DOJ sues Apple, Publishers over eBook prices

[Steerpike]

Allegations are that the companies conspired to keep the prices and high and reduce competition. It certainly will be interesting to watch this, especially if the case doesn't settle:

DoJ sues Apple, publishers in e-book price fixing antitrust suit | ZDNet

[Telcontar]

Yep, already read various sides of the conversation. My own thought is that we must simply wait and see what comes of it. I'm rather glad that I decided to go independent for awhile... while this will certainly affect the entire industry in time, I don't anticipate immediate disruptions to my tiny corner of it.

[Rikilamaro]

I've seen headlines for this for the last week or so, but not really spent the time to read into it. While I understand the desire to make money, I do not understand why an e-book should cost more than an actual paper book. There's no paper, no binding, no ink, no shipping, etc. Yes there are the newly developed readers and improvements to them that took money to research and create, but that should be included in the price of the e-reader in my opinion. If I can buy a paper copy of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo at my local used bookstore for $4.00, why would I spend over $100.00 to own an e-reader, plus pay $10.00 for the book? Or better yet, I can always get it at the *gasp* library. (You know, that place that lets you borrow books for FREE) Please, someone, explain this to me. Do e-readers come with scratch and sniff pages? Am I really missing out not being able to carry around my entire library everywhere I go?


Unrelated comment: I did find it humorous when the author referred to apple as the maker of shiny rectangles in his previous article on April 4th.

[Leif GS Notae]

I am going with this thought: Will this act spur people to read more?

Answer: No.

While it's great to have prices go down and allow people who might be on the fence to buy books, they still fall far behind other forms of entertainment today. Would you rather buy a book that you might take a month to read TELLING you what you want to know or spend it on a movie that might SHOW you the same thing in two hours? What about cutting out 6 books to buy a video game and have you reach that submersion level a book or movie can never reach?

In the end, book reading (unless non-fiction) will be lower on the market level. Yes, in the long rung, fiction is evergreen. But for now, it isn't even going to hold someone's interest when sacrificing something else.

[Devor]

Collusion isn't easy to prove, and collusion-like practices are easy to slip into without actually breaking the law. Proof would be strong levels of clear communications, while they could just be picking up on market signals and wanting to avoid a price war.

I suspect the DOJ is just hoping they'll give some concessions in a settlement, but I haven't followed it closely.

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I've seen headlines for this for the last week or so, but not really spent the time to read into it. While I understand the desire to make money, I do not understand why an e-book should cost more than an actual paper book. There's no paper, no binding, no ink, no shipping, etc.

Production costs have nothing to do with it. In general, ebooks should cost exactly what the market will bear. If consumers are willing to pay more for an ebook than for a physical book, then there is no problem (from any perspective) in charging more for it. The problem is if the ebooks cost more than they should because ebook producers are colluding to raise the price instead of competing like they're supposed to.

In general, lower production cost translates to lower sticker price, but it doesn't have to.

[Steerpike]

I think the price of paper, ink, binding, etc. are pretty small for high-volume publishers. It is a small portion of the cost of producing a book for them.

As for the collusion suit, my understanding is that the Feds already have a fair amount of information (testimony, emails, etc.) to show there were meetings and agreements to set these prices. It will be an interesting case. They'll have an easier time with it than the Zimmerman prosecutors (to use another case in the news).

[Telcontar]

The gist of what I'm reading on various blogs and opinion pieces is that the case against the actual publishers is strong, while the case against Apple is fairly weak and not likely to result in a conviction. Penguin, especially, seems to be in the DoJ's gunsights. Level of expertise and knowledge no doubt varies between these articles, but a consensus exists so I feel I can trust it.

One blogger (Nathan Bransford) made the point that whatever happens in this article, the eBook publishing market is going to get a lot more turbulent in the near future. I just hope that indie authors don't lose the ability to set their own price on Amazon and the like. I'm not sure that's likely, but I do think the risk exists.

[Steerpike]

The gist of what I'm reading on various blogs and opinion pieces is that the case against the actual publishers is strong, while the case against Apple is fairly weak and not likely to result in a conviction. Penguin, especially, seems to be in the DoJ's gunsights. Level of expertise and knowledge no doubt varies between these articles, but a consensus exists so I feel I can trust it.

The case is stronger against the publishers, that's for sure. Apple, however, will likely be impacted by the resolution of the case. The other thing Apple has to worry about (if in fact they were involved) is publishers providing the DOJ with additional evidence against Apple in order to settle the case.

[Telcontar]

They've already gone through the settlement process, though. Several other publishers did decide to settle, though the three named decided they had a better chance in court. I think if they'd had any more ammunition (in the form of evidence against Apple) to get a better deal out of the DoJ they would have used it already.