PDA

View Full Version : U.S. sues Apple and Publishers for price-fixing.



thatguruguy
April 11th, 2012, 10:26 PM
According to this article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/us-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE8391JW20120411) in Reuters, the U.S. has brought a lawsuit against Apple for allegedly entering into price-fixing agreements with publishers of e-books. Essentially, the claim is that Apple made deals that prohibited publishers from making deals with other retailers (Amazon, for example) that would allow those retailers to sell books for less than Apple charges for the same books on IPads.

Read, comprehend, discuss.

Warpnow
April 12th, 2012, 04:25 AM
It seems to me that all the people accused are arguing that its "for the best" but none are arguing they didn't do it. I, for one, feel it is sad they don't take price fixing seriously. It is a very serious concern.

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 04:36 AM
it seems to me that all the people accused are arguing that its "for the best" but none are arguing they didn't do it. I, for one, feel it is sad they don't take price fixing seriously. It is a very serious concern.

+1

decktrio
April 12th, 2012, 04:48 AM
Thanks for posting this! It's the first good news I've heard come out of the (US) Justice Department all month. :)


It seems to me that all the people accused are arguing that its "for the best" but none are arguing they didn't do it. I, for one, feel it is sad they don't take price fixing seriously. It is a very serious concern.
Agreed. Collusion/monopolistic practices are a very serious thing, indeed. I'm glad to see the Justice Dept. defend what few anti-trust laws we have left, here in the states.

I think Apple had it coming.

"Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99," Jobs wrote to one of the publishers, according to the Justice Department's complaint.
Who in their right mind would pay $15 for the average e-book?!

uRock
April 12th, 2012, 04:55 AM
Who in their right mind would pay $15 for the average e-book?!

Beats paying $30 for a hard cover.

decktrio
April 12th, 2012, 05:30 AM
Beats paying $30 for a hard cover.

Does it? When I buy a hardcover, I can read the book, lend it out to as many friends as I want, resell it in a garage sale if I please, or donate it to my local library once I'm done. Should I keep the hardcover younger generations can inherit it, and cherish it as something that belonged to me; it gains nostalgic value.

Not much of this occurs with the $15 ebook. To be clear, I'm not trashing ebooks; I have a nook color, myself. I am, however, taken aback to hear that people are willing to pay $15 for a book that has such limited use. ...because that's what ebooks ultimately are -- limited-use books. Anyways, I guess that's just the way the people react to fixed prices/collusion. We set about to justify the prices/terms.

andlinux21
April 12th, 2012, 05:38 AM
people are willing to pay $15 for a book that has such limited use. ...because that's what ebooks ultimately are -- limited-use books. Anyways, I guess that's just the way the people react to fixed prices/collusion.

I also hate the way colleges charge so much for books but then when it comes time to buy back you get little to nothing for the book.

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 05:40 AM
It seems to me that all the people accused are arguing that its "for the best" but none are arguing they didn't do it. I, for one, feel it is sad they don't take price fixing seriously. It is a very serious concern.


Does it? When I buy a hardcover, I can read the book, lend it out to as many friends as I want, resell it in a garage sale if I please, or donate it to my local library once I'm done. Should I keep the hardcover younger generations can inherit it, and cherish it as something that belonged to me; it gains nostalgic value.

Not much of this occurs with the $15 ebook. To be clear, I'm not trashing ebooks; I have a nook color, myself. I am, however, taken aback to hear that people are willing to pay $15 for a book that has such limited use. ...because that's what ebooks ultimately are -- limited-use books. Anyways, I guess that's just the way the people react to fixed prices/collusion. We set about to justify the prices/terms.

Some people will pay $160,000 for a car does that make it bad? No, value is in the Hands of the beholder.

Lucradia
April 12th, 2012, 07:37 AM
Some people will pay $160,000 for a car does that make it bad? No, value is in the Hans of the beholder.

And that's why Han Shot First.

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 07:52 AM
And that's why Han Shot First.

?

click4851
April 12th, 2012, 08:11 AM
that damn Greedo had it coming.....

alexfish
April 12th, 2012, 11:06 AM
There is a difference between price fixing and ? . surmising

Yes we will sell the product , providing the product is retail at $* . IE: like when you buy a product from the supplier with the price tag on it. for resale

neu5eeCh
April 12th, 2012, 01:20 PM
This is the legacy of Steve Jobs. The more that's revealed about him, the less likable he becomes. It was also recently revealed that he illegally colluded with the likes of Microsoft and Google to prevent competitive bidding for the most talented employees. While Jobs raked in billions of dollars, he screwed his brightest talent for a nickel. He shipped jobs overseas and took little concern for job safety or regulation. It's possible to respect Jobs as a visionary, but his legacy, in many important respects, is shameful.

