Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 10, 2012, 10:11 AM   #51
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
and again, I think that's quite clear from the article and from the document. What's your point in calling attention to it if it's already obvious?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...&postcount=262
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 10:16 AM   #52
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...&postcount=263
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 12:07 AM   #53
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Price competition is back. HarperCollins ebooks are sold as wholesale to ebook retailers. And these retailers are able to discount.

Example: Divergent by Veronica Roth

Yesterday:

$9.99 on Amazon
$12.99 on B&N

Today:

B&N: $7.29
Amazon: $7.29

Hey look at that, retailers are competing. We win. It was $12.99. Then dropped to $9.99. Ensuing price war, it is now $7.29.

The publisher profits too since they sold it at wholesale at a much higher price than $7.29.



http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...e-book-prices/
HarperCollins Reaches New Agreements With Amazon and Others on E-Book Prices

As consumers, we win when ebook retailers are able to offer discount.
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 02:53 AM   #54
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
http://www.idealog.com/blog/hats-off-to-amazon/

Quote:
When the settlement is implemented, the three settling publishers will have their book prices cut by retailers, whatever they decide about setting list prices and however they negotiate the next round of commercial terms. But the three publishers still permitted to use agency pricing — Random House and the continuing litigants Macmillan and Penguin — will probably find that they are forced to lower the prices they set to keep their big books competitive. At least that would be my expectation.

The other publishers who haven't settled yet will need to lower their prices in order to be more competitive?

Open market (low price for customers) vs. price fixing (high price for customers) indeed.




In the comment section, Mike Shatzkin (well known publishing consultant) wrote this:

http://www.idealog.com/blog/hats-off-to-amazon/
Quote:
1. According to my understanding, Amazon *always* "made money" (as in "made margin") on the content. I was told by am Amazon executive before agency that 4% of the titles were discounted below cost and they constituted 25% of the sales. The margin made on the other 75% of the sales more than compensated for the "losses". That's what they said and I don't disbelieve them.

3. There is already a stipulated (but impossible to enforce) "cap" on the margin a retailer can give away; they're not allowed (theoretically) to lose money on the whole body of ebooks they sell from any particular publisher over the course of a year.
Can a company be predatory selling ebooks when it makes money on ebooks. Llose money on 25% of the sales but gain money on 75% of the sales, the overall picture is profits. It's like saying a store selling clothes is predatory when it is profitable (lose money on the loss-leader but make money on the other 75% of sales)?
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 08:14 AM   #55
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbookReader View Post
Open market (low price for customers) vs. price fixing (high price for customers) indeed.
And, again, consumer aren't the only concern in maintaining a open market.

I suggest you read Bob Kohn's brief for another perspective.

Quote:
Can a company be predatory selling ebooks when it makes money on ebooks. Llose money on 25% of the sales but gain money on 75% of the sales, the overall picture is profits.
Of course. Amazon has an exclusive on 16% of best sellers and prices many of the best sellers below cost. (The 4% of books that make up 25% of their sales!)

Quote:
It's like saying a store selling clothes is predatory when it is profitable (lose money on the loss-leader but make money on the other 75% of sales)?
Only if the store selling clothes is in a monopoly position.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 09:06 AM   #56
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/11/th...ooks-cost-now/
Sep 11, 2012 - 9:54AM
The price drops begin: What do HarperCollins ebooks cost now?

Quote:
A roundup of select titles (the prices are correct as of Tuesday morning, but are subject to change):

-------link to see the 12 books listed----------

Not surprisingly, Amazon is offering the lowest prices. Based just on the titles above, the average price on Amazon Kindle was $8.94; on Barnes & Noble Nook, $9.57; on Google Play, $9.91; on Sony (SNE), $10.42; on Kobo, $12.25.
So instead of taking the "fixed" 30% commission, these e-sellers are now competing against each others for customers. As a result, their 30% commission/margin will be reduced.
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 09:23 AM   #57
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
And, again, consumer aren't the only concern in maintaining a open market.

