backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Apr 24 at 3:55 PM

Apple feels confident it will defeat U.S. prosecutors' claims it engaged in e-book price fixing

"Our basic view is that we would like the case to be decided on the merits.  We believe that this is not an appropriate case against us and we would like to validate that," defiant Apple, Inc. (AAPL) lawyer Daniel Floyd told U.S. District Judge Denise Cote Wednesday in court.

I. A Fight

The U.S. government announced antitrust charges last week and was met with derision from Apple.  While all the publishers targeted in the case instantly put up press releases formally responding to the U.S. government, Apple wouldn't come forth with an immediate response.  When it did finally respond a day later, it claimed that the U.S. government was bullying it and vowed to fight.

In its Wednesday appearance at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a White Plains court, Apple's lawyer requested a trial by jury.  The move indicates that Apple is confident its high power legal team can defeat the U.S. Department of Justice's lawyers.

The world's most valuable company has profited from driving up e-book prices from the former de facto rate of $10 to $15. Apple also granted "most favored nations" to sellers that blacklisted Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) and other rivals.  This special status allowed publishers to freely set their prices at whatever they wanted.

iPad v. Kindle
Apple allegedly colluded with five top publishers to force e-books out of Amazon's store and to force prices upwards. [Image Source: Futile]

There's compelling evidence of collusion among publishers in pushing this scheme, which first took grip with the launch of the first-generation iPad in 2010 and inclusion of e-books into the iTunes store.  Publishers News Corp.'s  (NWS) HarperCollins; CBS Corp.'s (CBS) Simon & Schuster; UK publisher Pearson plc's (LON:PSON) Penguin and MacMillan units; and The Hatchett Group, a subsidiary of French publisher Hatchette Livre engaged in a lavish meeting at which they agreed to raise their prices in unison, according to the U.S. DOJ.

As a result of the compelling evidence, most of the publishers have agreed to settle, although the UK's Pearson has joined with Apple in deciding to fight the charges.  While the DOJ's cases against Pearson appears relatively strong, its case against Apple may be weaker, given that Apple does not have a dominant position in this market and did not participate in the multi-publisher meeting.

Apple is trying to turn the tables and is accusing the U.S. government of supporting Amazon's "monopoly" grip on the e-book industry.  While it admits prices have gone up, it says it's benefiting customers by offering them more options.

II. Evidence Apple Might Have Known, Promoted Price Fixing is There

Video hints that late Apple CEO Steven P. Jobs may have had knowledge that the publishers would raise their prices.  Walt Mossberg of All Things Digital and The Wall Street Journal (ironically, News Corp. properties) asks, "Why should she [Kara Swisher] buy an [e-book] at your price when she can buy one from Amazon for $9.99?" 

(at 1:55 in the video, approximately)

Mr. Jobs responds, "Well that won't be the case... the prices will be the same."

So was that simply a bold predication or evidence of Mr. Jobs' knowledge of the collusive summit?  The video could be compelling evidence in a jury trial.  Likewise, other statements could help to convince a jury that customer was being harmed.  

For example in Walter Isaacson's exclusive authorized biography of the late chief executive, Mr. Jobs recalled his pitch as, "We'll go to [an] agency model where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and, yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."

Ironically, Simon & Schuster -- the CBS-owned publisher who is listed by the DOJ as among those colluding -- published the biography containing that remark.  Simon & Schuster was among those to accept a settlement.

The DOJ certainly has some pieces, but it will need to assemble them carefully in order to sway a jury in the face of Apple's high-power legal team.  The question is whether they have enough evidence and manpower to paint a clear enough picture to find the company guilty of violating U.S. antitrust laws.

Apple will have the advantage of one of the business's world's strongest legal teams.  In 2011 Apple is estimated to have spent over $100M USD [source].  By contrast Apple is only spending between $2B and $3B USD per year in research and development [source].  Apple has one of the smallest research and development budgets in the industry and one of largest legal budgets in the industry.  

III. Apple vs. the Settlers?

One final complicating factor are the settlements.  While Apple and Pearson hope to fight to the bitter end, CBS, News Corp., and Lagardère desperately want a settlement to be reached, in order to protect their businesses from consumer class action lawsuit.

