The author says, “In the current model, only consumers and Amazon benefit from e-book pricing.” This is rather misleading. If producers and authors did not make a relatively significant profit from the sale of e-books, would they allow Amazon to sell them?

In a free market economy, they cannot be “forced to sell their books at low prices” as the author suggests. They can instead sell their books on Apple’s site, or not sell them online at all. That they give Amazon the right to sell their books shows they agree to the pricing terms.

The same concept can be extended to authors, who, if dissatisfied with their share of profits, may approach a new publisher. While typically e-books are cheaper than normal books, the sale of e-books increases the number of books sold. People are more willing to buy a new book if it is $3 on their e-reader, rather than upwards of $10 for a hard copy. E-books are more desirable because they are portable, durable and easily accessible in a variety of mediums. This actually encourages the art of reading.

It is preferable for consumers to benefit from lower prices. Instead of destroying the art of writing, lower prices allow this form of communication to thrive in a modern marketplace. It is arguable that if a new gas station opened with modernized pumps and gas for $1/gallon cheaper, few would be advocating the old prices to “preserve the integrity of the industry.”

Personally, I prefer paper books, and I will probably never buy an e-reader. That being said, I am quite grateful to Amazon for making books more accessible to other readers who prefer e-books.

— Danny Huizinga
Lombard, Ill., freshman

Esteban Diaz | Editorial Cartoonist

Apple Inc. and five major book publishers were recently charged by the U.S. Justice Department with colluding to raise e-book prices.

Apple, however, is fighting the charges, saying, “The Department of Justice’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry.”

Before Apple, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan and Penguin Group fixed e-book prices, Amazon controlled 90 percent of the e-book market. Now, it holds 60 percent, Barnes & Noble holds 30 percent and Apple holds nearly 10 percent of the market.

To successfully charge Apple Inc. with collusion, the Justice Department will have to prove Apple worked with the other publishers together, as opposed to individually, to raise prices.

The Justice Department accused Apple and the others of raising the prices of e-books anywhere from $3 to $5, costing consumers tens of millions of dollars.

Currently, Amazon does not allow publishers to set the prices of their e-books.

Described as “ruinous competition,” publishers and other distributors are forced to sell their books at the same low prices, even if they lose money.

In the current model, only consumers and Amazon benefit from e-book pricing, but for how long will consumers profit if authors stop writing?

The share Amazon takes from selling the e-book, in addition to its price cuts, creates such a deficit to publishers that authors are hurt in the process.

The cost of a book is not decided on a whim. Production costs – including payment to the author, editors, designers, printers and e-book developers – as well as enough money to give the publisher a profit, are included in the price of books and e-books.

If publishers are taking a hit so great that they can’t cover those costs – let alone make a profit – eventually they will stop printing, and that will hurt the consumers more than anything.

This is not a defense of collusion. If Apple did in fact collude with the other publishers to raise prices, it should be punished.

Precedent says ruinous competition, like what Amazon is doing, is not an excuse for collusion, but something needs to be done about the near monopoly Amazon has on the market.

Since the lawsuit, Amazon’s shares have risen again, while the rest have lowered.

A company owning nearly 90 percent of the market is not healthy in any industry. Yes, consumers save money, but what amount of savings is worth risking the integrity of an entire industry?

Book publishers should not expect to make the same amount of money off hard copy or e-books as they previously made, but they should not be driven to take a loss either.

While we may tempted to go to bookstores and use the scanners on our smartphones to look for lower prices on Amazon, we need to ask ourselves who Amazon is sacrificing to create these low prices.

Low prices are great, but sometimes the savings is not worth it. Look at who you’re supporting when you make a purchase.

Sometimes it’s worth it to pay the higher price.

LOS ANGELES — For more than four decades, the powerful engines that helped boost the Apollo 11 mission to the moon have rested in the Atlantic.

Now Internet billionaire and space enthusiast Jeff Bezos wants to raise at least one of them to the surface.

An undersea expedition spearheaded by Bezos used sonar to find what he said were the F-1 engines located 14,000 feet deep. In an online announcement Wednesday, the Amazon.com CEO and founder said he is drawing up plans to recover the sunken engines, part of the mighty Saturn V rocket that launched Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins on their moon mission.

The five engines, which produced nearly 7.7 million pounds of thrust, dropped into the sea as planned minutes after liftoff in 1969. Four days later, Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon.

“We don’t know yet what condition these engines might be in,” he wrote. “They hit the ocean at high velocity and have been in salt water for more than 40 years. On the other hand, they’re made of tough stuff, so we’ll see.”

Bezos acknowledged the engines were the property of NASA, but said he hoped they will be displayed in museums.

NASA expressed excitement about the find. The space agency said it has not been formally contacted by Bezos and waited for more information.

“There has always been great interest in artifacts from the early days of space exploration and his announcement only adds to the enthusiasm of those interested in NASA’s history,” NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs said in a statement.

No timetable has been set for the recovery. When it happens, it’ll undoubtedly take longer to hoist the 19-foot engines off the sea floor than the 2 1/2 minutes it took for them to power off the launch pad.

