If the RRP is as much as 3x that, then its getting pretty low.
Similarly, does $12-15 seem unreasonably high?
Whilst I don't dispute that collusion took place, my only point really is that in most cases of price fixing, prices would be fixed at an artificially high price. And that I'm not convinced that was the case here.
Amazon sell physical books for probably 50% of their RRP. Is that not a problem? And should an ebook have the same RRP not just as its physical counterpart but as the hardback equivalent? Can that be justified?
What is an artificially high price? Of course it was artificially high, because it was higher than what would have been the case had Apple and the publishers not broken the law to raise the price.
I didn't say anything about an ebook being sold for the RRP of its physical version. Of course that couldn't be justified. But that's precisely the point - Apple and the publishers were not colluding to keep the ebook price close to the full RRP of the physical book.
That, in my mind, really would have been an artificially high price, as it would not have passed on the savings resulting from digital distribution to the consumer. But that is not what they were trying to do. Rather their intention was not have to charge the rock bottom prices that Amazon wanted to dictate to them. Sure, Apple would benefit from that, but I don't think that's the whole picture.
A lot of this really depends on whether or not $10 was artificially low (for the publishing sector as a whole). In my mind its arguable that it was, because Amazon was able to leverage its position to set the price lower than it otherwise could have been.
If the RRP is as much as 3x that, then its getting pretty low.
Similarly, does $12-15 seem unreasonably high?
Whilst I don't dispute that collusion took place, my only point really is that in most cases of price fixing, prices would be fixed at an artificially high price. And that I'm not convinced that was the case here.
I'm afraid your whole argument if indeed you actually have one is a house of cards built on quicksand. Apple are guilty of illegal actively and it has nothing to do with your point about selling more kindles or amazon colluding.
It has nothing to do with $10 of $12 it has everything to do with Apple being greedy and seeing a way to corner a market and make excessive profits from doing it.
All your bluster about loss leading book sales and the poor publishing industry as I mentioned at the outset is your desperate attempt to paint apple in a better light having acted illegally which is a bit sad.
I just had a quick look on Amazon. Their Kindle books are pretty consistently more expensive than paperbacks for new releases. About three times the price, in fact. Doesn't seem like any savings associated with digital distribution are being passed on.
I'm afraid your whole argument if indeed you actually have one is a house of cards built on quicksand. Apple are guilty of illegal actively and it has nothing to do with your point about selling more kindles or amazon colluding.
It has nothing to do with $10 of $12 it has everything to do with Apple being greedy and seeing a way to corner a market and make excessive profits from doing it.
All your bluster about loss leading book sales and the poor publishing industry as I mentioned at the outset is your desperate attempt to paint apple in a better light having acted illegally which is a bit sad.
That's the second time you've mentioned "Amazon colluding". When you do, who is it that you Amazon are supposed to be colluding with?
I agree that Apple colluded with the publishers.
But I'm not sure I agree that any resulting profits would have been excessive.
There's nothing desperate about what I originally said, which was simply that there's a difference between all companies colluding to push prices up, and some companies colluding to avoid being forced to charge the rock bottom price a competitor is willing to.
Something which you haven't yet actually disagreed with yet.
I just had a quick look on Amazon. Their Kindle books are pretty consistently more expensive than paperbacks for new releases. About three times the price, in fact. Doesn't seem like any savings associated with digital distribution are being passed on.
EDIT: I'm referring to CP's post.
I was referring to Apple / the publishers, rather than Amazon.
Hardback v paperback does confuse the issue slightly, although I'd suggest that the digital equivalent would be new release price, and price after a set time, roughly equivalent to the time between hardback and paperback prices.
And that in both cases the digital price should be less than the physical price.
I just had a quick look on Amazon. Their Kindle books are pretty consistently more expensive than paperbacks for new releases. About three times the price, in fact. Doesn't seem like any savings associated with digital distribution are being passed on.
EDIT: I'm referring to CP's post.
