Have you looked in the mirror lately? A "Most Favored Nation" clause plus an agency pricing model means that no one can undercut another seller's prices. That's because in an agency model the amount the publisher gets is based on the selling price, not a negotiated wholesale cost.
No one ever denied that illegal predatory pricing resulted in lower prices to consumers FOR A SHORT TIME. In the long run, it is bad for consumers - which is why there are laws against it.
A) You're assuming predatory pricing.
Competition is why the free market works and centralized economies don't.
I'm assuming no such thing. It is public knowledge that Amazon is selling books for below their cost and Amazon had an overwhelming market share in eBooks. No assumptions needed.
Have you looked in the mirror lately? A "Most Favored Nation" clause plus an agency pricing model means that no one can undercut another seller's prices. That's because in an agency model the amount the publisher gets is based on the selling price, not a negotiated wholesale cost.
So an agency pricing model is more disruptive to the market than Amazon's predatory pricing to keep competitors from getting established? you're really confused.
Furthermore, you're assuming that the only way to compete is on price. That is not the case.
I'm assuming no such thing. It is public knowledge that Amazon is selling books for below their cost and Amazon had an overwhelming market share in eBooks. No assumptions needed.
Selling some items below cost is not necessarily "predatory pricing". Predatory pricing is a SUBSET of below cost pricing, just like "jet" is a SUBSET of "aircraft". Retail stores—including grocery store, department stores, and brick and mortar bookstores—routinely sell some items below cost. That's known as a "loss leader" and no contents the practice is "predatory pricing".
To prove predatory pricing you must first know the cost of everything (or most things) in the category you're looking at. Second, you must show that a significant percentage of those items is priced below cost. You have done neither, merely assumed predatory pricing, but not proven or even shown that it's likely.
Furthermore, you're assuming that the only way to compete is on price. That is not the case.
No, I'm not. Merely addressing the current point: price. Other attributes of competition (service, availability, convenience, etc.) do not affect price when an agency pricing model is in place.
In open competition in a free market, consumers are free to choose their preferred balance between the low price/low service and high price/high service ends of the marketplace.
Your inability to come up with a rational argument is noted.
No one ever denied that illegal predatory pricing resulted in lower prices to consumers FOR A SHORT TIME. In the long run, it is bad for consumers - which is why there are laws against it.
Then where's the lawsuits against Amazon for their predatory pricing practices?
So an agency pricing model is more disruptive to the market than Amazon's predatory pricing to keep competitors from getting established? you're really confused.
Furthermore, you're assuming that the only way to compete is on price. That is not the case.
Apple can only compete on price against Amazon since iBooks is an inferior product. Wgt would I buy a ebook on iBooks when its limited to Apple's ecosystem. I'd much rather buy it from Amazon and have access to it across multiple platforms.
No, I'm not. Merely addressing the current point: price. Other attributes of competition (service, availability, convenience, etc.) do not affect price when an agency pricing model is in place.
In open competition in a free market, consumers are free to choose their preferred balance between the low price/low service and high price/high service ends of the marketplace.
This is a rare instance that Apple can't offer a higher service for a higher price.
Then where's the lawsuits against Amazon for their predatory pricing practices?
I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.
I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.
You really can't stand it when people have irrefutable arguments, hence the name-calling.
Apple sues right, left and center. If it missed a lawsuit, then there wasn't even a hint of reason for a lawsuit.
You really can't stand it when people have irrefutable arguments, hence the name-calling.
Apple sues right, left and center. If it missed a lawsuit, then there wasn't even a hint of reason for a lawsuit.
How is that an irrefutable argument? Apple didn't sue. We don't have any idea why and it's dopey to assume that Apple didn't care simply because they didn't file suit.
But, then, your entire life seems to revolve around pretending that Apple is guilty even without any evidence.
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.
I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.
Wrong. I wouldn't expect Apple to sue Amazon over predatory pricing practices, that'd be on the DOJ to pursue.
How is that an irrefutable argument? Apple didn't sue. We don't have any idea why and it's dopey to assume that Apple didn't care simply because they didn't file suit.
But, then, your entire life seems to revolve around pretending that Apple is guilty even without any evidence.
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.
I applaud Apple for not filing a frivolous lawsuit against Amazon.
This is a rare instance that Apple can't offer a higher service for a higher price.
Agreed. Which is why I've been buying ebooks on Kindle, not iBooks. That's also motive (though not proof) for Apple to convince publishers to switch to an agency pricing model.
I applaud Apple for not filing a frivolous lawsuit against Amazon.
What's left of your straw-man argument now?
It's not a straw-man argument when you keep flip-flopping all over the place.
You claimed that there must not be a case against Amazon because Apple didn't sue. The bogus logic in that statement is obvious to anyone who's not dopey.
It's not a straw-man argument when you keep flip-flopping all over the place.
You claimed that there must not be a case against Amazon because Apple didn't sue. The bogus logic in that statement is obvious to anyone who's not dopey.
Your straw-man argument, quoted again below for maximum clarity, was that people like me attack Apple when Apple doesn't sue, and that nothing Apple does can ever be right for me. In fact, nobody attacked Apple for not suing, and I even applauded them for not suing, hence I thought Apple's actions in this regard were correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
...
