[Liaptoono]

My my... http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post...3-ffbe4bc2a828

[viagra_generic]

Let's just assume that it is Apple, and burn them at the stake.

Sent from my MacBook Pro.

[Mypepraipse]

If deals with Apple are indeed forcing competitors out of stores, I wonder whether a DoJ investigation into the situation might be warranted. When Intel used it clout and pricing power to compel OEMs to deliver Intel product exclusively, to the detriment of AMD, this resulted in complaints and lawsuits and ultimately in substantial settlements. I don't recall whether the American settlements were suits by AMD or the DoJ, though. I do recall one fine came from Japanese authorities.

A relevant reminder with regards to this line of business: Apple is already under investigation for eBook price fixing.

[Dynasty]

I read about this earlier on the Consumerist.

Something is certainly a bit sketchy when a company just stops selling a product that has been doing well in their stores, and being so secretive about it. I wouldn't mind a peep behind the curtain.

[Eh085zE7]

It simple. Target doesn't make any money on kindles, just the accessories. So if you get the customer to buy a case or stand etc then it's worth it. In my time working at target (in electronics) they encouraged us to try and sell that stuff because of that very reason.
However, its really hard to sell the accessories unless it's an old lady.

[DextExexy]

A relevant reminder with regards to this line of business: Apple is already under investigation for eBook price fixing.

It's unlikely Apple was engaging in price-fixing, and it's not like Amazon doesn't engage in their own anti-competitive practices.

[Quvwcxqx]

Let's just assume that it is Apple, and burn them at the stake.

Sent from my MacBook Pro.

Yes yes, sent from my iPad 3rd generation...

Funny that no one thinks it has anything to do with Amazon eating Target's lunch. No way it could be that obvious right, must be something Apple did.

[PharmaDrMan]

Who cares about Apple? Or Amazon? Or Target?
What fickle creatures we have become.

Sent from one of my devices.

[cheesypeetyz]

It simple. Target doesn't make any money on kindles, just the accessories. So if you get the customer to buy a case or stand etc then it's worth it. In my time working at target (in electronics) they encouraged us to try and sell that stuff because of that very reason.
However, its really hard to sell the accessories unless it's an old lady.

Even if they don't make money on sales, it can still be a draw. For example if you wanted to compare the Nook and Kindle and whatever other ereaders, you'd probably want to go to a store that had all of them available to test out.

[engacenus]

Even if they don't make money on sales, it can still be a draw. For example if you wanted to compare the Nook and Kindle and whatever other ereaders, you'd probably want to go to a store that had all of them available to test out.

Aye. And even getting customers in your store is a great start.

[errolurberozy]

Even if they don't make money on sales, it can still be a draw. For example if you wanted to compare the Nook and Kindle and whatever other ereaders, you'd probably want to go to a store that had all of them available to test out.

Which is funny, because in most target stores you can't touch the ipad. lol

[rengerts]

I didn't even finish reading the article. It's just some bloke making guesses and it probably caused a lot of thought among the lawyers as to whether it was actually libellous or not.

[eCw56dzY]

I can't believe apple, they really are evil and I am in no way biased.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus.

[omaculer]

It's unlikely Apple was engaging in price-fixing, and it's not like Amazon doesn't engage in their own anti-competitive practices.

Uhhh, I would contend that it's very likely that Apple colluded with 5 major publishers to raise eBook prices. You don't even need insider info to put the pieces together.

Apple wanted to enter this market and it wanted to do so in a huge way. They needed to secure content and they needed to drive consumers to it. The company used its scale to provide a viable alternative market to publishers and negotiated higher prices with them that they could then throw in Amazon's face. See here, Apple will pay us 33% more so either you do the same or we're done doing business. Amazon's choice was to be frozen out of the market or pay more, and for a time Amazon was indeed frozen out. Apple cornered the market through agreements with publishers. This damaged Amazon's business and gave Apple a toehold to exploit. When Amazon ended up capitulating, they were then on par with Apple in terms of pricing and Apple had its position in the market. Mission accomplished.

Apple made agreements with publishers to artificially maintain specific, beneficial market conditions that increased prices across the board with the combined intention to either shut out a competitor or force them to similarly raise prices. That's classic price fixing.

True competitive entrance to a market should result in lower prices for consumers, not higher prices. The fact that Amazon's prior monopoly resulted in lower prices points to some very unsavory business practices on Apple's part. Apple didn't do consumers any favors by electing to "compete" in the eBook market and their breaking of Amazon's monopoly has had curiously the opposite effect that it should have.

Hachette, Harper Collins, and Simon & Schuster threw in the towel almost immediately and settled (Without the admission of wrondoing, wink, nudge.) with the DoJ.

[janeseymore09092]

Amazon's choice was to be frozen out of the market or pay more, and for a time Amazon was indeed frozen out. Apple cornered the market through agreements with publishers. This damaged Amazon's business and gave Apple a toehold to exploit.

I think you've re-written history there. Amazon renegotiated with 4 of 5 publishers before iBooks even launched, so they were hardly frozen out, and Apple has never had much more than 10% of the eBook market, so they didn't 'corner the market' either.

