or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Amazon breaks silence on Hachette dispute, says it is negotiating 'on behalf of customers'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amazon breaks silence on Hachette dispute, says it is negotiating 'on behalf of customers'

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
After blocking preorders and delaying shipments for titles in the midst of ongoing negotiations with publisher Hachette, Amazon has now spoken out on the dispute, attempting to portray its decisions as advantageous to customers, while also admitting that the issues are not likely to be solved soon.


An Amazon warehouse, via The Dallas Morning News.


"When we negotiate with suppliers, we are doing so on behalf of customers," Amazon's books team said in a statement posted to the mega-retailer's website. "Negotiating for acceptable terms is an essential business practice that is critical to keeping service and value high for customers in the medium and long term."

The company was compelled to comment on the dispute with Hachette after generally negative publicity focused on Amazon began to swell last week, when it was highlighted that the market dominating bookseller had begun refusing preorders for several upcoming Hachette titles including "The Silkworm" by J.K. Rowling, written under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. Hachette is one of the "Big Five" book publishers, and industry watchers believe Amazon's moves are intended to frustrate writers, hoping they will pressure publishers to give a more favorable -- and profitable -- contract to Amazon.

In its statement, Amazon reminded customers that Hachette is a major corporation too, saying it's "part of a $10 billion media conglomerate." The retailer suggested that the media's interest in the story is driven by the fact that Amazon's negotiations are "with a book publisher instead of a supplier of a different type of product."

Amazon did admit it is carrying less print editions and "safety stock" titles from Hachette, and is also not accepting preorders for the publisher's upcoming books. The company explained that it is its "right" to "determine whether the terms on an offer are acceptable and to stock items accordingly."

The online retailer didn't say exactly how many Hachette titles and products are affected, but characterized the dispute as affecting a "small percentage" of Amazon's total offerings. Amazon said that if a user were to order 1,000 items from the company, 989 would be unaffected by the interruption.

"If you do need one of the affected titles quickly, we regret the inconvenience and encourage you to purchase a new or used version from one of our third-party sellers or from one of our competitors," Amazon said.




The Amazon-Hachette dispute has been under particular scrutiny as Amazon dominates the e-book market while competitors such as Apple are looking to gain ground. Apple suffered a serious setback last year, however, when it was successfully sued by the U.S. government for conspiring with book publishers to raise e-book prices.

Apple led the charge in convincing publishers to switch to a so-called "agency" pricing model. That prevented content owners from being able to sell the same titles at a lower price elsewhere, without offering the same price on Apple's iBooks platform -- a "most favored nations" clause.

In contrast, the e-book industry prior to the launch of the first iPad was under the "wholesale model" preferred by Amazon. In that model, resellers such as Amazon had the power to set prices, selling titles at or below cost if they chose to do so.

As Apple attempts to compete with Amazon, the iPad maker is now saddled with an injunction that bars it from entering into any unsavory deals with publishers such as Hachette.

Apple has formally appealed the antitrust ruling, asking for either a dismissal of the verdict or a complete retrial. Apple continues to believe that the iBookstore and iPad created competition in the e-book space, where Amazon's Kindle platform controlled some 90 percent of the market as of 2009.
post #2 of 46
The true test of character is not how you act when you are the little guy, but how you act when you have all the money & power. Now that Amazon.com is the only game left in town, they have shown that they intend to use their power for evil instead of good. The U.S. Department of Justice was supposed to protect us against anti-competitive monopolies like Amazon, but instead, they decided to shut down any businesses who tried to compete against Amazon. And now, this is what has happened.
post #3 of 46
I'm pretty sure Amazon is negotiating on behalf of its de-facto monopoly, not the customers.
post #4 of 46

Amazon makes squat for margins.  Their choices are to either raise prices somewhat, or get better deals from their suppliers.  They are trying the supplier route first.  If the suppliers are at the breaking point and won't budge on some of the titles- with Amazon out of the picture, other stores like Play and iBooks should be free to sell those books at a higher price.

 

Or Amazon could just tell the publishers they will raise prices on all their books by 30%, as long as the system effectively prevents anyone else from undercutting them.  Could be a big win for publishers and Amazon.

post #5 of 46
This is absurd, Hatchette might be part of a conglomerate but each segment of that conglomerate has its own bottom line. It is clear Amazon has FAR too much power in the publishing industry. U.S. should have prosecuted Amazon for its anti-competitive measures, not Apple. Apple was trying to make the overall market more competitive by putting a floor on prices so businesses, like Amazon, could not gobble up market share at the cost of short term profits only to use that market share down the road to increase profits. This is what we are seeing right now. Amazon is feeling big and powerful and shareholders are wanting to see higher margins. How does Amazon respond? Strong-arming one of its publishing partners (The smallest of the big 5, I might add, therefore easiest precedent setting entity). This has all happened before and it will all happen again - Windows and the OS Dark Ages of the 80's-90's.
Thanks a lot and good night!
Reply
Thanks a lot and good night!
Reply
post #6 of 46
>Amazon makes squat for margins. Their choices are to either raise prices somewhat, or get better deals from their suppliers.

