That's false. There was no charging Apple less than others in the agreement with the publishers. Only that Apple had the right to sell to it's customers at the same retail price anyone else was selling at so that Apple customers would not be at a disadvantage. Quit making up stuff.
“That’s false. There was no charging Apple less than others in the agreement with the publishers. Only that Apple had the right to sell to it’s customers at the same retail price anyone else was selling at so that Apple customers would not be at a disadvantage. Quit making up stuff. “
It was stated in court filings that ublishers were making less when Apple was selling at $14.99 than when Amazon was selling at $9.99.
I don’t understand how you say Apple customers would not be at a disadvantage when Apple would charge them $14.99 versus the previous Amazon price of $9.99.
“Only that Apple had the right to sell to it’s customers at the same retail price anyone else was selling at so that Apple customers would not be at a disadvantage. “
hmmmm..
Amazon was committed to lowering the price to the consumer, Apple was committed to fixing a higher price for their customers.
Previously, the wholesale cost of an ebook was lower than the cost of a hardback. Amazon negotiated this as the cost to produce an ebook was less than the price for producing a hardback. Apple conspired to get that discount removed.
For some reason some people think that was to benefit Apple customers.
One of the strategies that they employed was the elimination of the existing discount on wholesale prices of e-books. This meant that the wholesale price for e-books would equal the wholesale price for physical books, and as a result, the wholesale price that Amazon paid for an e-book would be set at several dollars above Amazon’s $9.99 price point.
” There was no charging Apple less than others in the agreement with the publishers. “
LOL! Obviously you have not read the agreements nor the court decisions which give explicit examples of same.
“HarperCollins’ Murray immediately recognized that “[t]he combination of Apple’s proposed pricing tiers and the 30% commission meant that HarperCollins would make less money per book than it was then making on a wholesale model.””
“HarperCollins’ Murray immediately recognized that “[t]he combination of Apple’s proposed pricing tiers and the 30% commission meant that HarperCollins would make less money per book than it was then making on a wholesale model.”
Go to page 95 to see a chart how Apple manange to ‘help’ their consumers. Notice how the plot does not go up for Random House, the only publisher not party to the conspiracy.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=306