7 Replies Latest reply on Feb 17, 2011 2:16 PM by Desert_Brat

    Apple pulls a switcheroo?

    Desert_Brat

      I had to snicker at this article today in ZDnet, since most of you know Apple had its finger in the pie with the agency model pricing:

       

      http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-luxury-tax-should-spark-a-showdown-with-publishers-but-will-it/44920?tag=nl.e550

       

      I was also told tonight that Penguin has pulled all lending rights to their e-books. Anyone else hear this?

        • Re: Apple pulls a switcheroo?

          I read this article and I can only opine that Apple certainly wants to keep its monopoly in the tablet market.

            • Re: Apple pulls a switcheroo?

               


              CasperAZ wrote:

              I read this article and I can only opine that Apple certainly wants to keep its monopoly in the tablet market.


              Market share does not equal monopoly. If apple had a monopoly then they would be able to stop others from making tablets. Anyone that make a tablet that people like more then the ipad will take market share away from apple.

               

                • Re: Apple pulls a switcheroo?
                  JohnP51

                   


                  scott88 wrote:

                   


                  CasperAZ wrote:

                  I read this article and I can only opine that Apple certainly wants to keep its monopoly in the tablet market.


                  Market share does not equal monopoly. If apple had a monopoly then they would be able to stop others from making tablets. Anyone that make a tablet that people like more then the ipad will take market share away from apple.

                   


                  Case in point, the Android operating system. You can get an android smartphone from just about anyone. iPhone? AT&T only. Although I hear they are coming out with a Verizon iPhone soon.

                   

              • Re: Apple pulls a switcheroo?

                @Desert_Brat

                 

                Good article -- thanks.

                 

                The stubbornly persistent belief that, if we'd all just be nice to Apple long enough, they'll eventually start being nice back, is strangely poignant.  Like people who insist on believing in Santa Claus into adulthood.

                 

                Although in this case, it's Vampire Santa Claus, who regularly runs amok and ransacks the community.  Some days it doesn't happen, though, so the believers keep trying to believe.

                 

                I don't understand the "switcheroo" part, though:  it's just Apple being Apple.  As always.  Again.  :smileyvery-happy:

                • Re: Apple pulls a switcheroo?
                  Doug_Pardee

                  Desert_Brat wrote:

                   

                  I was also told tonight that Penguin has pulled all lending rights to their e-books. Anyone else hear this?


                  We've been talking about it since the beginning of the year: http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/t5/NOOKbook-Discussion/LendMe-torpedoed-by-Kindle/m-p/789086#M17751

                   

                  • Re: Apple pulls a switcheroo?

                    The article is badly mistaken on several points... enough so that basically the entire article is meaningless.

                     

                    "He changed the rules of the game and hit them with a new revenue-sharing structure that essentially forces publishers who charge subscriptions outside of the app to either cough up a 30 percent tax on subscriptions purchased from inside the app or do business elsewhere."

                     

                    Publishers don't have apps, nor do they directly sell books. The changes to the rules (technically I believe the rules didn't change, Apple just decided to enforce them) don't effect the publishers. They effect the non-Apple agencies (B&N, Sony, Kobo, Amazon, et. al.). This is basically forcing everyone off the iPad except for Apple. The publishers will continue to make the exact same amount of money, it's just that all the books on the iPad will be sold by Apple now.

                     

                    "You see, while publishers may want to cry foul over having to pay such a high premium, they really can’t. Plain and simple, Apple is charging the equivalent of a luxury tax, a premium that a publisher must pay for the privilege of conducting business in Apple’s neighborhood, just as luxury retailers pay a premium for a storefront presence along New York’s Fifth Avenue or Beverly Hills’ Rodeo Drive."

                     

                    This analysis, once you replace "publishers" with "agents", is flawed. Due to the Agency Model that Apple helped to force on the industry, 30% is how much profit the agent can make on a sale, all of which would then have to be turned over to Apple. Even if you could consider this a "luxury tax" (taxes, luxury or otherwise, generally don't eat 100% of profits), since Apple created the environment in which there is NO WAY for the agent to raise prices to account for the "luxury tax", I'm pretty sure anti-competitive laws would apply (though I'm not a lawyer).