That's exactly one of the reasons why i gave up on my kindle. I buy loads and loads of books. I can understand perfectly well that intellectual property is expensive regardless of what the format it is presented. But still, when Ebooks are consistently more expensive that the actual books, when they are shifted a million times more quickly and with a fraction of the cost all around, something is clearly wrong. There is an added value that has absolutely nothing to do with fairness to the consumer or to what publishing rates this companies are paying. And this happens in Amazon, the last thing we need is Apple fixing those prices to become even more inflated.
That's exactly one of the reasons why i gave up on my kindle. I buy loads and loads of books. I can understand perfectly well that intellectual property is expensive regardless of what the format it is presented. But still, when Ebooks are consistently more expensive that the actual books, when they are shifted a million times more quickly and with a fraction of the cost all around, something is clearly wrong. There is an added value that has absolutely nothing to do with fairness to the consumer or to what publishing rates this companies are paying. And this happens in Amazon, the last thing we need is Apple fixing those prices to become even more inflated.
Yep. I hardly use my Kindle these days for the same reason. I've linked to it before, but this is something I wrote about digital distribution and how it only seems to be driving costs up rather than down.
That's exactly one of the reasons why i gave up on my kindle. I buy loads and loads of books. I can understand perfectly well that intellectual property is expensive regardless of what the format it is presented. But still, when Ebooks are consistently more expensive that the actual books, when they are shifted a million times more quickly and with a fraction of the cost all around, something is clearly wrong. There is an added value that has absolutely nothing to do with fairness to the consumer or to what publishing rates this companies are paying. And this happens in Amazon, the last thing we need is Apple fixing those prices to become even more inflated.
ebooks from amazon used to be a lot cheaper than they are now. In 2010 prices went up when the agency price model was established. So you have Apple to thank for the high prices.
Yep. I hardly use my Kindle these days for the same reason. I've linked to it before, but this is something I wrote about digital distribution and how it only seems to be driving costs up rather than down.
I think a big part of the problem is that we've been fortunate to live in an age where we've become accustomed to getting things at greatly reduced prices, or even free.
I'd certainly agree that digital delivery should always be cheaper than a physical equivalent. But if someone like Amazon is already selling physical books at great reductions, where margins have already been reduced, then that limits how much cheaper again an ebook can be.
Yep. I hardly use my Kindle these days for the same reason. I've linked to it before, but this is something I wrote about digital distribution and how it only seems to be driving costs up rather than down.
I guess it depends on your reasons for buying ebooks. I love reading, but I don't want piles of books sitting around my house taking up space. I've a few books which have some attachment value, but otherwise, I'd rather just have an electronic version. A Kindle is much more portable, if you finish your book you can start another straight away, and no trees need to be chopped down to create the book file!
I guess it depends on your reasons for buying ebooks. I love reading, but I don't want piles of books sitting around my house taking up space. I've a few books which have some attachment value, but otherwise, I'd rather just have an electronic version. A Kindle is much more portable, if you finish your book you can start another straight away, and no trees need to be chopped down to create the book file!
Oh, I agree with all that. It's just the price that I take issue with. As you said, no trees need to be chopped down. I know you were probably making an environmental point, but there's a cost point too. No trees being felled, no printing and physical distribution costs, no physical delivery costs. I know digital delivery and storage isn't free, but it's got to be a fraction of the cost of producing physical copies.
I think a big part of the problem is that we've been fortunate to live in an age where we've become accustomed to getting things at greatly reduced prices, or even free.
I'd certainly agree that digital delivery should always be cheaper than a physical equivalent. But if someone like Amazon is already selling physical books at great reductions, where margins have already been reduced, then that limits how much cheaper again an ebook can be.
How is that a negative? Honestly I just can't see the logic in trying to argue this. The main case at hand here is the fact that Apple have purposely gone out to create a market scenario where consumers are at a disadvantage and that is not allowed, as has transpired.
As Anika said, Amazon adopted a similar strategy with physical books, and yet they are still faced with competition from retail stores as well as other online book retailers. Healthy competition still remains in the market.
The issue has never been Amazon in this case. Yes they were partly at fault for agreeing to the collusion and their somewhat dubious reasons for their aggressive pricing strategy, however, it was Apple that instigated all of this and they have now faced the consequences. They've been trying to do far more damage to the market than Amazon ever has.