A non-government class action is pending for the alleged violations.  However, a settlement deal banning publishers from refusing to sell to Amazon in exchange for favored nation status and disallowing them from agreeing to fix prices to gain access to iTunes would potentially supersede and nullify current class action claims.  The settling publishers have agreed to those terms, plus Hachette and HarperCollins have offered up $51M USD in restitution.

Harper Collins
Apple's defense may be undermined by its former allies who have are eager to settle.
[Image Source: She Likes Books Too Much]

The DOJ is eager to make this "deal with the devil" -- promoting settlement in all 50 states that reduce the public's ability to collect potential damages for perceived past antitrust violations.  In exchange, the publishers agree to stop these practices in the present.  That solution is being pushed hard by the publishers, but is being soundly rejected by Apple and Pearson.

The question is this philosophical divide could be leveraged by the DOJ to damage the non-compliers in court.  That is among the interesting storylines that will develop in weeks to come.

The next court hearing is not scheduled until June 22.  Judge Floyd will likely decide at that hearing whether to approve Apple's request for a jury trial. 

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who cares?
By Jaybus on 4/19/2012 4:45:05 PM , Rating: 5
Any publisher that would give up AMZN sales to get Apple's "favored nation" status must be crazy. That is a huge base of users to ignore, simply because it supposedly allows a higher margin. That's why I have both an iPad and a Kindle. Kindle books are cheaper. At $5 more per book, if you are going to read more than 16 books, then its cheaper to buy a Kindle than to buy the books from Apple.

I like reading on the Kindle better anyway. Easier on the eyes and you can see it perfectly well in bright sunlight, plus the battery lasts longer. If you like to relax outside and read, Kindle is the only way to go.




RE: Who cares?
By ritualm on 4/19/2012 5:03:41 PM , Rating: 3
Q: Who cares?
A: Tony Swash, to name one of many.


RE: Who cares?
By Varun on 4/19/2012 4:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well then they are all crazy because they all did it.

Prices have certainly gone up since then too.


RE: Who cares?
By WalksTheWalk on 4/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares?
By MGSsancho on 4/19/2012 7:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
As long as Apple was not part of the collusion then the US Govt case against Apple has no water. However the US Govt can later drag the publishers into a new and different court case that the publishes colluded together to fix prices with out involving Apple. Either way I hope the fines are high if any parties are found guilty.


RE: Who cares?
By Natch on 4/20/2012 7:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
It's also entirely possible that the government will get the 3 publishers who have already admitted guilt to testify against Apple, and make it very difficult to Apple to simply wash its hands of the whole thing. Then it turns into a "he said, she said" case, and it's up to the jury to decide.

Now all they need to do is fill the jury with a bunch of Kindle owners! ;)


RE: Who cares?
By mcnabney on 4/20/2012 9:14:08 AM , Rating: 4
Apple is going to try to determine if their 'Reality Distortion Field' still exists without Jobs at the helm. They will lose. Why? Because they have a $100B pile of cash that every attorney that has ever done class-action is salivating over. Penalties for price-fixing are huge and only begin with the Feds. Apple isn't like a RAM manufacture that is just barely getting by - they have tons of money which makes them an easy target. The evidence against them is pretty damning and the Feds already have many publishers copping deals. Apple should have settled as quickly as they could.


RE: Who cares?
By Theoz on 4/20/2012 9:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
No idea why your post got rated down. The case is definitely more difficult against Apple because the DOJ needs to prove that Apple was involved when the publishers allegedly got together and all set the same price for their books.


RE: Who cares?
By JohnThacker on 4/19/2012 6:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
Margin is huge in business.

Apple could sell a ton more iPhones and iPads if they cut their prices too. But they make more profit with a higher margin but lower volume.

Don't automatically dismiss the idea of higher margin at the expense of volume. There's a reason that the publishers took that deal. (Even aside from being able to force Amazon to raise their prices by withholding their books otherwise.)

Any economic analysis of monopolies and restraint of trade assume that they'll raise prices and sacrifice volume under standard supply and demand curves.


RE: Who cares?
By Smilin on 4/19/2012 6:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Amazon was selling at or below costs sometimes so giving up those sales wasn't entirely undesireable.

Kindle fan here too. Gen 1, latest gen, and a fire.

