Stating that loss leader and predatory pricing are two different things is correct. It's still debatable which one is Amazon's tactic. Certainly they themselves would categorized it as loss leader. Barnes & Noble and Borders might disagree.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses DOJ of Wanting Amazon to Have 'Significant Competitive Advantage'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Stating that loss leader and predatory pricing are two different things is correct. It's still debatable which one is Amazon's tactic. Certainly they themselves would categorized it as loss leader. Barnes & Noble and Borders might disagree.
Macmillans deal with Apple to use the agency model is irrelevant. This is about collusion between publishers.
Again, that's your opinion of the situation, not facts. The DOJ agrees with you!The difference between a loss leader and predatory pricing is about market context and motives.
Here is a straightforward definition:
An anti-competitive measure employed by a dominant company to protect market share from new or existing competitors. Predatory pricing involves temporarily pricing a product low enough to end a competitive threat.
Amazon is certainly dominant in the eBook market. Below cost pricing of best sellers certainly helps them protect from new or existing competitors.
So, given this definition, why is it unreasonable to call Amazon's pricing "predatroy"?
Where do YOU come up with these ideas? Just do research. Do you really read this site?
They could make any ultimatum they want. Amazon needed them. They Kindle would not be a success without the Publishers. There were other places to sell ebooks, not just Amazon. So Amazon has to try and keep them happy.
Look at other examples on this site. When Apple created iTunes they needed the record companies to agree to their deals. iTunes launched without every music label. And recent examples: just like now as Apple is trying to launch it's new streaming music service to compete with Pandora - they need the record labels to agree. Also like how Apple is going slow with Apple TV because they need to work work the tv networks.
You get it? The people who have the media also have strength. So YES, the publishers have the strength to make ultimatums. They pushed on Amazon to raise prices from the very beginning. It's been written all over the place.
The Kindle App (and Amazon Cloud Player app for that matter too) are for consuming already purchased electronic items (ebooks / mp3s) on your device Neither have any ability to purchase new content as this would require the 30% to apple as stipulated in the appstore TOS.
The Amazon App is different and doesn't invoke the 30% fee because it is for purchasing physical items to be shipped to an address.... try purchasing the kindle version of a book or something from amazons mp3 store in the Amazon app... All you can do is add it to your wish list to then purchase later from the amazon web site.
I don't have it to hand (and it's been a while since I last looked when apple changed the rules to disallow the links to the web site) but I'm pretty sure there is a mention of the differentiation of these types of physical / electronic purchase and how the IAP 30% applies within the appstore TOS.
Amazon had a vast majority of the market, so they hold the power. In the case of itunes, when Apple had the vast majority of the market share, they had all the power and music labels had to play ball and sell their music at $0.99. Your examples are irrelevant because they are examples of Apple just starting out in a new market where they had no power. You get that you have no idea what you're talking about right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, thank you Dave for explaining that! It should shut up certain naysayers.
So there we have it! I just looked at Apple's iTunes TOS ...
In App Purchases that are consumed during the use of the App Store Product (for example, virtual ammunition) … All In App Purchases are deemed App Store Products, and In App Purchases received within Third-Party Products are deemed Third-Party Products, and treated as such, for purposes of these terms and conditions.
I'll check out Google's shortly.
So see everyone there is some sort of industry-wide logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Look at the blatant errors made in the trial. Refused to let those who actually new (book publishers) testify. Taking an email draft as evidence when the actual email that was sent said the opposite.
Apple's "crime" was to try and break a monopoly. Giving publishers an alternative so that Amazon's monopoly tactics wouldn't work anymore. With Apple entering the market, publishers weren't forced to give in to Amazon's monopoly and accept whatever contracts Amazon offered. If you think that the Amazon monopoly squeezing the blood from publishers is in any way good for customers in the long term, you are just stupid.
