Ya_Ya wrote:So even Amazon didn't promise no ebooks over $9.99.
And nobody promised a static pricepoint.
Thanks, Tim.
Very welcome! There's also little doubt why five (later six) different publishers adopted the Agency agreement:
"Jobs, circling the room, stopped at one of several tables piled with iPads to talk with Walt Mossberg, the Wall Street Journal’s personal-technology columnist. Onstage, Jobs, demonstrating how Apple would sell books, had selected Edward Kennedy’s “True Compass” and clicked on a “buy” icon with the price $14.99 next to it. Why, Mossberg asked, should consumers “pay Apple $14.99 when they can buy the same book from Amazon for $9.99?”
“That won’t be the case,” Jobs said, seeming implacably confident. “The price will be the same.” Mossberg asked him to explain. Why would Amazon increase prices, when consumers were buying so many books? “Publishers may withhold their books from Amazon,” Jobs said. “They’re unhappy.” The "stick" to be used against wary publishers was the promise of exclusion from the new iBooks platform if they didn't agree to adopt the Agency agreement.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/1004
nlstein wrote:keriflur
Thanks for saying "B&N didn't lie to you. They told the truth as they knew it. They didn't know Apple was going to screw them (though they should have, Apple screws everyone in the end)."
The point here is that everyone was led to believe (both from Amazon and later and more strongly from B&N) that eBooks would be $9.99 (whether it was "most" or "all" is unimportant here) and NEVER was it indicated that these companies were not in charge of their own pricing. EBook pricing was one of the enticements used by both companies to sell their product.
Than Apple came in and gave the publishers just what they wanted - a way out of their deals with Amazon and B&N and everyone else. After all, you don't want to piss off Apple (even after they said the eBooks will not sell since no one reads).
Now the lemmings (the buyers of eBooks) are happy to go along with what just might be collusion (there is a lawsuit pending and remember, Apple doesn't win every lawsuit). Let's see how this all shakes out.
B&N and Amazon never indiciated that they weren't in charge of their own pricing because at the time they were in charge. That's one of the things that Apple convinced the publishers to change.
As far as ebook buyers being lemmings, I don't think that's the case at all. People are buying what they want and paying what they think a book is worth to them - just not what you think the book is worth to them. People vote with their wallets whether they realize they're doing it or not. 18 months ago (or so) when the Agency model went into effect I was one of the people refusing to buy ebooks for more than $9.99, and for the most part I still don't. I won't pay more for an ebook than I could for a hardcover. but part of living in a free country means I have to respect that others might choose to shop differently, based on what they want or how they feel. That doesn't make them lemmings.
Regarding the collusion lawsuit, my understanding is that unless a whistleblower comes forward and tells us what happened behind closed doors, no one will ever be able to prove collusion. The official story is that Apple went to each publisher with the same deal and they each accepted it separately - the publishers did not get together and decide to take Apple's deal as a group, and they didn't mastermind the model (that was Jobs). So while Jobs bent the law, he didn't break it.
FWIW - I managed to talk about Apple and use the word "lemmings" in the same post without saying anything really nasty. I think that's a first for me. 