I do remember ebooks being cheaper before the iPad was released. This explains a lot. I'm looking forward to prices becoming competitive again.

If there is a class action settlement I've got enough books purchased to get in on it.


RE: Who cares?
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 9:25:18 PM , Rating: 5
The main problem is not the price of selling a book in the iTunes store or on Amazon, it is that to sell in iTunes and get access to all those iPod, iPhone, and iPad devices you could not sell your book anywhere else for less.

That is what was illegal and what caused the problem. Amazon did not care that Apple wanted to sell their books for $5 more until the publishers demanded that Amazon sell their books for $5 more. The US government did not care that Apple wanted the price hike until it became clear that all ebook prices went up as a result of Apple forcing the issue.

It was not only that either, Apple dictated that books could no longer be put on special. This meant that Amazon could not have a 10% off ebooks promotion. This meant that my favorite author who initially released books for 25% off their first week (to get word out) could not longer do this if they were released on iTunes at the same time.

While some have voiced concerns about Amazon's intentions, I think it is important to remember that Amazon's original goal was to sell the ebooks at wholesale to help build the market. After box stores started complaining the publishers negotiated with Amazon to sell the books at $10 a piece.

Personally I do not see the need for big publishers now. The author could go to a smaller service for editing and formating, then sell directly to the electronic distributors like Amazon and Apple, there by keeping the profit for their work. I also do not see why Apple needs a 30% cut. A whole book is usually less then a MB so hosting costs will be next to nothing.


RE: Who cares?
By WalksTheWalk on 4/20/2012 9:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't aware of Apple's contract conditions. If Apple's conditions of their agreement with the publishers was such that it required collusion on the part of the publishers then it's much easier to make the case that Apple conspired to collude with the publishers.

Very interesting indeed.


RE: Who cares?
By Shadowself on 4/20/2012 7:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
This would be very interesting if it were true.

quote:
The main problem is not the price of selling a book in the iTunes store or on Amazon, it is that to sell in iTunes and get access to all those iPod, iPhone, and iPad devices you could not sell your book anywhere else for less.

An absolutely true statement.
quote:
That is what was illegal and what caused the problem.

Not true at all. There has been a long, long standing business practice called "best customer". Apple required that all of the customers in Apple's iBook Store be the publisher's "best customer", i.e., the publisher gave Apple's store customers the best price they gave anywhere. "Best customer" requirements are extremely rarely illegal. Hell, the U.S. Government demands a "best customer" status in many, many contracts.

quote:
Amazon did not care that Apple wanted to sell their books for $5 more until the publishers demanded that Amazon sell their books for $5 more. The US government did not care that Apple wanted the price hike until it became clear that all ebook prices went up as a result of Apple forcing the issue.

Absolutely not true. Apple did not force *ANY* publisher to raise their price. Apple just required, and is still requiring, that the price to Apple's store customers be the best price it is sold anywhere. In fact, both the publishers and Apple have repeatedly stated that the publishers, not Apple, set the price of the e-books being sold.

quote:
It was not only that either, Apple dictated that books could no longer be put on special. This meant that Amazon could not have a 10% off ebooks promotion. This meant that my favorite author who initially released books for 25% off their first week (to get word out) could not longer do this if they were released on iTunes at the same time.

Again, absolutely not true. If the publisher worked with Amazon to allow the price to be temporarily lowered by 10% or 25% or even 100% (giving it away for free) the contracts the publishers have with Apple state that the price on Apple's iBook store must be the same price or less. There is absolutely no restriction on "sales" or other low price offerings.

quote:
While some have voiced concerns about Amazon's intentions, I think it is important to remember that Amazon's original goal was to sell the ebooks at wholesale to help build the market. After box stores started complaining the publishers negotiated with Amazon to sell the books at $10 a piece.

That sounds like price fixing! The publishers and Amazon picked a specific price point together!

quote:
Personally I do not see the need for big publishers now. The author could go to a smaller service for editing and formating, then sell directly to the electronic distributors like Amazon and Apple, there by keeping the profit for their work. I also do not see why Apple needs a 30% cut. A whole book is usually less then a MB so hosting costs will be next to nothing.