Anyway, I think we're seeing Apple at its peak, just as Microsoft was at its peak in the previous decade. MS is turning into (http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/of-microsoft-netscape-patents-and-open-standards/index.htm) a behemoth, billion dollar patent troll more than ready to take down anything and everything as they flail for oxygen. Expect the same from Apple. These giants aren't going to go down easily. Companies like Red Hat and Canonical (via Linux) probably won't be unscathed by the time the dust settles. I personally think the world will have more to thank from Linus Torvalds than Steve Jobs.

Sableyes
April 12th, 2012, 01:29 PM
Anyway, I think we're seeing Apple at its peak

Maybe, but what comes after Apple? After each digital age another follows. Linux wont, Windows 8 maybe? Could Android do it?

forrestcupp
April 12th, 2012, 01:32 PM
I would love to know how the ongoing cost of running the servers to host ebooks compares with the cost of printing and distributing paper books.


And that's why Han Shot First.


that damn Greedo had it coming.....

Blasphemy! Greedo shot first!

neu5eeCh
April 12th, 2012, 01:35 PM
Maybe, but what comes after Apple? After each digital age another follows. Linux wont, Windows 8 maybe? Could Android do it?

If I know that, I'd buy the stock and plan my retirement. :popcorn:

eriktheblu
April 12th, 2012, 04:14 PM
I find it ironic that the same agency is currently arguing for price fixing in other markets.

dpny
April 12th, 2012, 04:24 PM
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, and are attempting to monopolize eBook distribution. Amazon sells eBooks at a loss to move Kindles and, essentially, tells the publishers they have no choice.

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.

Grenage
April 12th, 2012, 04:50 PM
Value is certainly subjective - I recently found that I had an anime DVD that sells for £250. Would I pay that? Hell no, I'd buy the £10 alternative.

Would I pay £9 for an electronic book? No. Would someone else? Maybe. The majority obviously don't care, because they're paying those prices; if they weren't paying them, the prices would be lower. Price fixing merely compounds the problem.

thatguruguy
April 12th, 2012, 07:18 PM
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, and are attempting to monopolize eBook distribution. Amazon sells eBooks at a loss to move Kindles and, essentially, tells the publishers they have no choice.

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.

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.

Amazon is not doing the same thing. They don't control the retail price for books on other sites, which is what Apple did through their contracts with publishers.

The typical model was this: publishers sell e-books to distributors at a "wholesale price". The retailers then set the retail price, which includes whatever profit they (the retailers) decide to take, whether that be 1% or 99% of the eventual retail price. Amazon sells at a relatively low margin per book, which they can afford to do because they have such a large volume. Other retailers can set the per-book price at a higher or lower price than Amazon does, if they want.

Apple turned that around, negotiating a retail price with publishers which included Apple's markup (30%) in the ultimate price, and then the publishers had to agree that they would not allow the books to be sold at a lower price by any other retailer. It's a clear case of price-fixing and, if proven, an illegal restraint on trade.

neu5eeCh
April 12th, 2012, 07:19 PM
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.:popcorn:
Disclaimer: This is from an author's perspective.

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 07:25 PM
If this case is successfull the consumer will be the loser, paying considerably more.

thatguruguy
April 12th, 2012, 07:34 PM
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
April 12th, 2012, 07:43 PM
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
April 12th, 2012, 09:03 PM
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/is_amazon_evil_?page=entire

neu5eeCh
April 12th, 2012, 09:11 PM
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. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/12/amanda-hocking-self-publishing) 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
April 12th, 2012, 09:12 PM
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
April 12th, 2012, 09:21 PM
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
April 12th, 2012, 09:26 PM
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
April 12th, 2012, 09:28 PM
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;-)

cprofitt
April 12th, 2012, 09:28 PM
If this case is successfull the consumer will be the loser, paying considerably more.


Apple should not be able to force publishers to sell for a price...

This case is similar to the IE case... Internet Explorer lowered the price of an Internet Browser to 'free'... (better for the consumer in the same way a $15 book is)... but it crushed actual competition in the marketplace.

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 09:31 PM
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.

Ah the old stock turn story.

As a CEO I prefer to sell at a positive margin maximizing ROI. I also do not believe in cross subsidization. All product lines must trade at a positive margin.

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 09:33 PM
Apple should not be able to force publishers to sell for a price...

