Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: EU: Apple, publishers must address all e-book allegations - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

EU: Apple, publishers must address all e-book allegations

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 12 March 2012 - 07:26 AM

Post your comments for EU: Apple, publishers must address all e-book allegations here
0

#2 User is offline   tony_d 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 513
  • Joined: 19-January 07

  Posted 12 March 2012 - 08:36 AM

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Apple allows the publishers to charge whatever and they take 30%. How's that price fixing?
0

#3 User is offline   dennishenley 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 22-May 01

Posted 12 March 2012 - 08:46 AM

View Posttony_d, on 12 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Apple allows the publishers to charge whatever and they take 30%. How's that price fixing?



Apple and the gang of five publishing houses consorted to set the prices so that no store will be able to sell them for a lower price. No matter where you shop, the price will be the same.
0

#4 User is offline   bettercitizens 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 28-August 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 10:47 AM

View Postdennishenley, on 12 March 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

View Posttony_d, on 12 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Apple allows the publishers to charge whatever and they take 30%. How's that price fixing?



Apple and the gang of five publishing houses consorted to set the prices so that no store will be able to sell them for a lower price. No matter where you shop, the price will be the same.


Since the investigation is not closed shouldn't that the "Apple and the gang of five publishing houses allegedly consorted..."
0

#5 User is offline   dennishenley 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 22-May 01

Posted 12 March 2012 - 12:18 PM

View Postbettercitizens, on 12 March 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

View Postdennishenley, on 12 March 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

View Posttony_d, on 12 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Apple allows the publishers to charge whatever and they take 30%. How's that price fixing?



Apple and the gang of five publishing houses consorted to set the prices so that no store will be able to sell them for a lower price. No matter where you shop, the price will be the same.


Since the investigation is not closed shouldn't that the "Apple and the gang of five publishing houses allegedly consorted..."



You're right. I am amending it to read: "Apple and the gang of five publishing house allegedly consorted..."

I'd rather not have a law suit right now, thank you very much.
0

#6 User is offline   Stewsburntmonkey 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,150
  • Joined: 03-July 07

Posted 12 March 2012 - 12:50 PM

View Postdennishenley, on 12 March 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

View Posttony_d, on 12 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Apple allows the publishers to charge whatever and they take 30%. How's that price fixing?



Apple and the gang of five publishing houses consorted to set the prices so that no store will be able to sell them for a lower price. No matter where you shop, the price will be the same.


All Apple did was to follow the traditional retail model publishers have been using for decades (agency pricing). They simply stipulated that they be allowed to sell at whatever the lowest offered retail pricing is for the item. Such stipulations are common place in business.
0

#7 User is offline   dennishenley 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 22-May 01

Posted 13 March 2012 - 05:19 AM

View PostStewsburntmonkey, on 12 March 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:


All Apple did was to follow the traditional retail model publishers have been using for decades (agency pricing). They simply stipulated that they be allowed to sell at whatever the lowest offered retail pricing is for the item. Such stipulations are common place in business.


I thought that what Apple did was to allow publishers to prevent anyone from undercutting anyone else by setting a minimum price that the item could be sold for. So, Amazon can't offer a $9.99 ebook unless the publishers set that as the minimum price. No matter where you obtain your ebook, the price will be the same.

That's how I understood it.
0

#8 User is offline   TimTringle 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 13 March 2012 - 08:19 AM

View PostStewsburntmonkey, on 12 March 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

View Postdennishenley, on 12 March 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

View Posttony_d, on 12 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Apple allows the publishers to charge whatever and they take 30%. How's that price fixing?



Apple and the gang of five publishing houses consorted to set the prices so that no store will be able to sell them for a lower price. No matter where you shop, the price will be the same.


All Apple did was to follow the traditional retail model publishers have been using for decades (agency pricing). They simply stipulated that they be allowed to sell at whatever the lowest offered retail pricing is for the item. Such stipulations are common place in business.


