2 ms·

The local bookstore is free to sell below wholesale cost, as well. Has often been done... I did read the link. It did not, specifically, call out price dumpi

by taeric 3y ago

The local bookstore is free to sell below wholesale cost, as well. Has often been done... I did read the link. It did not, specifically, call out price dumping. What it called out was that publishers wanted people to value books at more than $9.99. Something that the Best Seller list of Amazon's was undermining. As someone that remembers this as it was happening, I also remember that other ebooks that Amazon was selling were at the suggested price. Again, you are misrepresenting things. Wholesale price is the price the store paid to get the item. When they are not in the "agency" agreement, they are free to sell the item for whatever they value it at. Higher or lower. After all, the cost they paid is a sunk cost at that point and it may be worth it to move the item at a loss than to continue to store it. You are correct that price dumping resembles that idea, but it is a technically different thing. (I'll note that referring to ebooks as some sort of fixed inventory is silly for many other reasons...) I don't know how to make it clearer, sadly, and feel you are purposely ignoring all points. An argument about Apple being guilty of antitrust violations despite not having a monopoly is solely an argument about monopoly not being a required factor of antitrust claims. You have tried to argue that Amazon was actually the monopolist. There are some factual problems with that claim, but it is completely a non-sequitur on whether or not Apple needs to be a monopoly to run afoul of antitrust law. Same with whatever point you are trying to bring in about Epic. It is literally not relevant to the point that Apple may again be running afoul of antitrust rules.

scarface_74 3y ago
So you read the article. But you missed the part where it said From the article: > Amazon was actually losing money on e-book sales, but it didn’t care. The long-term goal was to get people to buy its Kindle e-readers. —- > After all, the cost they paid is a sunk cost at that point and it may be worth it to move the item at a loss than to continue to store it You realize the discussion is about ebooks that Amazon was selling at a loss?
- taeric 3y ago
  Selling at a loss over wholesale is not, specifically, price dumping. In particular, price dumping is something that is specific to producers. Consider the old "movie theaters lose money showing the movies, but make it up on the concessions." By the naive argument, that would not be allowed. Yet here we are. My main claim with regards to Amazon is mainly if they were guilty of price fixing, than it would have been pursued. Can you find any legal proceedings that take that charge against them? Heck, if they were guilty of price discrimination, that would likely have been pursued. It has been brought against them, but it has not gone anywhere that I can remember. The discussion, per the top post of mine in this thread, is over whether or not Apple could be afoul of antitrust. I entered this branch by pointing out that antitrust != monopoly. It is a type of antitrust concern, but it is not the only one. You keep trying to pull up non-sequitur points that don't change that. Apple has been guilty of antitrust law in the past despite not having a monopoly. If you are worried that Amazon has a monopoly on ebooks, note that their current ebook share is evidently close to what Apple's phone share is in Japan. Which... doesn't look good for your monopoly argument there, to be honest. That all said, I don't think that should change much of the legal issues here.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > By the naive argument, that would not be allowed. Yet here we are. So exactly how was Amazon making money by selling ebooks at a loss and Kindles at a loss? And you keep moving the goal posts. At first you claimed that Amazon was and bookstores were selling below suggested retail. > My main claim with regards to Amazon is mainly if they were guilty of price fixing No one claimed that Amazon was price fixing. The contention was that Amazon was price dumping to drive competitors out of the market.
    - taeric 3y ago
      The majority of books they sold were not done so at a loss, oddly. Only the "best sellers" and that was something publishers didn't want to allow. What goal post have I moved? It is incoherent to try and argue whether or not Amazon is a monopolist in a thread about whether or not Apple can be held to antitrust concerns. I continue responding as it is a little fun, though I confess I'm growing weary. The claim of wholesale versus suggested retail is precisely what Apple helped publishers push. Apple conspired with the publishers to force an "agency" model where Amazon could not set the sale price. Contrasted with the outstanding "wholesale" model that they were in before. You are arguing that Amazon was price dumping and that is specifically not something Amazon has been accused of. They have been accused of loss-leader pricing on the best sellers to get people to buy other books. But that is a different thing, entirely. You seem to think any loss-leader sales are illegal, and that isn't the case. It can look and feel very like predatory pricing, but it is a different thing.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Why exactly would people buy other books just because they bought best sellers at a loss. Are you really going to say now that you didn’t switch in mid stream from referring to selling below suggested retail price to selling below wholesale cost? Even worse in a conversation about ebooks you brought up “holding costs” like we were talking about physical books. i didn’t bring up the Amazon case.
        3y ago

by taeric 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

So you read the article. But you missed the part where it said From the article: > Amazon was actually losing money on e-book sales, but it didn’t care. The long-term goal was to get people to buy its Kindle e-readers. —- > After all, the cost they paid is a sunk cost at that point and it may be worth it to move the item at a loss than to continue to store it You realize the discussion is about ebooks that Amazon was selling at a loss?

taeric 3y ago
Selling at a loss over wholesale is not, specifically, price dumping. In particular, price dumping is something that is specific to producers. Consider the old "movie theaters lose money showing the movies, but make it up on the concessions." By the naive argument, that would not be allowed. Yet here we are. My main claim with regards to Amazon is mainly if they were guilty of price fixing, than it would have been pursued. Can you find any legal proceedings that take that charge against them? Heck, if they were guilty of price discrimination, that would likely have been pursued. It has been brought against them, but it has not gone anywhere that I can remember. The discussion, per the top post of mine in this thread, is over whether or not Apple could be afoul of antitrust. I entered this branch by pointing out that antitrust != monopoly. It is a type of antitrust concern, but it is not the only one. You keep trying to pull up non-sequitur points that don't change that. Apple has been guilty of antitrust law in the past despite not having a monopoly. If you are worried that Amazon has a monopoly on ebooks, note that their current ebook share is evidently close to what Apple's phone share is in Japan. Which... doesn't look good for your monopoly argument there, to be honest. That all said, I don't think that should change much of the legal issues here.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > By the naive argument, that would not be allowed. Yet here we are. So exactly how was Amazon making money by selling ebooks at a loss and Kindles at a loss? And you keep moving the goal posts. At first you claimed that Amazon was and bookstores were selling below suggested retail. > My main claim with regards to Amazon is mainly if they were guilty of price fixing No one claimed that Amazon was price fixing. The contention was that Amazon was price dumping to drive competitors out of the market.
  - taeric 3y ago
    The majority of books they sold were not done so at a loss, oddly. Only the "best sellers" and that was something publishers didn't want to allow. What goal post have I moved? It is incoherent to try and argue whether or not Amazon is a monopolist in a thread about whether or not Apple can be held to antitrust concerns. I continue responding as it is a little fun, though I confess I'm growing weary. The claim of wholesale versus suggested retail is precisely what Apple helped publishers push. Apple conspired with the publishers to force an "agency" model where Amazon could not set the sale price. Contrasted with the outstanding "wholesale" model that they were in before. You are arguing that Amazon was price dumping and that is specifically not something Amazon has been accused of. They have been accused of loss-leader pricing on the best sellers to get people to buy other books. But that is a different thing, entirely. You seem to think any loss-leader sales are illegal, and that isn't the case. It can look and feel very like predatory pricing, but it is a different thing.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Why exactly would people buy other books just because they bought best sellers at a loss. Are you really going to say now that you didn’t switch in mid stream from referring to selling below suggested retail price to selling below wholesale cost? Even worse in a conversation about ebooks you brought up “holding costs” like we were talking about physical books. i didn’t bring up the Amazon case.
      - 3y ago