Purchasing eBooks Slides from Sue Polanka over at No Shelf Required
Now if the DOJ would just pay attention, they would see how wrong they are. I’m an apple fan, I admit it, but even if I wasn’t, common sense kicks in from the retail and sales background I have. To put all the power in one companies hands, which is what the DOJ is trying to do, give amazon a chokehold on everyone, you will defeat everything that has been achieved for eBooks. As I have said before, hard to have collusion when everyone knows what you’re doing, so even going after apple for that, is ridiculous. Hell, publishers have discounts and better deals for certain vendors in certain markets, I don’t see any one being pissed about that. People buy where they want to buy, if it’s spendy, they shop for a deal or they don’t buy.
DOJ just needs to grow up and realize they have screwed up, put their tail between their legs and move on, you’ve done enough damage.
Originally posted on paidContent:
In a memo filed with the Southern District of New York this afternoon (PDF; embedded below), Apple (s APPL) argues that the Department of Justice’s proposed settlement with three book publishers forces Apple to tear up existing contracts. That is “fundamentally unfair, unlawful, and unprecedented,” Apple says: It’s not settling, so it’s entitled to a trial.
“Apple is taking a bold stance by ignoring the Judge’s admonition to the parties not to oppose the settlement, other than submitting comments,” attorney and RoyaltyShare CEO Bob Kohn, who is seeking permission to file an amicus brief in the case, tells me. “Apple makes a good point that the proposed settlement terminates Apple’s agency contracts without a trial and that would be an unprecedented violation of Apple’s right to due process.”
The proposed settlement would require the three settling publishers — HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster — to terminate their existing agency pricing contracts with Apple. Apple says that isn’t fair: “The Government is seeking to impose a remedy on Apple before there has been any finding of an antitrust violation.” This case, the company states, revolves around “an alleged conspiracy to force Amazon to adopt agency.” So a settlement “enjoining collusion or precluding publishers from forcing agency on Amazon would be appropriate,” but Apple is entitled to defend its contracts in court.
Good start to some discussions, but as I commented, there is a lot more to this discussion, just read many of my posts or my own articles on GigaOM on the topic. It will be a long running topic of conversation for some time.
Originally posted on Gigaom:
We’ve written before about how complicated the process of lending an e-book is, and how much of this is a result of conflicting DRM locks and platforms, as well as a reluctance on the part of publishers to allow their books to be loaned. But authors can also be a roadblock when it comes to lending, and we’ve just had a classic example of how that can happen with the brouhaha over LendInk, a service that allowed readers to connect with others in order to share e-books. The site has effectively been put out of business by a virtual lynch mob of authors claiming it breached their rights, even though what it was doing was perfectly legal.
Much of the negative response to LendInk came about because of a series of misunderstandings about how the service worked, and also a lack of knowledge about how Amazon (s amzn) handles lending for Kindle books. But the incident also says a lot about how authors view lending of e-books to begin with — many seem to see every book loaned as a potential sale that has been lost, just as the music industry used to look down on file-sharing of music as theft. But they are just as wrong.
Now the debate will occur for what this really means for everyone else. Is it good, bad or somewhere in between? Yelp, foursquare may very well have a fight on their hands as well and google a new canyon of content to monetize.
Originally posted on LJNDawson:
And any publisher who isn’t paying attention is NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
Google just bought Frommer’s. They already own Zagat.
At which I sputter, “…what Brian O’Leary said.” And, “…what Brian O’Leary said Esther Dyson said.” If Frommer’s is made actionable with Google’s search, Google Travel will probably include not only Zagat, but Google Maps. And will be a force to be reckoned with in terms of local advertising and merchandising.
ALA Digital Supplement - Check out the document to read more on eBooks in libraries, statistics, info and more… Good read, it’s a start for understanding challenges and seeing where things are at…
So over at the Digital Shift you can read the full article, I won’t bother to go through the whole thing. I think the whole idea is and will be a failure causing nothing more than larger rifts and a greater escalation of animosity between pubs and libs. Argue against if you want, but trust me, anyone who says they are both playing nice and really striving hasn’t heard of the cat and mouse approach to things.
What I want to do is look at the 4 demands the libraries are making, because some of them are just plain wonky, I’ll explain why.
1. Search and browse a single comprehensive catalog with all of a library’s offerings at once, including all e-books, physical collections, programs, blogs, and donor opportunities. Currently, content providers often only allow searches within the products they sell, depriving users of the comprehensive library experience.
Lots of buzz on this, even had the blog of the original author get hacked, so wanted to make sure and share.. Even if you disagree or agree, it’s a good read.
