increase their profits and if it wasn't shady they wouldn't have all settled with the government rather than stand with Apple in their defense.
Smaller competitors who want to get into the market. Effectively, price controls like this will freeze out the competition. How? Well, say Apple are making 200% profit on everything they sell because they have price-fixed. You now can sell at 200% profit and compete with them (and thus become part of the cartel yourself), or you can try to undercut them. But they have a huge market, to themselves, with huge profit margins, complete control of the market (because they are all agreeing to price at whatever they want) and lots and lots and lots of spare cash to keep you out / buy you up.
Because of this, you also get a lack of competition (what's the point of competing if you can all agree to just set prices to X and no-one "wins" the market for having a better product?), the market stagnates and the customer gets screwed - not by the raised prices (as you say, that's up to the customer) but because the market is so closed that they either pay lots or DON'T get the products at all. It's also a pretty good way to kill off the technology and (thus) competitors who rely on book sales to sell reading devices, etc.
A company sets its own prices. That much is certain. But they should not be getting into groups and DECIDING how much the customer pays between them collectively, with no reference to how much it costs to supply the product itself, and no consumer interest. It's illegal for a reason. It destroy markets, stifles innovation, removes competition, and makes everything a big game to make money with no regard to consumers at all. And, at the end of the day, it becomes "pay lots, or get nothing", which isn't a technique that benefits taxpayers either. Yes, you get greater tax revenue from profits (you hope!), but you also get less people spending money and less money available to spend on other things for those that do.
The point is that the market is bigger than a company, even a government. Harming the market DIRECTLY harms the stability of the economies of world governments. Thus it is illegal.
There's nothing stopping a company with a patent licensing its patent ONLY for 10 bajillion dollars even though it costs next to nothing to manufacture. That's just business. Nobody's stopping that. But colluding with competitors to price other competitors and your own customers out of the market is in nobody's interest - not even the companies that do it, or their shareholders!
The difference is, there is no evidence Amazon was telling the publishers they couldn't sell their books cheaper elsewhere - that's the crux of the issue with the way Apple was doing it here.
I think the word you're looking for is "condone". Condoming an island country could prove to be extraordinarily difficult.
Prior to e-books, when a publisher stopped printing a book, their profit from that book was done. If it was a very popular book they might order more printings, but again, when the printing stopped so did that books revenue stream. This was a problem for the publisher, the author and the reader. The publisher and author's side is easy to understand; no new income, but consider also the reader that didn't know about that author at the time, it's been 20 years and they just read an author's newest novel which is part of a series and they feel a desire to read their older books. If they are lucky they might be able to track down a copy from a library or hunt through a few used book stores for one, neither of which gets any profits back to the author. Or conversely they found a dog eared used copy in a flea market and want to read more of that author's works, but the author died and all their books are out of print.
E-books, and Amazon created a new revenue stream for publishers, buying up books at wholesale (for which they paid what the publishers asked! how is that anti-publisher??) and selling those e-books below their own costs to expand a market from a niche curiosity into every day ubiquity. E-books continue to generate revenue long after the printing presses shut down, unlike paper books. So these poor, taken advantage of publishers went from zero profits after print to "some" profits. Oooo, evil Amazon, how could you mistreat them so???
It was the publishers with Apple's help that decided "some" profit wasn't enough, they wanted moar! So now you get numerous cases where the e-book's price is HIGHER than the paperback!! I've seen e-books listed for the hardcover price years after the book was released and used paperback copies were selling for $1 right beside it.
I swear, the only publisher that ever really understood e-books was Baen. Give the old books away for free as advertising for the new books, it's not like they were making money sitting on a hard drive waiting for a new print run!
It would be easier if it was hard!
For non-agency titles (in other words, titles that Amazon purchases to sell under the wholesale model,) Amazon reserves the right to set and change the price as it sees fit, although it will still remit the same wholesale amount back to the publisher or author. If Amazon drops its price for a title below that of Apple or Barnes & Noble, even without the knowledge of the publisher or author, Apple and Barnes & Noble have the right to match Amazon's price.
Read that through again. The blogger you are sourcing is misrepresenting what a "Most Favored Nation" agreement is. When a retailer, such as Amazon, buys a product at wholesale, either a book or a pipe fitting, they have the right to set whatever price they wish for that item. If they're cutting into their own profit that doesn't matter and is not illegal, the manufacturer/distributor/publisher was paid their asking price. This is not a MFN clause, it's standard retail practice. Apple's deal changed that. Retailers could no longer set their own prices. If they didn't charge the price the publishers demanded then they would not be sold any books, and several publishers did withhold books from Amazon until they agreed to their scheme. They could no longer use pricing as a competitive tool against Apple, which is why Apple is in court and not Amazon.
I can't believe I need to integrate these ideas for you, but here we go: because the publishers set the price in the agency model, and because all of the major publishers colluded to switch to an agency model simultaneously, and because Apple's deals mandated that Apple always receive the best available price, it was no longer possible for Amazon to ever sell an eBook at a price lower than that offered by Apple.
That is an illegal anticompetitive action that reduces competition.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Apple has an agreement with the publishers that says "No one is permitted to sell for less than this."
In other words, they tell potential ebook sellers "Sure you can try to compete, but don't think you can sell more / establish yourself / give consumers a better deal by selling at a lower price."
Now, here's the purpose of the Sherman Antitrust Act:
"To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer."
Sounds pretty obvious that what Apple is doing is an example of what the Sherman Antitrust Act is about, doesn't it?
And here's how the law starts:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biU3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA209
Prior to Apple's arrangement with publishers, retailers like Amazon could buy e-books wholesale and offer whatever prices they chose. Apple colluded with the publishers to change from a wholesale to an agency model FORCING all other retailers to abide by agency terms and removing the wholesale option. Amazon tried to fight this and several publishers stopped selling books through Amazon until they caved, solely because of Apple's backing. If Apple hadn't supported the agency model and they hadn't colluded with the other publishers, none of them would have risked cutting off their largest customer, Amazon to strong-arm them into the new terms.
If Apple truly charges 'too much', then it is nothing but an opportunity for an enterprising individual to start a competing business and provide better prices.
And that's exactly the problem here, Apple's exclusive contract forbids the publishers to get into a deal with anyone else.
At least not at a competitive price.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The publishers were doing fine, and continue to do fine. They still continue to make most of their profits from physical books, btw, which they seem to have no problem selling through Amazon and allowing Amazon to set the price for. In the vast majority of e-book listings, in fact, the PHYSICAL PAPER BOOK COSTS LESS THAN THE E-BOOK, and yet e-book sales account for only 25%-30% of publisher profits.
How exactly, does that work btw? I can buy a CD for $15, but download the album in MP3 format for $9.99. A DVD costs $20, buying the download is $15. Yet only in books is the digital copy routinely priced higher than the physical copy. Yet you want to tell me the publishers are going bankrupt? The same publishers who would gleefully close down all public libraries and have openly accused them of theft? How do you defend these a-holes and feel good about yourself?
Printing Geek here: Paperback book would be roughly $0.01 or LESS per text page (depending on the run length of total copies) and $0.04 per cover. All of this includes binding and shipping. So, let's look at a 300 page paperback: about $3.10 per printed copy. Now, think of a large run book with text page cost at $0.005 or $0.0025 per page: ~$1.54 or ~$0.79 per copy. I think the lower range of prices is even more likely considering the junk paper stock and black ink only for paperbacks.
Keep in mind these cost are assuming domestic US production of books! I don't think I can pick up one of my kids books and not see "PRINTED IN CHINA" on the back.