Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
Really? We have to debate that again? The wholesale price of a NYT's best seller book was 50%....around $12.50 a book. Amazon sold them for $9.99. That was never a controversial opinion and the Amazon-blinkered folks on this forum repeatedly said "why should the publishers care since they still get their $12.50".
|
Wrong!
A certain subset of the general category of "NYT Bestsellers" was sold at a loss-leader price, in order to drum up business.
And publishers were of course making their money off it anyway. And even if they were eating the cost of those loss-leader prices, ebooks would STILL be extremely profitable. But none of that matters because you are pulling the
standard evasive maneuver in this high-profile case, by conflating specific books with books in general, or even just bestsellers in general.
And that is still irrelevant to your claim of "willingly takes a loss on every popular book it sells". You are certainly allowed to claim that only NYT Bestsellers are popular books, but that doesn't make it any more than an IMHO ill-informed opinion.
And considering you ultimately want to prove (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
So to launch an ebook reader is to also launch an ebook store that has to be able to compete with Amazon who willingly takes a loss on every popular book it sells.
|
It is, once again, irrelevant how much Amazon may or may not lose on popular books as long as they still have to make their money on the other books, the majority of books, which have to be priced a lot higher apparently or else Amazon would go out of business.
According to your own logic, that is where the competition needs to be anyway.