You are failing to understand... Amazon was ALSO setting the WHOLESALE price it would pay... 50% of the RETAIL price it was setting! It was the big kid on the block. With 90% of the eBook market, there essentially was no other market for eBookswhen this was going on except for direct to consumer selling—which the publishers were NOT set up to handle!—and a few minor ereaders which had their own book stores, with captive purchasers, like the Nook and Sony Reader.
According to you, Amazon lost 30% of its marketshare in e-books. How does Amazon benefit from the agency model? Also, if the publishers were conspiring with themselves and Apple to fix the price of e-books, why shouldn't Amazon have the right to press the government for action?
They also adopted the pricing structure with it's 30% agency fee. The producers of the books price the books at what they WANT to sell them at, the agency, whether Amazon, the Apple iBook Store, Barnes & Noble Nook Book Store, or what ever, sells them FOR the publisher WHO RETAINS OWNERSHIP until the license for the book is sold, and then takes a 30% commission for that sale. THE seller NEVER HAS TITLE to what it sells! The agency never owns it! There is the difference. It merely acts as an AGENT for the actual seller of the item WHO HAS SET HIS OWN PRICE for his product. That is NOT PRICE FIXING! An owner of a product is free to set the price of his product he sells at whatever he chooses. There are SEVERAL price points at which eBooks are being sold. The Publishers choose whichever one one of these they feel is best for the book being sold. That is it.
Indeed. Their model that allowed e-books to be sold at a lower price.
And, indeed, there are MANY eBooks being sold at lower prices... after the initial publication costs, such as initial publicity, have been amortized and paid for. You can buy last year's or older best sellers for as low as $7.99 to $2.99 or even 99¢! This is the way publishing works, and has for many years. . . but if you want quality books to still be written, edited, produced and sold, you HAVE to allow room for all the people involved to make money. Discounting best sellers from day one WILL NOT DO THAT!
No it wasn't. Amazon was selling e-books at a loss. The concern by the publishers was that the low e-book prices would hurt sales of hardcovers.
With 90% of the eBook market, there essentially was no other market for eBookswhen this was going on except for direct to consumer selling—which the publishers were NOT set up to handle!—and a few minor ereaders which had their own book stores, with captive purchasers, like the Nook and Sony Reader.
So what?
An owner of a product is free to set the price of his product he sells at whatever he chooses
Agreed. But here, when the publishers conspired to set the price of the e-books, that was price fixing. I think Apple and the publishers deserve to be treated differently here, and while there is some doubt about whether Apple was engaged in a price fixing scheme, there's pretty much no doubt about the publishers, which is why they are falling all over themselves to settle these cases.
And, indeed, there are MANY eBooks being sold at lower prices... after the initial publication costs, such as initial publicity, have been amortized and paid for.
Sorry, not an excuse for price fixing.