5 ms·

This is an article about an article in the WSJ. Is it linkjacking? It repeats a claim about a quote from the original article while providing no source to back

This is an article about an article in the WSJ. Is it linkjacking? It repeats a claim about a quote from the original article while providing no source to back it up: The whole agreement was actually launched at the behest of Apple’s Steve Jobs, who had wanted to create an e-bookstore for the iPad but didn’t want to compete with Amazon.com’s cheap titles, according to the story. Given the recent SNAFU over misquoting Google, I’m wary of jumping down Mr. Jobs’ long-dead throat on the basis of a quote of a quote of a source without being able to read the original transcript. One thing I’m interested in understanding, for instance, is the basis of Apple’s “fear” of Amazon’s prices. I remember from the music business that Amazon did undercut Apple’s prices, but it wasn’t because Apple was unable to make money at a lower price point. It was because the music labels forced Apple to maintain higher prices and then allowed Amazon to offer the same tracks at a lower price in order to generate competition that would give them the leverage they needed to negotiate higher music prices from Apple in the future. Which they got, and now they can offer a sliding scale of prices, with some tracks being $1.29, something that Jobs and Apple resisted. So now I’m reading that Apple is trying to price fix all books at the same price, and I am mightily interested in knowing the full story. Perhaps the problem isn’t that Apple is trying to maintain artificially high prices, but that it is trying to prevent publishers from shackling it and it alone with higher prices.

nirvana 15y ago
The claim in the article is false. Apple doesn't want high ebook pricing, because Apple is a hardware manufacturer. iTunes and all the content it sells, was created as a loss leader to generate demand for their hardware. Apple historically has fought very hard to keep content prices down. At the time that iBooks was announced, there were many stories on this issue, and I read that the agreement Apple entered into with the book publishers was that they could set their prices however they wanted, they just couldn't charge more on the iBookstore than they charged elsewhere.[1] Apple gave them pricing flexibility, provided that they didn't do what you point out the record companies did. The book publishers liked this, and wanted the same terms from Amazon. They figured they could just go with Apple if Amazon didn't comply. Amazon rolled over, and ever since their PR agency has been floating stories like this one to make out like Apple is behind the rise in ebook prices. Apple isn't. Apple just wanted the iBookstore to be competitive and offer low prices. [1] The reason Apple lets publishers set prices is the same reason Apple lets app developers set prices. The iBookstore is open to just about anyone, even very small publishers. Apple isn't in the business of pricing retail products like this, and figures if the producer of the product sets the pricing, then the market will be more efficient. The notable exception to this, of course, is the music industry, which was the first part of the iTunes store, and which Apple had to work to keep prices down. Also in the TV and movies section they work to keep prices down. Maybe they could have dictated pricing for books, but if they had, it would have been to keep prices down, not up, like they did for the other categories. The "price it whatever you want" model worked on the appstore to provide a vibrant community where great apps can be had for $0.99. Its not unreasonable to expect Apple expected something similar in the iBookstore.
- smackfu 15y ago
  >Apple doesn't want high ebook pricing, because Apple is a hardware manufacturer. But Apple did want higher ebook pricing than $9.99, because Amazon was selling some (many?) ebooks for below cost and Apple didn't want to do that. They want the lowest price that they can comfortably take their 30% profit from. >Apple just wanted the iBookstore to be competitive and offer low prices. And if it hurt the consumers, well, fuck 'em. And Apple didn't even end up being very successful with iBooks. So everyone lost except the publishers. But at least it wasn't Apple's fault, right?
  - microtherion 15y ago
    > They want the lowest price that they can comfortably take their 30% profit from. I don't think this is an accurate characterization. Apple [apparently; I have no inside view of their pricing policies] is happy to sell a 99 cent song, and is perfectly happy to feature free e-books. What they did NOT want is to sell a book for $9.99 while paying the publisher $12.50. Of course, a free e-Book is also effectively sold below cost by Apple, but that's as far as their flexibility goes.
- brd 15y ago
  I remember when this happened and I remember how pissed I was at Apple for the move they pulled. Amazon was essentially protecting the publishers from themselves (think music industry) and Jobs came in and threw the entire arrangement out the window. Apple doesn't care about selling content, they care about selling hardware. Within that line of thinking, anything bad for Amazon's stranglehold on books is a good thing for Apple since it reduces the friction of switching from a kindle to an ipad. You could easily make the argument that Apple pulled this move thinking "Whats bad for Amazon is good for us" and totally screwed everyone else (publishers and customers) in the process. Apple's move was certainly unscrupulous and quite possibly illegal.
  - brd 15y ago
    Was this response really such low quality that it warranted a downvote? Or are we just not allowed to voice any criticism of Apple on HN anymore?
smackfu 15y ago
>This is an article about an article in the WSJ. Is it linkjacking? The WSJ article is behind their paywall, so it wouldn't be linked to anyways.
edtechdev 15y ago
Keep your iPants on ;) The European Commission and U.S. Department of Justice are trying to find out just what was in the agreements publishers made with Apple about e-book pricing: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1509&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...
gospelwut 15y ago
Given the very nature of the internet, it boggles my mind that transcripts/original sources aren't linked to quotes. It's at no cost to the user since it's not a giant inline block of text.