This case is similar to the IE case... Internet Explorer lowered the price of an Internet Browser to 'free'... (better for the consumer in the same way a $15 book is)... but it crushed actual competition in the marketplace.

Correct, however Government intervention will only result in the consumer losing in the long term. Market forces is the best and sustainable solution for a win win .

cprofitt
April 12th, 2012, 09:33 PM
Ah the old stock turn story.

As a CEO I prefer to sell at a positive margin maximizing ROI. I also do not believe in cross subsidization. All product lines must trade at a positive margin.

I agree with you there... Loss Leaders do not really help... they hurt. I also dislike the mark it up so we can mark it down and say its on sale that seems to happen so much these days.

RJARRRPCGP
April 12th, 2012, 09:35 PM
MS is turning into a behemoth, billion dollar patent troll more than ready to take down anything and everything as they flail for oxygen.

So you're saying that Microsoft's gonna be Acacia II?!

(Or SCO II?)

cprofitt
April 12th, 2012, 09:35 PM
Correct, however Government intervention will only result in the consumer losing in the long term. Market forces is the best and sustainable solution for a win win .

Yes, but a company forcing the price of a product by colluding with other companies is NOT market forces.

cprofitt
April 12th, 2012, 09:36 PM
If I am reading this correctly... this will cause the price to drop by now allowing Apple to fix prices.


"It essentially will accelerate the reversion back to the sub-$10 prices that Amazon had already established as the standard," McQuivey said.

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 09:38 PM
Yes, but a company forcing the price of a product by colluding with other companies is NOT market forces.

In a strange way it is, if the buyer has consumer power and can use it what is wrong with Corporations using buying power, they are part of the market forces.

jwbrase
April 12th, 2012, 10:26 PM
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.

Well, the biggest risk is that Amazon could gain an 80%+ share of the E-book market with competition from Apple being gone, and then decide that it had enough dominance over the market to set high prices without fear of being undercut by competitors (in that it could use its dominance to crush any competitor that tried by underhanded means). But I don't think that's how KiwiNZ is thinking.

neu5eeCh
April 12th, 2012, 10:34 PM
In a strange way it is, if the buyer has consumer power and can use it what is wrong with Corporations using buying power, they are part of the market forces.

The issue is competition - "market forces" don't function without competition. Price fixing is anti-competitive. Second, equating "consumer power" with corporate collusion is just weird. It's wrong on so many levels I'm not sure how to respond...

KiwiNZ
April 12th, 2012, 10:44 PM
The issue is competition - "market forces" don't function without competition. Price fixing is anti-competitive. Second, equating "consumer power" with corporate collusion is just weird. It's wrong on so many levels I'm not sure how to respond...

If you remove the Corporate entry in the power forces paradigm you no longer have market forces, you have a skewed influence base and protectionism.

forrestcupp
April 12th, 2012, 11:19 PM
Apple should not be able to force publishers to sell for a price... That's not what they're doing, though. Apple is making deals with publishers to only sell ebooks through them because they will allow the publisher to sell at a much higher price, while Amazon is forcing them to sell $35 books for $9.99. What Apple is doing is for the good of the publisher, and for the bad of Amazon and the consumer. Publishers love what Apple was trying to do.


Correct, however Government intervention will only result in the consumer losing in the long term.

All I know is that if the government wins this, Apple won't be able to make deals to jack up prices, and Amazon will continue to be able to sell expensive books for $9.99. As a consumer, I want to be able to buy $35 books for $9.99. The only way this will hurt the consumer is if publishers refuse to sell their books in ebook format at all. But they've been doing it up to this point.

Lucradia
April 12th, 2012, 11:42 PM
Australia seems like they might go at Apple next too.

alexfish
April 12th, 2012, 11:52 PM
Well you know what, probably best solution

Author's form there own Company as in Co-op.com bug*** the lot , Think everyone getting tired of all this SH**.

thatguruguy
April 13th, 2012, 12:50 AM
If you remove the Corporate entry in the power forces paradigm you no longer have market forces, you have a skewed influence base and protectionism.

Apple isn't being dissolved. It's not being removed from market. It, and the publishers with whom it made its agreements, are being told that they can't violate a law that's been on the books for 122 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act).

thatguruguy
April 13th, 2012, 12:52 AM
The US does not equal World;-)

I never claimed that it did. I gave concrete examples of governmental action against anti-competitive activities which directly benefited consumers, as well as fostered increased innovation.

I am waiting on your concrete examples to the contrary.

neu5eeCh
April 13th, 2012, 12:56 AM
If you remove the Corporate entry in the power forces paradigm you no longer have market forces...