I suggest you read Bob Kohn's brief for another perspective.



Of course. Amazon has an exclusive on 16% of best sellers and prices many of the best sellers below cost. (The 4% of books that make up 25% of their sales!)



Only if the store selling clothes is in a monopoly position.
So according to you, Amazon is predatory. I guess that make all the profitable stores that use loss-leaders also predatory and should be subjected to DOJ investigation like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Frys, Safeway, Kroger, KMart. If they offer a few popular DVDs/Blu-ray below cost as loss-leaders, they are predatory even though their overall DVDs/Blu-ray are profitable (loss money on 25% of sales but make profits on 75% of sales = overall profitable).



p.s. According the court, Amazon is not predatory:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...e-fixing.shtml


Nor does it show "predatory" pricing, which was a key complaint.

The problem there: the evidence showed that Amazon was "consistently profitable." And, to show predatory pricing, "one must prove more than simply pricing below an appropriate measure of cost" but also that the company will jack up prices down the road. And all of the comments failed to do that:
Quote:
None of the comments demonstrate that either condition for predatory pricing by Amazon existed or will likely exist. Indeed, while the comments complain that Amazon’s $9.99 price for newly-released and bestselling e-books was “predatory,” none of them attempts to show that Amazon’s e-book prices as a whole were below its marginal costs.
Oh, and finally, the court points out that swinging back the blame to Amazon is meaningless for the purpose of this case, anyway, because even if the court accepted that Amazon was price fixing too, that doesn't make it okay for the publishers to price fix themselves. Think of it as the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule.
Quote:
Third, even if Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing, this is no excuse for unlawful price-fixing. Congress “has not permitted the age-old cry of ruinous competition and competitive evils to be a defense to price-fixing conspiracies.” ... The familiar mantra regarding “two wrongs” would seem to offer guidance in these circumstances.



oh, Barnes and Noble is also predatory because it is pricing some ebooks below cost as loss-leaders.

http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/11/th...ooks-cost-now/

Quote:
Not surprisingly, Amazon is offering the lowest prices. Based just on the 12 titles above, the average price on Amazon Kindle was $8.94; on Barnes & Noble Nook, $9.57; on Google Play, $9.91; on Sony (SNE), $10.42; on Kobo, $12.25.





Quote:
Only if the store selling clothes is in a monopoly position.
So if a store has "monopoly position" (let's say 80% share of the market), it can't use loss-leader? It should let its competitors use loss-leaders. It is only fair for competitions to increase market share at its expense?

What logic is this?

It's like saying Itunes (which has around 80% share of the digital market) is not allowed to use loss-leaders while Itunes competitors like Amazon/GooglePlay can. I know using Itunes is a bad example because I don't think Apple use loss-leader as a retailer before. I could be wrong. But assuming that Itunes do use loss-leader, is it okay to prevent Itunes from doing so? And is it fair for consumers that Itunes stop using loss-leader? (aka, getting a good deal).

Anyway, if Amazon has a monopoly on ebook (say 80% market share) and it raises prices. Two things will happen

1) DOJ investigation for abusing its monopoly power

2) competitors will spring up overnight because there is very "low barrier" to entry. Amazon buys book for $10 and sell for $14. Google or Apple could buy book for $10 and sell for $12, undercutting Amazon by $2.

Amazon will lose market share. And it will be forced to lower price if it wants to be competitive.

Last edited by EbookReader; Sep 11, 2012 at 09:37 AM.
EbookReader is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 10:59 AM   #58
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbookReader View Post
So according to you, Amazon is predatory. I guess that make all the profitable stores that use loss-leaders also predatory and should be subjected to DOJ investigation like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Frys, Safeway, Kroger, KMart. If they offer a few popular DVDs/Blu-ray below cost as loss-leaders, they are predatory even though their overall DVDs/Blu-ray are profitable (loss money on 25% of sales but make profits on 75% of sales = overall profitable).



p.s. According the court, Amazon is not predatory:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...e-fixing.shtml


Nor does it show "predatory" pricing, which was a key complaint.