nirvana 15y ago

The claim in the article is false. Apple doesn't want high ebook pricing, because Apple is a hardware manufacturer. iTunes and all the content it sells, was created as a loss leader to generate demand for their hardware. Apple historically has fought very hard to keep content prices down. At the time that iBooks was announced, there were many stories on this issue, and I read that the agreement Apple entered into with the book publishers was that they could set their prices however they wanted, they just couldn't charge more on the iBookstore than they charged elsewhere.[1] Apple gave them pricing flexibility, provided that they didn't do what you point out the record companies did. The book publishers liked this, and wanted the same terms from Amazon. They figured they could just go with Apple if Amazon didn't comply. Amazon rolled over, and ever since their PR agency has been floating stories like this one to make out like Apple is behind the rise in ebook prices. Apple isn't. Apple just wanted the iBookstore to be competitive and offer low prices. [1] The reason Apple lets publishers set prices is the same reason Apple lets app developers set prices. The iBookstore is open to just about anyone, even very small publishers. Apple isn't in the business of pricing retail products like this, and figures if the producer of the product sets the pricing, then the market will be more efficient. The notable exception to this, of course, is the music industry, which was the first part of the iTunes store, and which Apple had to work to keep prices down. Also in the TV and movies section they work to keep prices down. Maybe they could have dictated pricing for books, but if they had, it would have been to keep prices down, not up, like they did for the other categories. The "price it whatever you want" model worked on the appstore to provide a vibrant community where great apps can be had for $0.99. Its not unreasonable to expect Apple expected something similar in the iBookstore.

smackfu 15y ago
>Apple doesn't want high ebook pricing, because Apple is a hardware manufacturer. But Apple did want higher ebook pricing than $9.99, because Amazon was selling some (many?) ebooks for below cost and Apple didn't want to do that. They want the lowest price that they can comfortably take their 30% profit from. >Apple just wanted the iBookstore to be competitive and offer low prices. And if it hurt the consumers, well, fuck 'em. And Apple didn't even end up being very successful with iBooks. So everyone lost except the publishers. But at least it wasn't Apple's fault, right?
- microtherion 15y ago
  > They want the lowest price that they can comfortably take their 30% profit from. I don't think this is an accurate characterization. Apple [apparently; I have no inside view of their pricing policies] is happy to sell a 99 cent song, and is perfectly happy to feature free e-books. What they did NOT want is to sell a book for $9.99 while paying the publisher $12.50. Of course, a free e-Book is also effectively sold below cost by Apple, but that's as far as their flexibility goes.
brd 15y ago
I remember when this happened and I remember how pissed I was at Apple for the move they pulled. Amazon was essentially protecting the publishers from themselves (think music industry) and Jobs came in and threw the entire arrangement out the window. Apple doesn't care about selling content, they care about selling hardware. Within that line of thinking, anything bad for Amazon's stranglehold on books is a good thing for Apple since it reduces the friction of switching from a kindle to an ipad. You could easily make the argument that Apple pulled this move thinking "Whats bad for Amazon is good for us" and totally screwed everyone else (publishers and customers) in the process. Apple's move was certainly unscrupulous and quite possibly illegal.
- brd 15y ago
  Was this response really such low quality that it warranted a downvote? Or are we just not allowed to voice any criticism of Apple on HN anymore?

smackfu 15y ago

>This is an article about an article in the WSJ. Is it linkjacking? The WSJ article is behind their paywall, so it wouldn't be linked to anyways.

edtechdev 15y ago

Keep your iPants on ;) The European Commission and U.S. Department of Justice are trying to find out just what was in the agreements publishers made with Apple about e-book pricing: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1509&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...

gospelwut 15y ago

Given the very nature of the internet, it boggles my mind that transcripts/original sources aren't linked to quotes. It's at no cost to the user since it's not a giant inline block of text.