As Competition Wanes, Amazon Cuts Back Discounts (trims free lunch)

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

We know that petrol, electrical and gas companies set their prices at identical levels, actually proving that they've all sat down and actually price colluded to the monopolies commission is equally difficult. It doesn't stop those companies from setting virtually identical pricing structures—and getting away with it. They've been doing it for years and making obscene profits in the process! The companies supplying these commodities are virtual cartels and it's all within their own interests to keep prices the same. Price wars don't help any of them.

LOL. Now I know just how seriously to take your "theories". Energy companies have nearly identical cost structures, resulting in very similar marketing strategies. But don't let that stop you from spreading FUD. "Gas prices jumped 2 cents, it's a conspiracy!!1?11?eleven!!?!?"

Knowing something happens and proving something happens are two entirely different things.

Indeed. The first is the realm of conspiracy theorists, the second is the realm of reality.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In any debate over allegations of predatory prices I'll take the word of a Federal Judge experienced in antitrust issues over a random publishing industry apologist at Salon.

Are you talking about her ruling against dismissal of the case?* Or are you referencing the statement she made at the pre-trial conference?**

If the former, it probably was about what you expect with a failed motion to dismiss.

If the latter, the statement seemed, on its face, to show a lack of open-mindedness on the eve of trial. If so, she's not a good judge. But I think she was just trying to pressure the last remaining defendant (Apple) to settle. The real reason she pressured Apple to settle may be that with all the open judicial seats, she's swamped with work.


______________

* http://www.pjstar.com/free/x10359547...#axzz2YJcQFhCC

** http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/...titrust-judge/

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Are you talking about her ruling against dismissal of the case?* Or are you referencing the statement she made at the pre-trial conference?**

Since he quoted the source, I have no idea why you are speculating.

Let me help you out. It was neither. The article quoted referred to the acceptance by the judge of the settlement with 3 of the publishers last year.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

As mentioned previously—without actually being able to go back four years or so, to the time when Amazon were pricing their e-books at this price point to find out exactly which titles were being sold at which amount, it’s kind of tricky to know one way or the other.

Nevertheless, you seem to feel your memory is that good that not only can you remember which titles were being sold at what price, you know it with 100% certainty.

I take my hat off to you sir, your memory is far superior to mine.

Memory doesn't enter into the equation. Simply look at your Amazon account and see what prices you paid for books four years ago. It's all there for you.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

So, let me get this straight. You believe some random online reporter over a seasoned judge. Is that right?

Because, if that's true, you just lost all reason for me to pay *any* attention to you. Just another Apple fanboy waving his hands. I think it's time to start ignoring you.

That happened for me with his first post in this thread where he made the claim that ebooks are sold on the agency model.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

Which of course is entirely your prerogative to choose to believe.

Yours too, sir.
But neither of us gets to spread unfounded myth as "proven fact" without challenge.

The burden of proof is on you: Prove that the Judge was wrong when she said Amazon has always made money selling books.

Anything else is handwaving and urban legend.

Toodles.

[HoraceWimp]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

So, let me get this straight. You believe some random online reporter over a seasoned judge. Is that right?

I believe what I read and see with my own eyes. I believe in what sounds rational, logical and reasoned.

I believe that Amazon has been using predatory pricing tactics to put competitors out of business, with the distinct aim of rising prices in the future to recoup those lost profits.

Whatever a judge might think about that is entirely irrelevant to what I choose to want to believe based on the facts in front of me. The burden of proof in law is something entirely different to what might actually happen in reality.

The law found O J Simpson not guilty of murder when anyone with half a brain cell who’d been following his trial and saw the evidence against him knew he was guilty as sin.

[HoraceWimp]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Memory doesn't enter into the equation. Simply look at your Amazon account and see what prices you paid for books four years ago. It's all there for you.

Memory does come into the equation.

I’ve never bought a single thing from Amazon, let alone books.

Strange isn't it how someone may actually ‘walk the talk’ of their convictions.

I’d prefer to give my custom to a local bricks and mortar store than stoke the profits of a morally and ethically dubious online company.

Cheap isn’t always better.

[HoraceWimp]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The burden of proof is on you...

The burden of proof lies with the author of the article whose figures you seem to have the biggest contention with. Might I suggest you take up your grievance with them?

No doubt if the article is such a work of fiction as you seem to suggest, Amazon will take action against them to have the article removed. Knowing how litigious American Corporations are in protecting the good name of their brand, this is exactly what I would expect to happen.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

The burden of proof lies with the author of the article whose figures you seem to have the biggest contention with. Might I suggest you take up your grievance with them?

With the greatest respect, my dear fellow, when you're disputing basic facts - such as that Amazon's $9.99 price tag only applied to NYT bestsellers - which most of us here personally experienced and know to be true, it doesn't do your credibility any good at all. A jolly good idea to do a little research first.

[HoraceWimp]

Originally Posted by Synamon

Energy companies have nearly identical cost structures, resulting in very similar marketing strategies.

