Much ado about Apple

Is the US Department of Justice making a fuss over nothing?

The perilous future of publishers was highlighted yet again by yesterday’s news that the US Department of Justice is suing Apple, Macmillan and Penguin for conspiring to fix the price of e-books.

The fuss centres on the move these companies have made on the agency model of selling, (where the publishers set the price of the e-book and the retailers take a 30 per cent cut); retailers, unsurprisingly, favour a model where they buy the e-book from the publisher at wholesale price and sell it for however much they want.

Such a model, it’s said, increases healthy competition between retailers which in turn leads to variety and greater customer choice. And according to papers filed in New York’s Southern District Court on Wednesday morning, the collusion of these publishing giants with the world’s most valuable firm (the lawsuit was launched the day after Apple’s worth surpassed $600bn), is a deeply unfair attempt to crush the freedom – and therefore prosperity – of e-book retailers who, after all, need to carve out a living for themselves too.

But this moral and legal outrage needs to be tempered a little. Two things to bear in mind: first, where is this diversity and healthy retail competition that the agency model – which is not illegal, incidentally – supposedly threatens? In every direction you turn, Amazon lurks, offering consumers e-books and books at prices that most other retailers – including high street giants such as Waterstone’s – cannot compete with. Indeed, an adoption of the agency model for e-books is essentially a digital return to the net book agreement, which publishers relinquished in 1997. Waterstone’s, supermarkets and Amazon must have been rubbing their hands with glee when that happened, as the three of them they went on to dominate the market, squashing smaller outlets in the process. What variety!

Second, though the agency model is legal, price fixing obviously is not. No doubt there will be a fair amount of legal hair-splitting over what exactly the publishing CEOs have been up to, but at the moment the circumstantial evidence is pretty thin on the ground.

The PDF document released by the DOJ reports that in late 2008, the Penguin Group and Macmillan CEOs, along with a few other heavyweights, had dinner together and ‘business matters’ were discussed. You’re kidding, right? They were at it again in January 2009, this time discussing the future of e-books and Amazon’s role in that future.

With their future looking increasingly treacherous, it’s no wonder publishing bosses have a lot to talk about at the moment. The agency model might be their only chance to survive in the cut throat world of e-book and book sales

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Raising e-book prices: justified? Getty images.

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

No, Matt Hancock: under-25s are just as entitled to a payrise as the rest of us

At 25, parts of my body were more productive than the whole of Matt Hancock, says Jess Phillips.

I had never heard of Matt Hancock before today, which may be a sign of how productive he has been. He sprang up in my consciousness when he said this at the Tory party conference, when justifying not giving workers under 25 a payrise:

"Anybody who has employed people knows that younger people, especially in their first jobs, are not as productive, on average. Now there are some who are very productive under the age of 25 but you have to set policy for the average. It was an active choice not to cover the under 25s.”
No it bloody wasn't an active choice based on productivity! Lord knows this Government have failed to remember productivity for the past five years. How convenient to remember it when swindling young people.

Let's pretend for a minute that the Governments living wage is just that. Is Matt Hancock saying  that workers under 25 don't deserve to afford be able to live? By the time I was 25 I had a 3 year old. Did my son and I not deserve to be able to live? Oh and while they are there telling me I'm was an undeserving yoof, Hancock is now calling me useless. I don't know Matt Hancock I won't assume he was a lazy entitled toff, but I will wager at 23 I was as, if not more productive than him. I bet you I could have done his job, but he would have struggled to do mine. Maybe I'm wrong and he would have been a great support worker for refugees and carer for people with Alzheimer's all on three hours sleep a night whilst lactating.

Now, I'm not being fair. Of course he couldn't lactate.

The reason the government did this is nothing to do with productivity levels of young adults. It is because once again their limited life experience means that they think mummy and daddy pay for everything. Look no further than ridiculous student fees, cutting housing benefit for young people and now this "you don't deserve to be able to live" wage.

The hilarious thing will be when some employers completely disprove Hancock’s assertions and rush to employ lazy unproductive under 25s because they have to pay them less.
I won't bore you or Hancock with lists of brilliant examples of productive under 25s. The Twitter hashtag #at25 is full of great examples. The history of sport, science, music, art and computing is awash with inspiring world changing young people.Mr Hancock, here is a lesson I learned from the hundreds of productive young people I meet, be honest and say what you think. Your insulting gaffe is a pathetic spun cover up you arrived at when you were backed in to an impossible unjustifiable position. What you should have said was, "oh the reason we don't want to pay under 25s more is because we don't really care about them and let's be honest they don't really vote. Toodle pip."