The sea floor is littered with spent rockets and flight parts from missions dating back to the dawn of the Space Age and it’s unknown what survived decades later after crashing into the ocean.

In 2009, a private company salvaged Gus Grissom’s Mercury capsule that accidentally sank in the Atlantic after splashdown in 1961. It was restored and displayed at the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center.

Bezos’ planned Apollo recovery is the latest deep-sea adventure by the wealthy. “Avatar” director James Cameron over the weekend rode a mini-sub to Earth’s deepest spot in the western Pacific Ocean, seven miles below the surface, which he described as an alien world. Sir Richard Branson plans a similar dive to the deepest part of the Atlantic, the Puerto Rican trench, later this year.

Bezos was 5 years old when he watched the moon landing on television and became hooked on getting to space. NASA “sure inspired me, and with this endeavor, maybe we can inspire a few more youth to invent and explore,” he wrote.

It was not immediately clear when Bezos’ team spotted the Apollo engines. Bezos offered few details about the discovery and did not say how he knew the engines were from Apollo 11.

Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener said Bezos was not available for comment.

Bezos’ Blue Origin has been developing a vertical takeoff and landing rocketship that would fly passengers to suborbital space. It has NASA funding to compete to go into orbit as a space taxi now that the space shuttle fleet is retired.

Last year, a test flight went awry when the vehicle became unstable at 45,000 feet and crashed.

Dr. Andrea L. Dixon, executive director for the Keller Center for Research and the Center for Professional Selling, is the recent co-author of “The Oxford Handbook of Strategic Sales and Sales Management.”
Jed Dean | Lariat Photo Editor

By Molly Packer
Reporter

Hankamer School of Business’ Dr. Andrea Dixon, associate professor of marketing, is in the company of some of the best business academicians in the world after the publishing of “The Oxford Handbook of Strategic Sales and Sales Management.”

Dixon, along with 30 business experts, authored the book, published March 22 and available on Amazon. According to Amazon, the book consolidates the current academic research in sales by filling in the holes left by other books.

The book has four sections: the strategic positioning of the sales function within the modern organization, sales management and recent developments, sales relationships with customers and the modern environment and the internal composition of sales within the organization.

Dixon, the executive director of the Keller Center for Research and the Center for Professional Selling, was approached to help write the book in August 2008 while she was working in the marketing department at the University of Cincinnati.

“The writing of the book took place in the summer and the fall of 2009,” Dixon said. “With that kind of cycle to go through all of the editing and across multiple authors, the proofs came out in 2010, and it was published in 2011.”

Getting across supporting ideas to the reader from 30 different writers proved to be a challenge for the authors and editors involved. Dixon said one author’s material in the book needed to be coordinated and supportive of the other authors’ work in order for the book to be successful.

“It’s very flattering and very rewarding to be able to work on something of that magnitude,” Dixon said.

The book was published with a wide audience in mind.

“The book will be of interest to academicians because it’s an update of where the business world is,” Dixon said. “It’s written in such a way that it’s accessible to leaders of companies or even graduate students.”

Dixon said she loves that working on the book gave her the chance to research more about the future of sales management.

“Some people don’t believe that research is good for professors because it takes you away from your students,” Dixon said. “But research makes you keep up with current happenings and makes you an even better professor for your students.”

Dr. Jeff Tanner, a marketing professor and the associate dean of the faculty development and research department of Hankamer, also sees the value in research.

“It’s important that we know how the world works,” Tanner said. “Dixon is obviously a scholar of the top-drawer, and this particular piece of work just confirms what we already knew about her.”

Dixon, who has worked on books such as “Strategic Sales Leadership: Breakthrough Thinking for Breakthrough Results” and has organized many conferences, said working on this book was much different than anything she had done in the past.

“It’s different in the sense that it’s a larger number of individuals you’re working with,” Dixon said. “Conferences where 700 academicians are brought in is similar in the way of sheer magnitude of the people you’re working with but there’s an intellectual aspect that’s added when you’re writing a book.”

With her publication comes a great deal of honor for her and for Baylor, Dixon said.

“It puts Baylor in the context of scholars from around the world who are well thought of,” Dixon said. “It puts you in the company of people who are well thought of, and it really brings the honor to Baylor.”

By Daniel C. Houston
Reporter

Amazon and other online retailers could soon see their exemption from collecting the Texas state sales tax evaporate if a bill in the Texas House of Representatives becomes law.

H.B. 1317, which would require all online retailers to pay the sales tax if they earn more than $10,000 per year from in-state professionals promoting the retailers’ products, is now pending in the House Committee on Ways and Means.

“This bill is about getting out-of-state e-retailers like Amazon.com and Overstock.com that benefit from e-sales to consumers in Texas to collect and pay the sales tax,” said Rep. Elliott Naishtat, the bill’s primary author. “So this bill is about leveling the playing field; it’s about fairness.”

