Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
As I said in my post, it's on page 17. Did you even read that page?
I NEVER claimed you claimed Amazon violated anti-trust laws. Is that clear enough? I said you are trying to put Amazon on trial (metaphorically speaking, of course). But bottom line is that Amazon is not the issue here. Apple's behavior is. Nice try at diversion.
--Pat
|
Yes, I did read it. It said that the publishers were going to remove the 20% discount for ebooks. It doesn't say that Amazon was not previously selling some ebooks at a loss to establish market. Do the math. If the list price for a hard back is $27, and Amazon is selling the ebook for $10, then the difference is more than the wholesale price plus a 20% discount. You are jumping at a conclusion that is not said on the page you refer to. I'm sure there are some $10 books that are sold at a profit, just as there are $5 ebooks that are sold at a profit. But there are also $10 ebooks that were being sold at a loss.
Actually, Apple's behavior is not the issue here. The specific post that started this whole straw man argument of that I was accusing Amazon of anti-trust violations was tubemonkey's assertion that "It should be up to the retailer to set the price, not the publisher. If the publisher doesn't like what a particular retailer is doing, then they should quit supplying that retailer. Rather simple. " and my response "Actually, it's considerably more complex than that. Selling for less than cost to drive out competitors was the original example of monopolistic practices. Things are rarely as simplistic, or as black and white, as some try to make it. " Thus the question wasn't is Amazon engaged in anti-trust behavior, but rather are there situations where the retailer can not simply set the price at whatever they want.