Amazon allowed the book sellers to set their price, x, from which Amazon could set the retail price to whatever they wanted (whether at lots of profit or no pro

Amazon allowed the book sellers to set their price, x, from which Amazon could set the retail price to whatever they wanted (whether at lots of profit or no profit). The booksellers got paid x regardless. Apple allowed the book sellers to set their retail price, y, giving them a 70% cut on a sale, demanding that this model be forced on all other sellers (because if Apple's model was an outlier, they would have no sales). There is no universe where the former could be cast as worse for consumers, but through the most ridiculously extrapolated unintended consequences. This piece certainly makes no compelling case, beyond some notion that an equal price for all (and a higher cost for all) is good because it props up less competitive resellers. Welcome to Soviet Russia.