Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
It is as just as straightforward in this case as I think it is. Claims that Amazon was practicing "predatory pricing" were found to be lacking. Holding a <for the love all that's holy>DOMINANT</for the love of all that's holy> market position and all.
Besides, it's clear that Steve was suggesting that all promotional, loss-leader, or below-cost pricing is predatory. And while he's free to believe that, it certainly doesn't make it true.
|
I don't get the idea that he is suggesting that, I think that he is simply responding to the statement that everyone uses loss leaders because if they don't, they go out of business with some examples of successful companies that don't use loss leaders. Of course, he might be, I can't read his mind, but I didn't take it that way.
Predatory pricing can be hard to prove. Lack of evidence isn't the same as proof that they aren't doing it.
On a somewhat different line here is an interesting blog posting about Amazon's DOMINANCE (feel better?
)
http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/has-eve...ket-to-amazon/
Basically, the blogger discusses how the fading competition with Amazon over ebooks hurts author, including a few points that I hadn't considered, such as reduced visibility of books as well as points that I had considered such as likely reduced profitability for authors (she mentions that Amazon has already cut the royalty rates for indie audiobooks now that they own Audible).
kind of in line is this blog post from digitalbooksworld that talks about how difficult it is to track market share, as well as how some smaller publishers are starting to move to Apple for the simple reason that Apple is giving them visibility.
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...er-in-the-u-s/