Amazon's margins are fine, their profits are slim because they funnel extreme amounts of capital into lobbying and marketing activities that undercut new competitors, effectively driving them out of business to ensure that they're the only store in town.

The end effect is less competition, less choice of titles and no you don't get cheaper books in the long run, because everything else goes up as a result.

Screwing down vendors is only for two things: to help fund their undercutting practices, or provide more shareholder value. It's not for consumers.
post #7 of 46

Beware of any monopolist or would-be monopolist that says their actions are guided by their customers' best interests.

post #8 of 46
File-system-check Bilderberger Bezos.
post #9 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Amazon makes squat for margins.  Their choices are to either raise prices somewhat, or get better deals from their suppliers.

Squat for margins has been their business strategy since the beginning.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Amazon makes squat for margins.  Their choices are to either raise prices somewhat, or get better deals from their suppliers.  They are trying the supplier route first.  If the suppliers are at the breaking point and won't budge on some of the titles- with Amazon out of the picture, other stores like Play and iBooks should be free to sell those books at a higher price.

Or Amazon could just tell the publishers they will raise prices on all their books by 30%, as long as the system effectively prevents anyone else from undercutting them.  Could be a big win for publishers and Amazon.

Wait I though Amazon would never raise prices and become a "bad" monopoly.

Amazon isn't doing this for the Customer, it's abusing its power.
post #11 of 46

"on behalf of customers" is what Microsoft claimed when it killed Netscape's Web Browser with Internet Explorer.

 

Amazon is doing pure evil by using its monopoly position against a bookseller.  It even admitted to diverting sales away from the bookseller toward its own preferred books.

 

Where is the Justice Department now?  Twiddling their thumbs.

 

The Justice Department lost to Microsoft.   They are gun shy about losing to Amazon.

 

Of course, like a bully, the Justice Department picked on Apple and the book publishers.

post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECats View Post

>Amazon makes squat for margins. Their choices are to either raise prices somewhat, or get better deals from their suppliers.

Amazon's margins are fine, their profits are slim because they funnel extreme amounts of capital into lobbying and marketing activities that undercut new competitors, effectively driving them out of business to ensure that they're the only store in town.

The end effect is less competition, less choice of titles and no you don't get cheaper books in the long run, because everything else goes up as a result.

Screwing down vendors is only for two things: to help fund their undercutting practices, or provide more shareholder value. It's not for consumers.

While I don't have much knowledge of how much of that is true (I doubt that lobbying makes much of a dent in their profits), my impression is that the reason they can get by on slim-to-none profits is that they make their money (and big money at that) by playing the float to an unprecedented degree.

Selling quickly while paying your suppliers later gives you "other people's money" to use, invest, etc. At the scales Amazon now works at, this generates ungodly piles of cash.

Remember, Bezos is at heart a Wall Street guy, and he's the best at it. Keep that in mind when trying to figure out what Amazon is up to.

post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

I'm pretty sure Amazon is negotiating on behalf of its de-facto monopoly, not the customers.

It's negotiating on behalf of its stockholders.  

 

The only reason customers exist is to pay stockholders. 

post #14 of 46
GQB

I think you are on to something. It certainly fits the profile of a company that uses it's cache with Wall Street to sell at a break even price. There is not much profit motive left if someone becomes more efficient then Amazon. Amazon knows they are the big dog and don't want competition. Hammering suppliers is the first sign of a monopoly.

I can definitely imagine Mr Bezo's asking for 90 days to pay for supplies sold in 5 days. That doesn't sound like such a big deal when money is cheap to borrow...but this is probably a long term contract that will keep this "supplier" under Amazon's thumb. Amazon is stupid enough to admit in public that they want to cut out all the publishers and be the only hand collecting money from buyers and sending it to writers. That is a good deal for new writers, and not so good if you have an established name. Established names are the ones who earn the industry all of its income.

