geoduck, you somehow just became even cooler in my eyes.
And Angry Birds. And Doodle Jump. That seems great way to while away the off hours after the apocalypse.
Bless you for noticing, dswoodley. It drives me nuts every time one of these reports comes out. Thanks for the comment.
I was conflating some reports I've read on publisher's digital sales with reports on market share. It appears that ebook market share has been compiled by studies, rather than released numbers. There are untold numbers of articles citing various studies and research that pegged Amazon's ebook share at 90% in late 2009 when Apple wanted to enter the market. Here's one from BusinessInsider citing sources in publishing, but there are gobs out there. Certainly the 90% share was accepted as evidence during Apple's antitrust trial. My apologies for misunderstanding your point about Amazon not releasing Kindle numbers. That said, I…
Hey daemon, I don't believe that's correct. Eddy Cue argued that Apple negotiated the (legal) MFN clause, and at that point no longer cared what prices were. Apple did ask for maximum pricing (in the form of tiers), and argued in court that it did so to prevent publishers from charging too much. As noted earlier, Judge Cote specified that she didn't find Apple's witnesses (i.e. Cue) credible. This summation of the verdict (from a broader study of the case) puts it succinctly: "Judge Cote found that because the Plaintiffs proved a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy between the Book Publishers, Apple’s…
daemon, I have put considerable thought into this. I have a long history of criticizing Apple when I disagree with its actions. Sherlock/Watson, going after journalist sources, and pulling Wiley books out of the Apple Store in retaliation for iCon are three instances where I have publicly heaped criticism on Apple. In any event, the agency model is not illegal. That's Apple's SOP for selling virtual goods. Neither is open to interpretation.
daemon, you're mixing up ereaders with ebooks. Amazon didn't release Kindle sales, but Kindle book sales numbers are public knowledge through the publishers. Amazon had 90% share of ebooks, brought about in part because of it dumped best sellers below cost. That's not conjecture.
daemon, I followed the evidence presented in court as closely as I could, and my interpretation of that evidence is that Apple was pursuing SOP (for Apple) negotiations with publishers, not leading or even organizing a cabal of collusion. I thought that even some of the DOJ's own evidence regarding the time line didn't support its allegations. I also thought that Apple's evidence refuted the DOJ's case (the judge disagreed, saying that Apple's witnesses weren't credible). In addition, the agency model isn't illegal. Horizontal pricing agreements aren't necessarily illegal, either. Barnes & Noble was pursuing agency with these publishers before…
daemon, a reasonable reading of ibuck's comment says he was referring to Amazon's monopoly power in ebooks before Apple came in with iBooks. Not tablets.
Awesome image, Jeff.