DOJ: Apple and B&N can continue to use agency pricing

[Barcey]

I'm fascinated by the argument that the agency model was solely response for taking Amazon from 80% to 60% of the ebook market. I guess that the only reason people were buying from Amazon was price and their customer experience and support sucked. Forget the fact that other ebook stores were largely matching Amazon's price. The first opportunity of agency pricing and 20% of the market place abandoned them. It's funny though I've heard Amazon criticized for a lot of things (and I've criticized them myself) but I've never heard Amazon's customer service and user experience largely criticized.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I'm fascinated by the argument that the agency model was solely response for taking Amazon from 80% to 60% of the ebook market. I guess that the only reason people were buying from Amazon was price and their customer experience and support sucked. Forget the fact that other ebook stores were largely matching Amazon's price. The first opportunity of agency pricing and 20% of the market place abandoned them. It's funny though I've heard Amazon criticized for a lot of things (and I've criticized them myself) but I've never heard Amazon's customer service and user experience largely criticized.

There are few things wrong with what you're saying.
First, 20% is not everyone, so how you go from a 20% shift to the idea "the only reason people were buying Amazon" is a bit of mystery. At most, you might have wondered if "the only reason those 20% were buying from Amazon...." was price which is not all that unreasonable anyway. There are certainly people who complain about various aspects of Amazon, but might still have been lured only by the pull of the pocketbook.

Second, It is indeed possible that agency pricing might have succeeded in it's purported intent for some of that 20% in other ways besides price.
There are folks with Nooks and Kobos and other readers who shopped at Amazon, even though it meant some small inconvenience of stripping and converting the books, because they got better deals.
The loss of a price advantage may have gotten some of those folks to turn back to the convenience of their reader's integrated store.

So add in a few various factors like that and it's not hard to imagine the lion's share of a 20% shift, if not the whole thing.

ApK

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by ApK

There are few things wrong with what you're saying.
First, 20% is not everyone, so how you go from a 20% shift to the idea "the only reason people were buying Amazon" is a bit of mystery. At most, you might have wondered if "the only reason those 20% were buying from Amazon...." was price which is not all that unreasonable anyway. There are certainly people who complain about various aspects of Amazon, but might still have been lured only by the pull of the pocketbook.

Second, It is indeed possible that agency pricing might have succeeded in it's purported intent for some of that 20% in other ways besides price.
There are folks with Nooks and Kobos and other readers who shopped at Amazon, even though it meant some small inconvenience of stripping and converting the books, because they got better deals.
The loss of a price advantage may have gotten some of those folks to turn back to the convenience of their reader's integrated store.

So add in a few various factors like that and it's not hard to imagine the lion's share of a 20% shift, if not the whole thing.

ApK

You're correct, I should have said I don't believe that 20% of the people purchasing from Amazon were doing so only based on price and they were so disgruntled with Amazon that they jumped ship with the first lifeboat. Especially when the lifeboat was significantly higher prices caused by agency pricing. I'm sorry it's not credible.

[Sydney's Mom]

Too many books, so little time.

[Synergi]

I don't think it fair to call Amazon a monopoly. They released the kindle and pushed the 9.99 on best sellers (lost leader) when the format was just starting to take off. Everyone else was playing catch up.

I think Amazon had 80% of the market because they were just better. I'm tired of hearing Barnes and Noble whine about Amazon and how they can't compete. Get off your arse and innovate. This is what Amazon has been doing. They continue to add features and value to shopping with them, like Amazon Prime and the free book borrowing. That is pretty innovative and they are the only ones I know of that are doing it. What does Barnes and Noble's 25 a year membership get you as far as ebooks go? I'll tell you, nothing. You don't even get the 25 dollar discount anymore on a Nook, as they did away with that as well.

Amazon was the first to have free, 3g on their ereaders. No one else had that. I think (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) they were first to offer samples. They have a 7 day, no questions asked refund policy on ebooks. Barnes and Noble will NOT refund you for ebooks unless you bought an ebook when you meant to buy a physical book and they have proof you ordered the physical book. If the book is on the website in english and your download is in spanish, guess what.. you aren't getting refunded. If they aren't customer focused on price nor service, why should they be protected from Amazon who is? Its not that Barnes and Noble can't compete. They don't want to.

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think its just price as to why Amazon has such a large market. Why should they be punished for coming up with ideas their customers like? Why should Agency allow Barnes and Noble or Apple (and I love Apple) to be lazy?