Ok, so we all have heard of the settlement between Hachette, S&S, & HarperCollins have settled with the DOJ, read here. Now many people don’t understand the agency model, the “most favored nation” part that has been brought up or other parts of the eBook business. It hasn’t stopped many from jumping on the DOJ to say way to go, vs the #dojfail twitter tag that people have started to express how bad the department of justice just screwed everybody.
Here’s a down and dirty on the models for eBooks, before agency and after.
I know very simple, more to it, but to be honest, that’s the easy way to describe it. Now people call the agency model price fixing, or that publishers and Apple colluded on the prices, colluded meaning - a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: (one definition of it). Problem here is that no collusion was done, it wasn’t a secret, everyone knew about it. So going after everyone like the DOJ based on that, they were wrong from the start. Now the price fixing comments, take a look here, I’ll wait for you to come back. Ok, now what Nate talks about over there and references what Mark from Smashwords, who I barely agree with on anything, is about how airlines prices were fixed. The interesting thing was that if the govt kept prices low, affordable and people were buying like crazy for airlines, why wasn’t that bad? I disagree with Nate on one thought and that is that I do think the companies should be competing on service and if possible, sure price. I’m unique though, I rarely shop amazon, maybe 5 times since the site was up, I don’t buy eBooks there either, I’m not alone, as we know they hold 60% of the marketshare, so 40% are buying from somewhere else. Let’s not get into the other parts of eBook market where amazon is doing nothing; education, comics, etc., that would just make to much sense to talk reality.
Back to the point though, is that if you have to lower your prices and sell at a loss, it is usually because you don’t have the service abilities, the better quality. It’s like saying K-mart rocks because they are cheap; sure and crappy and full of junk. For me and many others I know, they want quality, they want service, I’m willing to pay a higher price for a higher quality and service level, something I have never seen from amazon. It’s like buying made in America vs china, sure it might be cheaper, but in reality it’s usually lower quality, falls apart or some lead paint warning comes down the line. The point is that publishers saying we want the Agency model to price eBooks means that it’s their content, they want to price it. When I was in retail, it was common knowledge that retailers would buy up print titles at steep discounts from the pubs, then price however we wanted, then in 6 months return the print books for money back. Yeah, sounds like a great business plan, anyone seen a waldenbooks or borders around, oh yeah, they failed. Now this wasn’t the cause of the failure, but running a business like that, just dumb all around, it affects everyone and to be honest, many times our books were full price when we got a 55% discount, the books still didn’t sell. Where was the DOJ to look into that realizing customers were getting screwed.
For those that think this is good news, you will be sadly mistaken, because if it holds, which I don’t think it will, Amazon will screw you in the end. Prices will go up, for all you independent authors, do you think amazon will care? They won’t amazon is in this for money, they are no more a champion of books then walmart is a champion of well, anything. What will happen is Apple, Penguin and Macmillan will fight, they will probably win and the other 3 will be happy to jump back on things. Because if it does move forward, more then likely amazon will form a monopoly on things, then you’ll have a lawsuit against them and I hope, if people are smart, a lawsuit against the DOJ for being the idiots who screwed this up.
Even the ABA is baffled by the decision and not sure why the DOJ is in bed with amazon, or basically what kind of back-alley handshake occurred, because it seems as though amazon wrote the settlement details for the DOJ, funny how that works to their benefit. You then have states trying to cash in on the settlement, which after reading that i had to laugh, millions of dollars to be returned to customers. Um, how did you get the number? Exactly what was overpriced, that $.99 eBook was too much, simple DON’T BUY IT. I hate when people whine about how expensive something is, like gas; yet they are the idiot driving down the road in a hummer h2 doing 85 or 90. Drive intelligently, buy intelligently, if you don’t like the price, don’t buy it. Nobody forces anyone to buy anything, last I looked, we all had free will.
The sad thing is in the end, the ones who will actually be hurt by this is the consumer, nothing was actually done to help them. Amazon has had the most favored nation clause in place well before Apple, yet DOJ didn’t say anything about that or the monopolistic stranglehold that amazon has had. Now I’m not just singling out Amazon, no more so then the DOJ did with the publishers and Apple. However, if you are going to say this is an issue and go after some, you can’t leave someone else out of the party you started because you like them.
One final thought on this, is that why eBooks? Is everything else the DOJ has to worry about less important? Maybe the true focus should be on the quality and business practices. People will buy what they like from whom they like, keeping the price the same does one thing, forces a company to step up quality in service and what they offer. If they don’t they go down, look at Sony and eBooks, who buys from them, hardly anyone, if any, why, they missed the boat, quality of devices went down, offering of titles is poor and just an overall bad experience with them. Let us the consumers decide what we want, I don’t need the DOJ telling me this or that, if I don’t like the price, I don’t buy it, plain and simple, or look for something else. Check out Laura Dawson’s blog for some great thoughts on this as well. Now let the comments and I have a feeling the rants begin.