Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
Amazon was subsidizing the ebooks they sold. That's the ENTIRE controversy. The publishers put a stop to Amazon selling books below cost.
People are angry because they LIKED Amazon subsidizing their reading habits. They could care less about book sellers having to compete against Amazon's ability to lose money. They won't look forward to what the future would hold with Amazon as a true monopoly.
|
There.Is.Nothing.Wrong.With.Amazon's.Pricing.
Amazon is not subsidizing anyone. A subsidy is a direct monetary contribution. Amazon is discounting books, in some cases below its cost.
You're right in your second point. People don't care about other booksellers. Nor should they; if those booksellers can't compete with Amazon, they should go out of business. We are only talking about discounts on a very small number of books.
Your theory, apparently, is that Amazon's low prices would drive all other e-booksellers out of business and then would raise prices. With one exception (Standard oil in the 1890's), this doesn't happen in the real world for lots of reasons, including low barriers to entry for competitors and the fact that books also compete with other forms of entertainment. This same claim is raised about Walmart (that after they have outcompeted local businesses they will raise prices), but it doesn't happen there, either.
Quote:
They liked to suckle at Amazon's tit, and that IS indeed the controversy.
Lee
|
If you insist on using that language, I'll point out that I would much rather suckle at Amazon's tit than at the part of the publisher's anatomy you seem intent on suckling. Horses for courses.