Apple's 30% cut is way above its costs for a $10 or $15 e-book. However, there are a huge number of FREE books on the Apple site. Apple believes that all balances out. Also Apple (as well as Amazon) believe they have huge start up costs in these enterprises that need to be paid back.


RE: Who cares?
By Trisped on 4/24/2012 3:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple did not force *ANY* publisher to raise their price.
Apple indicated that they wanted to sell books for $15 and that they wanted 30% cut, or the book could not be sold on iTunes. Go back and read the previous news articles. In short, Apple forced publisher's to raise the price of the book if it was to sell on iTunes.

quote:
If the publisher worked with Amazon to allow the price to be temporarily lowered by 10% or 25% or even 100% (giving it away for free) the contracts the publishers have with Apple state that the price on Apple's iBook store must be the same price or less.
As I understand it, Apple (like Steam) did not provide a reasonable way to adjust the price to enable a sale. If you sign a contract which states that you will not sell your book for less anywhere else, and the store you signed the contract with did not provide a mechanism to adjust the price of your book (or price it lower) then the store effectively prevented you from offering a sale/promotional price.

quote:
That sounds like price fixing! The publishers and Amazon picked a specific price point together!
It is not illegal for a producer to set the wholesale and retail prices of their products. It is also not illegal to negotiate contracts between individual re-sellers and producers. It is illegal to enter a deal which requires wholesalers to raise prices at other locations if they want their product to be sold in your store AND your store/company represents a major portion of the market.

quote:
Apple's 30% cut is way above its costs for a $10 or $15 e-book. However, there are a huge number of FREE books on the Apple site. Apple believes that all balances out. Also Apple (as well as Amazon) believe they have huge start up costs in these enterprises that need to be paid back.
There are a huge number of free books on Amazon and available from Google. It still costs less the one cent per download to distribute the book to the end user. The cost is so low in fact that it is negligible compared to the fact that the customer has come to your site with the intent to pick up a book. I forget the exact odds, but I think 60% of people who go to Amazon to download a free book end up purchasing a book or some other product at the same time (I could be way off on that). This makes free books an advertising vector, one which is still profitable if books are sold for 5-10% profit.

It sounds to me like most people on this form have not yet tried to sell a product on iTunes. Unless there have been changes recently, everything sold on iTunes must adhere to their tiered pricing scheme (like with music http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06Changes-... apps http://www.idev101.com/code/Distribution/checklist... and books http://www.flickr.com/photos/cookwood/6303380568/. It should be noted that the tiers change as the price goes higher).

It also appears that most Apple fans have missed why their is a problem with Apple's model. The problem is that Apple wants a 30% cut while Amazon was getting a 10-15% cut of the cost. In order to be competitive Apple either had to convince the publishers to sell their books to Apple for less or convince customers to pay more for books from their store. The best way to do this was to leverage their market dominance to defeat the natural price correction of a capitalistic market. This is what Apple did, and this is why the DOJ is suing them.

Of course Apple is an image based company. They cannot admit that they were wrong in their actions, so they are trying to shift the blame (just like a politician) onto Amazon. This has caused a large number of Apple zealots (and there are a lot of Apple zealots) to blindly blame Amazon, without any regards to the facts. Amazon is undercutting the traditional model, but as a large distributor who reached the market first they had the difficulty of creating the platform paired with the reduced cost of maintaining a strictly electronic format (no physical books to stock or sell). So, while the traditional model was 50% went to the publisher and 50% when to the store (so a book with a $14.99 jacket price would be sold to the store for $7.50 and the store would sell the book for $14.99 making $7.49 in profit), Amazon adjusted it so the publisher still got the same amount, but Amazon took less profit (so the same $14.99 jacket price would give the publisher $7.50 and Amazon would sell the book for $8.50 making $1). This did not sit well with box stores. They could not afford to sell books at such a low margin so publishers told Amazon that the books needed to be sold for more. As a result Amazon negotiated a higher, but more standardized cost of $9.99 per book with publishers taking a larger cut (not sure on exact amount, but it is probably an 80/20% split favoring the publishers). Then Apple enters the picture, the $14.99 book is now priced at $14.99 as an eBook even though the format is limited (must be read from an iTunes compatible device) and the cost to distribute is much lower then the physical book.