The problem there: the evidence showed that Amazon was "consistently profitable." And, to show predatory pricing, "one must prove more than simply pricing below an appropriate measure of cost" but also that the company will jack up prices down the road. And all of the comments failed to do that:


Oh, and finally, the court points out that swinging back the blame to Amazon is meaningless for the purpose of this case, anyway, because even if the court accepted that Amazon was price fixing too, that doesn't make it okay for the publishers to price fix themselves. Think of it as the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule.





oh, Barnes and Noble is also predatory because it is pricing some ebooks below cost as loss-leaders.

http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/11/th...ooks-cost-now/










So if a store has "monopoly position" (let's say 80% share of the market), it can't use loss-leader? It should let its competitors use loss-leaders. It is only fair for competitions to increase market share at its expense?

What logic is this?

It's like saying Itunes (which has around 80% share of the digital market) is not allowed to use loss-leaders while Itunes competitors like Amazon/GooglePlay can. I know using Itunes is a bad example because I don't think Apple use loss-leader as a retailer before. I could be wrong. But assuming that Itunes do use loss-leader, is it okay to prevent Itunes from doing so? And is it fair for consumers that Itunes stop using loss-leader? (aka, getting a good deal).

Anyway, if Amazon has a monopoly on ebook (say 80% market share) and it raises prices. Two things will happen

1) DOJ investigation for abusing its monopoly power

2) competitors will spring up overnight because there is very "low barrier" to entry. Amazon buys book for $10 and sell for $14. Google or Apple could buy book for $10 and sell for $12, undercutting Amazon by $2.

Amazon will lose market share. And it will be forced to lower price if it wants to be competitive.
You are, once again, mischaracterizing my argument. I am not arguing that alleged collusion between the publishers was legal or justified. It is not.

However, I do believe that the market dynamics that existed before the agency agreements were signed were also bad. Amazon's pricing policy led to a 90+% share of the ebook market. I disagree with the court that the threat of high prices in the future is the only negative consequence of predatory pricing.

Despite your repeated attempts to equate loss leaders with predatory pricing, they are not the same thing. Predatory pricing "is the practice of selling a product or service at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors."

To me, Amazon's combination of exclusivity and loss leader pricing among the best selling ebooks on the market both eliminate competition and create a barrier to entry to the market. Further evidenced by the fact that they still maintain a dominant market share despite a lack pricing advantage!

And, yes, the same behavior that is wrong for a monopolist is perfectly fine for a non-monopolist. That's a fundamental issue with antitrust law.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/predatory_pricing.shtm
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 09:45 PM   #59
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
You are, once again, mischaracterizing my argument. I am not arguing that alleged collusion between the publishers was legal or justified. It is not.

However, I do believe that the market dynamics that existed before the agency agreements were signed were also bad. Amazon's pricing policy led to a 90+% share of the ebook market. I disagree with the court that the threat of high prices in the future is the only negative consequence of predatory pricing.

Despite your repeated attempts to equate loss leaders with predatory pricing, they are not the same thing. Predatory pricing "is the practice of selling a product or service at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors."

To me, Amazon's combination of exclusivity and loss leader pricing among the best selling ebooks on the market both eliminate competition and create a barrier to entry to the market. Further evidenced by the fact that they still maintain a dominant market share despite a lack pricing advantage!

And, yes, the same behavior that is wrong for a monopolist is perfectly fine for a non-monopolist. That's a fundamental issue with antitrust law.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/predatory_pricing.shtm

You left out this part about predatory pricing.

Predatory pricing "is the practice of selling a product or service at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors. If competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business. The predatory merchant then has fewer competitors or is even a de facto monopoly, and purportedly could then raise prices above what the market would otherwise bear.