Buy from other sources when the price is the same and keep the competitors in this game. We do not need another Walmart in this country. Has anyone else noticed that Walmart has dropped the Always the low price tagline? They put high prices on anything that is an impulse buy now. With all the data from 1000's of stores it is quite possible to figure out where customers are willing to pay more. Case in point, 2 years ago I bought a cheap mechanical juicer from Walmart for $10. Went in last week to replace it after wearing out. There were no simple mechanical juicers for citrus fruits. The lowest price was $32 for a low power fruit grinder, not a juicer. The high end was $120 with several choices in between. The point is the low cost item is no longer on the shelf. I wonder why that is?
post #15 of 46

The good of the customers? Excuse me? Delaying or denying customers the right to order is not for the good of customers. Time to stop buying from Amazon for anything. I will not be ordering from them anymore. Now that is good for the customers!

post #16 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

The true test of character is not how you act when you are the little guy, but how you act when you have all the money & power. Now that Amazon.com is the only game left in town, they have shown that they intend to use their power for evil instead of good. The U.S. Department of Justice was supposed to protect us against anti-competitive monopolies like Amazon, but instead, they decided to shut down any businesses who tried to compete against Amazon. And now, this is what has happened.

 

Amazon is far from the only game in town. Both Google and Apple offer epub stores and both are much larger than Amazon in terms of cash, capitalization, etc.

 

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. By not allowing Apple a fat profit, they've "shut down" everyone who wants to sell epub books. The claim is garbage and laughable.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

Amazon makes squat for margins.  Their choices are to either raise prices somewhat, or get better deals from their suppliers.  They are trying the supplier route first.  If the suppliers are at the breaking point and won't budge on some of the titles- with Amazon out of the picture, other stores like Play and iBooks should be free to sell those books at a higher price.

 

Or Amazon could just tell the publishers they will raise prices on all their books by 30%, as long as the system effectively prevents anyone else from undercutting them.  Could be a big win for publishers and Amazon.

 

 

The big loser would be the customer. When did it become so awesome to argue that Google, Apple and Amazon need more billions while we are all jerks for wanting affordable products?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

Beware of any monopolist or would-be monopolist that says their actions are guided by their customers' best interests.

 

You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post
 

"on behalf of customers" is what Microsoft claimed when it killed Netscape's Web Browser with Internet Explorer.

 

Amazon is doing pure evil by using its monopoly position against a bookseller.  It even admitted to diverting sales away from the bookseller toward its own preferred books.

 

Where is the Justice Department now?  Twiddling their thumbs.

 

The Justice Department lost to Microsoft.   They are gun shy about losing to Amazon.

 

Of course, like a bully, the Justice Department picked on Apple and the book publishers.

 

They didn't lose to Apple. What does that say about how plain and evident Apple's actions must have been?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 46
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

Beware of any monopolist or would-be monopolist that says their actions are guided by their customers' best interests.

 

 

You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.

 

 

Sure, if you think the shoe fits.  Why you would jump to the conclusion that my original statement is a defense of Apple is beyond me.

 

Although what you mean by a 'monopolist in smartphone profits' makes no economic sense at all.  Figuratively, yes they 'monopolize' the profits but that is not a technically accurate or meaningful use of the term.  Because certainly, Apple does not monopolize the smartphone market.  The fact that they get most of the industry's profits without monopolizing the industry just means that they sell a highly desirable product that costumers are willing to pay a lot more for.  

 

In truth what you say sounds very much like criticizing Apple for monopolizing the market for Apple products.


Edited by tundraboy - 5/28/14 at 8:50am
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Amazon is far from the only game in town. Both Google and Apple offer epub stores and both are much larger than Amazon in terms of cash, capitalization, etc.

 

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. By not allowing Apple a fat profit, they've "shut down" everyone who wants to sell epub books. The claim is garbage and laughable.

 

The big loser would be the customer. When did it become so awesome to argue that Google, Apple and Amazon need more billions while we are all jerks for wanting affordable products?

 

You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.

 

They didn't lose to Apple. What does that say about how plain and evident Apple's actions must have been?

 

First and foremost, while Apple and Google are large companies and maintain sales in the ebooks market, they don't make the majority, not even combined. It's actually Amazon that controls over 70% of the ebook market and have even more of the physical book market. 

post #19 of 46

'Acting on behalf of customers' is what my cable company says too.

post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Amazon is far from the only game in town. Both Google and Apple offer epub stores and both are much larger than Amazon in terms of cash, capitalization, etc.

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. By not allowing Apple a fat profit, they've "shut down" everyone who wants to sell epub books. The claim is garbage and laughable.



The big loser would be the customer. When did it become so awesome to argue that Google, Apple and Amazon need more billions while we are all jerks for wanting affordable products?


You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.