Yes they have existed for decades, and now with technology that completely reduces the publishers costs or even their need to exist, have we realized as a whole that it is completely unfair for publishers to control the pricing and not allow places like Amazon or Apple to sell them at a lower price. Because even if it's a loss for Apple or Amazon, lowering the price sometimes results in far greater sales then if you leave the price at it's "Suggested retail price", hah, suggested as in the mob suggests you pay them or they burn down your building.

I'm pretty sure we are going to find that the Publishers are the problem here, they wanted agency pricing and Apple simply agreed to it. Then they went back to Amazon and said, look you can either take the agency pricing or we'll simply make sure that Apple is the ONLY place that gets these books at the prices you are accustomed to, in other words they would have had to pay retail to get books to sell. With a seller as large as Amazon that would pretty much put them out of business. At least where books are concerned.

This post has been edited by TimTringle: 13 March 2012 - 08:20 AM

0

#9 User is offline   Stewsburntmonkey 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,150
  • Joined: 03-July 07

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:04 AM

View PostTimTringle, on 13 March 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

View PostStewsburntmonkey, on 12 March 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

View Postdennishenley, on 12 March 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

View Posttony_d, on 12 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Apple allows the publishers to charge whatever and they take 30%. How's that price fixing?



Apple and the gang of five publishing houses consorted to set the prices so that no store will be able to sell them for a lower price. No matter where you shop, the price will be the same.


All Apple did was to follow the traditional retail model publishers have been using for decades (agency pricing). They simply stipulated that they be allowed to sell at whatever the lowest offered retail pricing is for the item. Such stipulations are common place in business.


Yes they have existed for decades, and now with technology that completely reduces the publishers costs or even their need to exist, have we realized as a whole that it is completely unfair for publishers to control the pricing and not allow places like Amazon or Apple to sell them at a lower price. Because even if it's a loss for Apple or Amazon, lowering the price sometimes results in far greater sales then if you leave the price at it's "Suggested retail price", hah, suggested as in the mob suggests you pay them or they burn down your building.

I'm pretty sure we are going to find that the Publishers are the problem here, they wanted agency pricing and Apple simply agreed to it. Then they went back to Amazon and said, look you can either take the agency pricing or we'll simply make sure that Apple is the ONLY place that gets these books at the prices you are accustomed to, in other words they would have had to pay retail to get books to sell. With a seller as large as Amazon that would pretty much put them out of business. At least where books are concerned.


So you are saying the company that produces a product has no right to set the price it sells it for? Instead you would see companies like Amazon dumping products below cost (at a loss) so they can dominate the market (and later raise prices as they aren't going to operate at a loss indefinitely)? Or are you saying overly entitled consumers should be able to pay whatever they want? It strikes me as beyond bizarre to argue that a person who makes a product doesn't have the right to sell that product for whatever price he wants. The way the market works is that producers set a price and consumers either buy the product or they don't. Demand then drives the pricing.

As for pricing, the cost of printing a hardcover book is generally less than $4. With the average retail price of a new hardcover being around $25, that would put the retail price of the ebook at $20.

This post has been edited by Stewsburntmonkey: 14 March 2012 - 09:07 AM

0

#10 User is offline   Stewsburntmonkey 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,150
  • Joined: 03-July 07

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:06 AM

View Postdennishenley, on 13 March 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

View PostStewsburntmonkey, on 12 March 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:


All Apple did was to follow the traditional retail model publishers have been using for decades (agency pricing). They simply stipulated that they be allowed to sell at whatever the lowest offered retail pricing is for the item. Such stipulations are common place in business.


I thought that what Apple did was to allow publishers to prevent anyone from undercutting anyone else by setting a minimum price that the item could be sold for. So, Amazon can't offer a $9.99 ebook unless the publishers set that as the minimum price. No matter where you obtain your ebook, the price will be the same.

That's how I understood it.


I'd have to look at it, but I don't think Apple can dictate that exactly, but I think that's basically it. Apple wanted a guaranteed price floor which they could sell for and not be undermined. That price floor then effectively becomes the floor for all other retailers.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users