3 ms·
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 p
by 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 agoWhy 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.
- taeric 3y agoThe idea is that you would buy other books to read on your ereader between best sellers that you were interested in. This isn't exactly rocket science... The "holding costs" is precisely why the publishers stuck to the wholesale contract, and is why I brought it up. They kept the same terms and added ebooks to the deal. Then got upset when Amazon took advantage of that. (And... I noted that that is a silly model here.) And you did bring up the idea that Amazon was a monopolists here. Which I pointed out was incoherent to the topic. Apologies for letting you continue it. :(