They didn't lose to Apple. What does that say about how plain and evident Apple's actions must have been?

A reader of Orwell should be able to recognize a show trial conducted by a malevolent state when he sees one.
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Amazon is far from the only game in town. Both Google and Apple offer epub stores and both are much larger than Amazon in terms of cash, capitalization, etc.

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. By not allowing Apple a fat profit, they've "shut down" everyone who wants to sell epub books. The claim is garbage and laughable.

You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.

1. Please. Amazon has a commanding market share. DOJ just pretty much legalized its monopoly.

2. Everyone would have recd 30% and that's not all profit. In addition Amazon gets up to a 70% "discount" on hard covers. So your greedy Apple narrative falls short.

3. Can I use another ebook app on the Kindle? Can I buy from other ebook stores on the kindle?
You can still go through the browser to buy ebooks from Amazon, etc.
not sure how you can be a monopolist in profits.
post #22 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegurgitatedCoprolite View Post

File-system-check Bilderberger Bezos.

How does one do that search safely?

A poster from France suggested here a while ago, maybe during the trial, that the key to Amazon's pull with the DoJ was in how wide they left the back door open to their customers' purchase and search history to other gov't entities. In contrast to Apple, of course.

I personally would never subscribe to such a crazy conspiracy theory that called into question the integrity of a corporation and our gov't. The theory would also imply that there is a back door to the DoJ, open to the non-elected intel apparati. Unthinkable, obviously. Only someone from France could come up with it.
post #23 of 46

I don't think Amazon's behaving admirably here, but it seems weird to say that Amazon should *have* to carry Hachette books. If they can't agree on a deal, people can buy Hachette books elsewhere. 

 

Home Depot only carries some brands of tools and paint. Lowes carries others. It would be unusual for a bookstore not to carry books from all publishers, but I don't see why Amazon should be forced to accept terms from Hachette that it doesn't want to accept.

 

And if Hachette's right and publishes good products (I personally buy a lot of Orbit books from them), then Amazon will only undermine itself in the long run. 

post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Squat for margins has been their business strategy since the beginning.

 

Exactly.  And that is great for consumers.  Don't worry I don't believe for a second Amazon is doing it 'for the consumers' but the end result of lower prices does benefit them. They currently are 'near bottom.'  If the publishers won't sell to them at their desired price hopefully it is Amazon that 'gives' and pays the higher price for them, and raises its price accordingly.  The bar for 'monopolistically raising prices' has been set very high by Apple.  As long as Amazon keeps any price hike under 30% consumers are still better off under that plan than the Apple solution.

post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

Amazon makes squat for margins.  Their choices are to either raise prices somewhat, or get better deals from their suppliers.  They are trying the supplier route first.  If the suppliers are at the breaking point and won't budge on some of the titles- with Amazon out of the picture, other stores like Play and iBooks should be free to sell those books at a higher price.

 

Or Amazon could just tell the publishers they will raise prices on all their books by 30%, as long as the system effectively prevents anyone else from undercutting them.  Could be a big win for publishers and Amazon.

 

Amazon's gross margins are quite high as the wholesale price on consumer trade books is about 40-45% of list (55-60% discount).   Their net margins are low because of their tremendous overhead costs.   But traditionally, mass market consumer retailers have always had low net margins.   They make it up by having tremendous cash flow.   

 

But if you think Amazon makes squat, what do you think the publishers make when they're the ones who have to create and manufacture the content and pay author advances, and for bestselling authors, substantial royalties?   Trade book publishing has never been a very profitable business, even before the advent of e-commerce and e-books.   In a really good year, profits are in the 10% range.   When it really comes down to it, outside of the big NY Times bestsellers and the most popular children's books which sell year after year to new generations of kids, most books don't actually sell very well.    Typical printings are 5000 and half of those might be returned to the publisher.  And we're not exactly a nation of readers.    

 

One thing we don't know about this dispute is whether Hachette is currently receiving better terms than most other big publishers.  If they are, then I partially agree with Amazon, although I don't think they should be using bullying tactics.   If they aren't, then I agree with Hachette.    Traditionally, wholesale prices have been pretty consistent for consumer trade books across publishers.   

 

Having said that, I don't agree that Amazon is looking out for their customers, because as they dominate each of the markets that they're in, their prices have been going up.   Sure, like Wal-Mart, there's always a few items that they sell below cost to get you into the store and hopefully order something else, if only to get free shipping.   But overall, their prices have and will continue to rise as they dominate book selling.    As I've posted before, B&N might not survive the next five years - they've been closing physical store locations as their leases are up.   The number of independent booksellers has risen slightly in recent years, but it's still far below peak levels.     Membership in the American Booksellers Association is now at 1664, comprising 2022 locations, but in 2000, it had 2794 members and that was a huge drop from years earlier.

