Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Apple (Jobs) were bullying publishers into contracts and abandon Amazon.

The best part is how Apple decided that the Publisher sets the price, and Apple gets 30% regardless of profit margin. Apple also stated that they were able to price match anyone who undersold them, and they STILL get 30%, pushing losses onto the Publisher. At least with Amazon, they ate the loss due to their price fixing.

Edit: Fixed last paragraph



The bullying by Apple of publishers was generally about fixing the price caps lower than the publishers wanted ($12.99 for NY Times bestsellers rather than $14.99.)

Apple didn't have to bully the publishers in general, because this deal was a big win for them.


Jobs' scare tactic was that Amazon would eventually take a larger commission.

Jobs even admitted that Amazon would profit Publishers more in the short term, essentially admitting that Apple was going to make Publishers eat losses by price matching Amazon. Then, once Amazon was forced to increase prices in order to make a profit because they've been squeezed out of their Monopoly position, then the profit starts rolling in.

Very illegal, and also leaves Apple unscathed because they don't take any losses. You can understand how bullying would be required in order to get some reluctant Publishers to conform.


>Jobs' scare tactic was that Amazon would eventually take a larger commission.

And how's that a "scare tactic"? Sounds like something entirely reasonable for the publishers to consider.


Predicting a Publishers' "inevitable fates" and conveying that you are their only hope, is a scare tactic.

Also, Jobs also stated rampant piracy would be a major issue if attempting to sell E-Books through alternative means.


Wow you have a warped view of how business works today. These aren't cute, innocent little children.

If Apple comes to them and tells them they are the saving grace of the publishing industry it isn't a scare tactic. It's just meaningless bluster. Microsoft, Google, Amazon et al would be saying exactly the same thing. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen.


Ironically, the three companies you mentioned have all failed trying to succeed independently over and over again, rather than standing on the shoulders of others.


What evidence is there of bullying though ? It sounds like you're just making this up.


Exactly how would Apple bully a Publisher? Jobs went and pulled down the CEO's pants?


"Lower the price or we won't sell your books"?


It was more like "Let us sell your books at higher prices, or lose money to Amazon and piracy."


The publishers had the choice to go with Amazon but decided against it because they made more money with Apple.

So in what way is this bullying again ?


I don't think you understand the concept of price fixing - The intent is that Apple is making the decision for the Publisher's by proposing an offer that isn't in the sense of "pros vs cons", but rather "right vs wrong". Of course most Publishers agreed because it was for the greater good of their company, and the only one hung up with the bad rep is their ring master.

"You can either join us, or we'll collectively squash you."


So, no arms were actually twisted. There was no iBooks marked when the emails were sent and the publishers could've said no.


Like this: http://allthingsd.com/20130515/heres-that-steve-jobs-e-book-...

TL;DR: Lose money when Amazon starts taking a bigger cut, or lose money due to piracy.


> Apple (Jobs) were bullying publishers into contracts and abandon Amazon.

Not really. He was certainly encouraging them, but both the charges and the findings here are that the publishers themselves were actively colluding and looking for pretty much exactly what Apple offered before Apple offered it. The conspiracy didn't start with Apple, it was just that Apple's active, enthusiastic involvement was necessary for it to move forward.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: