Kindle News: Paperwhite-WiFi gone...Free Android App of the Day a popular word game...Kindle Fire HDs as good Roku-like devices...XFiles creator doing a pilot for Amazon...Alternate case for Kindles...Apple, DoJ, Judge Cote status

A lot of Kindle news in the last two days - brief notes with links to stories

My work laptop (HP) was going down, 'unrepairable' and 'unrecoverable,R' several times a day yesterday, and time is short, so mercifully for readers, these news-bits will be small.

  First, Kindle Paperwhites with WiFi-Only are no longer available at the Kindle Store, and Amazon does not say they'll be back in stock but they have a page for "Used" ones and of course a page for Certified Refurbished ones that carry the usual 1-yr warranties.

  They DO have, in stock, the Paperwhite with 3G wireless in addition to WiFi, which means you can download, without WiFi when near cell-phone networks, Kindle books or browse Amazon or use the Wikipedia website 24/7 at no added cost although the built-in 3G capability will cost an additional $60 usually. (On iPads, 3G capability costs an add'l $130 + data charges.)

  So it seems that Amazon will probably announce in September sometime, not only new generations of Kindle Fires but also of the Paperwhite and probably the basic Kindle.  I'd hope for audio but one would think Amazon might want to also keep the one that doesn't have audio, unless they plan to charge about the same price -- pure speculation on my part.

  For those happy with the current Paperwhite but interested in an alternate case, I'm happy with my blandly plain black, light-weight rooCASE Ultra Slim cover, but was drawn today to one I saw in an article at handbag.com, the Verso Prologue Marbled Blue one, which is at both the U.S. Kindle store and the UK store.  They're available in other colors and patterns and at about 25% off at the U.S. store.  To see other creative covers, click on 'by Verso' for the U.S. and on 'by Lightwedge' for the UK.

  Those who are interested in whatever new Paperwhite or e-Ink Kindles that may be coming should NOT get any of the current cases, as they would very likely not fit any later Kindles.


How to turn your Kindle Fire HD into a Roku box
I've hooked up my Kindle Fire HD tablets (both sizes) to HDTVs via the built-in microHDMI connector and have written about being able to show, on the large TV, anything I'm doing on the Kindle Fire HDs, including web-browsing, Youtube, Netflix, HuluPlus, etc.  I recommended there an HDMI cable that worked on the first try and is viewed as more reliable than most you'll find.

Rick Broda of CNET has an excellent article on how your Kindle Fire HD tablet "can actually outperform a Roku" with a couple of apps he recommends and the cable.

  He mentions the Dolphin browser app (with support for playing Flash) but doesn't include information on how that's done.  It's not difficult though, and I've given a step-by-step guide for using the Dolphin browser app to play flash-video and it's turned out to be a heavily visited article.


XFiles fans may be interested in XFiles creator Chris Carter's new project with Amazon
ScreenRant's H. Shaw-Williams reports on Amazon's commissioning of a pilot from Chris Carter

' for a post-apocalyptic drama called The After, which Carter will write and direct. Other than the fact that it takes place after an an apocalypse, almost nothing is known about the plot, but the pilot will be produced by Marc Rosen and Leon Clarence’s company Georgeville TV, which has been working with Carter on the pitch for The After since last fall. Once the pilot is complete, it’s possible that it will be uploaded to the Amazon Studios site and pitched to an audience vote to decide whether or not it will be commissioned to a full season. '

They'll start casting soon.   There's much more detail at the ScreenRant site.


Free Android App of the day Wednesday, Aug 29, is a popular Word game




4Pics 1Word- What's the Word Init currently has 264 customer reviews, with an average rating of 4.6 stars.  Normally $0.99, but $0.00 today (Wed., 8/29).

DOJ, Apple, and Judge Cote -- status, as of August 27
These will just be links to the latest and are follow ups to the blog article here on August 12 about DOJ recommendations and Judge Cote's consideration of proposals for remedies in the e-book pricing case.

1. Citing Steve Jobs email, DOJ claims Apple changed in-app purchase to retaliate against Amazon - by Laura Hazard Owen for GIGAOM
2. E-Books Judge Pledges to Avoid Unnecessary Intrusion Into Apple's Business - by Julie Clover for MacRumors
3. Apple E-Books Judge Cote Says She’ll Limit Antitrust Remedies - by Bob Van Voris for BloombergBusinessweek
4. Apple says tempered e-book penalties still go too far - by Joan E. Solsman for CNET.


Judge Cote said that she'll sign a final order spelling out the remedies next week.


Reminder: The Kindle Fires are on large discounts for college students who have or who join Prime at $39/year.

---

Check often: Temporarily-free recently published Kindle books
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.  Liked-books under $1
UK-Only: recently published free books, bestsellers, or £5 Max ones
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

  *Click* to Return to the HOME PAGE.  Or click on the web browser's BACK button

Read More

Kindle News: Apple/DoJ Lawsuit Judge mulls proposals for remedies in e-book pricing case - Updated

DoJ/Apple case: Judge Cote proposes ways to prevent further collusion and high e-book prices in near future

Judge Cote, to no one's surprise, denied Apple a stay of all proceedings pending its Appeal.

  She further denied "Apple’s proposed schedule for its damages trial, and ordered the parties to finish discovery by the end of December, 2013 with summary judgment motions to be fully briefed by February 28, 2014."

  Apple's lead counsel Orin Snyder received no sympathy from the judge about the "excessively aggressive" schedule.  Andrew Albanese's report in Publishers Weekly is very detailed, and trial watchers will want to read this one.

  The Christian Science Monitor's Molly Driscoll also writes in some detail about all this.

  While the DoJ would like to see the publishers and Apple not just return to the Agency Model and its restrictions on lower pricing in only two years and would prefer that Apple, who did not settle, not be allowed, in the next 5 years, to use the Agency model in that same way (rather than be restricted to only two years).

  Judge Denise Cote doesn't think that latter interval would be necessary but would want separate agreements with individual publishers staggered by months (maybe 6-8 months between) to avoid the kind of collusion noted.

  She added that a monitor appointed by the court that would work with Apple, might not be needed as long as Apple set up a program within the company focusing on antitrust efforts.

' The judge, however, was also unimpressed with the publishers, calling them “unrepentant.”

“None of the publisher defendants have expressed any remorse,” Cote said.

Representatives for Apple and the DOJ will now have meetings to discuss the measures, and Cote has asked for an outline from the two companies on proposed restrictions for Apple sometime this week. '

The Wall Street Journal's Joe Palazzolo explains that Judge Cote made these proposals "during a hearing Friday in federal court in Manhattan, roughly a month after finding that Apple provided five of the largest publishers 'with the vision, the format, the timetable and the coordination that they needed to raise e-book prices' in violation of federal antitrust laws when the company entered the market in 2010."  He adds:

' Judge Cote said she was seeking to impose conditions on Apple that would ensure price competition for e-books without disrupting innovation at the second-most valuable company in the world.

"I have no desire to regulate the App Store," Judge Cote said. '

  A Reminder - The traditional wholesaler arrangement was that the publisher set the Retail or Suggested List Price, and booksellers would pay (guarantee) the publisher 50% of that.
  Now, some of those e-books were set at $26 retail and therefore Amazon paid the publisher $13 while charging $10 for the e-books, taking a loss on those (while taking much better margins on some older e-books).

  Other booksellers could not afford to do the same, but the basic reality is that publishers have no need to charge $26 (!) for an e-book as a retail price. If they set it at even $15 booksellers would pay the publisher $7.50 per e-book sold and take a profit of $2.50 -- no one has to take a loss.

  But this has always been about keeping hardcover, printed books at the higher cost.
 In fact, the publishers had more revenue from the wholesaler method from which to pay their authors but they often obfuscated this, even though at least one publishing house told its authors that with the Agency model the authors would have to take 20% of net profit rather than 25% on e-books.

  The idea has been to keep the hardcover or printbook prices at a higher price level and not to 'devalue' them by allowing e-books to be sold so inexpensively despite the lower cost of producing the the digital versions.  This has been stated often, by the publishers (out loud), but at the same time they also worked to paint Amazon as pricing e-books so low that no other booksellers could do that.  Obviously, that never had to be.  But it's all about traditional printed book pricing and protecting that.

  As with any transition in technology, methods change and pricing along with that.  It's one of those changes in the world order and inevitable battles for survival of older ways.

  Support for the government's case made in the form of Amicus briefs by Kobo (affected badly by Apple's restrictions on in-app links to their store) and by The Consumer Federation of America (CFA).

  Publishers Weekly's Andrew Albanese described the situation.  Publishers Weekly is unusual in that while they are part of the publishing industry, normally aligned against Amazon's pricing mode and their fear that Amazon may eventually be able to set terms less favorable to the larger publishers, their articles are very balanced.  The American Booksellers Association, on the other hand, paints Amazon as the Devil on his worst day and Apple as protective Angel.

  Kobo's retail partner is, ironically, The American Booksellers Association, which is adamantly for the Agency Agreement as it was structured from the start, with its focus on keeping e-book prices high.
  Kobo, though, lost 75% of its new-customer conversions when Apple, in the summer of 2011, suddenly imposed a large fee on the store-linking function in its apps by e-book sellers.  The 30% commission on an in-app book sale would have taken all of Kobo's 30% profit on that sale price.

  The DoJ has proposed that Apple allow the in-app links for the next two years.  Amazon and Barnes & Noble e-book apps would be affected also if Judge Cote decides to go with this.

  The CFA's noted antitrust lawyer David Balto explains why, Albanese adds, the proposed remedy is "not unusual" and is "appropriate" (the details are in the linked article).  The Consumer organization stresses:

'...“the underlying conduct was willful and [Apple] remains unrepentant.” The brief also notes that the DoJ proved “conduct of a sort often prosecuted criminally, that was knowingly orchestrated by defendant’s highest management.”

Failure to take “strong remedial steps” in a case involving such egregious conduct, the brief concludes, would send a message that “antitrust compliance can be an afterthought and that antitrust penalties are merely a cost of doing business.” '

Believe it not, I wrote this blog entry as the 3rd topic for my blog article for today, as I had not posted over the weekend.  As you can see, that would have been an impossibly long entry, but then, so is this one.  I put together bits and pieces of reports I saw but it's not exactly coherent.  If there's anything you'd like clarified a bit more, let me know in the Comments area. Thanks.


Related articles
TIMELINE:  Ebook Pricing Wars - what DOJ would have seen.
Also, History of the e-book pricing wars



For daily free ebooks, check the following links:

Temporarily-free books - Non-classics USA: by:    Publication Date      Bestselling   High-ratings UK: PubDate   Popular The Kindle Daily Deal What is 3G? and "WiFi"?       Battery Care Highly-rated under $1,  Newest: $1-$2, $2-$3

Most Popular Free K-Books U.S. & Int'l (NOT UK):    Top 100 free UK-Only:    Top 100 free Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources. USEFUL for your Kindle Keyboard (U.S. only, currently):   99c Notepad 1.1,   99c Calculator,   99c Calendar,   99c Converter

  *Click* to Return to the HOME PAGE.  Or click on the web browser's BACK button

Read More

DOJ-APPLE LAWSUIT: Clues, on the last day of the trial, that Apple had lost the lawsuit after Eddy Cue had resorted to saying Steve Jobs was "confused" and a key e-mail piece was passed off as an early draft though the judge wasn't fooled

Why Apple's loss of this lawsuit was inevitable

As anyone interested in the e-book pricing wars and the US/DOJ vs Apple lawsuit will have heard on Monday, Apple lost the lawsuit.  Here's Judge Cote's decision ("Opinion & Order").  It's written very clearly for a legal document and she answers each of Apple's points.

  Bear in mind that the DOJ just went for a civil case rather than a criminal one.

Apple took a chance on the trial because, most agree, it didn't want the government oversight (over the type of negotiations with content companies) that the five settling publishers had to accept, some concern over private lawsuits, and because Apple management has a strong faith in their ability to market, even to a judge who, in her denial of Apple's Motion to Dismiss the case, had already explained why the main arguments they would use during the ensuing trial would not be successful.


One general point:
  Apple's defense team pushed the point that they were trying to ensure a healthier, free market atmosphere against a company (Amazon) that dominated it and which would possibly eventually cause competitors to have to leave the arena -- but the Wall St Journal (a fairly conservative site that is itself a publisher with some colorfully-expressed enmity toward Amazon from its owner Robert Murdoch) quoted Herbert Hovenkamp, a law professor at the University of Iowa, who explained, as others have, that:
  "The goal of antitrust policy is to protect consumer prices ... It’s not to protect inefficient firms from having to exit the market."

  and again, from PaidContent's Matthew Ingram on the same point, which Apple lawyers should have known:

' ...antitrust law in the U.S. isn’t designed to help prevent competitors from being squashed by a large player in an industry — even if that player has what amounts to a monopoly position.  The key point is whether that particular company’s behavior alters or damages the marketplace in a way that harms consumers.  And when it comes to that, the DoJ is on rock-solid ground. '

  and Monday, Judge Cote wrote:

'...it is essential to remember that the antitrust laws were enacted for "the protection of competition, not competitors." '

Apple's response yesterday was to restate their role of white knight saving the e-book world from Amazon and "We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision."


Background:
Those new to the case and curious about it can see original news sources in a Timeline and a set of articles that are a news history of the e-mail pricing wars

  The page of articles also provides links to the primary court documents, some of which are fascinating reading, as they consist of private mails between several companies' executives and give insight into the thinking and atmosphere of higher management in those companies.

  They even come with some admonitions from the writers to delete the email received (and most of us know this doesn't mean they are truly deleted).

  So, anyone interested in the nitty gritty of the lawsuit, after being puzzled by news summaries, can get some original-source reading of intrigue-ridden moments.


COURT MOMENTS

1. Apple insisted it was no "ringleader" of the publishers' effort and that Apple was just going along with the publishers who were driving the price hikes.  Well, there is a lot of data there -- but for those not interested in too much detail, there was a whiff of gunsmoke from Simon and Schuster's chief executive, Carolyn Reidy, when the DOJ introduced an email from Reidy to Apple's Eddy Cue (the negotiator) in which she said she "looked forward" to his progress in "herding us cats."

2. Especially for sleuths.  Apple's SVP of Internet Services, apparently tried to mislead the judge after a key DOJ document indicated that Steve Jobs sent an email to Apple's Eddy Cue January 14, 2010, Subject title "Re: Book Prices Thoughts" saying:

' I can live with this, as long as they move Amazon to the agent model too for new releases for the first year.  If they don't, I'm not sure we can be competitive...'

  Does this even matter?  Two Apple execs (Keith Moerer and Kevin Saul) had both testified that Apple was "indifferent" to what kind of agreement the publishers signed with Amazon.  Steve Jobs's email posed a conflict with Moerer and Saul's testimony.

  When Eddy Cue didn't want the email to be evidence that Apple had planned to require that the publishers move Amazon to the agent model too, for new releases, Orin Snyder, Apple's Chief Counsel, came back by asking Moerer:

  "Are you aware that the e-mail was never sent?"

  Judge Cote ordered Snyder's question removed from the record.

  Apple's Snyder came back the next day to introduce a longer version of the email, stamped with the same date, suggesting that the email introduced had been a discarded draft.

  This led to Apple siders in the blogosphere arguing even after the trial ended, that the DOJ had introduced an early, discarded draft, but the people writing this in commenter areas probably never followed up on that story to find out what actually happened when the judge decided to analyze the pieces that were part of an odd sequence.

  The DOJ returned to ask Eddy Cue, on the stand, what the longer email meant and if he'd ever received it, and Cue said he hadn't.
  It's interesting that each email version has a timestamp header line: "Received(Date):" ... with the time filled in.

  Not leaving well-enough alone, Apple Counsel Snyder came back to this on a later date, introducing FIVE different versions of Jobs's email.  The key wording about Amazon did not appear in the other four versions.  CNN Fortune's Philip Elmer-DeWitt wrote that Snyder seemed to be implying that Jobs's thinking had evolved over the first four email versions drafts.

  The problem for Snyder was that the version that the government had introduced was time-stamped LATER than the other four versions.

 Apple's Snyder explains this by saying that's the timestamp that's applied when a computer window is closed. (?)

  DOJ lawyer Buterman pointed out, furthermore, that the DOJ-introduced version not only had the latest time stamp, but it was the ONLY one that was signed in Jobs's usual manner, "Steve"...

Then the sleuthy judge put her analytical ways to work on this -- and noted that the first version's wording appeared on the 2nd version but part of the text was moved down and replaced in the paragraph by other wording, while the original words were left dangling below the body of the message (probably meant for deletion but forgotten) in all subsequent copies.

' Anyway, so it's like hanging down there just sort of riding at the bottom of the e-mail for the rest of the chain, which, to me, is additional confirmation that this is the last in the series. '

That's when Cue tried to explain it all away by saying about Steve Jobs, "He's writing that first one, he's confused about it... This was before the iPad launch, which most of us watched.

(NOTE: See another story, by CNet's Shara Tibken, showing how often Cue had to say Jobs was 'confused' to get away from any idea that they ever thought about insisting that publishers require all retailers to go the Agency Agreement route.

  Tibken writes:
  "Apple's initial proposal sent to publishers on January 4 and 5 of 2010 said publishers working with Apple had to move all retailers to agency..."

 The judge thanked him.  But she has shown a tendency to analyze thoroughly everything submitted to her (not taking at face value declarations from either side) and this was not a good moment for Apple's defense, as it showed clearly a desire on Snyder's part to get this clearly weak set and the idea of the last one as an early draft past the judge (or, even worse, the Defense team had not even taken the time to take a logical look at the 5 versions they submitted).

  At the weakest, it showed some definite intent by Steve Jobs at that time and it contradicted what Moerer and Saul had testified.  While Eddy Cue testified that he changed his mind on this and that explicit language did not make it into the final contract language, the publishers did in fact coincidentally insist that Amazon agree to use the Agency model.

  Judge Cote's Decision describes this in Footnote 24 connected with her statement on Page 50 that "there is no evidence...that Apple ever rescinded its demand that each of [the e-book retailers] move to an agency arrangement with all resellers."

Random House refused to sign up for the change to higher book prices, explaining that they felt retailers best understood selling; their e-books were not allowed in the Apple iBookstore for a year (imagine the media uproar if Amazon had banned Random House from the Amazon store for not agreeing to their wholesaler model with lower pricing for bestsellers), until Random House waved the white flag when Apple withheld permission for an app important to Random House.


Things that stood out, in the Decision - as cited by the PublishersWeekly article by Andrew Albanese
  1. "In the final analysis, the case wasn’t even close.  In its defense, Apple had argued on three main points, and lost soundly on all three." (Details in the article)

  2. "Throughout the opinion Cote made numerous observations on the proceedings in her court. She criticized the publishers and Apple executives not only for what she clearly views as their participation in a conspiracy, but also for their lack of credibility on the stand, calling out Macmillan CEO John Sargent and S&S CEO Carolyn Reidy by name as among the most 'unreliable' witnesses...
...
"The poor performances on the stand helped doom Apple.  Indeed, given the vast amount of documentary evidence, Apple needed its witnesses to strongly rebut the facts, but they did not...
...
"Jobs’s statements offered 'powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent...'
...
" 'Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs’s statements in a way that will eliminate their bite.  Its efforts have proven fruitless.'


Judge Cote's Decision itself has this interesting footnote in connection with publishers insisting they never talked with the other publishers about their contract talks with Apple.

' On December 15, Hachette’s Young spoke to S&S’s Reidy by telephone prior to his meeting with Cue. On December 16, Reidy called Young just minutes after her meeting with Cue had ended. The next day, the two exchanged three calls. '

What's next? - From the same PublishersWeekly article
Albanese quotes Christopher Sagers, a law professor at Cleveland State University "who has followed the case closely." Apple is appealing to the Second Circuit, and Sagers says "I think it's extremely unlikely, however, that the Second Circuit would do anything except resoundingly affirm in all respects."

  Sagers adds that the judge's "fact rulings" are "essentially unassailable on appeal...it will be exceedingly hard because you’ve got a 160-page opinion that is extraordinarily, meticulously detailed as to the findings of fact.”

  While there are a few ways to handle this, he expects a damages trial but they can put that off until after the appeal, which should take about a year..."

  More at the PW article.


Here's an especially good article by Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin on the history of this e-book-pricing battle and a thorough explanation of the differences between the traditional wholesaler arrangement and the agency model
  "How Apple led an e-book price conspiracy—in the judge’s words"
  and a very good summary by Brian X. Chen and Julie Bosman, for the New York Times.


For side interest: Fortune's Philip Elmer-Dewitt and AllThingsD's Peter Kafka detailed Eddy Cue's day spent talking about Steve Jobs and his loving care to the iPad and its content.  Neither writer understood how any of that had any bearing on the case, but the Judge did allow it all in.  The MacObserver's Bryan Chaffin mentions both these articles asking and himself asking "Why?":
  "Long-term Apple watchers and fans of Steve Jobs will enjoy the added context of knowing some of these things.  The question, however, is why did Apple's attorneys spend its time with Eddy Cue talking about them."

  Re the 'marketing' tactic I mentioned earlier, Chaffin mentions "heartstrings" but then points out that "This isn't a jury trial, though; it's a bench trial...[the Judge]..will be deciding the case on law, not emotion."
  Elmer-Dewitt for Fortune, a business-conservative site, wrote, "Orin Snyder, Apple's chief counsel, did his best to exploit the pathos."  These words are from hardnosed business writers.

  I liked the link to Elizabeth Williams' courtroom drawings, drawn for Bloomberg TV.


Downloadable
Judge Cote's decision - the best read of all on this, and no more difficult to understand than a mystery novel.  The intrigue detailed just before (and because of) the launch of the iPad and iBookstore is fascinating stuff.

---

Check often: Temporarily-free recently published Kindle books
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.  Liked-books under $1
UK-Only: recently published free books, bestsellers, or £5 Max ones
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

  *Click* to Return to the HOME PAGE.  Or click on the web browser's BACK button

Read More

Kindle news: U.S. Justice Dept calls Apple "Ringmaster" in e-book price-fixing. Why Android is Winning the Tablet Wars. New NBC-Universal PRIME video deals. The Big Deal (500 books) is back.

Apple being seen as instigator of eBook price-fixing attempts

In addition to the TUAW (The Unofficial Apple Weblog) report, which sources the NY Times article which may not be accessible to some near the end of any month, here are the recent articles on the e-book pricing wars going back a year and through 'today' for those interested in any details of the last year's results from federal, state, and UK lawsuits that have left Apple, alone, fighting the U.S. Justice Department lawsuit still.
  The publishers have bailed.  The trial begins June 3 in New York.

  I stopped detailing the situation after all the settlements were happening, one after another, but kept a chronological list of linked news stories on how it all began and what was discovered during the several investigations, as a lot was being misrepresented throughout the PR wars.  The items are all sourced.

  It was especially difficult to sort out when the largest media sites were also large publishers with a bit at stake so that the reports were too often not exactly illuminating but I collected the more informative ones.

  I also put together a TIMELINE, which shows more clearly what kinds of things the Department of Justice (DOJ) would have seen that had not made it into most news reports.

  The New York Times article opens with the e-mail from Steve Jobs to James Murdoch of News Corporation: "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."

  That e-mail is part of the evidence in the DOJ's stance explained by TUAW as, "Apple was the 'ringmaster' in a price-fixing conspiracy in the market for e-books, a more direct leadership role than originally portrayed in the department’s April 2012 antitrust lawsuit against Apple and five publishing companies."

  Two days after that email, HarperCollins, owned by News Corporation, "signed an agreement with Apple to force all sellers of electronic books to adopt the new pricing model, the government said."

  Apple does its usual in describing all this as not conspiring to fix prices on ebooks, of course, but instead 'explaining' that “We helped transform the e-book market with the introduction of the iBookstore in 2010, bringing consumers an expanded selection of e-books and delivering innovative new features ... The market has been thriving and innovating since Apple’s entry, and we look forward to going to trial to defend ourselves and move forward.”

  If you can access it, read the rest of the NYT article on how Apple itself described its strong-arming of Random House during this, which is why the lawsuit did not include Random House.  In fact, for about a year, Random House books were not found in Apple's iBook store due to some disagreement about the Agency Agreement.

 Now, when Amazon removed buy-tags for awhile when Macmillan insisted on using the Agency Agreement (rather than the long-time traditional wholesaler bookstore agreement which guaranteed publishers a bit more, so this was about control) and when Macmillan, furthermore, also insisted on the higher pricing that they would set and which Amazon and other book stores were not allowed to lower even for Sales promos, Amazon received a shellacking from the larger publishing houses and newspapers for being a dangerous "monopolist" out to destroy the publishing industry.

  Imagine if Amazon had just not allowed Random House (said to be the largest U.S. publisher of novels) into the Amazon Kindle store for a year due to a contract dispute over a pricing agreement.  Apple did, though, paint itself as sort of a road-side shop (its book store) relative to big, bad Amazon.
  At the time, Random House said, at a press conference, that it felt that Amazon knew a bit more about book-selling and pricing than Random House did.  The following year, Random House did join in the Agency Agreement, but they were not part of the group that formed the higher-price restrictions for booksellers.

  On the other hand, Amazon's lowering the price on all books would be a danger to smaller stores, and there is an understandable restriction on what it is allowed to do with the lowering of prices on its Kindle books.

  In settling, the publishers agreed:

' to lift restrictions imposed on discounting and other promotions by e-book retailers.  The companies are also prohibited from entering into new agreements with similar restrictions until December 2014.

  The publishers must also notify the government in advance about any e-book ventures they plan with each other, and they are prohibited for five years from agreeing to any kind of so-called most-favored-nation clause with any retailer, which establishes that no other retailer is allowed to sell e-books for a lower price. '

I suppose that after five years they WOULD be allowed to agree to a clause with any retailer that "no other retailer is allowed to sell e-books for a lower price."  Until then, enjoy the kind of flexible pricing we grew up with, on printed books in bookstores.

The NY Times report was from Edward Wyatt in Washington and Nick Wingfield in Seattle.
For more details on how Apple dealt with Random House when they resisted all this, see the NYT article.


Other, QUICK News, mainly links and excerpts that may be of interest
"Why Android is Winning the Tablet Wars -- Forbes, Todd Hixon, Contributor.
  Includes: "The five most popular tablets on Amazon today (May 14, 2013) are four 7 inch Kindle and Samsung tablets selling for $179 – $229, and an 8.9 inch Kindle selling for $269.

  Apple held on to over 70% market share in iPods throughout the life cycle. The iPod is a media consumption device, and the link to the iTunes content access/management platform was unbeatable. It’s clear that tablets will be a different story, more like PCs. They are becoming a diverse market with several strong brands (Samsung, Asus/Google, Amazon/Kindle), a large number of popular-price offerings, and multiple content access platforms."


  More PRIME video news: "AMAZON CONFIRMS GRIMM, HANNIBAL, SUITS AND DEFIANCE COMING TO AMAZON PRIME." The Slanted:

'... the Amazon Instant Video that is included in Amazon Prime is one of the services major selling points.

Now with the NBC Universal deal customers can watch earlier seasons of “Grimm,” and “Suits” from USA starting today. “Hannibal” will launch later this year on the service and the hit series “Defiance,” will be made available in early 2014.
  Prime Instant Video will also add past seasons of NBC’s “Smash” and “Alphas”.  The deal also includes “Eureka” and “Warehouse 13″. For the parents out there, “Curious George” and “Land efore Time,” will both be made available in the Kindle FreeTime Unlimited content service. '

Added detail at CNET.


THE BIG DEAL is Back [again]: Shop Popular Books by Category
"Save up to 85% on more than 500 Kindle books through May 27.  Shop for yourself or give Kindle books as gifts to anyone with any e-mail address." [Note the expiration date.]

---

Current Kindle Models, worldwide for reference, plus free-ebook search links.

  NOTES on newer Kindles.

US: Updated Kindle Fire 2 Basic  7" tablet - $159 Kindle Fire HD 7" 16/32GB - $199/$229 Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 16/32GB - $269/$299 Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G 32/64GB - $399/$499 Kindle NoTouch ("Kindle") - $69/$89 Kindle Touch WiFi - $99 Kindle Paperwhite, WiFi - $119/$139 Kindle Paperwhite, WiFi+3G - $179/$199 Kindle Keybd 3G - $139/$159, Free slow web Kindle DX - $379 $299 Discontinued

UK: Kindle Basic, NoTouch - £69 Kindle Touch WiFi , UK - ~£89 Refurb'd Kindle Keyboard 3G, UK - £149   Keybd: w/ Free, slow 3G WEB Kindle Paperwhite, WiFi - £109 Kindle Paperwhite 3G, UK - £169 Kindle Fire 2, UK -  £129 Kindle Fire HD 7" 16/32GB, UK - £159/199 Canada - Kindlestore, CDN-$ Kindle Basic, NoTouch - $79 Kindle Paperwhite, WiFi - $129 Kindle Paperwhite, 3G - $199

*OTHER International* Kindle NoTouch Basic - $89 Kindle Touch WiFi - $139 Kindle Keybd 3G - $189   Keybd: w/ Free, slow 3G WEB Paperwhite WiFi $139, 3G/Wifi $199 France Boutique Kindle Deutschland - Kindle Store Italia - Kindle Store Spain - Tienda Kindle Brazil - Amazon Brazil China - Amazon China [?] Japan - Amazon Japan

---

Check often: Temporarily-free recently published Kindle books
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.  Liked-books under $1
UK-Only: recently published free books, bestsellers, or £5 Max ones
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

  *Click* to Return to the HOME PAGE.  Or click on the web browser's BACK button

Read More

Kindle News: Judge Cote approves anti-trust settlement, and some Kindle book prices drop.

Judge Cote approved the settlement between DOJ and three publishers, and some Kindle book prices have already dropped.

This all happened while the Amazon new Kindles were being announced, and I concentrated on the many new-Kindle details.  A bit earlier, the Dept of Justice had prepared more papers asking Judge Cote to approve the antitrust settlement, and the information to justify that was similar to what went before..

  Many had thought that it would be some time before the judge made a decision, as there was so much opposition to the settlement by the usual groups, but she approved the settlement quickly, within days.

Agency Agreements and final judgment
  The Agency Agreements were made when the Big5 settling publishers were communicating among themselves in early 2010 (leaving quite a paper and e-document trail in what's been deemed a quite open colluding to fix selling-prices).   In the past, traditional agreements consisted of the publisher setting recommended list-prices, and Amazon had used these amounts as a basis for payments they made to publishers, guaranteeing them payment even on e-books sold as loss-leaders).

  Peers writes that the final judgment entered in court on Sept. 7 gave the publishers "10 days to take steps to let e-book retailers out of agreements that prevented discounting" (from that day, I guess).

  PaidContent's Jeff John Roberts writes, "the publishers must abandon so-called "agency pricing" contracts within seven days of the settlement’s approval."

E-book price reductions discussed in Kindle Forums
A few days ago, members of the Kindle Forum Community traded info on e-book prices they saw already coming down, on books published by the companies who settled with the DOJ, and the consensus was that the price drops were averaging about 27% at the time but that not many of the prices had been modified to show $9.99.

WSJ mentions a bestseller sold at $9.99
  The Wall Street Journal's Martin Peers points to a new release sold for $9.99 at Amazon and at Apple's iBook store.  However, there have always been a few that were sold at that lower price, the difference being that two years before, most NYT e-bestsellers were sold at $9.99, and I'm not sure this was a price-drop rather than an agreed price.

  "Under terms of the settlement," Roberts reports, "Amazon can sell titles below cost so long as all their e-book sales together do not add up to a loss."

The two publishers who haven't settled
  The two publishing houses that chose not to settle were Penguin Group (USA) and Macmillan, as they are among those who find the too-comfortable ("not enough friction") public library borrowing of e-books unattractive, even at only one borrower at a time per paid e-book)

The three who have settled
  Harper Collins confirmed it has reached a new agreement with Amazon and other retailers.

  Peers adds that it's not clear when Simon & Schuster Inc and Hachette Book Group will reach new deals.

Apple matches Amazon's new lower price on a an e-book WSJ was watching
  The Wall St. Journal's closing paragraph is especially interesting.

' Apple, however, appears to be intent on remaining competitive with Amazon. While “Telegraph Avenue” was initially listed at $17.99 on iBooks on Tuesday, that quickly dropped to $9.99. '

Full articles and some words from Judge Cote, who doesn't mince them
You can read the full article at the WSJ blog.

There are some nuggets from a very straightforward but colorful Judge reported by what seems a somewhat dubious Roberts, who writes, "Her latest ruling suggests she is more convinced than ever:"

' Although the Government did not submit any economic studies to support its allegations, such studies are unnecessary… In this straightforward price-fixing case, no further showing is required. '

  Although upcoming hearings on the settlement were expected, giving Apple and others another opportunity to voice their objections, 'Judge Cote wrote that a hearing was unnecessary given the voluminous facts submitted by the government: "A hearing would serve only to delay the proceedings unnecessarily."'

  Although, Roberts writes, "the vast majority of public comments in response to the settlement were negative", Judge Cote adds, he says,

' that some of those comments were "extreme" and sought to blame "every evil to befall publishing on Amazon’s $9.99 price for newly released and bestselling e-books, and crediting every positive event — including entry of new competitors in the market for e-readers — on the advent of agency pricing."

And (I have to love this just for the poem) he reports that she also "adds a paean to books and reading, and posts a Dickinson poem in the middle of the judgment:

' There is no Frigate like a Book
To take us Lands away,
Nor any Coursers like a Page
Of prancing Poetry –
This Traverse may the poorest take Without oppress of Toll –
How frugal is the Chariot
That bears a Human soul '

Next steps:
1.   U.S. Court of Appeals

2.   Apple and the two other publishers who haven't settled with the DOJ have chosen to go forward with the trial, next summer, provided they don't decide to settle.

While the three settling publishers agreed to pay "millions of dollars" in a deal with state governments, Roberts shows that individual consumers won't see that much from it.  From what I read in earlier articles on the settlement, they will be able to enter into agency agreements (which were not the problem), on an individual basis this time, a couple of years down the road

Here's the Opinion.  The document was filed Sept 6, 2012 (a red letter day for Amazon)


Here's more info on it all from the other side of the story (Publishers Weekly)


Ongoing Discounted-book alerts message thread is now more active as a result
  I'll link you to a Sept 11 page starting with the first meaningful discount, as many are only a dollar or so before that.  You can go backwards and forwards in the thread of course.


Earlier e-book pricing-war articles in the area here
History of the e-book pricing wars with sourcing
TIMELINE - articles written at the time, w/ sources and factors included in the lawsuit

---

Check often: Temporarily-free recently published Kindle books
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.  Liked-books under $1
UK-Only: recently published free books, bestsellers, or £5 Max ones
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

  *Click* to Return to the HOME PAGE.  Or click on the web browser's BACK button

Read More

Kindle News: DOJ describes Apple's response to eBook-pricing lawsuit as "self-serving"

US Department of Justice announces plans to move forward with the proposed settlement with some e-book publishers

ArsTechnica's Jacqui Cheng reports that, in a
64-page response (PDF) to the comments received on the settlement, the DOJ repeated its reasons for suing Apple and the Big5 publishers, characterizing Apple's proposed solutions as "contrary to the public interest."

The DOJ said again that it had conducted a "lengthy investigation" into the e-book price increases of 2010 that

' uncovered significant evidence that the seismic shift in e-book prices was not the result of market forces, but rather came about through the collusive efforts of Apple and five of the six largest publishers in the country '

Cheng writes that the DOJ's view was that "the only critical commenters were those with an interest in seeing people pay more for e-books."

  It's explained again that the lawsuit is not against any agency model despite Senator Charles Schumer's hysterical statement recently that if Apple had to adopt Amazon's traditional wholesale model (it's not being asked to do that], it could "wipe out the publishing industry as we know it."

  I kept the Betanews article on Schumer's statements for later-blogging because I was so beguiled by his set of arguments.

1. "The suit will restore Amazon to the dominant position atop the e-books market it occupied for years before competition arrived in the form of Apple...If that happens, consumers will be forced to accept whatever prices Amazon sets."

2. Betanews' Ed Oswald reports that "He further argues that allowing Amazon to sell books at rock-bottom prices makes it much more difficult for publishers -- especially smaller ones -- to survive in the ebook market."

Of course, the dissenters to the lawsuit and settlement will repeat that Amazon would continue to charge these "rock-bottom" sales prices (of the type you see in print bookstores for the bestsellers today) that the Big 5 had described as "devaluing" their print books only until Amazon monopolized the market and THEN they could charge whatever they really want, with no competition available.  They're already arguing that Amazon had 90% of the market and would have us believe Amazon would otherwise get 100% of it.

Amazon, the monopoly that would raise price levels above publisher-criticized "rock-bottom" prices
  The Big5 publishers' logic in all this is Beware: Amazon would SOME day raise the e-book prices, once all competitors are gone, to the price levels the Big 5 HAVE been charging for the last 2 years -- 30-100%+ OVER the prices in the past for new e-books.

  Imagine Amazon possibly doing later what the Big 5 are doing now.  In fact, Amazon's business strategy has never been to out-charge other stores.  And that's at the heart of why they're feared by the publishers who were so hostile to e-books at all in 2010 and who still won't, for the most part, allow them to be lent from public libraries.

  The beta-news comments-area focusing on e-book pricing is not friendly to Schumer's arguments.

  To be fair, the publishers are right to worry they'd not get the best deal from Amazon were if it were to become an actual monopoly, and the DOJ response explains what would be done IF that were to happen someday.

Jacqui Cheng, the senior Apple Editor at ArsTechnica links to her earlier article on Schumer's statement, a 100% regurgitation of the Apple position, which is inaccurate and misleading if you've followed the details reported by all sides over the last two years.*

  Also note her title for this DOJ-response story, which merely implies the DOJ feels Amazon was also in the 'wrong' which is not at all what the DOJ response says.  But she gives a balanced report otherwise although she stops to argue with the DOJ's assertion that B&N was more of a competing force than Apple, which claimed credit for saving us from Amazon via its iBooks.  Apple -- which kept Random House books out of its iBook Store because Random House would not agree to the Agency Model.