Amazon competitors in ebook selling are

Microsoft/B&N
Google
Apple
Rakuten (KOBO)
Sony

There is virtually no barrier to entry to selling ebook. Anyone can set up a website and sell book directly.

But let's assume that Amazon drove Apple/Google/Microsoft/Rakuten out of the ebook business because to these companies, very low profit margin isn't their thing.

Amazon, with its 80%+ market share, then raise the price (the second part of predatory pricing). For example, buy the ebook at $10 and sell it at $14.

What's to stop Apple/Google/Microsoft/Rakuten from buying ebook at $10 and sell it at $12?



Quote:
And, yes, the same behavior that is wrong for a monopolist is perfectly fine for a non-monopolist. That's a fundamental issue with antitrust law.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/predatory_pricing.shtm
Nowhere does it say that a store with monopoly market share can't discount or do loss-leader. FTC definition of predatory pricing.

Quote:
Exclusionary or Predatory Acts: Predatory Pricing

Can prices ever be "too low?" The short answer is yes, but not very often. Generally, low prices benefit consumers. Consumers are harmed only if below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time. A firm's independent decision to reduce prices to a level below its own costs does not necessarily injure competition, and, in fact, may simply reflect particularly vigorous competition. Instances of a large firm using low prices to drive smaller competitors out of the market in hopes of raising prices after they leave are rare. This strategy can only be successful if the short-run losses from pricing below cost will be made up for by much higher prices over a longer period of time after competitors leave the market. Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully, courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims.

As for Amazon exclusivity, can you name me a few famous "exclusive" novels?

Most of Amazon 150,000 exclusive novels are from indie authors and 99% of these don't sell very well. If Itunes has 150,000 exclusives CDs from indie bands nobody ever heard of or buy, is that such a big deal?

p.s. Exclusive is not illegal. A lot of stores have exclusive all the time. Netflix has some exclusives, Hulu has some exclusive. HBO has some exclusive. These are used to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Apple/B&N/Google/Sony/KOBO can have exclusives too if they want.

Last edited by EbookReader; Sep 11, 2012 at 09:56 PM.
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 02:35 AM   #60
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Apple joins the EBOOK PRICE WARS.


http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/11/ap...ok-price-wars/
Apple is already fighting Amazon in the ebook price wars

Quote:
Apple didn’t want to compete with Amazon on ebook prices. But it is already showing that it is more than willing to do so. And if customers are drawn to Apple’s new low prices on ebooks, it’s possible to envision the company’s ebook market share rising.


We saw yesterday that HarperCollins has already entered into new contracts with ebook retailers like Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Google. Now Apple has a new deal with HarperCollins too. This morning I compared the prices of 12 HarperCollins titles across ebook retailers. Like Amazon, Apple is selling new bestselling ebooks for $9.99. (I’ve asked Apple for a comment on its pricing strategy for ebooks and will update this post if I hear back.)

Amazon is already dropping its ebook prices to match Apple’s, in the cases where Apple had priced a book lower than Amazon did. For instance, James Rollin’s Bloodlines and J.A. Jance’s Judgment Call were each $10.94 in the Kindle Store this morning and $9.99 in iTunes. Just a few hours later, both books are down to $9.99 at Amazon as well.


http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/11/th...ooks-cost-now/
Ebook price drops begin — and Apple is discounting, too

-----list of 12 titles and prices from different e-sellers

Quote:
Amazon is offering the lowest prices. Based just on the titles above, the average price on Amazon Kindle was $8.43; on Apple, $9.81; on Barnes & Noble Nook, $9.57; on Google Play, $9.91; on Sony (SNE), $10.42; on Kobo, $12.25.


This will mean a lower margin (as compared to 30% commission) for every e-sllers. But at least the e-sellers (Amazon/Apple/Google/B&N/Sony/Kobo) are now competing to the benefit of e-book buyers.
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 08:00 AM   #61
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbookReader View Post
You left out this part about predatory pricing.

Predatory pricing "is the practice of selling a product or service at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors. If competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business. The predatory merchant then has fewer competitors or is even a de facto monopoly, and purportedly could then raise prices above what the market would otherwise bear.

But let's assume that Amazon drove Apple/Google/Microsoft/Rakuten out of the ebook business because to these companies, very low profit margin isn't their thing.

Amazon, with its 80%+ market share, then raise the price (the second part of predatory pricing). For example, buy the ebook at $10 and sell it at $14.

What's to stop Apple/Google/Microsoft/Rakuten from buying ebook at $10 and sell it at $12?





Nowhere does it say that a store with monopoly market share can't discount or do loss-leader. FTC definition of predatory pricing.




As for Amazon exclusivity, can you name me a few famous "exclusive" novels?

Most of Amazon 150,000 exclusive novels are from indie authors and 99% of these don't sell very well. If Itunes has 150,000 exclusives CDs from indie bands nobody ever heard of or buy, is that such a big deal?

p.s. Exclusive is not illegal. A lot of stores have exclusive all the time. Netflix has some exclusives, Hulu has some exclusive. HBO has some exclusive. These are used to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Apple/B&N/Google/Sony/KOBO can have exclusives too if they want.
You are just ignoring significant parts of my argument and making up others to continue to make the same points again. Loss leaders do not equal predatory pricing. Exclusive is not illegal. However, when a monopoly as defined by the FTC engages in these actions, they can be anti-competitive and subject to antitrust law.

As far as my claim of Amazon exclusivity, I wasn't talking about 150,000 indie authors. As I said, 16 of the top 100 best sellers are exclusive to Amazon. According to Amazon.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...d-Kindle-Books

Quote:
Amazon competitors in ebook selling are

Microsoft/B&N
Google
Apple
Rakuten (KOBO)
Sony
And the first three of those were not able to gain a significant foothold in the ebook market until after the agency agreements were implemented. Seems to support my argument more than yours.

Quote:
There is virtually no barrier to entry to selling ebook. Anyone can set up a website and sell book directly.
If only if it were that easy. Not having access to the top ebook reader and being unable to make any money from most of the best selling books seems like some pretty big barriers to me!

Last edited by BaldiMac; Sep 12, 2012 at 08:11 AM.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 08:05 AM   #62
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
You are just ignoring significant parts of my argument and making up others to continue to make the same points again. Loss leaders do not equal predatory pricing. Exclusive is not illegal. However, when a monopoly as defined by the FTC engages in these actions, they can be anti-competitive and subject to antitrust law.
If Amazon violate antitrust law, then it would sue. It's that simple. Can you point out where a company with dominant market share isn't allowed to use loss-leader or exclusive? (link please?)

Amazon wouldn't be so ignorant of the law. They must have at least 1 smart lawyer right?

Why do they continue to use loss-leader and exclusive if this is against anti-trust law?

Why would Itunes? (the dominant seller of digital music)?



Quote:

As far as my claim of Amazon exclusivity, I wasn't talking about 150,000 indie authors. As I said, 16 of the top 100 best sellers are exclusive to Amazon. According to Amazon.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...d-Kindle-Books
And Itunes had exclusives too and these exclusives "songs" also did well on Itunes Top 100. I bet Netflix exclusives also did well on Netflix Top 100 too.


Quote:
And the first three of those were not able to gain a significant foothold in the ebook market until after the agency agreements were implemented. Seems to support my argument more than yours.



If only if it were that easy. Not having access to the top ebook reader and being unable to make any money from most of the best selling books seems like some pretty big barriers to me!
How would you know that Google/Apple/B&N would not got a foothold in the ebook selling without agency? Amazon got 90% because it got no competitor in the beginning. As more competitors join, its market share would decrease.

