View Single Post
Old 01-30-2014, 05:47 AM   #338
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,896
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
The question was - was Amazon getting a huge discount from publishers and thus able to sale ebooks at a price point below everyone else, or was Amazon selling some ebooks at a loss to establish market. I believe that the article pretty much shows that Amazon was selling some ebooks at a loss to establish market.
No, the question was if Amazon got a bigger discount than other retailers.

And as I can't read the article I don't know what it shows. The fragment that you quoted stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
"...In the effort to gain even greater market share, it was selling books at a loss: while publishers typically sold e-books to Amazon for about fifteen dollars apiece, Amazon was selling many of them for $9.99. Publishers were concerned that customers would come to believe that $9.99 was what books were worth, and they were desperate to have greater influence on prices. ... "
You know that Amazon was selling ebooks for lower than $9.99 as well, so if Amazon was typically giving the publishers about $15 apiece, it would have taken bigger losses than $5 per book sold. Does that seem plausible to you?
Sil_liS is offline   Reply With Quote