Consumer Group: E-book Price Fixing Costs Big Bucks

[Fred011]

---

roustabout wrote:

Whose perspective is being referred to is important here:

""Apple’s introduction of the iPad in early 2010 seemed to offer a way to combat Amazon."

From the perspective of the publishers, that's completely true.  

Also, when Apple introduced the iPad - a lot of folks forget this now, since it lasted in the press and consumers' minds for about a week - it was being talked about as a Kindle killer:  a fullscreen touchscreen device that would be great to read on.

These are examples of the press coverage shortly after the iPad was introduced

http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/28/top-10-reasons-ipad-kindle/

http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/01/apple_tablet_unveiled.html 

Apple also touted the iPad as an e-reader during the launch announcement.   

Jobs himself said "Amazon did a great job with their reader and we’re standing on their shoulders here.” 

Then, after about a week, it was obvious that the iPad was

- an inconvenient ereader at best

- a great toy

Within a month or two, I think Apple knew that it was not getting much traction on selling books on iPads, but it didn't matter - they were selling apps and devices.  By last year, the publishers were making the iPad's failure as a reader pretty clear.   

But by then, Apple had rewritten the rules of ebook sales to its benefit with the assistance of the publishing houses.  

I think it's great that Apple was so public about the level to which they were working with the publishers, though I'm sure the publishers wish Apple had been more careful.   

---

I can't disagree with anything you said.  My take is that the tech industry observers and writers would naturally compare the iPad to the Kindle because it (the iPad) had a common function with Kindle and Kindle was making its mark in the EPUB industry.  Plus ANY release by Apple is bound to incite technology reviewers to make comparisons and to make predictions of its impact on the industry, the users, the economy, the cosmos!

I'm guessing that even before the "realization" that the iPad was "an inconvenient ereader at best" it was never Apple's intention that the ebook reader function was the major purpose for the iPad.  What percentage of iPad purchasers and what percent of iPad usage do you think was aimed at reading ebooks?

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

Fred011 wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:

---

Fred011 wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:
The people on this forum aren't the only ones worried about Amazon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/business/media/amazon-to-cut-e-book-prices-shaking-rivals.html?_r=...

---

The article you referenced included the following statement:

"Apple’s introduction of the iPad in early 2010 seemed to offer a way to combat Amazon."

That statement makes it seem as if Apple introduced the iPad to halt Amazon's march toward total dominance of the ebook market.  Please note the following taken from the link within that very statement:

"When Apple introduced the iPad tablet computer in 2010, it was doing what it likes to do best: creating a new category to dominate, as it had done with the iPod and iPhone. By the end of the year, the company had sold nearly 15 million iPads, generating about $9.5 billion in revenue."

Just two years later, the chief executive of Apple, Timothy D. Cook, has a prediction: the day will come when tablet devices like the Apple iPad outsell traditional personal computers."

"Worried about Amazon"?  I don't think Apple introduced iPad to "combat" Amazon's growth in the ebook marketplace.

"Create a new technology to dominate" and ",,, devices like the Apple iPad outsell[ing] traditional personal computers" seems more like that reason for the introduction of iPad, not "to offer a way to combat Amazon."

---

*shrugs* I don't disagree with you about the reasons Apple created the iPad, and don't really care. My only assertion is that the people on this forum are not the only ones concerned about about what might happen to ebooks and Amazon's hold on the market. Nothing more.

---

I have to agree with your last post.  You are absolutely correct.  Likewise, my only assertion was that the article seemed to "imply" something that I disagree with; not you.

---

Sorry. There has been a resurgence of unnecessary (to me) bickering and nit picking on these forums lately. I have no desire to engage in it, but it's made me a bit hyper-sensitive, I guess.

[keriflur]

---

Nallia wrote:

Sorry. There has been a resurgence of unnecessary (to me) bickering and nit picking on these forums lately. I have no desire to engage in it, but it's made me a bit hyper-sensitive, I guess.

---

You're kind of en fuego today.  I like it. 

[Nallia Distinguished Bibliophile]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:

Sorry. There has been a resurgence of unnecessary (to me) bickering and nit picking on these forums lately. I have no desire to engage in it, but it's made me a bit hyper-sensitive, I guess.

---

You're kind of en fuego today.  I like it. 

---

That's just because you weren't here this morning posting all my thoughts for me, as usual.

