3 ms·

I don't really care to defend Amazon in this, but your argument here is pretty weak. Which is why nobody has really accused Amazon of this in court. Note that

by taeric 3y ago

I don't really care to defend Amazon in this, but your argument here is pretty weak. Which is why nobody has really accused Amazon of this in court. Note that antitrust lawsuits have been brought against them, but from what I can find, they were dismissed. https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-dismissal-antitrust-lawsuits-over-book-pricing-2022-09-29/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-di... This is all a side discussion, which I confess is fun; but it seems you agree that Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, without necessarily having had a monopoly. And... that is the entirety of my point that started this branch. :D

scarface_74 3y ago
https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-industry-against-amazon-and-lost https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
- taeric 3y ago
  I'm not really clear what you are showing me here? Nobody argued in court that Amazon was price dumping. It is speculated that the NYT BestSeller deal of $9.99 was maybe in that direction, but nobody really argued that in court. Quite the contrary, it was argued, successfully, that it was perfectly legal for Amazon to offer discounts like this. (Ironically to this debate, they didn't blankly sell all ebooks at 9.99, and no numbers were released to indicate how many were sold at the publisher suggested prices. As a customer at the time, I know I bought many NYT listings that I wouldn't have bought otherwise, thanks in part to that being a very low friction price.) More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted. But, to show that you would have to be able to actually show it. With book sales continuing to climb, that will be hard to say "but it could have been even bigger!" Indeed, most evidence is that the ebooks were additional sells. That all said, and I quote your article, "In a major rebuke, a federal judge has ruled that Apple violated antitrust laws..." Again, the point I was raising is that antitrust is more than just monopoly laws. You can try and argue that the case was ruled incorrectly, but Apple was unable to do that with probably some of the best lawyers that you can get. Appeal was struck down and they were guilty of antitrust. Pretty convincingly.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Really? No one was arguing that Amazon was price dumping? The publishers sold the right to sell the ebooks to Amazon for $x where $x was greater than $9.99. Amazon sold the ebook for $9.99. Was Amazon trying to make it up in volume? > More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted If the publisher sold the physical books for $16.99 and the right to sell the ebook for $14.99 to Amazon and then Amazon sold it for $9.99, how could it not be impacted? > You can try and argue that the case was ruled incorrectly, but Apple was unable to do that So in that case do you agree that the Epic vs Apple case was ruled correctly?
    - taeric 3y ago
      Price dumping is a very specific claim, and one that was not in the article you linked. By your definition, if I go to my local bookstore and they have a best seller discount at the front, they are price dumping, too? Sales pricing is a thing that is allowed by many contracts from publishers to sellers. For mostly very good reasons. (That is, you are misunderstanding a lot about that case by thinking that Amazon was breaking a deal with publishers to sell at a lower rate. That was contractually allowed by their current agreement with publishers. The "suggested retail price" was basically that, a "suggested" price. Apple helped the publishers move to a new contract that allowed the publishers to flat out set the price.) Again, I'm not really wanting to defend Amazon here. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find practices of theirs that I disagree with. I am not convinced they are or were breaking antitrust laws, though; by evidence of them not being accused of that. I don't really have an opinion on the Epic case. Such that that is just another non-sequitur. Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, despite not having a monopoly. Any other argument can be fun, but is a different argument.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Why else do you think Amazon was selling below the wholesale costs? The local bookstore may be selling below list price. But they aren’t selling below wholesale costs. Again did you read the link I posted, the publishers explicitly did not want Amazon selling ebooks below list cost. > The "suggested retail price" was basically that, a "suggested" Again you didn’t read the article. There are three prices involved 1. The wholesale price - this is the price that the publisher sells the right to Amazon to sell the book. For example $14.00 2. The suggested retail price could very well be $20.00 A “sale” that the bookstore would do would be somewhere between $14.00 and $19.99. They would not sell the book for $9.99 and lose $5.01 > Any other argument can be fun, but is a different argument. But yet an argument about Apple being accused of “collusion” about books is somehow relevant to a discussion about a “monopoly” on the app store. But a lawsuit about App Store where Apple was found not to be a monopoly isn’t relevant about selling an app?

by taeric 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-industry-against-amazon-and-lost https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...

taeric 3y ago
I'm not really clear what you are showing me here? Nobody argued in court that Amazon was price dumping. It is speculated that the NYT BestSeller deal of $9.99 was maybe in that direction, but nobody really argued that in court. Quite the contrary, it was argued, successfully, that it was perfectly legal for Amazon to offer discounts like this. (Ironically to this debate, they didn't blankly sell all ebooks at 9.99, and no numbers were released to indicate how many were sold at the publisher suggested prices. As a customer at the time, I know I bought many NYT listings that I wouldn't have bought otherwise, thanks in part to that being a very low friction price.) More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted. But, to show that you would have to be able to actually show it. With book sales continuing to climb, that will be hard to say "but it could have been even bigger!" Indeed, most evidence is that the ebooks were additional sells. That all said, and I quote your article, "In a major rebuke, a federal judge has ruled that Apple violated antitrust laws..." Again, the point I was raising is that antitrust is more than just monopoly laws. You can try and argue that the case was ruled incorrectly, but Apple was unable to do that with probably some of the best lawyers that you can get. Appeal was struck down and they were guilty of antitrust. Pretty convincingly.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Really? No one was arguing that Amazon was price dumping? The publishers sold the right to sell the ebooks to Amazon for $x where $x was greater than $9.99. Amazon sold the ebook for $9.99. Was Amazon trying to make it up in volume? > More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted If the publisher sold the physical books for $16.99 and the right to sell the ebook for $14.99 to Amazon and then Amazon sold it for $9.99, how could it not be impacted? > You can try and argue that the case was ruled incorrectly, but Apple was unable to do that So in that case do you agree that the Epic vs Apple case was ruled correctly?
  - taeric 3y ago
    Price dumping is a very specific claim, and one that was not in the article you linked. By your definition, if I go to my local bookstore and they have a best seller discount at the front, they are price dumping, too? Sales pricing is a thing that is allowed by many contracts from publishers to sellers. For mostly very good reasons. (That is, you are misunderstanding a lot about that case by thinking that Amazon was breaking a deal with publishers to sell at a lower rate. That was contractually allowed by their current agreement with publishers. The "suggested retail price" was basically that, a "suggested" price. Apple helped the publishers move to a new contract that allowed the publishers to flat out set the price.) Again, I'm not really wanting to defend Amazon here. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find practices of theirs that I disagree with. I am not convinced they are or were breaking antitrust laws, though; by evidence of them not being accused of that. I don't really have an opinion on the Epic case. Such that that is just another non-sequitur. Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, despite not having a monopoly. Any other argument can be fun, but is a different argument.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Why else do you think Amazon was selling below the wholesale costs? The local bookstore may be selling below list price. But they aren’t selling below wholesale costs. Again did you read the link I posted, the publishers explicitly did not want Amazon selling ebooks below list cost. > The "suggested retail price" was basically that, a "suggested" Again you didn’t read the article. There are three prices involved 1. The wholesale price - this is the price that the publisher sells the right to Amazon to sell the book. For example $14.00 2. The suggested retail price could very well be $20.00 A “sale” that the bookstore would do would be somewhere between $14.00 and $19.99. They would not sell the book for $9.99 and lose $5.01 > Any other argument can be fun, but is a different argument. But yet an argument about Apple being accused of “collusion” about books is somehow relevant to a discussion about a “monopoly” on the app store. But a lawsuit about App Store where Apple was found not to be a monopoly isn’t relevant about selling an app?