That's the second time you've mentioned "Amazon colluding". When you do, who is it that you Amazon are supposed to be colluding with?
I agree that Apple colluded with the publishers.
But I'm not sure I agree that any resulting profits would have been excessive.
There's nothing desperate about what I originally said, which was simply that there's a difference between all companies colluding to push prices up, and some companies colluding to avoid being forced to charge the rock bottom price a competitor is willing to.
Something which you haven't yet actually disagreed with yet.
What a load of rubbish so in essence it is Amazons fault that apple acted illegally and entered into price fixing is it, you really are so deluded.
Or is dismissing anything you don't agree with as rubbish as good as it's going to get.
I do yes Apple have acted illegally and have been judged to have acted illegally. They have fixed prices in order to rip off their loyal customers in order that they can make even more money, shocking.
Other than those simple facts no I don't have anything to add to this story as it is as clear as that, I will however continue to call some apple apologists on their posted nonsense masquerading as actual facts
I guess it depends on your reasons for buying ebooks. I love reading, but I don't want piles of books sitting around my house taking up space. I've a few books which have some attachment value, but otherwise, I'd rather just have an electronic version. A Kindle is much more portable, if you finish your book you can start another straight away, and no trees need to be chopped down to create the book file!
I'd have to agree with you on this point. I'm not bothered about how much an ebook costs in comparison to the physical version because
A) I value the content over the medium it's delivered in. What I'm willing to pay for a book is dependent upon how much I think that particular book is worth. I don't think all books have the same value
I don't want physical books anymore because they take up too much space
I read a physical book last month for the first time in 3 years last month because it wasn't available as an ebook. When I'd finished I thought oh hell what am I going to do with this now!:p
Oh, I agree with all that. It's just the price that I take issue with. As you said, no trees need to be chopped down. I know you were probably making an environmental point, but there's a cost point too. No trees being felled, no printing and physical distribution costs, no physical delivery costs. I know digital delivery and storage isn't free, but it's got to be a fraction of the cost of producing physical copies.
It wasn't really so much environmental as saying that, personally, despite the higher prices that sometimes happen on ebooks, the convenience value to me, coupled with less trees being felled make it worth the extra expense for me.
In an ideal world, would I like paper vs ebook to be the same price? Yes, absolutely, and as I've pointed out a page or so back, I'd also like the VAT exemption on books to cover ebooks as well. But all that said, the convenience of ebooks outweighs the slightly higher prices for me because I really don't want to go back to carrying around paperbacks!
If nothing else, it confirms what I said earlier about Amazon's price of ebooks being artificially low and a loss leader.
Pointing out that much had nothing to do with being pro Apple, and everything to do with that simple fact being entirely accurate, irrespective of anything to do with Apple.
I expect this post and article will either be ignored, or dismissed as rubbish.
If nothing else, it confirms what I said earlier about Amazon's price of ebooks being artificially low and a loss leader.
Pointing out that much had nothing to do with being pro Apple, and everything to do with that simple fact being entirely accurate, irrespective of anything to do with Apple.
I expect this post and article will either be ignored, or dismissed as rubbish.
There is no debate about Amazons pricing (whether that right or wrong) but that can't be used as your excuse to defend apple. Amazons pricing model if indeed correct was effecting the publishing industry or so they may claim that is a separate issue.
You make out that apple rode in on their white charger to the rescue which is as mentioned before nonsense, they simply saw an opportunity to make more money and took it. Apples actions were nothing to do with any concern with the publishing industry but just a way to rip customers off.
Why do you always quote and link to pro apple sites for your support as well there are plenty of reputable news stories from independent sources on this to give a more accurate unbiased take.
I do love the unbiased nature of the article
Isn’t Amazon really the bad guy here? .. In a word yes
Wasn’t the judge biased against Apple from the start? .. ofcourse :rolleyes:
Are all apple supporters so sad as to spend their time looking for scapegoats for apple.
There is no debate about Amazons pricing (whether that right or wrong) but that can't be used as your excuse to defend apple. Amazons pricing model if indeed correct was effecting the publishing industry or so they may claim that is a separate issue.