[gb18]

This is a bit of history about book pricing.  Not sure if it's really relevant, but hey!  It;s our tax dollars that paid for the writing, so we should enjoy.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/12/150492440/the-doj-e-book-lawsuit-is-it-1934-all-over-again

[keriflur]

---

gb18 wrote:

This is a bit of history about book pricing.  Not sure if it's really relevant, but hey!  It;s our tax dollars that paid for the writing, so we should enjoy.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/12/150492440/the-doj-e-book-lawsuit-is-it-1934-all-over-again

---

Thanks for posting this.  I love that it was Gone with the Wind that all the drama was over.  And $47  for GwtW makes even the new Rowling book look like a bargain.

[Fred011]

---

Nallia wrote:

---

Fred011 wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:

---

Fred011 wrote:

---

Nallia wrote:
The people on this forum aren't the only ones worried about Amazon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/business/media/amazon-to-cut-e-book-prices-shaking-rivals.html?_r=...

---

The article you referenced included the following statement:

"Apple’s introduction of the iPad in early 2010 seemed to offer a way to combat Amazon."

That statement makes it seem as if Apple introduced the iPad to halt Amazon's march toward total dominance of the ebook market.  Please note the following taken from the link within that very statement:

"When Apple introduced the iPad tablet computer in 2010, it was doing what it likes to do best: creating a new category to dominate, as it had done with the iPod and iPhone. By the end of the year, the company had sold nearly 15 million iPads, generating about $9.5 billion in revenue."

Just two years later, the chief executive of Apple, Timothy D. Cook, has a prediction: the day will come when tablet devices like the Apple iPad outsell traditional personal computers."

"Worried about Amazon"?  I don't think Apple introduced iPad to "combat" Amazon's growth in the ebook marketplace.

"Create a new technology to dominate" and ",,, devices like the Apple iPad outsell[ing] traditional personal computers" seems more like that reason for the introduction of iPad, not "to offer a way to combat Amazon."

---

*shrugs* I don't disagree with you about the reasons Apple created the iPad, and don't really care. My only assertion is that the people on this forum are not the only ones concerned about about what might happen to ebooks and Amazon's hold on the market. Nothing more.

---

I have to agree with your last post.  You are absolutely correct.  Likewise, my only assertion was that the article seemed to "imply" something that I disagree with; not you.

---

Sorry. There has been a resurgence of unnecessary (to me) bickering and nit picking on these forums lately. I have no desire to engage in it, but it's made me a bit hyper-sensitive, I guess.

---

No problem.  Once again I agree with you, on both points: the unnecessary bickering and no desire to engage in it.

An expression of opinion, an exchange of ideas (even minority views), and a civil discussion of differences -  I'm all for.  Bickering..... no!

[patgolfneb]

This article emphasizes the role and unusual nature of Apples most favored nation clause, as much as agency model in DOJ's pursuit. 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/253729/despite_denial_apple_dictated_ebook_pricing_at_ibookstore.html...

[patgolfneb]

Allthough I have posted comments on both sides of this issue it does seem, and as the NPR link seems to support, the USA is much more concerned about price fixing than predatory pricing. I would guess it appears to protect incompetent businesses and is viewed as a socialist measure by some. Price fixing has a direct impact on everyone quickly. The disruption and costs of predatory pricing, at least in the short run are born by competeing businesses and their employees. The social and economic costs when markets are not fair and open take longer to appear. It would behoove us to balance these interests a little better with some stronger measures aimed at predatory pricing. After all foreign firms have often used this tactic to harm US industries, its not just Amazon, Standard Oil or AT&T in our markets.

[doncr]

---

Fred011 wrote:

...

I'm guessing that even before the "realization" that the iPad was "an inconvenient ereader at best" it was never Apple's intention that the ebook reader function was the major purpose for the iPad.  What percentage of iPad purchasers and what percent of iPad usage do you think was aimed at reading ebooks?

---

I'm curious why people would think that the iPad is such a lousy eReader?  The screen resolution?  The size/weight?  The price?

I bought my gf a Nook Color a year ago for xmas, then this year bought her an iPad and she hasn't picked up the NC since.  She's buying her books from Apple's iBookstore now and loves the thing.  She gave the NC to her teenage daughter who used it for about an hour, whined about the lousy browser and the lack of apps, and now it's a $200 reminder that the bookshelf upon where it lies could use a dusting.