4 ms·

Right - basically the argument is that publishers cooperated with Apple to raise prices, and prices actually did go up. Which raises a red-flag of anti-competit

Right - basically the argument is that publishers cooperated with Apple to raise prices, and prices actually did go up. Which raises a red-flag of anti-competitiveness. The counterargument is that this took place at a time when prices were artificially lowered because of Amazon's leverage over the publishers. When competition was restored, prices returned to a level set by the market.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
And the counter-counter argument is that if it were really the prices set by the market that we were returning to, collusion would not have been required.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  Well we don't know whether there was what actually amounts to collusion, but assuming there was it might have been required to break Amazon's leverage over the bookseller which was artificially depressing prices. That wouldn't make it less illegal, but it would be a reasons why it was necessary to restore the market as a pricing mechanism.
fpgeek 15y ago
Prices weren't lower because of Amazon's leverage over publishers. They were lower because Amazon was willing to lose money to build a platform and a market. Remember, pre-agency publishers made more money along two dimensions: 1. Wholesale prices were often higher than their share of an agency price. 2. Since the prices to end-users were lower sales were higher than they otherwise would have been. And don't forget, publishers had a much simpler, pro-competitive response if they were afraid of Amazon's dominance: drop the DRM. Then they could have sold ebooks to all of Amazon's customers (including Kindle device owners) without Amazon.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  You might be in favor of dropping DRM, but that would in no way provide publishers with comparable access to the Kindle customers. Kindle customers buy titles using 1-click from their devices or from the Amazon website. How does just 'dropping the DRM' compete with that distribution channel?

jamesaguilar 15y ago

And the counter-counter argument is that if it were really the prices set by the market that we were returning to, collusion would not have been required.

rbarooah 15y ago
Well we don't know whether there was what actually amounts to collusion, but assuming there was it might have been required to break Amazon's leverage over the bookseller which was artificially depressing prices. That wouldn't make it less illegal, but it would be a reasons why it was necessary to restore the market as a pricing mechanism.

fpgeek 15y ago

Prices weren't lower because of Amazon's leverage over publishers. They were lower because Amazon was willing to lose money to build a platform and a market. Remember, pre-agency publishers made more money along two dimensions: 1. Wholesale prices were often higher than their share of an agency price. 2. Since the prices to end-users were lower sales were higher than they otherwise would have been. And don't forget, publishers had a much simpler, pro-competitive response if they were afraid of Amazon's dominance: drop the DRM. Then they could have sold ebooks to all of Amazon's customers (including Kindle device owners) without Amazon.

rbarooah 15y ago
You might be in favor of dropping DRM, but that would in no way provide publishers with comparable access to the Kindle customers. Kindle customers buy titles using 1-click from their devices or from the Amazon website. How does just 'dropping the DRM' compete with that distribution channel?