You make out that apple rode in on their white charger to the rescue which is as mentioned before nonsense, they simply saw an opportunity to make more money and took it. Apples actions were nothing to do with any concern with the publishing industry but just a way to rip customers off.
Why do you always quote and link to pro apple sites for your support as well there are plenty of reputable news stories from independent sources on this to give a more accurate unbiased take.
I do love the unbiased nature of the article
Isn’t Amazon really the bad guy here? .. In a word yes
Wasn’t the judge biased against Apple from the start? .. ofcourse :rolleyes:
Are all apple supporters so sad as to spend their time looking for scapegoats for apple.
And not ignored
re BIB.
No, I didn't.
This was my original post on the subject:
Obviously there was some degree of dodgy dealings, but I'm not sure its totally clear cut.
If it had been that Apple and all the publishers conspired to charge as much for a an ebook as a physical book, which would have been an artificially high price, I think that would have been far worse.
But in this case, Amazon had reached a point where it had the publishers over a barrel, whereby their prices had arguably become artificially low.
And Apple and the publishers sought to price ebooks somewhere in between those two price points.
Which of the above are you disagreeing with or think is nonsense? Or is somehow defending Apple?
Because as far as I can tell, its a fair enough summary.
That Apple would have entered the market, and as a business made some money doesn't really contradict any of that. That a company sought to enter a market and make some money is neither shocking nor controversial.
(Unless, for some people, for some reason, the company is Apple.)
I don't think the article is biased - the fact is that Amazon set a price point lower than the the price they paid, created an artificially low price point, and arguably the publisher's concerns that this would devalue their product were entirely valid.
I linked to this article, because it confirmed what I said earlier about the Amazon's price being artificially low, and confirmed what I said about them doing so as a loss leader, both of which were dismissed by you.
Yes, there are any number of news sites which reported the fact that Apple were found guilty, but this article goes more into the background that led to the trial in the first place.
That you consider the article favourable to Apple does not automatically or magically invalidate what it says.
If you do consider it biased, and factually incorrect, perhaps you could explain which parts of it you take issue with.
And no - you didn't ignore this one, but you've asked me other things in other threads, and then ignored my answers.
Obviously there was some degree of dodgy dealings, but I'm not sure its totally clear cut.
If it had been that Apple and all the publishers conspired to charge as much for a an ebook as a physical book, which would have been an artificially high price, I think that would have been far worse.
But in this case, Amazon had reached a point where it had the publishers over a barrel, whereby their prices had arguably become artificially low.
And Apple and the publishers sought to price ebooks somewhere in between those two price points.
Which of the above are you disagreeing with or think is nonsense? Or is somehow defending Apple?
Because as far as I can tell, its a fair enough summary.
That Apple would have entered the market, and as a business made some money doesn't really contradict any of that. That a company sought to enter a market and make some money is neither shocking nor controversial.
(Unless, for some people, for some reason, the company is Apple.)
I don't think the article is biased - the fact is that Amazon set a price point lower than the the price they paid, created an artificially low price point, and arguably the publisher's concerns that this would devalue their product were entirely valid.
I linked to this article, because it confirmed what I said earlier about the Amazon's price being artificially low, and confirmed what I said about them doing so as a loss leader, both of which were dismissed by you.
Yes, there are any number of news sites which reported the fact that Apple were found guilty, but this article goes more into the background that led to the trial in the first place.
That you consider the article favourable to Apple does not automatically or magically invalidate what it says.
If you do consider it biased, and factually incorrect, perhaps you could explain which parts of it you take issue with.
And no - you didn't ignore this one, but you've asked me other things in other threads, and then ignored my answers.
It's interesting that the publishers admitted their guilt but Apple continued to be defiant and went on trial. Regardless of what Amazon were doing it was within the law. What Apple and the publishers did was illegal.
Comments
Amazon sell physical books for probably 50% of their RRP. Is that not a problem? And should an ebook have the same RRP not just as its physical counterpart but as the hardback equivalent? Can that be justified?
What is an artificially high price? Of course it was artificially high, because it was higher than what would have been the case had Apple and the publishers not broken the law to raise the price.
