You do grasp that there was a clause that specifically prohibited publishers from selling ebooks at prices that were lower than on iTunes? Do you not comprehend that this is objectionable? That whatever Apple wants people to pay for books, everyone pays for books, at every ebook store?
Oh, I'm sorry, because Apple only suggested their illegal anticompetitive scheme, and didn't dangle the book industry over smouldering cauldrons of acid until the they decided it was a good idea, clearly they're immune from prosecution for their part in an illegal anticompetitive business group that they greatly profited from.
And if the US had a better banking system there wouldn't be any loan sharks, but we still have an obligation to prosecute Johnny Thumbs for breaking people's knees when they miss a payment.
If you can't see what's bad about having one retailer decide the minimum selling price for every other retailer in the market, you are beyond help in an economics discussion.
Precisely. In the EU, Apple and the publishers have settled to the authorities' satisfaction without having to do away with the agency model. The model itself is not the issue.
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.
It would not surprise me if a majority of Amazon's sales on everything came out at a loss, with enough big profit items to shift it back across the other side of the line. They're playing a dangerously volatile game.
It is the nature of punitive action that it will tend to favour the transgressor rather than the transgressed, yes. What "most-favoured" clause of Amazon's are you talking about?
You don't see the problem with publishers being able to directly set a single price for their product across all retail outlets? A product for which no secondary market exists?
Yes, something changed. Previously Amazon had a "wholesale" contract with most ebook publishers, meaning Amazon buy the books for $X and sell for $X+Y. The publisher gets $X, and the retailer gets $Y. After meeting with Apple, all of the major publishers - all of them - went to Amazon and stated that their ebooks would only be available on the "agency model" from then on. Under the agency model, the publisher sets a price of $Z, and the retailer and publisher each receive a share of that price (typically 30% and 70% respectively).
You can, in principle, sell content through your app using the in-app-purchasing API*, but Apple has to get a 30% cut. Under most "agency model" ebook deals, the publisher gets 70% of the purchase price, leaving the retailer with zero. (This is why the only thirdparty content stores you'll find on the App Store are publisher outlets like Dark Horse, and not retailers/resellers.)
*The IAP API is horribly unsuitable for that purpose, but that seems rather moot.
In that it sets a single price across the market, it's obviously anticompetitive. Now, whether anticompetitive actions are a bad thing may be a matter of debate for you, but that's not the issue at hand.
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.
Amazon's ridiculously thin margins aren't a short-term tactic to eliminate competitors. If they were, Amazon would've started hiking up prices in things like books and videogames where they've all but eliminated the competition. Slim margins are the entire (incredibly dubious) business model, and they'll continue with that process, bringing in fractions of cents of profit per dollar of sales, indefinitely.
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.
Yeah, but it's not just The Doctor who laid that rule down, is it? The Gallifreyans were quite clear about it being true. There was an entire plot arc about The Master being obsessed with finding more lives in the classic series.
Slashdot Mirror
You do grasp that there was a clause that specifically prohibited publishers from selling ebooks at prices that were lower than on iTunes? Do you not comprehend that this is objectionable? That whatever Apple wants people to pay for books, everyone pays for books, at every ebook store?
That's why I referred to them as Amazon's long term strategy in the earlier post.
Oh, I'm sorry, because Apple only suggested their illegal anticompetitive scheme, and didn't dangle the book industry over smouldering cauldrons of acid until the they decided it was a good idea, clearly they're immune from prosecution for their part in an illegal anticompetitive business group that they greatly profited from.
And if the US had a better banking system there wouldn't be any loan sharks, but we still have an obligation to prosecute Johnny Thumbs for breaking people's knees when they miss a payment.
If you can't see what's bad about having one retailer decide the minimum selling price for every other retailer in the market, you are beyond help in an economics discussion.
...because it's illegal to collude to set inflated prices? Exactly the same reason why it's obviously illegal to steal someone's car?
I don't think you know what a most-favoured-nation clause is.
Precisely. In the EU, Apple and the publishers have settled to the authorities' satisfaction without having to do away with the agency model. The model itself is not the issue.
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.
I would love for you to explain how that argument makes the least bit of sense.
It would not surprise me if a majority of Amazon's sales on everything came out at a loss, with enough big profit items to shift it back across the other side of the line. They're playing a dangerously volatile game.
It is the nature of punitive action that it will tend to favour the transgressor rather than the transgressed, yes. What "most-favoured" clause of Amazon's are you talking about?
You don't see the problem with publishers being able to directly set a single price for their product across all retail outlets? A product for which no secondary market exists?
Yes, something changed. Previously Amazon had a "wholesale" contract with most ebook publishers, meaning Amazon buy the books for $X and sell for $X+Y. The publisher gets $X, and the retailer gets $Y. After meeting with Apple, all of the major publishers - all of them - went to Amazon and stated that their ebooks would only be available on the "agency model" from then on. Under the agency model, the publisher sets a price of $Z, and the retailer and publisher each receive a share of that price (typically 30% and 70% respectively).
No argument here.
You can, in principle, sell content through your app using the in-app-purchasing API*, but Apple has to get a 30% cut. Under most "agency model" ebook deals, the publisher gets 70% of the purchase price, leaving the retailer with zero. (This is why the only thirdparty content stores you'll find on the App Store are publisher outlets like Dark Horse, and not retailers/resellers.)
*The IAP API is horribly unsuitable for that purpose, but that seems rather moot.
The point is that under Apple's iBooks publishing contracts, you're not supposed to be able to get it cheaper elsewhere. (As an ebook, anyway.)
In that it sets a single price across the market, it's obviously anticompetitive. Now, whether anticompetitive actions are a bad thing may be a matter of debate for you, but that's not the issue at hand.
Monoculture, essentially, is the issue. If Amazon was one of a half-dozen ultra-low-margin online retailers, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
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.
It's a perfectly valid alternative; arguably the extra suffix in "geological" is redundant. (The USGS favours "geologic" for formal writing.)
Don't they teach people to conjugate any more?
Amazon's ridiculously thin margins aren't a short-term tactic to eliminate competitors. If they were, Amazon would've started hiking up prices in things like books and videogames where they've all but eliminated the competition. Slim margins are the entire (incredibly dubious) business model, and they'll continue with that process, bringing in fractions of cents of profit per dollar of sales, indefinitely.
It ain't healthy for anybody.
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.
That Amazon's business model is anti-publisher does not excuse an alternative business model that is rabidly anti-consumer. They're both garbage.
Yeah, but it's not just The Doctor who laid that rule down, is it? The Gallifreyans were quite clear about it being true. There was an entire plot arc about The Master being obsessed with finding more lives in the classic series.