What? Your framing of the argument is incorrect, as are the assertions that proceed from it. In other words, the "power forces paradigm" doesn't apply to consumers. It just doesn't. At best, corporations harness the power of consumers when they offer a competitive product at a competitive price (to the disadvantage of the next corporation that doesn't). In some cases, corporations collude in order to prevent competition (each fearing that they will be the "next corporation"). This defeats competition, is anti-competitive, is illegal and is otherwise known as price fixing.



...you have a skewed influence base and protectionism.

No you haven't. To suggest that consumerism is an influence base to be negated or compromised undercuts the very theory of a market economy. A functioning market economy depends on the unfettered "influence base" of the consumers. That's what a market "force" is. That's what induces competition.

With your dismissal of government regulation and anti-competitiveness, you sound like you're advocating completely discredited Laissez-faire economics:


"an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29) intervention, including regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies."

Warpnow
April 13th, 2012, 05:22 AM
Punishing price fixers is defending free market solutions, not attacking them. Collusion and price fixing restrains the free market. Only by ensuring that marker is free can we allow the free market principles we believe in to succeed.

If the free market prevails, Amazon can sell its books at the price it finds individually profitable and best for its business line. If collusion occurs and the publishers set arbitrarily, it has nothing to do with a free market solution.

The free market solution is to prevent price fixing, so that the free market can function unrestrained.

If you can control the supply of X, and can ensure other sellers don't compete with you, and you agree to sell it at only a certain price, you are restraining the free market.

Price fixing must be prevented for capitalism to function properly. These price fixers want to create their own private form of economy where they decide what is best and make all decisions relating to the economy for the good/service. That is a stark contrast to capitalism where market forces prevail.

Warpnow
April 13th, 2012, 05:26 AM
That's not what they're doing, though. Apple is making deals with publishers to only sell ebooks through them because they will allow the publisher to sell at a much higher price, while Amazon is forcing them to sell $35 books for $9.99. What Apple is doing is for the good of the publisher, and for the bad of Amazon and the consumer. Publishers love what Apple was trying to do.

It is my understanding that Amazon is taking the loss on some of these books. They pay the publisher $12 and sell it for $10, because the low price point encourages purchases of kindles (also subsidized) which increases their market place. Every product they have doesn't have to be profitable, they only have to be profitable as a company. Alot of grocery stores sell many of their products at a loss, because you don't show up for just one product. You buy other things there. If they raised that good's price, you'd never show up, so they'd be missing out on business.

decktrio
April 13th, 2012, 06:23 AM
The US does not equal World;-)
Of course not... but we're not talking about the world, are we? We're talking about Apple and several major publishing houses breaking US antitrust laws, and the US Department of Justice building a case against them.

Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't matter how we feel about ebook prices, "free markets", corporate collusions/anti-competitiveness, Apple, Amazon, or the future of the publishing industry. At the end of the day, this comes down to Apple & some publishers knowingly breaking the US law under which they operate most of their online businesses, and law enforcement responding by (surprisingly) doing it's job. This is a good thing. :-)

KiwiNZ
April 13th, 2012, 06:27 AM
Of course not... but we're not talking about the world, are we? We're talking about Apple and several major publishing houses breaking US antitrust laws, and the US Department of Justice building a case against them.

Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't matter how we feel about ebook prices, "free markets", corporate collusions/anti-competitiveness, Apple, Amazon, or the future of the publishing industry. At the end of the day, this comes down to Apple & some publishers knowingly breaking the US law under which they operate most of their online businesses, and law enforcement responding by (surprisingly) doing it's job. This is a good thing. :-)


Allegedly breaking the law in the US. The case has not been heard.

decktrio
April 13th, 2012, 08:00 AM
Allegedly breaking the law in the US. The case has not been heard.

True. :)

forrestcupp
April 13th, 2012, 12:21 PM
It is my understanding that Amazon is taking the loss on some of these books. They pay the publisher $12 and sell it for $10, because the low price point encourages purchases of kindles (also subsidized) which increases their market place. Every product they have doesn't have to be profitable, they only have to be profitable as a company. Alot of grocery stores sell many of their products at a loss, because you don't show up for just one product. You buy other things there. If they raised that good's price, you'd never show up, so they'd be missing out on business.

The story is that Amazon is preventing publishers of high priced specialty books from selling their books for higher than $9.99, even though they are clearly worth much, much more. And Apple is supposedly giving them the chance to sell their books at high prices if they only deal with Apple and not Amazon, who supposedly forces lower prices.

It's not true, though. I've seen some Mayo Clinic guide books selling on Kindle for over $80.