[PharmaDrMan]

Apple wanted to enter this market and it wanted to do so in a huge way. They needed to secure content and they needed to drive consumers to it. The company used its scale to provide a viable alternative market to publishers and negotiated higher prices with them that they could then throw in Amazon's face. See here, Apple will pay us 33% more so either you do the same or we're done doing business. Amazon's choice was to be frozen out of the market or pay more, and for a time Amazon was indeed frozen out. Apple cornered the market through agreements with publishers. This damaged Amazon's business and gave Apple a toehold to exploit. When Amazon ended up capitulating, they were then on par with Apple in terms of pricing and Apple had its position in the market. Mission accomplished.

Who do you think set the current standard price for ebooks at $9.99? Amazon. They had the monopoly of e-book market with the kindle so they got to dictate the price. Needless to say, publishers were not happy. The ten dollar price point for every ebook is scarcely profitable, so when Apple offered to sell their books at $12 to $15 they jumped at the offer. There's nothing unethical about being able to set prices on your own product and service. Amazon did the same thing, but their price was lower than Apple's, evidently that doesn't count as price fixing. Right. The notion that consumers are entitled to the lowest prices regardless of whether it is profitable for the individuals and corporations that produce the goods is dangerous.

There are many sound reasons why Amazon is so utterly reviled by authors, publishers, and booksellers. They should not be allowed to have a monopoly on the ebook market.

[markoiutrfffdsa]

There are many sound reasons why Amazon is so utterly reviled by authors, publishers, and booksellers. They should not be allowed to have a monopoly on the ebook market.

Did you read this?

[haittiweerved]

The ten dollar price point for every ebook is scarcely profitable

Yes it is. To publish the physical copy you're looking at like 15% extra cost to get it out on shelves. I've found plenty of physical copies cheaper than their ebook counterparts. But that's not where anyone should focus their attention when it comes to pricing.

Have you ever bought a used book off someone? I know I have. Have you ever bought a used ebook off someone? Currently you can't.

That's their big money maker. Once I pay physical copy price, or maybe a little less, I have a book that can never be resold. When you factor in the ability to resell your physical books ebooks are definitely more expensive.

$10 was overpriced for ebooks. Until we can sell them we're getting hosed at these prices. How much more money do you think these people are going to be making when every ebook sold is a brand new purchase at current retail price? Even the old 99 cent books are money going right to amazon and the publisher as a brand new sale. The publishers aren't really suffering. Not by a long shot.

[creewespock]

I think you've re-written history there. Amazon renegotiated with 4 of 5 publishers before iBooks even launched, so they were hardly frozen out, and Apple has never had much more than 10% of the eBook market, so they didn't 'corner the market' either.

Sorry, you're right about that. They did corner the market, though, or else they couldn't have dictated price. They used threats.

Who do you think set the current standard price for ebooks at $9.99? Amazon. They had the monopoly of e-book market with the kindle so they got to dictate the price. Needless to say, publishers were not happy. The ten dollar price point for every ebook is scarcely profitable, so when Apple offered to sell their books at $12 to $15 they jumped at the offer. There's nothing unethical about being able to set prices on your own product and service. Amazon did the same thing, but their price was lower than Apple's, evidently that doesn't count as price fixing. Right. The notion that consumers are entitled to the lowest prices regardless of whether it is profitable for the individuals and corporations that produce the goods is dangerous.

There are many sound reasons why Amazon is so utterly reviled by authors, publishers, and booksellers. They should not be allowed to have a monopoly on the ebook market.

Sorry, but this is total bunk. The assertion that publishers were losing money on $10 eBook prices is absurd. If they can afford to sell physical paperback copies of books at similar and sometimes lower prices, they can certainly afford to sell eBooks at those prices. The marginal cost of an eBook is approximately zero (and Amazon was paying it, BTW) and the industry cuts out very substantial expenses in the form of printing, physical distribution, retail space, etc. with the eBook model.

I've also heard assertions that Amazon was selling eBooks as loss-leaders for their Kindles, which are loss-leaders for their eBooks. So they were losing money on everything? Nonsense. Amazon's model is to give you the printer and sell you the ink. eBooks at $10 were handsomely profitable and those profits subsidized the sales of Kindles at a loss.

As to your assertion that negotiating lower prices through the power of monopoly is price fixing, well that sort of turns the definition of price fixing on its head. It may be monopoly, but you cannot collude on your own to set lower prices.

[wrenjmerg]

Sorry, but this is total bunk. The assertion that publishers were losing money on $10 eBook prices is absurd. If they can afford to sell physical paperback copies of books at similar and sometimes lower prices, they can certainly afford to sell eBooks at those prices. The marginal cost of an eBook is approximately zero (and Amazon was paying it, BTW) and the industry cuts out very substantial expenses in the form of printing, physical distribution, retail space, etc. with the eBook model.

Inept, I regard you as one of the more intelligent members on the forum, but you clearly know precious little about book publishing if you think the cost of a new fiction title is "approximately zero" for e-books.

The average price of a new trade paperback is $16 and new hardcovers $35. You'll almost never see front-list titles less than this. The cost of printing books and distributing is an insignificant percentage that goes into releasing a new book. The average cost to print a hardcover is $2.50. Retail and distribution absorbs around 20% to 45% of the total cost. The rest goes to the publisher for editing, proofing, and marketing the book, and of course, the author's royalties. So if you subtract the cost of printing and retailing a book, leaving only the publisher's cut and author royalties, you're left with a fair market value of around $14 to $18 for new e-books.

Did you read this?

I have. It's already been ripped apart by others.

It's hard to take that article seriously when Amazon releases a price checking app and encourages shoppers to go into bookstores and compare retail prices with their cut-to-the-bone prices.