That, in my mind, really would have been an artificially high price, as it would not have passed on the savings resulting from digital distribution to the consumer. But that is not what they were trying to do. Rather their intention was not have to charge the rock bottom prices that Amazon wanted to dictate to them. Sure, Apple would benefit from that, but I don't think that's the whole picture.
A lot of this really depends on whether or not $10 was artificially low (for the publishing sector as a whole). In my mind its arguable that it was, because Amazon was able to leverage its position to set the price lower than it otherwise could have been.
I'm afraid your whole argument if indeed you actually have one is a house of cards built on quicksand. Apple are guilty of illegal actively and it has nothing to do with your point about selling more kindles or amazon colluding.
It has nothing to do with $10 of $12 it has everything to do with Apple being greedy and seeing a way to corner a market and make excessive profits from doing it.
All your bluster about loss leading book sales and the poor publishing industry as I mentioned at the outset is your desperate attempt to paint apple in a better light having acted illegally which is a bit sad.
I just had a quick look on Amazon. Their Kindle books are pretty consistently more expensive than paperbacks for new releases. About three times the price, in fact. Doesn't seem like any savings associated with digital distribution are being passed on.
EDIT: I'm referring to CP's post.
That's the second time you've mentioned "Amazon colluding". When you do, who is it that you Amazon are supposed to be colluding with?
I agree that Apple colluded with the publishers.
But I'm not sure I agree that any resulting profits would have been excessive.
There's nothing desperate about what I originally said, which was simply that there's a difference between all companies colluding to push prices up, and some companies colluding to avoid being forced to charge the rock bottom price a competitor is willing to.
Something which you haven't yet actually disagreed with yet.
I was referring to Apple / the publishers, rather than Amazon.
Hardback v paperback does confuse the issue slightly, although I'd suggest that the digital equivalent would be new release price, and price after a set time, roughly equivalent to the time between hardback and paperback prices.
And that in both cases the digital price should be less than the physical price.
That's exactly one of the reasons why i gave up on my kindle. I buy loads and loads of books. I can understand perfectly well that intellectual property is expensive regardless of what the format it is presented. But still, when Ebooks are consistently more expensive that the actual books, when they are shifted a million times more quickly and with a fraction of the cost all around, something is clearly wrong. There is an added value that has absolutely nothing to do with fairness to the consumer or to what publishing rates this companies are paying. And this happens in Amazon, the last thing we need is Apple fixing those prices to become even more inflated.
Yep. I hardly use my Kindle these days for the same reason. I've linked to it before, but this is something I wrote about digital distribution and how it only seems to be driving costs up rather than down.
http://rantfarm.org/2013/03/22/why-optical-media-still-matters/
ebooks from amazon used to be a lot cheaper than they are now. In 2010 prices went up when the agency price model was established. So you have Apple to thank for the high prices.
That is quite an interesting article.
I'd certainly agree that digital delivery should always be cheaper than a physical equivalent. But if someone like Amazon is already selling physical books at great reductions, where margins have already been reduced, then that limits how much cheaper again an ebook can be.
I guess it depends on your reasons for buying ebooks. I love reading, but I don't want piles of books sitting around my house taking up space. I've a few books which have some attachment value, but otherwise, I'd rather just have an electronic version. A Kindle is much more portable, if you finish your book you can start another straight away, and no trees need to be chopped down to create the book file!
Oh, I agree with all that. It's just the price that I take issue with. As you said, no trees need to be chopped down. I know you were probably making an environmental point, but there's a cost point too. No trees being felled, no printing and physical distribution costs, no physical delivery costs. I know digital delivery and storage isn't free, but it's got to be a fraction of the cost of producing physical copies.
How is that a negative? Honestly I just can't see the logic in trying to argue this. The main case at hand here is the fact that Apple have purposely gone out to create a market scenario where consumers are at a disadvantage and that is not allowed, as has transpired.
As Anika said, Amazon adopted a similar strategy with physical books, and yet they are still faced with competition from retail stores as well as other online book retailers. Healthy competition still remains in the market.
The issue has never been Amazon in this case. Yes they were partly at fault for agreeing to the collusion and their somewhat dubious reasons for their aggressive pricing strategy, however, it was Apple that instigated all of this and they have now faced the consequences. They've been trying to do far more damage to the market than Amazon ever has.
