4 ms·
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 cr
by 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 agoI 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 agoWas 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?
- raganwald 15y agoI don’t know about your response, but I can predict the reaction to a comment asking why another comment was downvoted. Your original point may or may not have contributed to the discussion, but a discussion about why someone didn’t think a point contributed to the discussion is definitely not contributing to the discussion. And that goes for this reply as well. By answering your reply I’m adding noise, not signal. Which is why this deserves a downvote as well as your query.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago>a discussion about why someone didn’t think a point contributed to the discussion is definitely not contributing to the discussion // I disagree. A person's motivation for dissent is extremely pertinent.
- roc 15y ago> "Amazon was essentially protecting the publishers from themselves" Pre-iBookstore, Amazon was offering a 65-35 revenue split, with the fat end going to Amazon. There are certainly pros and cons to each approach, but Amazon wasn't protecting anything but their own interests and profitability.