Monday, July 15, 2013
For those of us who have embraced eBooks, the US district
court’s ruling last week was read with more than a passing interest. The court ruled that Apple played a
"central role" in a conspiracy with the biggest book publishers in
the United States to fix prices
in violation of antitrust law.
To understand this ruling a bit of history might be in
order. When the sales of eBooks first
began to take off, Amazon was in the catbird seat. They sold most books at $9.95 or less. Best sellers, classics, even special interest
publications were sold below10 bucks. Then, all of a sudden when the iPad was
introduced and Apple wanted into the eBook market, publishers raised their
prices. Apparently the Federal Judge
took notice and ruled that this was not a coincidence and those meetings
between Apple and some of the publishers were not as benign as Apple’s top
brass maintained.
The publishers are not happy, insisting that they need
higher prices to make a decent profit.
This is something that I just don’t understand.
Before the advent of eBooks and the Internet, the publishing
business was much more complex. It
required the manufacturing, i.e. printing, of books, warehousing,
transportation and agreements with affiliate books stores. All was very expensive. Even the decision of the number of copies to
print was a big gamble. Too many copies
sitting in a warehouse of a less than stellar title was expensive. Too few copies made available of a gang
buster best seller could cost even more money.
Today, with the advent of eBooks publishers have no printing
cost, no warehouse fees and no transportation costs. They don’t have to have any product on the
shelf waiting for a buyer. In short,
most of the risk and hard costs have vanished.
Nevertheless they lament that lower prices for the consumer will render
their business unprofitable.
If they could make a profit selling traditional books at 15
bucks each, why can’t they make even more profit selling eBooks at $9.95? Perhaps bits and bytes are more expensive
than paper and ink but I think not.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home