Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
And you accuse others of having reading issues? I guess I’ll have to walk you through it …
Page 17 of the decision does
NOT say that the publishers “were going” to remove the 20% discount for wholesale ebooks. It says they actually did do it, in 2009. And this is exactly what I said in post #329:
Quote:
|
“It was only immediately prior to the illegal conspiracy or concurrent with it -- sometime in 2009 -- that Amazon's costs suddenly exceeded their $9.99 price point by several dollars per book. And this happened because the publishers suddenly withdrew wholesale ebook pricing from Amazon, instead charging for ebooks what they charged for hardcovers.”
|
You seem to still be confused about this. This switch in wholesale pricing by the publishers that Judge Cote talks about on page 17 in her decision is NOT referring to agency pricing at all, the implementation of which came only later in 2010. That should have been clear to you had you read the entire page 17. The change in wholesale pricing happened immediately prior to or concurrently with the conspiring by Apple and the publishers that
eventually led to agency pricing.
Additionally, I have never said that “Amazon was not previously selling some ebooks at a loss to establish market.” What I have been saying up to now is this:
1) Prior to 2009, when the publishers changed wholesale pricing policies, Amazon had been selling ebooks “more or less at cost.” Meaning they were likely taking a small hit on some ebooks while making a small profit on others and breaking even on the rest. The net result? Likely, they were roughly breaking even on ebook sales. This is consistent with the court record which states: “Prior to 2009 … Amazon’s $9.99 price point
roughly matched the wholesale price of its ebooks.” (Page 15)
2) In 2009, prior to the implementation of agency pricing, the publishers suddenly withdrew the wholesale discount they were giving for ebooks, so that Amazon was left paying the same higher wholesale price for ebooks that they were paying for hardcovers. (Page 17)
3) The court record says the loss to amazon in 2009 as a result of this sudden change in publishers’ wholesale pricing amounted to “several dollars” per ebook (Page 17) – certainly NOT the $5 hit per ebook that Auletta and you would have everyone believe was “typical” of Amazon’s ebook pricing at the time. The $5 loss figure carelessly bandied about was not "typical" at all and is at best a gross exaggeration.
Quote:
|
“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 …"
|
It’s not just the comment to tubemoneky – in which you implied that Amazon could be skating on thin ice – that is off base, but your other statements about Amazon in this thread, taken as a whole, such as the erroneous overstatement about Amazon’s loss per ebook sale prior to agency pricing. These statements taken in total are an attempt to paint Amazon as the bad boy, when it is Apple who was found guilty. I think that is one of the problems some are having with your approach. You are trying to hang Amazon when it is Apple who should be sent off to the gallows.
--Pat