 

Back in the mid-1990s, the American Book Trade Directory listed about 16,000 bookstores in the U.S. and many bookstores didn't bother to list themselves. 

 

If publishers are forced to give Amazon a better deal, you'll see layoffs and reduced wages at publishing companies and publishing is already known to pay crap, except to senior executives.   

post #26 of 46
I call BA. Cutting off titles etc is NOT acting on the customers behalf

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Exactly.  And that is great for consumers.  Don't worry I don't believe for a second Amazon is doing it 'for the consumers' but the end result of lower prices does benefit them. They currently are 'near bottom.'  If the publishers won't sell to them at their desired price hopefully it is Amazon that 'gives' and pays the higher price for them, and raises its price accordingly.  The bar for 'monopolistically raising prices' has been set very high by Apple.  As long as Amazon keeps any price hike under 30% consumers are still better off under that plan than the Apple solution.

I don't know if you're just naive or just astroturfing here against Apple. Or both.
You can't name one instance where Apple has "monopolistically" raised prices on its products (excluding any caused by fluctuations in currency values). Here in the U.S., Apple's pricing (in USD) only ever goes down for a product SKU, never up from its original price.

You're also going to have to fact check your own "Apple = monopoly" narrative. Who sells more Hachette published titles: Amazon or Apple? Who is in a position to exert more strong arming on book publishers?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #28 of 46
The ongoing trend is the devaluation of content, shifting the value to dumb pipes and infrastructure. Amazon is making ample profits, the fact that they reinvest almost everything into data and fulfillment centers should not really fool anybody. Where is that competitor that could just replicate everything Amazon has? it does not exist, except for Alibaba in Asia. They have a lead that will be almost insurmountable for decades.

In conventional / legacy economics such predatory behavior would cause counter actions, they benefit from the slowness of government bodies and regulators, and until those wake up, the damage will be done. Lower prices are not the holy grail, more widely distributed wealth is. Making books and music cheaper does only lead to less quality and choice.
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

Beware of any monopolist or would-be monopolist that says their actions are guided by their customers' best interests.

 

 

You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.

 

 

Sure, if you think the shoe fits.  Why you would jump to the conclusion that my original statement is a defense of Apple is beyond me.

 

Although what you mean by a 'monopolist in smartphone profits' makes no economic sense at all.  Figuratively, yes they 'monopolize' the profits but that is not a technically accurate or meaningful use of the term.  Because certainly, Apple does not monopolize the smartphone market.  The fact that they get most of the industry's profits without monopolizing the industry just means that they sell a highly desirable product that costumers are willing to pay a lot more for.

 

In truth what you say sounds very much like criticizing Apple for monopolizing the market for Apple products.

 

By the same reasoning Amazon doesn't control e-pub, but just sales in the Kindle format so they can do whatever they desire. Your first statement is a defense of Apple because Amazon is only deemed a monopoly or monopolist by folks upset that Apple broke the law. There hasn't been a hearing against Amazon. Amazon has not been found to have broken any laws. If I kept calling you a murderer over and over, you'd see the motive behind the unfounded allegation.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Amazon is far from the only game in town. Both Google and Apple offer epub stores and both are much larger than Amazon in terms of cash, capitalization, etc.

 

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. By not allowing Apple a fat profit, they've "shut down" everyone who wants to sell epub books. The claim is garbage and laughable.

 

The big loser would be the customer. When did it become so awesome to argue that Google, Apple and Amazon need more billions while we are all jerks for wanting affordable products?

 

You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.

 

They didn't lose to Apple. What does that say about how plain and evident Apple's actions must have been?

 

First and foremost, while Apple and Google are large companies and maintain sales in the ebooks market, they don't make the majority, not even combined. It's actually Amazon that controls over 70% of the ebook market and have even more of the physical book market.

 

Control doesn't mean monopoly. Second they control it because they have been and continue to be an innovator in the space. Google and Apple products are incomplete and outright inferior in comparison. Your link is from 2010 and laughable.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Amazon is far from the only game in town. Both Google and Apple offer epub stores and both are much larger than Amazon in terms of cash, capitalization, etc.

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. By not allowing Apple a fat profit, they've "shut down" everyone who wants to sell epub books. The claim is garbage and laughable.



The big loser would be the customer. When did it become so awesome to argue that Google, Apple and Amazon need more billions while we are all jerks for wanting affordable products?


You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.


