you just can't even agree to disagree
No because Amazon has been just as fucking anti-competitive.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
DoJ vs. e-Books/Apple: Anyone else pissed?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No because Amazon has been just as fucking anti-competitive.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
Creating a market often involves selling at a loss. Publishers offered a price to Amazon, who sold at less than that price to make ebooks more than a niche market.
If you dig up threads from around the Kindle launch you'll see many people predicting failure for the product.
You're speculating that they had future plans to jack up prices later, rather than getting publishers to see that the $10 price point was better for sales than $15, but it's purely speculation.
Show us some evidence like we have for Apple.
If you dig up threads from around the Kindle launch you'll see many people predicting failure for the product.
You're speculating that they had future plans to jack up prices later, rather than getting publishers to see that the $10 price point was better for sales than $15, but it's purely speculation.
Show us some evidence like we have for Apple.
You just dont get it.
Predatory pricing forces competitors out of business.
Competitors go out of business, you gain market share.
You use that market share to dictate pricing.
You dont have to raise prices.
How many major national booksellers existed before Amazons predatory pricing? A lot.
How many major national booksellers exist now? Two and one is hanging on by a thread.
That doesn't even make the physical/e-book distinction. Amazon only has one real competitor in the physical book market.
That doesn't even get into the smaller booksellers. Amazon's pre agency pricing scheme was even harder on them.
Last edited:
Dulanic
Diamond Member
And yet you still ignore the fact that ALL media is going digital. Amazon didn't force that, they embraced it however. Change with the time or you go away.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
There was no significant ebook market before the Kindle, just a tiny niche market with few titles and small sales.
You're conflating print and ebooks to make a case, but here we are talking about ebooks.
Amazon hasn't driven print bookstores out of business by predatory pricing, their print book prices are usually retail or some tiny discount. They've won in print book selling by offering a massively larger selection than brick and mortar, with the convenience of home delivery. They won that battle fair and square.
You're conflating print and ebooks to make a case, but here we are talking about ebooks.
Amazon hasn't driven print bookstores out of business by predatory pricing, their print book prices are usually retail or some tiny discount. They've won in print book selling by offering a massively larger selection than brick and mortar, with the convenience of home delivery. They won that battle fair and square.
And that still doesn't do away with the fact that physical books outsold ebooks during that time frame(and still do) and Amazon's predatory pricing caused other physical booksellers to go out of business.
Its not about changing with the times. Its about Amazon dumping books to make sure they cant change with the times.
Do you not see how predatory pricing of e-books has undercut physical books? Obviously you don't.
Again there is a reason why book seller industry organizations are against Amazon and have wanted investigations into Amazon.
Do you not see how predatory pricing of e-books has undercut physical books? Obviously you don't.
Again there is a reason why book seller industry organizations are against Amazon and have wanted investigations into Amazon.
Amazon isn't a Saint. I am not sure why y'all think they are.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
Brick and mortar bookstores were suffering a massive die-off before the Kindle existed, and ebooks had nothing to do with it.
Amazon selling ebooks at a loss probably did hasten the inevitable very slightly, but the B&M stores were already going to fail from being unable to compete against Amazon selling print books at normal prices.
> Amazon isn't a Saint. I am not sure why y'all think they are.
They also aren't the sinners you claim them to be.
Amazon selling ebooks at a loss probably did hasten the inevitable very slightly, but the B&M stores were already going to fail from being unable to compete against Amazon selling print books at normal prices.
> Amazon isn't a Saint. I am not sure why y'all think they are.
They also aren't the sinners you claim them to be.
Well when the publishers are put out of business and Amazon controls the entire world of books. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
Because that is their goal. Their goal is to drive first competitors out of the market and then drive publishers out of the market.
But not to belabor the point. Prior to the change in models Amazon had a monopoly, at 90% of the e-book market. They continued to sell books for a loss up until the agency model was put into place. How the fuck is that not anti-competitive? Its forces competitors out of the market and keeps potential competitors out of the market. How can a competitor enter a market when their potential competitor is selling for loss?
For the record, Amazon now has a 60% share of the market.
Because that is their goal. Their goal is to drive first competitors out of the market and then drive publishers out of the market.
But not to belabor the point. Prior to the change in models Amazon had a monopoly, at 90% of the e-book market. They continued to sell books for a loss up until the agency model was put into place. How the fuck is that not anti-competitive? Its forces competitors out of the market and keeps potential competitors out of the market. How can a competitor enter a market when their potential competitor is selling for loss?
For the record, Amazon now has a 60% share of the market.
Last edited:
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
At which point the DoJ should investigate them too, but so far it's Apple and the publishers that are ("allegedly") at fault not Amazon.
So you are saying, when they start their predatory pricing again, they should be investigated? Because thats why Amazon wants the agency model to go away, because they want to sell at a loss because they want the market for themselves.
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
How were they anti-competitive specifically in the ebook market? Again, they priced ebooks at a loss to create an ebook market not to wipe out the almost non-existent sales of ebooks for the Sony Reader.
They didn't do it to crush Apple because Apple wasn't selling ebooks when the Kindle launched.
You've argued that they did it to crush physical book sales but those are two different markets, one of which didn't even exist (in any significant sense) before the Kindle.
You're taking the big content view that selling single MP3s or AACs at $1 hurts the sale of $15 CDs, so it should not be allowed.
Low pricing in the DVD market might drive people away from theaters but that isn't "dumping" or "predatory" since they are different markets.
They didn't do it to crush Apple because Apple wasn't selling ebooks when the Kindle launched.
You've argued that they did it to crush physical book sales but those are two different markets, one of which didn't even exist (in any significant sense) before the Kindle.
You're taking the big content view that selling single MP3s or AACs at $1 hurts the sale of $15 CDs, so it should not be allowed.
Low pricing in the DVD market might drive people away from theaters but that isn't "dumping" or "predatory" since they are different markets.
Sounds like someone didn't pay or fund who they should have. So they get charged with something.
I do believe their predatory pricing has hurt the physical book sellers.
But more than that, their predatory pricing may have prevented other competitors from entering the e-book market. How can a competitor enter a market when its chief competitor is selling for a loss? Exactly how many competitors joined the e-book market before the change to agency pricing? Not many because you cannot compete with anti-competitive pricing.
Another question I have for you.
Do you honestly think Barnes and Noble and their Nook would have survived in the e-book market if there wasn't a change to the agency model 5 months after the Nooks launch? How long could have B&N sold books for a loss to try and keep the Nook a float? Hell how long could they have done it and stayed afloat themselves?
Do you honestly think Barnes and Noble and their Nook would have survived in the e-book market if there wasn't a change to the agency model 5 months after the Nooks launch? How long could have B&N sold books for a loss to try and keep the Nook a float? Hell how long could they have done it and stayed afloat themselves?
Last edited:
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
> Do you honestly think Barnes and Nobel and their Nook would have survived in the e-book market if there wasn't a change to the agency model 5 months later?
If Amazon had taken any anti-competitive action specifically against the Nook (as opposed to actions to build the market) that might have been something to investigate. That's a series of ifs for something that didn't happen.
> How can a competitor enter a market when its chief competitor is selling for a loss?
Look at the game console business. Selling at a loss to build a new market is standard procedure.
If Amazon had taken any anti-competitive action specifically against the Nook (as opposed to actions to build the market) that might have been something to investigate. That's a series of ifs for something that didn't happen.
> How can a competitor enter a market when its chief competitor is selling for a loss?
Look at the game console business. Selling at a loss to build a new market is standard procedure.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
Cable/TelCo: No collusion. Simply matching the prices of other companies without any actual agreements or contracts between companies is not illegal. Also, this was attempted in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and the court found that there was not even enough evidence to survive a summary judgment.
Wireless Providers: See above. Twombly is pretty much going to be in play here too.
Airlines: Again, there is no evidence of collusion.
The DOJ is going after Apple because Apple pressured horizontal competitors into contractual agreements which fixed the prices of e-books. Only in this case is there the requisite collusion to invoke antitrust laws. Right now, this looks like a slam dunk case for the DOJ and is hardly a "waste" of resources.
ZV
:thumbsup:
it's one thing for used books to be cheap, but quite another when a new ebook sells for the same price or more as its physical version
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
Where's the proof that Amazon was selling e-books at a loss? First I've heard of it at least, but it seems to be pretty common knowledge, looks like it's repeated often just from a minute or two of Googling.
Also keep in mind that e-books drive sales of Kindle readers. Supposedly Apple never made much/any profit off iTunes, at least not early on, maybe it's a different story today. They did, however, makes heaps of profit off iPod sales that were driven by iTunes. Profit from hardware sales subsidized their digital media distribution system which never could have been profitable and survived on its own.
Also keep in mind that e-books drive sales of Kindle readers. Supposedly Apple never made much/any profit off iTunes, at least not early on, maybe it's a different story today. They did, however, makes heaps of profit off iPod sales that were driven by iTunes. Profit from hardware sales subsidized their digital media distribution system which never could have been profitable and survived on its own.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
It was quite a disappointment that Apple didn't raise the price to $100.
Obviously you would have paid it.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
Who has time to read books?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