What a load of rubbish so in essence it is Amazons fault that apple acted illegally and entered into price fixing is it, you really are so deluded.
Or is dismissing anything you don't agree with as rubbish as good as it's going to get.
I do yes Apple have acted illegally and have been judged to have acted illegally. They have fixed prices in order to rip off their loyal customers in order that they can make even more money, shocking.
Other than those simple facts no I don't have anything to add to this story as it is as clear as that, I will however continue to call some apple apologists on their posted nonsense masquerading as actual facts
I'd have to agree with you on this point. I'm not bothered about how much an ebook costs in comparison to the physical version because
A) I value the content over the medium it's delivered in. What I'm willing to pay for a book is dependent upon how much I think that particular book is worth. I don't think all books have the same value
I read a physical book last month for the first time in 3 years last month because it wasn't available as an ebook. When I'd finished I thought oh hell what am I going to do with this now!:p
It wasn't really so much environmental as saying that, personally, despite the higher prices that sometimes happen on ebooks, the convenience value to me, coupled with less trees being felled make it worth the extra expense for me.
In an ideal world, would I like paper vs ebook to be the same price? Yes, absolutely, and as I've pointed out a page or so back, I'd also like the VAT exemption on books to cover ebooks as well. But all that said, the convenience of ebooks outweighs the slightly higher prices for me because I really don't want to go back to carrying around paperbacks!
interesting article
If nothing else, it confirms what I said earlier about Amazon's price of ebooks being artificially low and a loss leader.
Pointing out that much had nothing to do with being pro Apple, and everything to do with that simple fact being entirely accurate, irrespective of anything to do with Apple.
I expect this post and article will either be ignored, or dismissed as rubbish.
Thanks for that.
You make out that apple rode in on their white charger to the rescue which is as mentioned before nonsense, they simply saw an opportunity to make more money and took it. Apples actions were nothing to do with any concern with the publishing industry but just a way to rip customers off.
Why do you always quote and link to pro apple sites for your support as well there are plenty of reputable news stories from independent sources on this to give a more accurate unbiased take.
I do love the unbiased nature of the article
Isn’t Amazon really the bad guy here? .. In a word yes
Wasn’t the judge biased against Apple from the start? .. ofcourse :rolleyes:
Are all apple supporters so sad as to spend their time looking for scapegoats for apple.
And not ignored
re BIB.
No, I didn't.
This was my original post on the subject:
Obviously there was some degree of dodgy dealings, but I'm not sure its totally clear cut.
If it had been that Apple and all the publishers conspired to charge as much for a an ebook as a physical book, which would have been an artificially high price, I think that would have been far worse.
But in this case, Amazon had reached a point where it had the publishers over a barrel, whereby their prices had arguably become artificially low.
And Apple and the publishers sought to price ebooks somewhere in between those two price points.
Which of the above are you disagreeing with or think is nonsense? Or is somehow defending Apple?
Because as far as I can tell, its a fair enough summary.
That Apple would have entered the market, and as a business made some money doesn't really contradict any of that. That a company sought to enter a market and make some money is neither shocking nor controversial.
(Unless, for some people, for some reason, the company is Apple.)
I don't think the article is biased - the fact is that Amazon set a price point lower than the the price they paid, created an artificially low price point, and arguably the publisher's concerns that this would devalue their product were entirely valid.
I linked to this article, because it confirmed what I said earlier about the Amazon's price being artificially low, and confirmed what I said about them doing so as a loss leader, both of which were dismissed by you.
Yes, there are any number of news sites which reported the fact that Apple were found guilty, but this article goes more into the background that led to the trial in the first place.
That you consider the article favourable to Apple does not automatically or magically invalidate what it says.
If you do consider it biased, and factually incorrect, perhaps you could explain which parts of it you take issue with.
And no - you didn't ignore this one, but you've asked me other things in other threads, and then ignored my answers.
It's interesting that the publishers admitted their guilt but Apple continued to be defiant and went on trial. Regardless of what Amazon were doing it was within the law. What Apple and the publishers did was illegal.
If you weren't going to comment on any of my post, there probably wasn't any need to quote it in full.