While Apple's format does have advantages (support for color images) it is still not as good as a physical version in many cases. It is hard to read in direct sunlight (something I do often when reading since it is nice to sit outside and enjoy the day), you cannot easily lend or give it to a friend, and you can not sell it once you are done with it (text books anyone?).

And don't forget, most people preferred Amazon's lower price as it did not make sense to pay for a reader and then pay more the same or more for the eBooks then if you bough the paper back (http://www.amazon.com/To-Amazon-ebook-pricing-drop... Supply and Demand helped set the price which Apple decided to break.


Jurry
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 9:03:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In its Wednesday appearance at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a White Plains court, Apple's lawyer requested a trial by jury. The move indicates that Apple is confident its high power legal team can defeat the U.S. Department of Justice's lawyers.
Most of the time you take a trial by jury because you think uninformed individuals will make a better judge then someone who has been doing it for years.

In Apple's case I think they are going to bank on their image (most people like Apple a lot).




RE: Jurry
By Theoz on 4/20/2012 9:08:08 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, you always request it because if you don't request it by a certain initial deadline, you forfeit your right to it. They can always change to a bench trial at a later date.


RE: Jurry
By Smilin on 4/20/2012 10:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
+1 informative. thx.


Video Link
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 9:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
If the embedded video does not work for you you can see it at: http://online.wsj.com/video/AA5A7F72-61B5-4D31-830...




RE: Video Link
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 9:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
When I watched it the question was started about 2:00 and the answer ended at about 2:20.


By masamasa on 4/19/2012 7:09:52 PM , Rating: 3
No matter how you look at it, these companies are bad for consumers. Greed and arrogance rears its ugly head once again.




haha
By Makaveli on 4/19/2012 5:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Of course apple isn't scared they have more money to spend on lawyers than the US government :P

The only way the would lose is if the Government does what they are doing to the mega upload guy, pick his lawyers for him to secure the victory.




Fight
By chrnochime on 4/19/2012 6:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
Read that first "I. A Fight" as "iFight" lol




By superstition on 4/21/2012 11:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Apple has one of the smallest research and development budgets in the industry and one of largest legal budgets in the industry."

Funny how the company is so successful now and wasn't so successful when it had a big R&D budget and was called Microsoft's R&D arm for the way its stuff got shamelessly copied.




By vision33r on 4/22/2012 12:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
It is about Apple's deal with the publisher to take business away from Amazon who is killing publisher and small mom+pop book stores.

Amazon would buy up books and sell below the publisher's recommended price. Sounds great right?

However many of the set MSRP has profit margins factored in so that a bookstore can make their cut without losing money.

So Amazon sells the books below cost on line then turns around and tells the publishers they want a better price or else you can't sell ebooks on amazon.

The publisher's had no other place to go and had to pay Amazon's low ball tactics. One by one publishers started closing their doors because they could not sell for more than what Amazon sells.

That's when Apple showed up with the iPad and says, you can't charge whatever you want we just want a 30% cut.




DOJ
By DesDizzy on 4/20/12, Rating: 0
Worth a read
By Tony Swash on 4/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Worth a read
By Lonyo on 4/19/2012 6:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
It might have been worth reading, but it appears the author is in fact a nutjob with an agenda, and therefore it's actually not worth reading.

quote:
I'm not going to lecture you about Jeff Bezos either, although I do want to note that he came out of a hedge fund and he's ostensibly a libertarian; these aspects of his background make me uneasy, because in my experience they tend to be found in conjunction with a social-darwinist ideology that has no time for social justice, compassion, or charity.


I was almost convinced he was giving a somewhat sensible viewpoint on the thing, until this point.


RE: Worth a read
By Tony Swash on 4/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Worth a read
By sprockkets on 4/19/2012 8:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, he's against DRM on Amazon but failed to mention that besides the kindle and iphone app, there's the WP7 app, the Android app, and the computer app, and even more device agnostic, any browser. Their DRM locks you to Amazon, but isn't forcing you to a specific device.

Unlike apple...

quote:
If somebody says ten interesting things and then one silly thing the ten interesting things are still worth considering. Nobody is perfect :)


Yes, that's logical fallacy "poisoning the well." However, the topic at hand is collusion, which he stayed away from. That, and his arguments for Amazon can be applied just as well to Apple and various things they sell.


