4 ms·

The linked article has nothing to do with self-publishing and everything to do with books from large publishers: > The complaint claims that the five publishin

The linked article has nothing to do with self-publishing and everything to do with books from large publishers: > The complaint claims that the five publishing houses forced Amazon to abandon its discount pricing and adhere to a new agency model, in which publishers set prices and extinguished competition so that retailers such as Amazon could no longer offer lower prices for e-books. Amazon's discount specials also are not relevant to the price-fixing claim.

nirvana 15y ago
Self publishing is irrelevant to my point. The terms I mentioned are the terms both companies offered to everybody. Apple offered better terms, and specifically included in those terms that publishers couldn't jack up the prices compared to the price elsewhere. The only reason Amazon offered "lower prices" in the past is because they ran discount specials. Amazon also allowed publishers to set the price on the books, except when Amazon would run a lower price. Further, the complaint is to price fixing, and the reality is, both before and after the iBook Store came into being, neither company engaged in price fixing.
- capnrefsmmat 15y ago
  I don't follow. The price-fixing claim stems from publishers forcing Amazon to raise their prices by threatening to cut off Amazon's access to their books; it doesn't have to do with competition from the iBook Store. However, it alleges that Apple was complicit in forcing Amazon to raise prices, not through competition, but through threats.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    Apple offered a better deal. That may be a competitive threat, but that is competition, not a threat of... violence? criminality? What are you implying? Amazon was not forced to do anything, they chose to offer the same deal Apple does because they wanted to keep the business. If Amazon only capitulated to this deal in order to keep the big six on board, why do they offer it to everybody, including small publishers? https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E7JKXLN https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E... That "%70 royalty" option is comparable to Apple's deal. Also, why am I arguing with people who are not in a better grasp of the facts than I am, but who are instead repeating un-substantiated speculation and assertion? I think you owe me some factual citations- namely, how Amazon was "forced" to do anything. Remember, choosing not to do business with someone is simply an expression of freedom of association. This is a recognized right in the USA. My ford dealership might want to sell toyotas, but toyota has the right not to sell me cars, "forcing" me to get them on the secondary market. So, when you say "force" you must mean a legal, or physical, rather than competitive threat, right? Because if it was simply the pressure from a competing deal that was better, well, Amazon voluntarily took that deal, they were not "forced" into it. Please also show how apple did anything other than offer a better deal. If you're going to make the allegation, shouldn't you have some evidence to cite?
    - capnrefsmmat 15y ago
      > The complaint claims that the five publishing houses forced Amazon to abandon its discount pricing and adhere to a new agency model, in which publishers set prices and extinguished competition so that retailers such as Amazon could no longer offer lower prices for e-books. > If Amazon attempted to sell e-books below the publisher-set levels, the publishers would simply deny Amazon access to the title, the complaint claims. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hg3Qe5XrIb-vs2SxDp7BBT8GFgVg?docId=CNG.a2db03834cda342663b48fb1e7f322ce.2d1 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hg3Qe5XrI... Similarly, > Recently, you may have heard that a small group of UK publishers will require booksellers to adopt an “agency model” for selling e-books. Under this model, publishers set the consumer price for each e-book and require any bookseller to sell at that price. This is unlike the traditional wholesale model that’s been in place for decades, where booksellers set consumer prices. http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/amazon-uk-tells-customers-about-agency-pricing-and-resulting-higher-prices/ http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/amazon-uk-tells-customers-... This is the price-fixing Amazon is complaining about: "you can't sell our books unless you sell them at our prices." As far as I know, their complaint has nothing to do with royalty percentages or competition with Apple's iBook prices. (edited for clarity)
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      "Apple offered a better deal." As was extensively documented at the time, unless you include anti-competitive factors, Apple did not offer the better deal. Amazon paid more money per eBook (and sold the eBooks downstream for less money) before the agency model than after it. The incentive that Apple offered was helping publishers control downstream prices, which is exactly the price-fixing this case is about.
- healsdata 15y ago
  Self publishing isn't irrelevant to your point. I seriously doubt those terms you quoted from Amazon are the same terms the big six negotiated with them. As wild speculation, I imagine the terms Amazon and Apple have with the big six are identical and that's where the charge of price collusion comes from: there's only six publishers than really count and no one can sell their eBooks at a lower rate now.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    Let me put your "doubt" to rest: https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E7JKXLN https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E... The "%30 royalty" is Amazon's old model, the "%70 Royalty" is the Apple "Agency model". When Apple announced the model, Amazon moved to offer the same model, and they offered it to everybody. That we're self publishing is relevant only in the fact that we've actually published a book on Amazon and are relating the current situation, rather than making an argument based on "doubts". The purpose of this press release, by the way, is to sow such fear, uncertainty and doubt, and as you'll notice it has many assertions and little in the way of facts.