They didn't lose to Apple. What does that say about how plain and evident Apple's actions must have been?

A reader of Orwell should be able to recognize a show trial conducted by a malevolent state when he sees one.

 

The reasoning has to be the same all around. DOJ lost to Microsoft. The claim is that they fear they would lose to Amazon. The reason Apple lost to DOJ is because their "show trial" apparently was good enough to ensnare Apple but not Microsoft or Amazon.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Amazon is far from the only game in town. Both Google and Apple offer epub stores and both are much larger than Amazon in terms of cash, capitalization, etc.

Your hyperbole is ridiculous. By not allowing Apple a fat profit, they've "shut down" everyone who wants to sell epub books. The claim is garbage and laughable.

You mean like Apple mandating all in-app purchases through the iTunes store and forcing them to toss their competing stores? Apple more of a monopolist in app and smartphone profits.

1. Please. Amazon has a commanding market share. DOJ just pretty much legalized its monopoly.

2. Everyone would have recd 30% and that's not all profit. In addition Amazon gets up to a 70% "discount" on hard covers. So your greedy Apple narrative falls short.

3. Can I use another ebook app on the Kindle? Can I buy from other ebook stores on the kindle?
You can still go through the browser to buy ebooks from Amazon, etc.
not sure how you can be a monopolist in profits.

 

1. You clearly do not understand the definition of monopoly. Amazon does not having pricing power to charge significantly more than Apple, Google or others nor are there lack of credible alternatives to Amazon.

 

2. Saying everyong gets to exploit the consumer with Apple leading the charge completely justifies a charge of greed. I am not presenting a narrative. The court made a judgement.

 

3. I do know you can sideload other apps on the Kindle Fires. I'm presuming that would include apps with content. I have seen people use Nook apps on Kindle Fires as an a example. I also know that you mail personal documents, including books to your Kindle including the black and white Kindles. You have to approve the email address that it is being sent from and then the books can be mailed and installed on your kindle. So the format is buy from the alternative store which emails it to your kindle where you then load and use the book. I have books on my Kindle Touch 3g in PDF and MOBI format.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

I don't think Amazon's behaving admirably here, but it seems weird to say that Amazon should *have* to carry Hachette books. If they can't agree on a deal, people can buy Hachette books elsewhere.

 

Home Depot only carries some brands of tools and paint. Lowes carries others. It would be unusual for a bookstore not to carry books from all publishers, but I don't see why Amazon should be forced to accept terms from Hachette that it doesn't want to accept.

 

And if Hachette's right and publishes good products (I personally buy a lot of Orbit books from them), then Amazon will only undermine itself in the long run.

 

Someone here gets it. Hachette could even sell their books through their own website and you could email the purchases to your Kindle. They could choose to sell their books in an open and unencrypted format and then you could use them everywhere.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 46

I have said this before a book is not a commodity which Amaizon is attempting to make out of it. there is only one writer and publisher of The Silkworm and if you want to read that book you have to get it from that publisher at the price they want you have to pay it or not read it. If the book is popular and people are willing to pay the price Amazon could loose out if Hatchet chooses in the end not to sell to them and it is their right now to sell their books to Amazon.

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


The reasoning has to be the same all around. DOJ lost to Microsoft. The claim is that they fear they would lose to Amazon. The reason Apple lost to DOJ is because their "show trial" apparently was good enough to ensnare Apple but not Microsoft or Amazon.

The point, which you missed, is that this was a show trial against Apple. Nothing to do with other trials. Read Orwell better, or Darkness at Noon by Koestler, if you don't know what is meant by "show trial."
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



1. You clearly do not understand the definition of monopoly. Amazon does not having pricing power to charge significantly more than Apple, Google or others nor are there lack of credible alternatives to Amazon.

2. Saying everyong gets to exploit the consumer with Apple leading the charge completely justifies a charge of greed. I am not presenting a narrative. The court made a judgement.

3. I do know you can sideload other apps on the Kindle Fires. I'm presuming that would include apps with content. I have seen people use Nook apps on Kindle Fires as an a example. I also know that you mail personal documents, including books to your Kindle including the black and white Kindles. You have to approve the email address that it is being sent from and then the books can be mailed and installed on your kindle. So the format is buy from the alternative store which emails it to your kindle where you then load and use the book. I have books on my Kindle Touch 3g in PDF and MOBI format.


4. Someone here gets it. Hachette could even sell their books through their own website and you could email the purchases to your Kindle. They could choose to sell their books in an open and unencrypted format and then you could use them everywhere.

1. You think raising prices is the only way to be a bad monopoly? Barrier to entry. That's what Amazon has with its predatory pricing.