Anyway, I don't accuse the DOJ of bias. I'd accuse the judge of misjudging the facts and not allowing evidence that should have been allowed, while accepting misleading evidence, and there could be an accusation of bias, considering how the judge said _before_ the trial how Apple was going to lose, and apparently doesn't need any evidence to be convinced of this. The DOJ I would accuse of stupidly playing in the hands of a monopolist and destroying competition, where their job would be to do exactly the opposite.
----------
Let me think. Apple had all the power, but the record companies allowed Amazon to sell music DRM free for ages, refusing Apple to do the same until Apple allowed them to raise prices for music. I wonder why Apple didn't run to the DOJ back then. They probably didn't imagine that the DOJ could be as stupid as they have now proven themselves to be.
Last edited:
Stop painting Apple as the great monopoly slayer, when they were just a greedy company that wanted to enter the ebook market but couldn't do it fairly and instead resorted to collusion and price fixing. The evidence is right in front of you face. But to you, the trial was unfair because the judge is bias and the evidence was rigged. Must be nice to live in lalaland where if you disagree with something, the opposing side must be corrupt.
BTW, it been said many times already, that the judge did not make a decision before seeing any evidence. She reviewed the evidence given then gave her opinion. Choose to ignore reality if you want.
They weren't good examples. They were terrible examples. The story of iTunes was that Apple was able to get labels to agree to their price. Just like in the case of Amazon, publishers had to agree with Amazon's price. Why because one side had more power the other. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of parallels. Your examples don't parallel the situation with Amazon and the publishers, so that is why they are irrelevant.
I was actually referring to the fact that he was referring to Amazon as a free app on the App Store, and the fact that you somehow jumped logically to make some point about the fact that they charge for iOS devices.
Again, Oletros provided the example of Macmillan holding the power in their relationship with Amazon.
According the the judge's logic, there is no way that they could enter the market fairly while still being profitable. Any successful entry into the market by Apple could have been used as leverage by the publishers to raise prices.
There was no direct evidence.
And, yet, that's exactly the accusation that you constantly make.
Sure, but that ignores the real questions in favor of arguing against the ignorant extremes. The judge was responsible for overseeing the settlements with the publishers. I do think that could lead to bias considering anything she learned during that process would need to be ignored during the Apple trial.
The judge did appear to pre-judge the case based on the evidence before she heard any testimony. Something that she has been accused of many times before the Apple trial.
----------
The publishers did not agree with Amazon's pricing. That is the whole problem from their perspective!I don't have access to all the evidence, but from what evidence I see, Apple is guilty. The court had access to all the evidence and they found Apple guilty. I assume others on this forum only have limited access to the evidence too, yet they can make a bold statement that either the DOJ is corrupt or that the judge is biased or the case was rigged. If you want to make such a bold statement, you have to provide substantial evidence. Otherwise you're just accusing the other side of corruption because your side loss. BTW, I don't accuse the other side without evidence, so thats a false equivalence.I was actually referring to the fact that he was referring to Amazon as a free app on the App Store, and the fact that you somehow jumped logically to make some point about the fact that they charge for iOS devices.
Again, Oletros provided the example of Macmillan holding the power in their relationship with Amazon.
According the the judge's logic, there is no way that they could enter the market fairly while still being profitable. Any successful entry into the market by Apple could have been used as leverage by the publishers to raise prices.
There was no direct evidence.
And, yet, that's exactly the accusation that you constantly make.
Sure, but that ignores the real questions in favor of arguing against the ignorant extremes. The judge was responsible for overseeing the settlements with the publishers. I do think that could lead to bias considering anything she learned during that process would need to be ignored during the Apple trial.
The judge did appear to pre-judge the case based on the evidence before she heard any testimony. Something that she has been accused of many times before the Apple trial.
----------
What evidence exactly?
Yep. Doesn't mean someone can't disagree with the judge's ruling. That's why there are appeals.
It helps to ignore the extreme arguments. Not sure what that has to do wich what I said.
I notice how you ignored my arguments and continue to argue the extremes.
No, but you do continue to argue that anyone that disagrees with you must be an irrational fanboy that ignores reality.
So it was always Amazon Apple was after. So much for touching care about iOS customers. Apple execs broke the law, so they will suffer the consequences, what is so hard to comprehend?
In the context of this thread, the issue is that the DOJ wants to apply remedies outside the scope of the case that was tried.
You know that they can't buy anything because Apple changed their policies? Those applications had this feature already developed and they have to pull off.
Can you explain me the difference between sending a physccal item from a digital item from within an app?
Yes, there is a differentiation because Apple made that differentiation when they changed the policy. But it is just an artificial differentiation, nothing more.
Don't you see that they are different because in a certain moment Apple made them different? Before the IAP policy, both of them worked exactly the same.
----------
In your opinion, isn't?
By the way, what email said the opposite?
----------
DoJ investigated and the ebook division was profitable, so it is loss leader. If B&N or Borders disagree they can sue Amazon.
And you can't disagree with DOJ findings? Or only when arguing against them fits your agenda? Amazon as a whole is not profitable. I would question some of their "loss leader" tactics when they're at -0.23 EPS.
Yep. What's your point?
That's the opinion of the DOJ. However, they aren't the only ones that define predatory pricing.
----------
Especially when they are already enjoying a pricing advantage as a result of their refusal to collect sales tax in most states.
Do you disagree with the fact that the ebook division was profitable? Do you have any proof that the division was losing money?
Irrelevant when the division being investigated is the ebook one. Or Amazon is doing predatory pricing with the ebooks or not and when the division is profitable it is not predatory pricing
What agenda are you talking? I just stated a fact, DoJ investigated them and found that they were profitable since day one
Good sleight of hand. He never said or implied that the eBook division is not profitable.
Of course, you are starting with the assumption that because the eBook division is profitable, it's not predatory pricing. That's the part some people disagree with.
I can't remember the exact wording but it is all to do with purchases that are to be used / consumed WITHIN the app are subject to the 30% cut to Apple, purchases of items external to the app aren't. The reasoning I can see behind this is that the in app consumption content is extending / expanding the app functionality and is therefore covered by the 30% IAP handling fee in the same way that in app currency, etc are all subject to the fee.
I believe the differentiation between "in app consumption" item and "physical" item purchases was always in place -the policy that was introduced which affected the Kindle App (among many others) was the one preventing an app linking to an external method of purchasing content to be consumed within the App if you weren't using IAP. Essentially if you wanted to offer ways to purchase content for consumption by your App from within the App itself then you had to use IAP and give Apple their 30%. Nothing stopped you selling the content via another source that could then sync to the App but you couldn't link to that source from within the App itself. IIRC this policy was introduced as part of the IAP subscription model which was announced in February 2011 and came into force in July 2011.
When IAP was first introduced it specifically excluded freemium type apps as free apps weren't allowed to offer IAPs, so the policy around IAPs is regularly being revised and refined.
You'll note in my original post I was merely answering your question as to what the differences between the two apps were according to Apple policies - at no point have I attempted to say whether I agree with any of these policies or not.
Last edited:
You can't still be engaged in predatory pricing and be profitable? It's been argued that Amazon is a "loss leader" and not guilty of predatory pricing, yet if it's a loss leader, can it be profitable? Can they not be predatory pricing in certain categories and still manage to show a profit overall? It would sure be a heck of way to try and "prove" that they're not trying to kill off some brick and mortars.
It's relevant when considering the company as a whole, who seems to be a "loss leader" in more than one arena.
I'm disputing your assertion that just because the DOJ found no wrong doing that we can take that as fact. Perhaps inserting the "fitting an agenda" part was misguided.
I'm not saying that Amazon is guilty of predatory pricing because I don't have any proof of it. I'm merely refuting the idea that they're squeaky clean.
This article is about the penalty... which you also have issues with along with all the other posters your original comment was in reply to... nice contradiction...
Yes, it can be profitable.
We are talking about ebooks, not other divisions.
Trying to kill some brick and mortars it is not illegal per se. It is how it is done what can be illegal
Really, if the ebook division is profitable, it can't be predatory pricing