nirvana 15y ago

Self publishing is irrelevant to my point. The terms I mentioned are the terms both companies offered to everybody. Apple offered better terms, and specifically included in those terms that publishers couldn't jack up the prices compared to the price elsewhere. The only reason Amazon offered "lower prices" in the past is because they ran discount specials. Amazon also allowed publishers to set the price on the books, except when Amazon would run a lower price. Further, the complaint is to price fixing, and the reality is, both before and after the iBook Store came into being, neither company engaged in price fixing.

capnrefsmmat 15y ago
I don't follow. The price-fixing claim stems from publishers forcing Amazon to raise their prices by threatening to cut off Amazon's access to their books; it doesn't have to do with competition from the iBook Store. However, it alleges that Apple was complicit in forcing Amazon to raise prices, not through competition, but through threats.
- nirvana 15y ago
  Apple offered a better deal. That may be a competitive threat, but that is competition, not a threat of... violence? criminality? What are you implying? Amazon was not forced to do anything, they chose to offer the same deal Apple does because they wanted to keep the business. If Amazon only capitulated to this deal in order to keep the big six on board, why do they offer it to everybody, including small publishers? https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E7JKXLN https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E... That "%70 royalty" option is comparable to Apple's deal. Also, why am I arguing with people who are not in a better grasp of the facts than I am, but who are instead repeating un-substantiated speculation and assertion? I think you owe me some factual citations- namely, how Amazon was "forced" to do anything. Remember, choosing not to do business with someone is simply an expression of freedom of association. This is a recognized right in the USA. My ford dealership might want to sell toyotas, but toyota has the right not to sell me cars, "forcing" me to get them on the secondary market. So, when you say "force" you must mean a legal, or physical, rather than competitive threat, right? Because if it was simply the pressure from a competing deal that was better, well, Amazon voluntarily took that deal, they were not "forced" into it. Please also show how apple did anything other than offer a better deal. If you're going to make the allegation, shouldn't you have some evidence to cite?
  - capnrefsmmat 15y ago
    > The complaint claims that the five publishing houses forced Amazon to abandon its discount pricing and adhere to a new agency model, in which publishers set prices and extinguished competition so that retailers such as Amazon could no longer offer lower prices for e-books. > If Amazon attempted to sell e-books below the publisher-set levels, the publishers would simply deny Amazon access to the title, the complaint claims. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hg3Qe5XrIb-vs2SxDp7BBT8GFgVg?docId=CNG.a2db03834cda342663b48fb1e7f322ce.2d1 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hg3Qe5XrI... Similarly, > Recently, you may have heard that a small group of UK publishers will require booksellers to adopt an “agency model” for selling e-books. Under this model, publishers set the consumer price for each e-book and require any bookseller to sell at that price. This is unlike the traditional wholesale model that’s been in place for decades, where booksellers set consumer prices. http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/amazon-uk-tells-customers-about-agency-pricing-and-resulting-higher-prices/ http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/amazon-uk-tells-customers-... This is the price-fixing Amazon is complaining about: "you can't sell our books unless you sell them at our prices." As far as I know, their complaint has nothing to do with royalty percentages or competition with Apple's iBook prices. (edited for clarity)
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    "Apple offered a better deal." As was extensively documented at the time, unless you include anti-competitive factors, Apple did not offer the better deal. Amazon paid more money per eBook (and sold the eBooks downstream for less money) before the agency model than after it. The incentive that Apple offered was helping publishers control downstream prices, which is exactly the price-fixing this case is about.
healsdata 15y ago
Self publishing isn't irrelevant to your point. I seriously doubt those terms you quoted from Amazon are the same terms the big six negotiated with them. As wild speculation, I imagine the terms Amazon and Apple have with the big six are identical and that's where the charge of price collusion comes from: there's only six publishers than really count and no one can sell their eBooks at a lower rate now.
- nirvana 15y ago
  Let me put your "doubt" to rest: https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E7JKXLN https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E... The "%30 royalty" is Amazon's old model, the "%70 Royalty" is the Apple "Agency model". When Apple announced the model, Amazon moved to offer the same model, and they offered it to everybody. That we're self publishing is relevant only in the fact that we've actually published a book on Amazon and are relating the current situation, rather than making an argument based on "doubts". The purpose of this press release, by the way, is to sow such fear, uncertainty and doubt, and as you'll notice it has many assertions and little in the way of facts.