2. In addition, who allowed Amazon to set market prices? Never in the history of anti-trust has the govt acted so early. Usually in new markets, the free market would decide what's fair or not. There is more to consumer protection than prices.

3. That's great. With iOS devices, you can get a multitude of third party ebook apps plus access the web pages of those third parties to buy ebooks.

4. They could but because Amazon is the major reseller, it would be foolish. Basically Amazon is abusing its "control" of the market.
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


The reasoning has to be the same all around. DOJ lost to Microsoft. The claim is that they fear they would lose to Amazon. The reason Apple lost to DOJ is because their "show trial" apparently was good enough to ensnare Apple but not Microsoft or Amazon.

The point, which you missed, is that this was a show trial against Apple. Nothing to do with other trials. Read Orwell better, or Darkness at Noon by Koestler, if you don't know what is meant by "show trial."

 

The fact that your argument fails the most basic forms of reasoning or fact checking doesn't mean I am ignorant. Rather it means your argument is illogical and won't persuade anyone lucid. DOJ LOST against Microsoft.

 

The contention is that the government has no pretense of justice. The "facts" and "judgement" are preordained. The government LOST a show trial against Microsoft. They WON a show trial against Apple. They cannot get Amazon to toe the line and do their bidding because they would LOSE or fear LOSING a show trial against Amazon.

 

That was the contention in the thread. By definition you can't lose a show trial. It isn't a real trial. It is a mockery. Yet the claim in the thread has been that Amazon can do as they want and the government can't and hasn't taken action against them because they would LOSE a show trial.

 

If the government has no real court system, if the laws are nothing more than a set of hoops waiting for lobbiests and bribes, then how are Microsoft and Amazon exempt from that while Apple is caught by it? The rules apply the same all around including the rule stating that we are a lawless and cronyistic state that the biggest corporations on earth must fear.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Control doesn't mean monopoly. Second they control it because they have been and continue to be an innovator in the space. Google and Apple products are incomplete and outright inferior in comparison. Your link is from 2010 and laughable.

 

HAHA!

 

Innovator my ass. Don't get me wrong, they've done great things with their Kindle line and ebooks service - but they're not dominating the market because of any of that. Kindles are not the driver of sales to books as the iPod was to music. They've gained their monopoly through their brand name, undercutting the competition, and putting the major and even more independent distributors out of business by taking hairline margins and losses from prices and products they (e.g., Amazon) have control over - influencing more business back to them. These are the first steps of monopolization by creating a business model others can't sustain or compete.

 

Quote:
The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors.

 

 

Second: Yes, control leads to Monopoly. IS CONTROL A MONOPOLY? No. But if you're in the position that the majority of consumers are purchasing something from you, and you decide one of your suppliers isn't giving you a good enough deal, the publisher can't just pick up and go, especially when their business is dependent on you - the primary driver of traffic. Walmart does this all of the time with suppliers and it's not right. I don't see why it would be here.

post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



1. You clearly do not understand the definition of monopoly. Amazon does not having pricing power to charge significantly more than Apple, Google or others nor are there lack of credible alternatives to Amazon.

2. Saying everyong gets to exploit the consumer with Apple leading the charge completely justifies a charge of greed. I am not presenting a narrative. The court made a judgement.

3. I do know you can sideload other apps on the Kindle Fires. I'm presuming that would include apps with content. I have seen people use Nook apps on Kindle Fires as an a example. I also know that you mail personal documents, including books to your Kindle including the black and white Kindles. You have to approve the email address that it is being sent from and then the books can be mailed and installed on your kindle. So the format is buy from the alternative store which emails it to your kindle where you then load and use the book. I have books on my Kindle Touch 3g in PDF and MOBI format.


4. Someone here gets it. Hachette could even sell their books through their own website and you could email the purchases to your Kindle. They could choose to sell their books in an open and unencrypted format and then you could use them everywhere.

1. You think raising prices is the only way to be a bad monopoly? Barrier to entry. That's what Amazon has with its predatory pricing.

2. In addition, who allowed Amazon to set market prices? Never in the history of anti-trust has the govt acted so early. Usually in new markets, the free market would decide what's fair or not. There is more to consumer protection than prices.

3. That's great. With iOS devices, you can get a multitude of third party ebook apps plus access the web pages of those third parties to buy ebooks.

4. They could but because Amazon is the major reseller, it would be foolish. Basically Amazon is abusing its "control" of the market.

