Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Lady
I have no idea how Apple and the publishers thought that this was going to hurt Amazon. I never used to buy at Amazon, but when agency first went away Amazon was the first to discount again so I bought from them. Were the non agency contracts slow to get to other sellers too?
|
It wasn't really about hurting Amazon, that was mostly trotted out for the trial defense. The BPH's goal was to control pricing. They felt (and still do) that lower pricing on E-books devalues physical books too. I really don't buy that argument myself, but some people do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The reality was that there was a healthy, competitive market where *in aggregate* if you *only* bought from one ebookstore, Amazon was cheapest. But if you shopped around and bought from whomever had the lowest price on a given day, you would save more than just going with Amazon.
|
This is very much like Wal-mart and grocery prices. You
can save money if you hit up sales at other stores instead of just going to Wal-mart, but overall, if you're only going to shop one place, you'll save money at Wal-mart most of the time. (But be sure you pay attention to prices, I've seen name brands cheaper than generics, most notably in soups.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Not necessarily.
That is not a given: Apple won't be able to do agency for a long time and Amazon has no motivation to agree to agency while Apple is free to discount.
|
Amazon's spat with Hatchette shows that Amazon is very unwilling to go back to the way things were, even if they take a PR beating.
Overall on this issue, I've noticed that some people feel that there was no conspiracy, and nothing will convince them otherwise. Other people feel the opposite, and nothing will convince them otherwise either. I'm not even sure a verdict from the Supreme Court will change either side's opinions on the matter. Personally, I felt the whole thing with Apple & the BPHs was fishy from the get-go.