The suit was filed at the federal district court in New York and alleges that Apple conspired with Hachette, News Corp’s HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, and CBS’ Simon & Schuster to limit competition — thereby keeping e-book pricing artificially high. But this may be a prelude to the announcement of a settlement: the Justice Department said that it will unveil an “unspecified” antitrust settlement today, Bloomberg reports. Word of the federal investigation into e-book pricing leaked last month. Officials were interested in a series of events that took place around 2010 when Apple introduced its iPad. Book publishers allegedly wanted to end Amazon’s practice of selling e-books for a deeply discounted $9.99, part of the company’s strategy to promote sales of its Kindle e-readers. Hoping to loosen Amazon’s grip on the market, and help its new iPad, Apple encouraged publishers to stop selling books wholesale — which enabled retailers to set the selling price– and to adopt a so-called “agency model.” That empowers publishers to set the sales price, and pay retailers a fee of about 30%. The late Apple CEO Steve Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson that he told publishers “the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want any way.” He added that publishers “went to Amazon and said, ‘You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not going to give you the books.’” Publishers denied that they conspired to raise prices; they said that they just wanted to promote competition.


I love how Amazon is being portrayed as a victim in this case against the big bad publishers–let’s be clear. Amazon doesn’t care about authors or even books. They’ve just used books to build their ecommerce business. Their model for ebook pricing allows for little or no profit for the publishers or, more important, the authors themselves. Apple, wisely, recognized this flaw in Amazon’s strategy and worked with publishers to create a fairer system–not that Apple is being altruistic, they are also in the business of making money. But just who is complaining about this? Amazon and only Amazon.
And customers. Most of the time with these publishers, I am actually paying more for the ebook than I would pay for the hardcopy. I find that ridiculous!!!!
When price fixing occurs, it affects the customers because they are not getting competitive pricing.
Obviously there’s a lot of information that is missing in this article but the fact of the matter is if Apple broke the law and conspired with publishers then they need to pay the price.
I am glad that the DOJ is actually enforcing the antitrust laws for a change. Anything that will prevent companies like Apple to collude with others to artificially inflate prices will help us Americans.
Actually, Amazon cares deeply about authors – far more than any of the Big 6 do. That’s why they give 70% royalties where traditional publishers are in lockstep giving a measly 17.5% on e-books. They also provide an outlet for thousands of mid-list authors dumped by their traditional publishers as well as indie authors ignored by the gatekeepers. Face it, the system is breaking down and publishers that are no longer needed are scrambling to convince people of their worth.
They fixed the price plain and simple, if Amazon wanted to sell the books at a loss they should be able to, publishers should NOT set the retail price, and if Jobs & Co. conspired they along with the publishers should be held accountable. I refused to even pay 9.99 for an “eBook” when I can buy the same dam book at Costco in actual paper for a few bucks more. Now who’s making an absurd amount of profit?
The same goes for downloading music on iTunes, the cost of buying the actual CD at Wal-Mart on online isn’t that much more, the music companies along with the publishers, even magazine publishers and movie studios are reaping huge profits on “e everything”, they don’t have to make a physical product.
Maybe they all need to adopt the Costco business model, a little profit on each product but make it up on huge volume.
I hope Apple and the publishers get screwed on this one.
Amazon sold the e-books at cost, as was their right. They’d pay for the book and then sell it at their discretion, just like any brick and mortar retailer. It’s no different than Barnes and Noble offering 40% off (or more to their members) on new releases. They paid a set price for the book and chose what to sell it at, eating into their own profit.
That Steve Jobs colluded with the publishing companies has raised the price of an e-book to a price point that is frequently more expensive than the physical book. The fact is, no one, even a publisher, can tell you where all the money from the price of a book goes because their system is so complicated and outdated, but to think that it costs more to create one data file than manufacture, print, and distribute a million copies of a book is ridiculous.
Amazon has been a great platform for us to grow our publishing business, by far our largest revenue stream in publishing. Publishers have a good amount of control greater than you may know or believe. Amazon has leveled the playing field for small publishers.
Amazon and people who buy books.
Didn’t Amazon pay the wholesale prices set by the publishers? How does this allow for little or no profit for the publishers or authors? How was this any different from Best Buy back in the day paying a studio a high wholesale price, and then discounting to get customers in their doors? Just curious. Agree with what you say about their motivations.
Look, Amazon exists for one purpose: too make money, and they that’s not a big secret. To do that they want to draw as many people as possible to their site and they do that by setting pricing that make it worthwhile to do that. How’s this any different from any other business, including Apple? The difference between Amazon and Apple is that Apple likes to set high prices and convince people their products are worth that price.
Observer -
Who is complaining? How about the consumer? We are TIRED of having to pay nearly the same price for an eBook as the paper version, when everyone knows the cost is next to nothing once converted to electronic format. I am not ignoring the creative and startup costs for books, but it is absolutely ridiculous to expect readers to fork over near 100% profit to publishers just because they can conspire to set the prices.
Apple is the bad guy because Apple.
Observer… I wonder who you work for and represent, because you left out someone who is complaining, complaining loudly, and that is the book buying public which is being cheated by outrageously by artificially high eBook pricing.
The “agency model” is obviously price fixing at it’s worse and anti-competitive, despite your apologies and saying otherwise. The publishing industry is desperately trying to hang onto the old bricks and mortar, printed paper model under threat by new publishing economic realities.
‘Observer’ is absolutely correct in his/her assessment.
Agree Amazon was more concerned with driving market share than protecting writers, but as Amazon pays a 70% share to book publishers, I’m not sure Amazon is the one at fault here if writers are not getting paid their fair share.
Amazon is not the only one complaining. Consumers are complaining because they don’t understand why an electric copy costs more than a paper copy that costs more to make. Oh, and because your licensing the electric copy, you don’t even have the right to resell the book after your done reading it.
I did have this dream that you had to buy everything from Amazon and after that happened, they then jacked up their prices.
“Their model for ebook pricing allows for little or no profit for the publishers or, more important, the authors themselves”
—not true. publishers and authors received the same payment, regardless of what an ebook sells for—same as it works with print books.
“But just who is complaining about this? Amazon and only Amazon.”
—not true. witness the suit filed by the states today as well as the consumer lawsuit filed in January. to say only amazon is comlaining, while forgetting the consumer, is a tip that this is not an impartial “observer”…
Not true that amazon is free to sell at a loss. That is also potentially an antitrust violation also