RE: Worth a read
By Tony Swash on 4/20/2012 6:03:58 AM , Rating: 1
What I would like is to see this case go to trial as soon as possible and let's see what happens in court.

My views on this issue is made up of the following.

Primarily I am a lover of book and bookshop, always have been always will be, and I use Amazon a lot to buy books. I recognise that that e-books are the coming thing and that soon lots of books (probably most) will be sold in ebook rather than paper format but I don't want that to destroy real paper books and bookshops. I personally don't like reading ebooks as I like the physicality of a well made book. I think that the book publishing industry is archaic and old fashioned and resistant to change but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, that is I don't want the book trade transformed and reformed in such a way as to destroy the paper book trade or bookshops, particularly independent ones. I think that Amazon's business strategy of cutting margins razor thin, competing on price and going for maximum volume, even though it attracts me as an individual book buyer, is dangerous for the health of the real book trade and the the health of bookshops. I understand that this may be an old fashioned sort of view but that's the way I feel.

I think that this case seems on the face of it to be utterly ridiculous and absurd because there is only one monopolist in the ebook book trade, a monopolist in the sense of both holding an actual monopoly sized share of the market and, critically, one who is pursuing a monopolist business strategy, and that is of course Amazon. Just bringing this case actually strengthens that monopoly. How absurd, using anti-monopolist law to strengthen a monopoly.

I was glad that the agency deal between the publishers and Apple came about as I felt that it would help prevent Amazon becoming an irremovable monopoly controller of the book trade (both paper and electronic) and if it took prior agreement between the publishers then so be it - I for one am not bothered by that.

As far as Apple goes all I can see they did is offer the publishers an alternative to Amazon. Good for them.

I don't like DRM.

Let the lawyers loose and let the evidence be heard and let's get this thing cleared up.
quote:
Yes, that's logical fallacy "poisoning the well." However, the topic at hand is collusion, which he stayed away from. That, and his arguments for Amazon can be applied just as well to Apple and various things they sell.


I am not sure what you mean by that. Apple was a strong on the record supporter of removing DRM from music and has done so when the music labels have permitted. And that was whilst they had an utterly dominant share of the music player business. Other than the tablet and music player market I can't think of any other product where Apple has a dominant market share and hence they cannot exercise (even if they wanted to) a monopolist business strategy.


RE: Worth a read
By mcnabney on 4/20/2012 9:38:29 AM , Rating: 3
You simply cannot compare eBooks and paper books. They are entirely too different.

You OWN the book. They can be bought, sold, or given away. They can be passed down from generation to generation. They aren't dependent on any specific computer hardware or software. An eBook is just a non-transferable license. And the terms of that agreement can be changed at any time and for whatever reason the publisher or distributor wants. While ebooks maybe be convenient for the gadgeteers of the world, they are clearly a limited product. Because they are a limited product with a negligible production/distribution cost they SHOULD cost a lot less than a paper product.


RE: Worth a read
By sprockkets on 4/20/2012 7:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon isn't the only one trying to corner the market, funny how you still elude the elephant in the room...


RE: Worth a read
By nafhan on 4/20/2012 1:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but the other things he said invalidated the other things he said. For instance:

1) He appears to be coming at this from the point of view that the publishing industry is something that's important to keep around. It's not, or it's being replaced by Amazon/Apple/etc. (depending on how you look at things). People want content not publishers.

2) His point about the predatory pricing is not really relevant to the online world. As soon as the "predatory" pricing stops, someone WILL swoop in and start competing (and/or widespread "piracy" will occur if things are bad enough). Also he says that you lose your books when you move to another platform, which is a ridiculous statement.

3) DRM... hate it, BUT Amazon's DRM is about as painless as it can get to the end user. I really doubt that Amazon's DRM is something that most readers even notice or know about.

Also, curious, but what's your thoughts on Apple's price fixing stuff? You're bringing up on article on the evils of Amazon.com in the comments of an article about Apple getting taken to task by the justice department. It kind of seems like you're just trying to run interference for your fruity overlords...


RE: Worth a read
By DeluxeTea on 4/20/2012 1:31:01 AM , Rating: 3
If Tony links something that is "worth reading", it is usually not worth reading.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki