I was merely providing sarcastic commentary, not judgement... Hence the - 's
I think you look my post too literally..
Yeah? Well I'm still wanting a shot of the crystal ball.
I was merely providing sarcastic commentary, not judgement... Hence the - 's
I think you look my post too literally..
Yeah, trying to protect the consumer is pretty stupid, I agree.
Amazon controls upwards of 60% of the book market. That's a majority, not a monopoly.
----------
And you obviously don't know what's going on. Read the other thread on the subject and educate yourself.
Amazon didn't have a monopoly. Fact.
Amazon was not guilty of doing anything illegally. Fact.
Amazon being hated by publishers was what you said but not just because of perceived value - but because Amazon sold some eBooks below what hard copy books were being sold for and reduced sales for printed books. The thing is - if you don't sell an eBook - you don't eat costs. When physical books don't sell - they get sent back to the publisher. Amazon was rapidly increasing the desire for eBooks OVER physical books. Which is why some publishers decided to hold back popular titles either "permanently" or until they believed they had gotten their physical sales "rush" and were comfortable releasing them electronically.
At the end of the day - Amazon was paying the publishers the very same regardless. The publishers weren't losing money on eBooks. They were losing money on printed books.
And the agency model didn't really help them diminish Amazon's sales of eBooks AND they were making less much of the time because of the 30% "commission."
I'm not saying you are factually incorrect. I just think you're posting with a bias that doesn't tell the entire story.
All these links say otherwise: https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+ebook+market+share+2010&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari also note that while amazon was going the wholesale route for ebooks amazon would issue a harsh punishments if publishers didnt go along with their plans.
Very few of those links portray Amazon and their ebook business in a negative light, and really, they shouldn't. Amazon might be guilty of some underhanded tactics here and there (what business isn't), but nothing they did could be considered outright illegal.
Amazon's push into ebooks was very similar to Apple's push into digital music. Sure, there were e-readers before the kindle, much like there were MP3 players before the iPod. But Amazon and Apple both managed to launch the right product with the right services at the right time and claim a huge chunk of the market.
No one's screaming that Apple should be punished for owning 63% of the digital music market as of April 2013, so why should we be giving them but not Amazon a pass for basically being in the same position?
Thanks again for avoiding the data point that Amazon had MORE than 63% on the day of iPad's release. Correlation is not causation, but wouldn't the agency model be at least partially responsible for moving Amazon to the position it is now in sales versus where it was? Couldn't it be argued that the agency model created more competitors in the ebook space?
It can even be argued that prices have come down from an early peak and are similar to those of the wholesale model, averaged over time for an ebook bestseller. Isn't that exactly what was stated would happen?
Guilt or innocence of Apple's "collusion" will be determined in this trial, but I believe that DOJ jumped the gun on this case and trial based on a single metric of "consumer" pricing.
On the contrary, there is no misperception, or misinterpretation (on my part at least) and it is for that reason you are entertaining.
----------
[/COLOR]
All these links say otherwise: https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+ebook+market+share+2010&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari also note that while amazon was going the wholesale route for ebooks amazon would issue a harsh punishments if publishers didnt go along with their plans.
Okay then...You're wrong, I'm right...Your turn.
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged magazines and newspaper sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them.Very few of those links portray Amazon and their ebook business in a negative light, and really, they shouldn't. Amazon might be guilty of some underhanded tactics here and there (what business isn't), but nothing they did could be considered outright illegal.
Amazon's push into ebooks was very similar to Apple's push into digital music. Sure, there were e-readers before the kindle, much like there were MP3 players before the iPod. But Amazon and Apple both managed to launch the right product with the right services at the right time and claim a huge chunk of the market.
No one's screaming that Apple should be punished for owning 63% of the digital music market as of April 2013, so why should we be giving them but not Amazon a pass for basically being in the same position?
Say what. What are they saying. You linked to a google search. Care to explain what your point actually is?
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged ebook sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them.
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged ebook sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them.
You are as right, as you think I am wrong. As I have already said, you have been very entertaining. However every show must have an ending and so I will take my leave.
Amazon has actually punished Book publishers who didnt go along with their ebook scheme. 63% is a far cry from 90%. Before Apple joined the ebook retail business, amazon charged ebook sellers 70% and not the 30% apple was charging. I work for a major publisher and that was a major bone of contention for them
Well... It now seems rather obvious that you were only pretending to be entertained, while I was and am extremely entertained by you. However, you are correct in saying this must end. Of course it only ends when I say it ends, and I say it ends now. I always get to have the last word. You should know and respect that. Please do not reply to this post...ever... I'm not kidding.
Really? You forgot to add "Na ha ha and the world will be mine!!!!""Of course it only ends when I say it ends, and I say it ends now."
Really, why is that? Remind me of your status here on MR, so that I can ascertain your reasons as to why you believe I should "know and respect you"."I always get to have the last word. You should know and respect that."
Sure. Otherwise, you will probably write another inappropriate post, which will need modifying to avoid moderator intervention, as you did previously? It is widely accepted in debating that once a party loses control, they have generally lost all respect and the argument. You have demonstrated this point perfectly."Please do not reply to this post...ever... I'm not kidding. "
How they could charge a 70% when they had a wholesale model?
So why didn't they just sell their books cheaper to the reseller that required the smaller cut? Was it really necessary to break the law?
So why didn't they just sell their books cheaper to the reseller that required the smaller cut? Was it really necessary to break the law?
Of course you are not kidding.... This really seems to have struck a nerve, however it has at least exposed the real reasons for your posts. Poster's who appear to display sociopathic tendencies are extremely amusing. Yes, I was getting a bit bored, but you have really come back with some really bizarre stuff.
Do you actually read what you post? Your last one is the funniest to date.
Really? You forgot to add "Na ha ha and the world will be mine!!!!"
Really, why is that? Remind me of your status here on MR, so that I can ascertain your reasons as to why you believe I should "know and respect you".
Coming from somebody as yourself, who poorly attempted to take the high ground and is now acting like a child demanding to have the last word, I think not.
Sure. Otherwise, you will probably write another inappropriate post, which will need modifying to avoid moderator intervention, as you did previously? It is widely accepted in debating that once a party loses control, they have generally lost all respect and the argument. You have demonstrated this point perfectly.
It appears that it is you and not myself who is pretending to be amused. I wish you good luck with your demands that we should all "know and respect" you etc. LOL!
Your books won't mysteriously disappear off your iPad or Kindle the moment a publisher goes defunct. Whatever you have on your ebook reader now is what you'll have tomorrow. Assuming Apple or Amazon don't decide to whisk it away from your account for reasons unknown, of course.
The only way to stop the prosecution fabricating evidence is to require judges to immediately and permanently dismiss a prosecution - no chance of ever prosecuting again.
Currently, judges just shrug and say, it's only one case of evidence fabrication, the rest might be trustworthy…
It's so hard to expose this (common practice) and it should be stamped out immediately.
I don't know if OJ did it or not, but when the prosecution produced the gloves and they didn't fit OJ's hands, the whole case should have been thrown out. This 'we know they did it, we just don't have the evidence…' nonsense should be punished severely - not only thrown out, but prosecution staff and witnesses punished to the full extent of the law, not only for fabricating, not only for betraying the public trust over the future of people's lives, but wasting valuable time and money.
----
Also, not only does Google wish there were no laws, they don't bother with the ones we have.
Yeah, trying to protect the consumer is pretty stupid, I agree.