Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
Or rather - it's the consistent opinion of someone who saw Amazon's actions as predatory pricing and anti-competitive since the beginning long before Apple entered the market. I'm an Amazon customer and I like doing business with Amazon, and continue to buy the majority of my ebooks from Amazon. However, Amazon didn't get 90% of the ebook market via honest competition but rather by buying market share with below cost pricing.
The very fact the the publishers HATED Amazon's pricing but were POWERLESS to do anything about it is proof positive that Amazon had monopoly power.
It is apparent that the publishers did collude though I agree with Apple that Apple did not. The judge decided that Apple is guilty because Apple's actions allowed the publishers colluding to succeed.
To me, at best, this is a case of being guilty for shooting a burglar who's broken into your house. The judge ignored the burglary and focused only on the shooting.
|
I am sorry but who was in the ebook market when Amazon entered? Was Barnes and Noble in the ebook market? Was Sony's bookstore any good? Kobo?
Amazon gained a huge market sharte because Amazon created the market. The Kindle was a huge gamble. Even when the K1 was doing well people were talking about it as a fad. Jobs was saying that Apple would not enter the ebook or ereader market because people don't read enough.
The low prices were meant as an incentive to those of us who paid $400 for the K1. The books were easy to get and less expensive so it was worth taking the risk on the reader.
Sorry, but you will have to find a different buyer for the predatory pricing argument. BN and Apple joined the ebook market after Amazon demonstrated that you could make money in it.