3 ms·

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? Amaz

by 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.

by nirvana 15y ago

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.