It’s got nothing to do with identical cost structures and everything to do with monopolistic cartels. As long as the players in the market maintain similar price structures and don’t deliberately spark price wars by cutting prices all the members of the monopolistic cartel win in steady profits. Once a price war starts, with one company trying to grab a bigger share of the market—they all lose as cost cutting starts and prices fall.

We know they’re price colluding, because there’s virtually no difference in prices across the board from different companies supplying the same commodity. Proving they’re actually price colluding would be virtually impossible.

Using your example of identical cost structures, one would expect Supermarkets to have identical prices on all their products—they don’t. They vary quite significantly depending on how they’re positioned in the market and the quality of their products and levels of service offered.

This is pretty basic economics to be honest.

[HoraceWimp]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, my dear fellow, when you're disputing basic facts - such as that Amazon's $9.99 price tag only applied to NYT bestsellers - which most of us here personally experienced and know to be true, it doesn't do your credibility any good at all. A jolly good idea to do a little research first.

Well, another quick search turned up another article saying the same thing:

The US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Apple and five major publishers — Penguin, Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and MacMillan — for colluding to fix and raise ebook prices above the default $9.99 pricepoint that Amazon had successfully made the default price for ebooks.

Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattbuchanan...999-ebook-died

How many articles would you like me to find that essentially say the same thing? Am I right to assume that this particular site is also wrong? Yet the memories of the people here are correct?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

I’ve never bought a single thing from Amazon, let alone books.

Ah... another piece of the puzzle falls in place. Someone with absolutely no personal experience with--or knowledge of--Amazon's pricing practices at the time telling us exactly what was wrong with Amazon's pricing practices ... all based on and "supported" by op ed pieces that are written by people who share your particular bias (with a side of "I know what they're going to do in the future, too." "Amazon evil. Argh!").

Let's just put this little tidbit to rest: the myth that all (or even most) newly published ebooks were being sold by Amazon for $9.99 is just that; a myth. The fact that you (and many others) NEED it to be true, doesn't lend it any more credence. I have the prices I actually paid for my new releases at my disposal ... you have second-hand spin from people with axes to grind and/or convenient amnesia (or just plain faulty/non-existent research).

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

I’d prefer to give my custom to a local bricks and mortar store than stoke the profits of a morally and ethically dubious online company.

Yes. Because you've intensely scrutinized and vetted the morals and ethics of the owners/operators of all the B&M stores you frequent. Either that, or we accept the "fact" that owning a physical "store" somehow renders someone incapable of turpitude or repugnant behavior. Since you seem to be dwelling on morals and ethics, perhaps you can explain how you've arrived at the idea that a "local bricks and mortar store" equates to a morally and ethically run business. I propose it really has nothing to do with morals and ethics, but rather, personal preference and ideals (which is fine: as long as you don't run 'em up the flagpole and call them something else).

It sounds to me like you're confusing "I don't like it" (which is perfectly acceptable, too, by the way) with "it's 'wrong' and dangerous." Quite popular these days. People like to believe that the former automatically translates to the latter. But that doesn't make it true or helpful in any way.

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

Cheap isn’t always better.

You're right there. It's also not inherently worse.

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

How many articles would you like me to find that essentially say the same thing?

I'd like you stop, actually. If the volume of reused printed words somehow had any bearing on their truthfulness, then I'd believe every crackpot conspiracy theory out there.

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

Am I right to assume that this particular site is also wrong?

Yes. It is also incorrect. Any article/site that claims there was a "default" price point of $9.99 for all newly-released ebooks is incorrect.

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

Yet the memories of the people here are correct?

Maybe not "correct," but at least slightly more relevant/believable than the "wool gathering" by someone who HAS no first-hand experience with the pricing at that (or any other) time.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HoraceWimp

Memory does come into the equation.

I’ve never bought a single thing from Amazon, let alone books.

Strange isn't it how someone may actually ‘walk the talk’ of their convictions.

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you, who have never bought anything from Amazon, have a more accurate knowledge of what they charge for ebooks than those of us who've been buying from them for years, and can simply look at our purchase history and see what we actually did pay? Have I got that right?

EDIT: I've just checked and my Amazon order history goes back to November 1998.

[HoraceWimp]

I’m going to stop here now I think because any more discussion from me on this subject will simply end up going round in circles. I don’t see how that is going to help anyone or further the discussion.

At the end of the day, as I’m sure you will agree, I am entitled to hold the opinions I do, regardless of whether people choose to believe in them or not. I’m not asking people to agree with me.

From browsing some of the articles on this subject, I came across this comment from someone which, in my opinion pretty much sums it all up in a nutshell:

What is missing in this article is the financial straits Amazon is in. Amazon’s business strategy is a very long term sustainable growth which is reflected in the crazy P/E ratio of 3000 (Apple is only 10). For their stock to be fully realized and their business model matured, they would have have to increase their profit 300 times.

This creates immense tension because even though they have a diversified business, they still make most of their money from books. The whole US book/publishing business has slightly contracted over the years. So Amazon must kill off their competitors to survive, and to survive they have to use predatory pricing. Once they kill off their competitors they have to raise their prices to finally satisfy their investors. This is this their intrinsic business model.

This is not necessarily good for book lovers.

Source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...azon/?src=recg


As a book lover, I couldn’t agree more.