You said "Amazon's attempt to force prices down could inhibit the niche author's ability to live off of their work."
So, to me that implies "special treatment" in that you seem to be arguing by inference that this is one reason we all have to live with higher eBook prices, so that niche authors can continue to live off their work.
Again, I've already explained exactly what I meant. You keep changing what I said to argue a larger point that I did not make. I am not in favor of higher eBook prices. I just explained a potential negative consequence of a monopoly artificially lowering prices.
Or if that isnt your point, then why mention it ? Why not say instead "the people who make a living working in physical book distribution warehouses will find it harder to get jobs" ? Is that also a reason to raise prices?
Because that was not my point. I'm not in favor of raising prices. The fact that prices have been raised is not illegal. The actual issue is whether the publishers colluded to raise prices. The fact that prices are higher is not an antitrust problem by itself.
So what? You say this as if its a bad thing (unless its just another statistic you bandy around and will shortly say you dont mean anything by it) But that 90% is purely because they provided eBooks at a price people liked! Its not because they have a stranglehold on eReaders, authors, technological standards or anything other than a good price.
AIUI your argument is you wish them to raise prices so that i can buy exactly the same book at Amazon or Apple at a higher price in order that what ? That Amazon dont have 90%, and so that niche authors can possibly make a living? Whats the issue with Amazon having 90%? Whats teh magic number under which its OK to allow prices to be set by Amazon?
And re niche authors, I think you are way off base anyway, I've bought dozens more books, many from niche authors, since the availability and prices of such niche authors books are typically around the $1-$5 range (both thanks to Amazon = do you wonder why they got the 90%?).
A niche author at $15, I'm not going to take a chance. So I suspect that niche authors do much better under the new world than the old.
An actual example, take John Locke, who I'd never heard of before Kindle, I've bought probably a dozen of his books, all around $2. So that niche author is getting some percentage of around $20 in total from me, as opposed to the zero I'd have spent with him at $15 when I simply wouldn't have bought one of his books.
90% of the market is significant because the issue we are talking about is potential antitrust violations. How are new competitors supposed to enter the market when Amazon is willing to lose money on the most popular books?
And your point is what exactly? If they don't like those terms, they can go elsewhere, there is no blockage to that. Why dont the 6 publishers provide a place where authors who wish to sell books at $15 each at 70% can go? Thats not Amazons job. Though as I said above, I think Amazon know what price people will spend hence why they discourage authors from setting that price point. But they dont forbid it and the author can publish elsewhere if she doesn't like it.
No, they couldn't realistically go elsewhere when Amazon had 90% of the market. They still have massive market power. That's why we have antitrust laws.