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.
Do you ever get tired of making up lies? Do you ever feel embarrassed for being constantly wrong in public?
Your straw-man argument, quoted again below for maximum clarity, was that people like me attack Apple when Apple doesn't sue, and that nothing Apple does can ever be right for me. In fact, nobody attacked Apple for not suing, and I even applauded them for not suing, hence I thought Apple's actions in this regard were correct.
Do you ever get tired of making up lies? Do you ever feel embarrassed for being constantly wrong in public?
It's not a lie nor is it false in any way. I said "people LIKE YOU". I didn't say that you said that.
(where 'people like you' would be all the apple-hating trolls infesting this forum. I'm still trying to figure out how so many people are displaying such clear signs of narcissistic personality disorder).
Do you ever get tired of being incapable of reading? I guess that's why they call you Dr. Dopey.
Comments
Have you looked in the mirror lately? A "Most Favored Nation" clause plus an agency pricing model means that no one can undercut another seller's prices. That's because in an agency model the amount the publisher gets is based on the selling price, not a negotiated wholesale cost.
A) You're assuming predatory pricing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
A) You're assuming predatory pricing.
ssshhhhhh.....don't let him know that.
As far as he concerns if someone doesn't get a 30% margin on what they sell, they should be taken to court and forced to raise prices.
I'm assuming no such thing. It is public knowledge that Amazon is selling books for below their cost and Amazon had an overwhelming market share in eBooks. No assumptions needed.
True. Which is why Amazon should be severely punished for destroying competition via their predatory pricing.
So an agency pricing model is more disruptive to the market than Amazon's predatory pricing to keep competitors from getting established? you're really confused.
Furthermore, you're assuming that the only way to compete is on price. That is not the case.
Selling some items below cost is not necessarily "predatory pricing". Predatory pricing is a SUBSET of below cost pricing, just like "jet" is a SUBSET of "aircraft". Retail stores—including grocery store, department stores, and brick and mortar bookstores—routinely sell some items below cost. That's known as a "loss leader" and no contents the practice is "predatory pricing".
To prove predatory pricing you must first know the cost of everything (or most things) in the category you're looking at. Second, you must show that a significant percentage of those items is priced below cost. You have done neither, merely assumed predatory pricing, but not proven or even shown that it's likely.
No, I'm not. Merely addressing the current point: price. Other attributes of competition (service, availability, convenience, etc.) do not affect price when an agency pricing model is in place.
In open competition in a free market, consumers are free to choose their preferred balance between the low price/low service and high price/high service ends of the marketplace.
Then where's the lawsuits against Amazon for their predatory pricing practices?
Apple can only compete on price against Amazon since iBooks is an inferior product. Wgt would I buy a ebook on iBooks when its limited to Apple's ecosystem. I'd much rather buy it from Amazon and have access to it across multiple platforms.
This is a rare instance that Apple can't offer a higher service for a higher price.
I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.
You really can't stand it when people have irrefutable arguments, hence the name-calling.
Apple sues right, left and center. If it missed a lawsuit, then there wasn't even a hint of reason for a lawsuit.
How is that an irrefutable argument? Apple didn't sue. We don't have any idea why and it's dopey to assume that Apple didn't care simply because they didn't file suit.
But, then, your entire life seems to revolve around pretending that Apple is guilty even without any evidence.
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.
Wrong. I wouldn't expect Apple to sue Amazon over predatory pricing practices, that'd be on the DOJ to pursue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
How is that an irrefutable argument? Apple didn't sue. We don't have any idea why and it's dopey to assume that Apple didn't care simply because they didn't file suit.
But, then, your entire life seems to revolve around pretending that Apple is guilty even without any evidence.
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.
I applaud Apple for not filing a frivolous lawsuit against Amazon.
What's left of your straw-man argument now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Wrong. I wouldn't expect Apple to sue Amazon over predatory pricing practices, that'd be on the DOJ to pursue.
Indeed, provided that there is a reason. Apparently there isn't.
Agreed. Which is why I've been buying ebooks on Kindle, not iBooks. That's also motive (though not proof) for Apple to convince publishers to switch to an agency pricing model.
It's not a straw-man argument when you keep flip-flopping all over the place.
You claimed that there must not be a case against Amazon because Apple didn't sue. The bogus logic in that statement is obvious to anyone who's not dopey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's not a straw-man argument when you keep flip-flopping all over the place.
You claimed that there must not be a case against Amazon because Apple didn't sue. The bogus logic in that statement is obvious to anyone who's not dopey.
Your straw-man argument, quoted again below for maximum clarity, was that people like me attack Apple when Apple doesn't sue, and that nothing Apple does can ever be right for me. In fact, nobody attacked Apple for not suing, and I even applauded them for not suing, hence I thought Apple's actions in this regard were correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
...
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.
Do you ever get tired of making up lies? Do you ever feel embarrassed for being constantly wrong in public?
It's not a lie nor is it false in any way. I said "people LIKE YOU". I didn't say that you said that.
(where 'people like you' would be all the apple-hating trolls infesting this forum. I'm still trying to figure out how so many people are displaying such clear signs of narcissistic personality disorder).
Do you ever get tired of being incapable of reading? I guess that's why they call you Dr. Dopey.