Look at Itunes as the dominant player in digital music. Amazon MP3 Store competed and take away market share by using lower price. If Apple wants to take away Amazon ebook market share, it could have done the same thing. Compete against Amazon ebook by competitive prices. Instead, Apple got greedy and made it so that prices are the same everywhere. The end of retail competition for ebook.



Itunes is the leader for music with around 70-75% but Amazon and Google are competitors too. Does that mean Itunes is forbidden from exclusives? or using a loss-leader strategy?

Itunes do have exclusives by the way. Netflix, Hulu too.

You're arguing that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to do exclusives and loss-leader. Well according to the USA government, they can. If they can't, Amazon would have been sued for anti-trust violation.




If you violate anti-trust law, the DOJ will take action. According to the DOJ, Amazon hasn't violate anti-trust law by using loss-leader or exclusives for ebooks. Same with Itunes as the dominant digital music seller.

You're arguing that Amazon has violated anti-trust law. That's your opinion. But the DOJ disagree with you.

Last edited by EbookReader; Sep 13, 2012 at 08:20 AM.
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 08:24 AM   #63
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Here's the FTC view on predatory pricing. Can you tell me if Amazon has violated it?

If Amazon does, then you just have to be patience for it will be a matter of time before the DOJ goes after Amazon.


http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/predatory_pricing.shtm

Quote:
Exclusionary or Predatory Acts: Predatory Pricing

Can prices ever be "too low?" The short answer is yes, but not very often. Generally, low prices benefit consumers. Consumers are harmed only if below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time. A firm's independent decision to reduce prices to a level below its own costs does not necessarily injure competition, and, in fact, may simply reflect particularly vigorous competition. Instances of a large firm using low prices to drive smaller competitors out of the market in hopes of raising prices after they leave are rare. This strategy can only be successful if the short-run losses from pricing below cost will be made up for by much higher prices over a longer period of time after competitors leave the market. Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully, courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims.
low prices benefit consumers UNLESS

1) dominant retailer
2) knock rivals (Apple/Google/B&N/Microsoft/Sony/Kobo) out of the market
3) and then raise price to above-market levels for a substantial time

If Amazon does all the 3 noted above, I would like nothing less than having the DOJ goes after Amazon. After all, this would harm consumers (you, me and everyone else).

Last edited by EbookReader; Sep 13, 2012 at 08:29 AM.
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2012, 08:54 AM   #64
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbookReader View Post
If Amazon violate antitrust law, then it would sue. It's that simple. Can you point out where a company with dominant market share isn't allowed to use loss-leader or exclusive? (link please?)

Amazon wouldn't be so ignorant of the law. They must have at least 1 smart lawyer right?

Why do they continue to use loss-leader and exclusive if this is against anti-trust law?
Of course, I'm sure you know it's never that simple.

Quote:
Why would Itunes? (the dominant seller of digital music)?

And Itunes had exclusives too and these exclusives "songs" also did well on Itunes Top 100. I bet Netflix exclusives also did well on Netflix Top 100 too.
I'm not sure why you continue to bring up iTunes, as the markets have very little in common. (And iTunes only has around a 30% share of the digital music market.)

Quote:
How would you know that Google/Apple/B&N would not got a foothold in the ebook selling without agency? Amazon got 90% because it got no competitor in the beginning. As more competitors join, its market share would decrease.
Because they didn't get much of a foothold with agency pricing.

Quote:
Look at Itunes as the dominant player in digital music. Amazon MP3 Store competed and take away market share by using lower price.
Amazon has never taken market share from iTunes.

Quote:
If Apple wants to take away Amazon ebook market share, it could have done the same thing. Compete against Amazon ebook by competitive prices. Instead, Apple got greedy and made it so that prices are the same everywhere. The end of retail competition for ebook.
Which, once again, is not illegal. As we've talked about many, many times.

Quote:
Itunes is the leader for music with around 70-75% but Amazon and Google are competitors too. Does that mean Itunes is forbidden from exclusives? or using a loss-leader strategy?
That's not true as I mentioned above.

Quote:
Itunes do have exclusives by the way. Netflix, Hulu too.
Yep. But they don't have 90% of the music market

Quote:
You're arguing that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to do exclusives and loss-leader. Well according to the USA government, they can. If they can't, Amazon would have been sued for anti-trust violation.
Again, absence of charges is not proof of innocence. That's just ridiculous. And, as I said, I disagree with the courts view of the impact of Amazon's pricing strategy on the market. As do other people with knowledge and experience in the field. See the amicus brief from Bob Kohn.

Quote:
You're arguing that Amazon has violated anti-trust law. That's your opinion. But the DOJ disagree with you.
Exactly.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2012, 09:45 AM   #65
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbookReader View Post
low prices benefit consumers UNLESS

1) dominant retailer
2) knock rivals (Apple/Google/B&N/Microsoft/Sony/Kobo) out of the market
3) and then raise price to above-market levels for a substantial time
4) marginal costs are undercut to the point that the ebook business in unsustainable for a certain segment that consumers find valuable.

As pointed out by Kohn, the goal of the free market is efficient pricing, not necessarily lower pricing.

Quote:
If Amazon does all the 3 noted above, I would like nothing less than having the DOJ goes after Amazon. After all, this would harm consumers (you, me and everyone else).
So, you don't want the DOJ to go after Amazon until AFTER all competition has been eliminated. I'd prefer they do something before that happens.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2012, 09:00 AM   #66
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...iew/sid/53454/
$69 Million to Consumers for E-book Price Fixing Allegations

Quote:
Customers of Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple, and Kobo will receive an email from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple, or Kobo notifying them of their inclusion in the settlements and of their options to automatically receive an account credit or to request reimbursement by check.
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2012, 09:01 AM   #67
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbookReader View Post
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...iew/sid/53454/
$69 Million to Consumers for E-book Price Fixing Allegations
Already got mine from both Amazon and Apple last week (notifications)
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 10:00 PM   #68
EbookReader
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/06/e...er-of-cheaper/

Quote:
EU regulators to accept Apple and book publishers' offer of cheaper e-books
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...A50SA20121106?

Quote:
In September, Apple and the publishers offered to let retailers set prices or discounts for a period of two years, and also to suspend "most-favored nation" contracts for five years.

Such clauses bar Simon & Schuster, News Corp. unit HarperCollins, Lagardere SCA's Hachette Livre and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, the owner of German company Macmillan, from making deals with rival retailers to sell e-books more cheaply than Apple.

The agreements, which critics say prevent Amazon and other retailers from undercutting Apple's charges, sparked an investigation by the European Commission in December last year.


Good observation by Rabiddog

Anti competitive? You really need to read up on the Agency Model that Apple was pushing. An analogy if you will, the Apple gas station sells gas for $6 a gallon. You decide that's too expensive and drive up the street to find it's still $6 a gallon. You drive all over and find it's $6 a gallon anywhere you go because no one else is allowed to compete and sell gas cheaper than Apple. So instead of just competing in the market, they sought to change the market so they didn't have to compete. Which is more anti competitive?
EbookReader is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Offering 32-Inch 4K Sharp Displays in European Online Apple Stores [Updated] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 178 Dec 29, 2013 03:27 PM
Publishers in E-Book Antitrust Case File Objection to DOJ's Proposed Punishment for Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 106 Aug 13, 2013 01:41 PM
DOJ Says Publishers Are Again Colluding in Objecting to Proposed Apple Penalty in E-Book Case MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 164 Aug 10, 2013 05:16 PM
Apple Blames Book Publishers in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 88 Jun 3, 2013 08:33 AM
Apple Notifies European Publishers of 5-Year Halt to 'Most Favored Nation' E-Book Clause MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 51 Feb 8, 2013 03:10 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC