Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[tubemonkey]

Mickey Mouse forever

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And you have proof that Amazon was attempting to drive out competition? Because you do know that loss-leader pricing has been going on for a long time in the retail industry, long before Amazon existed. The publishers tried very hard to demonize Amazon and failed. And yet here we still are with sly accusations of monopolization.

Put up or shut up.

Sigh. Any sly accusations of monopolization are purely figments of your imagination. The point was that one can not make simplistic pronouncements that have any accuracy when dealing with the law. In theory at least, there are certain tests which must be met before anti-trust kicks in. As I have said many, many times in this thread, the use of loss leaders is a standard practice in sales. Yet, it can lead to anti-trust charges in some situations. The situation is not simple and does not lend itself to black and white declarations, no matter how impassioned one feels about one company or another.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Prior to 2009 and Apple's illegal conspiracy with the publishers, Amazon was selling ebooks more or less at cost. 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.

So this idea that Amazon was taking a huge hit with their ebook pricing prior to 2009 (up to $5 loss per book) and this was "typical" of their history with ebook pricing, is not supported by facts.

--Pat

I'm afraid that the facts don't really support your statement. First off, agency pricing was implemented in 2010. Second off, as the article that I linked to earlier shows, Amazon's cost did not suddenly go up, they were selling at a loss well before agency pricing was suggested. If you have any documentation that supports what you are asserting, then by all means, please link to it, I would love to see it.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As I have said many, many times in this thread, the use of loss leaders is a standard practice in sales. Yet, it can lead to anti-trust charges in some situations.

And yet it lead to no anti-trust charges, and yet you continue to bring it up.

Full translation: I have no proof, I just like to whine.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And yet it lead to no anti-trust charges, and yet you continue to bring it up.

Full translation: I have no proof, I just like to whine.

No, full translation is I'm not saying what you claim I'm saying and you either are ignoring what is said in the post that you are commenting on, you are having trouble with reading comprehension, or you are trolling.

No where in any of my posts do I say that Amazon is engaged in anti-trust practices.
No where in any of my posts do I imply that Amazon is engaged in anti-trust practices.
I simply say that the anti-trust laws are complex and do not lend themselves to simplistic statements or pure black and white projections.

The original Standard Oil anti-trust was in a large part based on Standard Oil engaging in selling oil products for less that cost in specific areas to drive their smaller competitors out of business. Thus, one can not categorically state that a company can sell a product for any price they choice, no question, end of story. I really don't know how to make it any plainer than that.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm afraid that the facts don't really support your statement. First off, agency pricing was implemented in 2010. Second off, as the article that I linked to earlier shows, Amazon's cost did not suddenly go up, they were selling at a loss well before agency pricing was suggested. If you have any documentation that supports what you are asserting, then by all means, please link to it, I would love to see it.

Unfortunately for you, it is your statements which are not supported by facts. First, the situation I was talking about with wholesale prices suddenly rising in 2009 was NOT in reference to agency pricing at all, which came after the changes in wholesale pricing. Read what I wrote again. It was solely in reference to publishers changing the “wholesale pricing” scheme on Amazon in 2009, so that suddenly – because Amazon refused to move off the $9.99 price point they had already established – they were left taking a bigger loss of “several dollars” (but not ordinarily $5) per ebook sold. This was all laid out in the court decision, linked below. I suggest you read it to better acquaint yourself with the facts in this case and the reasons Apple got into trouble. For the relevant section about the switch in wholesale pricing in 2009 which I was referring to, see page 17.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf

Second. The New Yorker piece you linked to wasn’t really an article, but simply a blog post about an article that is behind a pay wall. In the blog post itself, the author has no supporting facts for his broad unsubstantiated assertion that Amazon “typically” took a $5 loss per ebook sold. At best, that appears to be a gross exaggeration of the facts.

You are also under the misimpression that Amazon “typically” took a loss of $5 per ebook sold, apparently hanging your hat on that single journalist’s unsupported claim. I believe he’s tremendously off the mark there, and thus so are you. For my facts, I’ll instead rely on the court record, undoubtedly a more recent, relevant and reliable source.

Finally, it appears you want to put Amazon on trial. They were not on trial here. Apple was. As Cote said at the end of her decision (page 157; bold emphasis mine):

This trial has not been the occasion to decide whether Amazon’s choice to sell NYT Bestsellers or other New Releases as loss leaders was an unfair trade practice or in any other way a violation of law. If it was, however, the remedy for illegal conduct is a complaint lodged with the proper law enforcement offices or a civil suit or both. Another company’s alleged violation of antitrust laws is not an excuse for engaging in your own violations of law. Nor is suspicion that that may be occurring a defense to the claims litigated at this trial.

Again, what Amazon did or didn’t do does not excuse Apple in any way from their behavior. Trying to divert attention to Amazon is a weak attempt to defend the guilty.

--Pat

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, full translation is I'm not saying what you claim I'm saying and you either are ignoring what is said in the post that you are commenting on, you are having trouble with reading comprehension, or you are trolling.

And yet. Once again, the big five publishers accused Amazon of monopolization and failed to prove their point. And yet. You continue to bring it up. *Exactly* what are you trying to prove. If Amazon is not a monopoly (as the court has so decided), why continue to bring it up? What point are you trying to prove?

Actually, I don't want to know. I'm done with Apple apologists. You can continue this conversation with those willing to deal with your sophistry. I'm just going to put you on ignore.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The question was - was Amazon getting a huge discount from publishers and thus able to sale ebooks at a price point below everyone else, or was Amazon selling some ebooks at a loss to establish market. I believe that the article pretty much shows that Amazon was selling some ebooks at a loss to establish market.

No, the question was if Amazon got a bigger discount than other retailers.

And as I can't read the article I don't know what it shows. The fragment that you quoted stated:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

"...In the effort to gain even greater market share, it was selling books at a loss: while publishers typically sold e-books to Amazon for about fifteen dollars apiece, Amazon was selling many of them for $9.99. Publishers were concerned that customers would come to believe that $9.99 was what books were worth, and they were desperate to have greater influence on prices. ... "

You know that Amazon was selling ebooks for lower than $9.99 as well, so if Amazon was typically giving the publishers about $15 apiece, it would have taken bigger losses than $5 per book sold. Does that seem plausible to you?

[crossi]

[QUOTE=pwalker8;2749830]The article is dated June 25, 2012. The quote is from the first paragraph -

"...In the effort to gain even greater market share, it was selling books at a loss: while publishers typically sold e-books to Amazon for about fifteen dollars apiece, Amazon was selling many of them for $9.99.


Publishers DIDN'T typically sell ebooks to Amazon for $15. You are refering ONLY to best selling new hardback releases. Most of the books sold by Amazon were out in paperback or discounted by the publisher because they released a year ago and not selling well. Pointing to a limited number of books sold at $9.99 as evidence that Amazon was taking a loss on most of their ebooks is ridiculous. They weren't. Many ebooks on Amazon were priced at more than $10, some a lot more. Having a few loss leaders is perfectly legal and customary for all retailers. They DID cut down the percent profit they made on many of their ebooks to less than the percent profit other stores were selling at but this is not illegal, immoral or predatory behavior. They do the same for most of their products.

Don't you think if Amazon were indulging in anti trust behavior some prosecutor would have filed charges by now?

[pwalker8]

Good lord almight. Can't you people read the Queen's English? What part of "I am not accusing Amazon of anti-trust violations" is so hard to understand? I've said it multiple times. Why do you keep saying that I am?

One of the downsides of stereotyping people is that you tune out what they are actually saying, secure in the knowledge that you know what they "really mean".

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Unfortunately for you, it is your statements which are not supported by facts. First, the situation I was talking about with wholesale prices suddenly rising in 2009 was NOT in reference to agency pricing at all, which came after the changes in wholesale pricing. Read what I wrote again. It was solely in reference to publishers changing the “wholesale pricing” scheme on Amazon in 2009, so that suddenly – because Amazon refused to move off the $9.99 price point they had already established – they were left taking a bigger loss of “several dollars” (but not ordinarily $5) per ebook sold. This was all laid out in the court decision, linked below. I suggest you read it to better acquaint yourself with the facts in this case and the reasons Apple got into trouble. For the relevant section about the switch in wholesale pricing in 2009 which I was referring to, see page 17.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf

Second. The New Yorker piece you linked to wasn’t really an article, but simply a blog post about an article that is behind a pay wall. In the blog post itself, the author has no supporting facts for his broad unsubstantiated assertion that Amazon “typically” took a $5 loss per ebook sold. At best, that appears to be a gross exaggeration of the facts.

You are also under the misimpression that Amazon “typically” took a loss of $5 per ebook sold, apparently hanging your hat on that single journalist’s unsupported claim. I believe he’s tremendously off the mark there, and thus so are you. For my facts, I’ll instead rely on the court record, undoubtedly a more recent, relevant and reliable source.

Finally, it appears you want to put Amazon on trial. They were not on trial here. Apple was. As Cote said at the end of her decision (page 157; bold emphasis mine):


Again, what Amazon did or didn’t do does not excuse Apple in any way from their behavior. Trying to divert attention to Amazon is a weak attempt to defend the guilty.

--Pat

I see nothing in there that says what you claim. Perhaps you can cut and paste the part the supports your claim since I can't find it.

Once again in nice big letters I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT AMAZON VIOLATED ANTI-TRUST LAWS. Is this clear enough?

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I see nothing in there that says what you claim. Perhaps you can cut and paste the part the supports your claim since I can't find it.

Once again in nice big letters I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT AMAZON VIOLATED ANTI-TRUST LAWS. Is this clear enough?

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

[pwalker8]

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.

[PatNY]

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:

“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.

“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

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And yet. Once again, the big five publishers accused Amazon of monopolization and failed to prove their point. And yet. You continue to bring it up. *Exactly* what are you trying to prove. If Amazon is not a monopoly (as the court has so decided), why continue to bring it up? What point are you trying to prove?

Actually, I don't want to know. I'm done with Apple apologists. You can continue this conversation with those willing to deal with your sophistry. I'm just going to put you on ignore.

Moderator Notice

Please remember that there is no need to advise our community that someone will be put on your "Ingore" list. Just do it w/o announcing it.

Take this time to review our Posting Guidelines.

All members: Be aware of posts that verge on the 'personal attack.' Please review your post before hitting 'Send.'