More Key sections from the DOJ's response to public comments on lawsuit
These are for anyone who wants to see quickly, but in more detail, the types of statements made in the DOJ response:

' The United States conducted a lengthy investigation into this steep price increase and uncovered significant evidence that the seismic shift in e-book prices was not the result of market forces, but rather came about through the collusive efforts of Apple and five of the six largest publishers in the country.
  That conduct, which is detailed in the United States’ Complaint against those entities, is per se illegal under the federal antitrust laws.
...
Critical comments generally were submitted by those who have an interest in seeing consumers pay more for e-books, and hobbling retailers that might want to sell e-books at lower prices...
...
Many critics of the settlements view the consequences of the conspiracy—higher prices—as serving their own self-interests, and they prefer that unfettered competition be replaced by industry collusion that places the welfare of certain firms over that of the public.  That position is wholly at odds with the purposes of the federal antitrust laws—which were enacted to protect competition, not competitors...
...
...But the reality is that, despite its conspiratorial efforts, Apple’s entry into the e-book market was not immediately successful.  It was, in fact, Barnes & Noble’s entry—prior to Apple—that took significant share away from Amazon; and many of the touted innovations were in development long before Apple decided to enter the market via conspiracy.
...
The United States, however, does not object to the agency method of distribution in the e-book industry, only to the collusive use of agency to eliminate competition and thrust higher prices onto consumers.  Publishers that did not collude are not required to surrender agency agreements [ab: important note there] and even the settling publishers here can resume agency, if they act unilaterally, after only two years ...
...
There is no mistaking the fear that many of the commenters have of the prospect of competing with Amazon on price.  No doubt Amazon is a vigorous e-book competitor...Of course, low prices, fierce rivalries, and innovation are among the core ambitions of free markets.  Contrary to the apparent views of many commenters, “the goal of antitrust law is to use rivalry to keep prices low for consumers’ benefit.  Employing antitrust law to drive prices up would turn the Sherman Act on its head..."
...
In addition, the e-book industry has attracted participation from the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Sony. The future is unclear and the path for many industry members may be fraught with uncertainty and risk.  But certainly there is no shortage of competitive assets and capabilities being brought to bear in the e-books industry.  A purpose of the proposed Final Judgment is to prevent entrenched industry members from arresting via collusion the potentially huge benefits of intense competition in an evolving market. [AB: All emphases mine.]
...
Finally, even if there were evidence to substantiate claims of “monopolization” or “predatory pricing,” they would not be sufficient to justify self-help in the form of ollusion...
...
Thus, whatever defendants’ and commenters’ perceived grievances against Amazon or any other firm are, they are no excuse for the conduct remedied by the proposed Final Judgment.
...
B&N also claims that “average” retail and wholesale prices for e-books have declined under the current, collusively-established regime, although it admits that the price of “some e-books” increased following Publisher Defendants’ collective shift to agency and the Apple Agency Agreement price points.  See B&N at 13-15.  The United States obtained evidence that demonstrated that the conspiracy led to price increases not only in Publisher Defendants’ most popular e-books, but also for “the balance of Publisher Defendants’ e-book catalogues, their so-called ‘backlists.’”

[AB note: And they're not fooled as Schumer is by the conflicting excuses given.  Cheng's chosen headline out of *all this* was that the DOJ said "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" - indicating that the DOJ felt Amazon was in the wrong as a monopolist -- in fact the DOJ says this is just speculation and unsubstantiated and if ever it became true they would deal with any actual monopoly... ]

Third, like other retailers with an interest in high consumer prices and protected distributor margins, Apple makes the argument that the ability to compete on price “will enable Amazon to charge monopoly prices into perpetuity.” ...
...
That argument assumes, without support, that Amazon could or would exercise such market power, even in the face of significant share erosion, which was already significant prior to Apple’s entry.  Further, the entire conspiracy alleged here was, for Publisher Defendants, about increasing the retail price of e-books.

As the Complaint alleges repeatedly, the shared goal of Publisher Defendants was to “act collectively to force up Amazon’s retail prices.” ... Publisher Defendants would have welcomed monopoly-like pricing with open arms; what they feared was the exact opposite—that the Amazon-led $9.99 price would stick, to the benefit of consumers and the perceived detriment of Publisher Defendants...'

* History and Timeline, from news articles, with sourcing
  . TIMELINE:  Ebook Pricing Wars - what DOJ would have seen.
  . History and Timeline of the Pricing Wars in News Articles, with Sourcing

Read More

Kindle News: U.S files antitrust suit against Apple and publishers not settling. DOJ A/G statement at press conference included. UPDATE5

"Justice Department formally charges Apple, big five publishers in e-book price fixing case"

That's Engadget's headline

It's short and to the point. The Kindle Forum had the Engadget article, and the Washington Post one below, by Bob Van Voris, was sent by Edward Boyhan and has MUCH more detail. I have to leave, so I'll just direct you to the stories and to the transcript or release of Attorney General Holder's statement today.

Essentially, The DOJ decided to sue Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster over alleged e-book price-rigging.  Apple and Macmillian have already denied any wrongdoing, Engadget points out, saying that the agreements were enhancing competition in an industry previously dominated by Amazon (Oh, brother).

Fuller story: Washington Post with Bloomberg, by Bob Van Voris.

The Kindle Forum members also came up with the US Dept of Justice webpage for Attorney General Eric Holder's speech today at the Ebooks Press conference.

  Here it is in its entirety, as it's meant for all of us as a public service.:

' Today I’m joined by Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Sharis Pozen, and Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, to announce the Justice Department’s latest progress in protecting American consumers from anticompetitive harm, ensuring fairness in the marketplace, and making certain that cutting-edge technologies are available at the lowest possible price.

In recent years, we have seen the rapid growth – and the many benefits – of electronic books. E-books are transforming our daily lives, and improving how information and content is shared. For the growing number of Americans who want to take advantage of this new technology, the Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that e-books are as affordable as possible.

As part of this commitment, the Department has reached a settlement with three of the nation’s largest book publishers – and will continue to litigate against Apple, and two additional leading publishers – for conspiring to increase the prices that consumers pay for e-books.

Earlier today, we filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Apple and five different book publishers – Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster. In response to our allegations, three of these publishers – Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster – agreed to a proposed settlement. If approved by the court, this settlement would resolve the Department’s antitrust concerns with these companies, and would require them to grant retailers – such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble – the freedom to reduce the prices of their e-book titles. The settlement also requires the companies to terminate their anticompetitive most-favored-nation agreements with Apple and other e-books retailers.

In addition, the companies will be prohibited for two years from placing constraints on retailers’ ability to offer discounts to consumers. They will also be prohibited from conspiring or sharing competitively sensitive information with their competitors for five years. And each is required to implement a strong antitrust compliance program. These steps are appropriate – and essential in ensuring a competitive marketplace.

Beginning in the summer of 2009, we allege that executives at the highest levels of the companies included in today’s lawsuit – concerned that e-book sellers had reduced prices – worked together to eliminate competition among stores selling e-books, ultimately increasing prices for consumers. As a result of this alleged conspiracy, we believe that consumers paid millions of dollars more for some of the most popular titles.

During regular, near-quarterly meetings, we allege that publishing company executives discussed confidential business and competitive matters – including Amazon’s e-book retailing practices – as part of a conspiracy to raise, fix, and stabilize retail prices. In addition, we allege that these publishers agreed to impose a new model which would enable them to seize pricing authority from bookstores; that they entered into agreements to pay Apple a 30 percent commission on books sold through its iBookstore; and that they promised – through contracts including most-favored-nation provisions – that no other e-book retailer would set a lower price. Our investigation even revealed that one CEO allegedly went so far as to encourage an e-book retailer to punish another publisher for not engaging in these illegal practices.

