U.S. sues Apple and Publishers for price-fixing.

[neu5eeCh]

One of the issues with this is that Amazon is doing the same thing on their end: they're offering the publishers, essentially, a price of $9.99 or else...

Go on. Or else what? Nobody is forcing these publishers to use Amazon. Furthermore, nobody is forcing publishers to offer their authors embarrassingly low royalties on e-books. I'm not about to feel sorry for publishers.

and are attempting to monopolize eBook distribution.

No they're not. They're saying that if publishers want to sell their books through Amazon, they have to sell for less than $10. Don't believe it when publishers whine about losing money on the price. It's complete rubbish.

Try publishing your e-book through Apple and see what happens...

Amazon sells eBooks at a loss to move Kindles and, essentially, tells the publishers they have no choice.

1.)Publishers don't have to sell through Amazon. 2.)They don't have to mark up their e-books to an arbitrary 10 dollars and 1 cents and then whine that they're being forced to sell for less than the e-book is worth (there's an absurdly large spread between what it costs to produce an e-Book and what they're selling it for) 3.) all while paying authors squat and pocketing the difference.

So, those of you rooting against Apple, be aware that, if Apple and friends lose, in the future you may have the choice of buying from Amazon, or not buying at all.

Right. That's what publishers would just love you to think.
Disclaimer: This is from an author's perspective.

[KiwiNZ]

If this case is successfull the consumer will be the loser, paying considerably more.

[thatguruguy]

If this case is successfull the consumer will be the loser, paying considerably more.

I'd love to see the reasoning behind this statement, since the lawsuit is concerned with setting a price floor, rather than a price ceiling, on e-books.

Amazon has already stated that it will be lowering the price on several books to $9.99, now that it can do so. Prior to this lawsuit, Amazon couldn't sell books at that price point, because of the price-fixing agreements that Apple had in place with top publishers.

[KiwiNZ]

I'd love to see the reasoning behind this statement, since the lawsuit is concerned with setting a price floor, rather than a price ceiling, on e-books.

Amazon has already stated that it will be lowering the price on several books to $9.99, now that it can do so. Prior to this lawsuit, Amazon couldn't sell books at that price point, because of the price-fixing agreements that Apple had in place with top publishers.

I have seen it numerous times, the courts act to "improve" the pricing regime and the end result is the prices go up or the product stream fails, but of course the consumer is better off as a result of their paternal actions.

[dpny]

Amazon has already stated that it will be lowering the price on several books to $9.99, now that it can do so. Prior to this lawsuit, Amazon couldn't sell books at that price point, because of the price-fixing agreements that Apple had in place with top publishers.

Exactly. What what happens to the publishers when Amazon has no competition? It already control close to 50% of the eBook market. What happens when it controls 80% of the market and tells publishers eBooks are all now $4.99?

Publishers go out of business. Authors are forced to deal directly with Amaozn. Amazon tells authors what price their books will be sold at. . .

More info from the author's side of things: http://www.alternet.org/books/149124...l_?page=entire

[neu5eeCh]

I have seen it numerous times, the courts act to "improve" the pricing regime and the end result is the prices go up or the product stream fails, but of course the consumer is better off as a result of their paternal actions.

Right. And I've seen the opposite numerous times. Funny how that works.

@ dpny: What happens to the publishers when Amazon has no competition? It already control close to 50% of the eBook market.

Oh yes... the poor publishers. What, oh what will happen to the poo'er publishers. Frankly, my dear, I couldn't give a damn. Authors don't need publishers to publish their works. And authors don't need Amazon to sell their works. Times are changing. Apple gets it. It's why they're trying to lock in authors with their e-publishing contract. I, personally, would never agree to Apple's terms (and nor should any other author). Apple's terms forbid them from selling through any other seller (unlike Amazon).

[dpny]

I've read that Amazon is selling the Kindle at a loss in order to sell e-books, and now that Amazon is selling e-books at a loss in order to sell Kindles. It's impossible for both statements to be true..

Not at all: Amazon can sell both at a loss. The Kindle is essentially a gateway device into the entire Amazon ecosystem, and people buy more than just books. It's better for Amazon if people buy more expensive things--movies, TV shows and the like--than books.

Look at Amazon's quarterly statements: enormous revenue, little profit.

[thatguruguy]

I have seen it numerous times, the courts act to "improve" the pricing regime and the end result is the prices go up or the product stream fails, but of course the consumer is better off as a result of their paternal actions.

For example, here in America, you used to be able to conveniently rent telephones from AT&T, in one of 3 distinctive styles. Unfortunately, the U.S. government broke up AT&T, and now it's impossible to make a phone call here in the U.S. There simply are no more telephones.

Likewise, manufacturers used to be able to buy steel in the U.S., as long as they bought it from U.S. Steel. It too was broken up, and there is absolutely no more steel available in the U.S.

No, wait a minute. Neither of those outcomes I just listed came to pass. Breaking up AT&T's monopoly helped drive innovation, from portable phones to mobile phones. And due to lifting import restrictions on steel and breaking up the U.S. Steel monopoly, steel costs the same (in bulk) as potatoes, pound for pound.

Price-fixing and other restraints on trade are almost always bad for consumers.

[thatguruguy]

Not at all: Amazon can sell both at a loss. The Kindle is essentially a gateway device into the entire Amazon ecosystem, and people buy more than just books. It's better for Amazon if people buy more expensive things--movies, TV shows and the like--than books.

Look at Amazon's quarterly statements: enormous revenue, little profit.

It's impossible to sell everything at a loss and still make money. I've already stated that they can operate a low profit and still make money, due to volume. But they still have to make a profit, and you don't do that by losing money on every product.

[KiwiNZ]

For example, here in America, you used to be able to conveniently rent telephones from AT&T, in one of 3 distinctive styles. Unfortunately, the U.S. government broke up AT&T, and now it's impossible to make a phone call here in the U.S. There simply are no more telephones.

Likewise, manufacturers used to be able to buy steel in the U.S., as long as they bought it from U.S. Steel. It too was broken up, and there is absolutely no more steel available in the U.S.

No, wait a minute. Neither of those outcomes I just listed came to pass. Breaking up AT&T's monopoly helped drive innovation, from portable phones to mobile phones. And due to lifting import restrictions on steel and breaking up the U.S. Steel monopoly, steel costs the same (in bulk) as potatoes, pound for pound.

Price-fixing and other restraints on trade are almost always bad for consumers.

The US does not equal World