3 ms·

Are you saying that DoJ lied with this graph? If so, can you post a single proof of that. You're asking for "usable" sources and in fact you don't have provid

by Oletros 12y ago

Are you saying that DoJ lied with this graph? If so, can you post a single proof of that. You're asking for "usable" sources and in fact you don't have provided a single one. It is clear that you won't believe any source so, have a good day

eridius 12y ago
The graph said "weighted". Weighted by what? I'm saying the DoJ produced a graph that would back up their narrative, but didn't provide the actual raw data, or an explanation of how the graph was produced. That makes it useless. > It is clear that you won't believe any source I won't believe obviously-biased "sources" that have no real data. In any case, I think focusing on the current prices of eBooks is not actually very helpful. Amazon has the power to set prices at whatever the heck they want. And the publishers had no recourse, because not selling on Amazon meant not selling, period. But the artificially-low prices Amazon was using for e.g. bestsellers was not sustainable for the publishers. It was not a healthy market, and there was zero reason to believe, had Apple not entered the market, that Amazon would continue selling at those prices indefinitely. Artificially low prices are usually assumed to be good for consumers, and the DOJ certainly made that claim, but that's not true. Consumers do not benefit in the long-term from an unsustainable market. They also don't benefit from a market with no competition. The latter is what Amazon was trying to create, by keeping prices artificially low on bestsellers. This is predatory pricing, and their goal was to control the entire eBook market. Once they had complete dominance, it's reasonable to expect that they would have raised prices so they would stop taking a loss on all these $9.99 books (in case you aren't aware, Amazon was actually paying the publishers more than $9.99 for the bestsellers they were selling at that price). And in a market without competition it's very likely that Amazon would be selling books at prices higher than a healthy competitive market (like the one Apple was creating with their entry). Here's an article from a year ago with evidence that Amazon was already starting to raise prices: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&gwh=6C43B94F37871245E11C270408988C54&gwt=pay http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wa...
- Oletros 12y ago
  > The graph said "weighted". Weighted by what? I'm saying the DoJ produced a graph that would back up their narrative >I won't believe obviously-biased "sources" that have no real data. Perhaps Eddy Cue is not a biased source and he admitted in the trial that ebook prices raise http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-eddy-cue-yep-we-caused-e-book-pricing-to-rise/ http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-eddy-cue-yep-we-caused-e-boo... > But the artificially-low prices Amazon was using for e.g. bestsellers was not sustainable for the publishers. Why not? Publishers were paid full price. In facts publishers earned LESS money with the agency model than with the wholesale model. > This is predatory pricing, and their goal was to control the entire eBook market. Any proof of that? Do you also believe that DoJ lied when its investigation of Amazon found no predatory pricing? > Once they had complete dominance, it's reasonable to expect that they would have raised prices I think that precog police still don't exists >And in a market without competition it's very likely that Amazon would be selling books at prices higher than a healthy competitive market (like the one Apple was creating with their entry) A competitive market where ALL the stores must sell the ebook for the same price? Where the heck is the competition? Is this your definition of competition, fixing the prices for all the stores and books?

by Oletros 12y ago

eridius 12y ago

The graph said "weighted". Weighted by what? I'm saying the DoJ produced a graph that would back up their narrative, but didn't provide the actual raw data, or an explanation of how the graph was produced. That makes it useless. > It is clear that you won't believe any source I won't believe obviously-biased "sources" that have no real data. In any case, I think focusing on the current prices of eBooks is not actually very helpful. Amazon has the power to set prices at whatever the heck they want. And the publishers had no recourse, because not selling on Amazon meant not selling, period. But the artificially-low prices Amazon was using for e.g. bestsellers was not sustainable for the publishers. It was not a healthy market, and there was zero reason to believe, had Apple not entered the market, that Amazon would continue selling at those prices indefinitely. Artificially low prices are usually assumed to be good for consumers, and the DOJ certainly made that claim, but that's not true. Consumers do not benefit in the long-term from an unsustainable market. They also don't benefit from a market with no competition. The latter is what Amazon was trying to create, by keeping prices artificially low on bestsellers. This is predatory pricing, and their goal was to control the entire eBook market. Once they had complete dominance, it's reasonable to expect that they would have raised prices so they would stop taking a loss on all these $9.99 books (in case you aren't aware, Amazon was actually paying the publishers more than $9.99 for the bestsellers they were selling at that price). And in a market without competition it's very likely that Amazon would be selling books at prices higher than a healthy competitive market (like the one Apple was creating with their entry). Here's an article from a year ago with evidence that Amazon was already starting to raise prices: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&gwh=6C43B94F37871245E11C270408988C54&gwt=pay http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wa...

Oletros 12y ago
> The graph said "weighted". Weighted by what? I'm saying the DoJ produced a graph that would back up their narrative >I won't believe obviously-biased "sources" that have no real data. Perhaps Eddy Cue is not a biased source and he admitted in the trial that ebook prices raise http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-eddy-cue-yep-we-caused-e-book-pricing-to-rise/ http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-eddy-cue-yep-we-caused-e-boo... > But the artificially-low prices Amazon was using for e.g. bestsellers was not sustainable for the publishers. Why not? Publishers were paid full price. In facts publishers earned LESS money with the agency model than with the wholesale model. > This is predatory pricing, and their goal was to control the entire eBook market. Any proof of that? Do you also believe that DoJ lied when its investigation of Amazon found no predatory pricing? > Once they had complete dominance, it's reasonable to expect that they would have raised prices I think that precog police still don't exists >And in a market without competition it's very likely that Amazon would be selling books at prices higher than a healthy competitive market (like the one Apple was creating with their entry) A competitive market where ALL the stores must sell the ebook for the same price? Where the heck is the competition? Is this your definition of competition, fixing the prices for all the stores and books?