Naishtat said he also believes H.B. 1317 could contribute to the House’s efforts to erase the budget deficit by providing a new source of revenue. Naishtat cited State Comptroller Susan Combs’ estimate that online retailers would owe up to $600 million dollars in taxes if they were treated like businesses with a physical presence in Texas.

But his confidence that H.B. 1317 will produce additional revenue is not shared by everyone. In a fiscal note on the proposal released Monday, the Texas Legislative Budget Board stated it anticipates “no significant fiscal implication” to the state budget if the bill were signed into law.

“Major online retailers have canceled such agreements with residents of states that have enacted similar provisions,” the note stated, “including North Carolina, Rhode Island and Illinois, and have announced their intention to cancel such agreements with other states that enact similar provisions. Accordingly, no significant additional revenue can be anticipated as a result of enactment of this provision.”

Although the budget board’s fiscal note did not explicitly name which major online retailers have announced an intention to cut ties with Texas businesses promoting their products, R.J. DeSilva, a spokesman for the comptroller’s office, verified that Amazon was one of the most prominent such retailers whose intentions were considered.

Naishtat, however, does not think Amazon would abandon its marketing efforts through Texas residents just to save on the sales tax, pointing to the state of New York’s passage of a similar law without these agreements being canceled.

“I don’t think Amazon would risk the loss of revenue from the huge Texas consumer base,” Naishtat said. “I think that Amazon is blowing steam, and in the end if this bill passes, Amazon and other online retailers would retain their presence in the state.”

Naishtat said the bill will likely not pass committee as currently worded, and that H.B. 2403, a competing bill authored by committee vice chair Rep. John Otto, will probably be the only bill that makes it to the House floor. Naishtat described Otto’s bill as both “less aggressive” and more complicated, but he pledged to try to convince his committee members to strengthen it.

“It’s most likely that the bill that gets voted out [of committee] will be John Otto’s bill,” Naishat said, “and I will work with him and members of the Ways and Means Committee to try to put more teeth into his legislation.”

H.B. 2403, which is also pending in committee, would tie the sales tax to the sale of tangible property owned by a Texas resident, which would include selling through online retailers. Additionally, the bill would tax a retailer that uses a website on a server located in Texas.

The budget board anticipates H.B. 2403 would generate approximately $6 million in 2012 revenue if enacted, according to a fiscal note delivered to the committee chair.

“With over 350,000 apps for iPhone there’s no limit to what you can do.”

Apple’s slogan for the most prolific cellphone to date may, at the surface, seem trivial, but as the applications for the iPhone — and now the iPad — infiltrate our lives we begin to wonder just what limits should be placed on the tech giant’s applications.

On March 23, Apple pulled an app created by Exodus International intended to “present a redemptive, biblical worldview on sexuality, which communicates a message of love and acceptance to those that are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions,” according to a recent “myth-busting” release on the Exodus International website.

At its inception, the application was met with grave opposition from various groups, like the liberal Truth Wins Out, a nonprofit fighting religious extremism, that argues the app looked to “cure” homosexuals from their sexual preference — an idea Truth Wins Out and several pro-gay groups did not appreciate.

The ability to create applications for Apple’s store comes with the opportunity for crude, vulgar or offensive applications.

It also affords many the opportunities to capitalize on ingenuity and create highly efficient, successful and profitable applications.

An application must go through a rigorous process to be approved by Apple and sent to the App Store.

With that, it is clear that Apple originally found no problem with the Exodus International App and it was not until groups decried the app that Apple removed it. If this trend continues, the company will have stamped out minority voices.

For example, if an app was created that promoted the Mormon faith and a flood of complaints from atheists across the nation came in — would Apple remove the app simply because it wasn’t well-received by people that have no need for the app in the first place?

The Exodus International case seems confirm that the company would reject the minority’s app to please the majority that had no stake in using the app to begin with.

Only those that scream the loudest will get their way with Apple if this trend continues.

Amazon, another known Internet sales giant and emerging technological powerhouse, also has a vague and unclear policy.

“What we deem offensive is probably about what you would expect,” reads the policy guidelines on the website.

The company, however, has flipped back and forth and been under scrutiny for silently removing from its Kindle store books deemed inappropriate by the company without any statement as to why.

App store owners, like Apple or Amazon, need to begin determining just how app stores will operate and what protocols inventors must follow.

Federal law should not be violated in any of the stores’ apps, but the company should at least consider if the controversial nature of an app is really cause for removal.

Everyone will not be pleased with an app.

If Apple made the applications platforms for inventors’ expression, it is merely giving consumers the opportunity to purchase — it is in no way making a purchase required.

The current system of “approve until complaints flood in” is not constructive or professional. It is wreaking havoc on the burgeoning technological shifts in society.

Apple’s tendency to answer the requests of loud protesters shuns the minority and places sole responsibility of every application on Apple. Amazon’s sneaky ways of removing e-books is unfair and confusing and its consumers deserve to know what the policies of the company actually are.

These companies have the right to run their companies in whatever manner they so choose, but why Apple has entangled itself within the expression of its app creators is uncertain.

These companies’ unclear policies need to be rectified and a shift to pro-expression policies would do the trick.