Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
I'm afraid that the facts don't really support your statement. First off, agency pricing was implemented in 2010. Second off, as the article that I linked to earlier shows, Amazon's cost did not suddenly go up, they were selling at a loss well before agency pricing was suggested. If you have any documentation that supports what you are asserting, then by all means, please link to it, I would love to see it.
|
Unfortunately for you, it is your statements which are not supported by facts. First, the situation I was talking about with wholesale prices suddenly rising in 2009 was
NOT in reference to agency pricing at all, which came after the changes in wholesale pricing. Read what I wrote again. It was solely in reference to publishers changing the “wholesale pricing” scheme on Amazon in 2009, so that suddenly – because Amazon refused to move off the $9.99 price point they had already established – they were left taking a bigger loss of “several dollars” (but not ordinarily $5) per ebook sold. This was all laid out in the court decision, linked below. I suggest you read it to better acquaint yourself with the facts in this case and the reasons Apple got into trouble. For the relevant section about the switch in wholesale pricing in 2009 which I was referring to, see page 17.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf
Second. The New Yorker piece you linked to wasn’t really an article, but simply a blog post about an article that is behind a pay wall. In the blog post itself, the author has no supporting facts for his broad unsubstantiated assertion that Amazon “typically” took a $5 loss per ebook sold. At best, that appears to be a gross exaggeration of the facts.
You are also under the misimpression that Amazon “typically” took a loss of $5 per ebook sold, apparently hanging your hat on that single journalist’s unsupported claim. I believe he’s tremendously off the mark there, and thus so are you. For my facts, I’ll instead rely on the court record, undoubtedly a more recent, relevant and reliable source.
Finally, it appears you want to put Amazon on trial. They were not on trial here. Apple was. As Cote said at the end of her decision (page 157; bold emphasis mine):
Quote:
|
This trial has not been the occasion to decide whether Amazon’s choice to sell NYT Bestsellers or other New Releases as loss leaders was an unfair trade practice or in any other way a violation of law. If it was, however, the remedy for illegal conduct is a complaint lodged with the proper law enforcement offices or a civil suit or both. Another company’s alleged violation of antitrust laws is not an excuse for engaging in your own violations of law. Nor is suspicion that that may be occurring a defense to the claims litigated at this trial.
|
Again, what Amazon did or didn’t do does not excuse Apple in any way from their behavior. Trying to divert attention to Amazon is a weak attempt to defend the guilty.
--Pat