In advancing this critical investigation, I’d like to thank Attorney General Jepsen and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott – along with our partners at the European Commission – for their hard work and close cooperation. Today’s action sends a clear message that the Department’s Antitrust Division continues to be open for business – and that we will not hesitate to do what is necessary to protect American consumers.

I am grateful for the outstanding leadership that Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis Pozen has provided in this matter. Not only has she ensured a seamless transition in the Division’s senior leadership, she has proven that vigorous enforcement will remain its hallmark. I also want to commend her dedicated team, and thank each of the attorneys and investigators who worked so hard to make today’s announcement possible. Although this matter remains in its initial stages, it’s clear that, in all of you, the Department – and the American people – could have no stronger team of advocates.

At this time, I’d like to turn things over to Sharis, who will provide additional details on today’s action. '

Acting Asst. Atty General Sharis A Pozen speaks next
  She cites quotes from publishers in connection with openly conspiring among themselves to get Amazon to raise prices.

 She prefaced these with, "I would just like to give you a flavor of the egregiousness of the alleged behavior, which took place at the highest levels of these publishing companies by providing you with some statements from our complaint..."


Kindle-Edition blog subscribers
Again, Kindle-Edition subscribers can click on the links and once on the Web,
click Menu/Article-Mode and read these fairly comfortably.  I hope that will work well for most.

ApppleInsider talks about other aspects involved.  Simon & Schuster, Hachette and HarperCollins have already settled with the department to avoid the suit.  Apple, Macmillan, and Penguin are the holdouts.

From Reuters:

' The Justice Department complaint cites an email from an executive for an unnamed publisher pointing out the need for the publishers to work together to convince Amazon to raise prices.

"We've always known that unless other publishers follow us, there's no chance of success in getting Amazon to change its pricing practices," the executive wrote.

"Without a critical mass behind us, Amazon won't 'negotiate,' so we need to be more confident of how our fellow publishers will react," the executive said in the email. '

FULL TEXT of the DOJ case against Apple and the publishers, found by Larkspotter at the forum.  It's a 36-page pdf.

Wired's Tim Carmody reports DOJ Announces Terms of Settlement With Three Publishers in E-Book Suit.  He lists them and includes the proposed settlement doc.

Update 5 - Commenter Tom Semple writes that the Publishers Lunch site's Details From the DOJ's Lawsuit "summarizes some of the juicier details," so I'm adding it here while back briefly and am leaving again.
  Thanks, Tom!


Related articles
TIMELINE:  Ebook Pricing Wars - what DOJ would have seen.
Also, History of the e-book pricing wars



Kindle Touch 3G, US-only   Kindle Touch WiFi (US)   Kindle Touch WiFi-Only, outside US    Kindle Basic   (UK: KBasic)   Kindle Fire
Kindle Keybd 3G   (UK: Kindle Keybd 3G)   K3 Special Offers   K3-3G Special Offers   DX

---

Check often: Temporarily-free recently published ones
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.  Liked-books under $1
UK-Only: recently published free books, bestsellers, or £5 Max ones
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

  *Click* to Return to the HOME PAGE.  Or click on the web browser's BACK button

Read More

Kindle News: US Dept. of Justice and Apple/Big5 may settle soon. The issues.

Friday I saw a WSJ article about the strong rumors that the Department of Justice and the "Agency" grouping of Apple and Big 5 publishers back in Jan. 2010 are likely to settle soon, before the U.S. Dept of Justice goes ahead with the lawsuit they've mentioned strongly.

Reuters writes it could happen "in the next few weeks" and they have two sources "close to the negotiations" though no one's said which side of the issue the two sources are.  It doesn't seem likely to me (but who knows?) that Apple/Big5-associated would leak a rumor that they are working toward a settlement in which they'd need to give up some of their control over retailer prices.

' While negotiations are still fluid, the settlement is expected to eliminate Apple's so-called "most favored nation" status, which had prevented the publishers from selling lower-priced e-books through rival retailers such as Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) or Barnes & Noble Inc (BKS.N), the people said. '

Most news writers agree that both Amazon and customers would benefit from a move back to something like the "wholesale model" that had been in effect for decades before February 2010.  In fact, under the wholesale arrangement all these years, the publisher set the retail price and Amazon paid 50% of that, period.  50% of the publisher's suggested selling price.

  No matter what you read about how the publisher should have the right to set the price, the publisher had always set the suggested retail price upon which the 50% they received from retailers (Amazon, B&N, etc.) was based (an average $26 at the time), and then it was up to the retailer to sell those books at whatever price worked for them, since the publisher's share was already allocated.  Sometimes there were loss leaders in the most popular books (New York Times Bestsellers) and sometimes prices were higher for books that were sold in fewer quantities.

  There is a LOT more in that Reuters article, upon which most news articles were based this weekend.

NPR Panel - a good point made
A transcript of a panel discussing the DOJ vs Apple/Big5 dynamics

  David Young, the CEO of Hachette, gets only one sentence in that transcript:

' There was no future, as I saw it, at 9.99 other than ruin. '

  Dr. James McQuivey, VP and principal analyst at Forrester Research had this to say:

  [LYNN} NEARY: If publishers price the e-book right, says McQuivey, there's a good chance they'll attract more customers.

  MCQUIVEY: And the economics of getting 10 times as many people to pay 5.99 are actually favorable. But the publishers don't want that because then it would make you think, well, wait a minute, why is the paper copy 24.99?  I'm never going to buy one of those again.  And they're just not ready for that hard switchover yet, even though they know it's coming. '

  Since publishers have been very open about their concern that Amazon's lower pricing on e-books would devalue their printed books, that seems a good point.

  On an e-book with publisher's suggested retail price of $26, for which Amazon or B&N then used to pay 50% to the publisher, the publisher and author income (if enough of the revenue was passed down to the author) would be more than they're currently getting.  The issue has been control and keeping the value of hardcover and paperback books higher.  The issue hasn't been publisher or author revenue on e-books.


Related article
  TIMELINE:  Ebook Pricing Wars - what DOJ would have seen - March 12, 2012



Kindle Touch 3G, US-only   Kindle Touch WiFi (US)   Kindle Touch WiFi-Only, outside US    Kindle Basic   (UK: KBasic)   Kindle Fire
Kindle Keybd 3G   (UK: Kindle Keybd 3G)   K3 Special Offers   K3-3G Special Offers   DX

---

Check often: Temporarily-free recently published ones
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.  Liked-books under $1
UK-Only: recently published free books, bestsellers, or £5 Max ones
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

  *Click* to Return to the HOME PAGE.  Or click on the web browser's BACK button

Read More