> If Amazon attempted to sell e-books below the publisher-set levels, the publishers would simply deny Amazon access to the title, the complaint claims.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hg3Qe5XrI...
Similarly,
> Recently, you may have heard that a small group of UK publishers will require booksellers to adopt an “agency model” for selling e-books. Under this model, publishers set the consumer price for each e-book and require any bookseller to sell at that price. This is unlike the traditional wholesale model that’s been in place for decades, where booksellers set consumer prices.
http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/amazon-uk-tells-customers-...
This is the price-fixing Amazon is complaining about: "you can't sell our books unless you sell them at our prices." As far as I know, their complaint has nothing to do with royalty percentages or competition with Apple's iBook prices.
(edited for clarity)
The incentive that Apple offered was helping publishers control downstream prices, which is exactly the price-fixing this case is about.
Amazon was not forced to do anything, they chose to offer the same deal Apple does because they wanted to keep the business.
If Amazon only capitulated to this deal in order to keep the big six on board, why do they offer it to everybody, including small publishers?
https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2MLJ06E...
That "%70 royalty" option is comparable to Apple's deal.
Also, why am I arguing with people who are not in a better grasp of the facts than I am, but who are instead repeating un-substantiated speculation and assertion?
I think you owe me some factual citations- namely, how Amazon was "forced" to do anything. Remember, choosing not to do business with someone is simply an expression of freedom of association. This is a recognized right in the USA. My ford dealership might want to sell toyotas, but toyota has the right not to sell me cars, "forcing" me to get them on the secondary market. So, when you say "force" you must mean a legal, or physical, rather than competitive threat, right? Because if it was simply the pressure from a competing deal that was better, well, Amazon voluntarily took that deal, they were not "forced" into it.
Please also show how apple did anything other than offer a better deal.
If you're going to make the allegation, shouldn't you have some evidence to cite?