 

1. There is no barrier to entry in the epub market. Anyone can and has set up a website. If publishers feel Amazon has predatory pricing. They could withdraw their books, put them on their own website and email to them Kindles. They can create their own apps and make them available on Android, iOS and Kindle. You site the multitude of apps available on iOS and declare that there is a barrier to entry that no one can climb. You just shot down point number one with your own point number 3.

 

2. Amazon doesn't set prices. The DOJ didn't act because Amazon was a monopoly and could charge predatory prices. They acted because Apple has a near media monopoly on movies and music and was leveraging it into epub. You've got your reasoning backwards and the court found against Apple.

 

3. See point 1. You just knocked down your own argument.

 

4. The publishers in question are major publishers. Amazon is negotiating with them and that is permissable by law. Apple has had to do the same thing in negotiations with various media companies. The reality is that Amazon has helped start and move along a self-publishing revolution. They created the Kindle years before Apple even created the iPhone. However technology is a moving field. Publishers could innovatively decide to create new apps and platforms for various epub devices. They really could hurt Amazon quite easily by forgetting the DRM angle and growing the market larger than Amazon or anyone else could attempt to manage or control.

 

However they aren't chosing this route. The market had to be forced into it with music and now you can buy almost all music in an array of places with no DRM. The same needs to happen with books. If Amazon stands in the way then the publishers should take the initiative on their own for using DRM-free, open standards that allow easy purchase and delivery of books. However Apple isn't a better solution because they offer an inferior and more expensive DRM-laden clone and wanted to foist it on all of us.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 46

'On behalf of customers' .. as a customer, I'd rather they leave me out of it. Let's face it, Amazon's an evil monopoly. They're acting like a-holes and government is not doing anything because they've bought them out. American capitalism is crony capitalism of the worst kind: corruption by the rich and powerful.

post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

I don't think Amazon's behaving admirably here, but it seems weird to say that Amazon should *have* to carry Hachette books. If they can't agree on a deal, people can buy Hachette books elsewhere. 

 

Home Depot only carries some brands of tools and paint. Lowes carries others. It would be unusual for a bookstore not to carry books from all publishers, but I don't see why Amazon should be forced to accept terms from Hachette that it doesn't want to accept.

 

And if Hachette's right and publishes good products (I personally buy a lot of Orbit books from them), then Amazon will only undermine itself in the long run. 

 

There is a law in the US (a good law, I might add) which says you can't use your monopoly power in one market to establish monopoly power in another.  What seems obvious to me is that Amazon is using its dominance in book retailing to establish dominance in publishing.  Each of Home Depot and Lowes don't have the dominant position in hardware retailing that Amazon has in book retailing so you can't apply the same standards on Amazon as you would on Home Depot and Lowes.

post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


How does one do that search safely?

A poster from France suggested here a while ago, maybe during the trial, that the key to Amazon's pull with the DoJ was in how wide they left the back door open to their customers' purchase and search history to other gov't entities. In contrast to Apple, of course.

I personally would never subscribe to such a crazy conspiracy theory that called into question the integrity of a corporation and our gov't. The theory would also imply that there is a back door to the DoJ, open to the non-elected intel apparati. Unthinkable, obviously. Only someone from France could come up with it.

 

We do know Mr. Bezos has attended recent Bilderberg meetings, along with Eric T Mole, Bill Gates, and Craig Mundie of MS. What does that mean exactly? I don't know. But I do know Bilderbergers don't just meet to discuss their golf games. 

post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Someone here gets it. Hachette could even sell their books through their own website and you could email the purchases to your Kindle. They could choose to sell their books in an open and unencrypted format and then you could use them everywhere.

It's interesting that you say thry could sell on their own sites. This is one of the reasons they wanted the agency model. Publishers couldn't sell from their sites when Amazon who had 90% of the market is selling your product below your cost. A thriving book market depends on wide availability. When one company drives other companies out or prevents entry, that is bad for consumers. I don't like giving my credit card info to multiple companies, so limiting my choice to Amazon means I won't be buying your product, but I'd gladly pay more to a company I trust.
post #40 of 46

So many people defending Amazon.  Please tell us O Great Amazon Apologists, once Amazon has achieved total dominance in book retailing, what do you think will happen to those wonderfully cheap Amazon prices?  Stay cheap forever?

 

And don't say that Amazon doesn't have monopoly power in book retailing.  The evidence is right before us.  If they didn't have monopoly power, Hachette would not be in this cat fight with them,  they would have just turned to a competitive alternate retailer.  Oh wait, there's none.  Because the DoJ shut down the only competitor that had successfully breached the Amazon monopoly.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Amazon breaks silence on Hachette dispute, says it is negotiating 'on behalf of customers'