Then show me where I said that? All I said is that one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly . As I said before I am for you and I as consumers, I want what's best for us, more choices, and better prices.
Maybe you just don't understand understanding, but, one cannot state anything at all with absolute certainty, so, while a demand for absolute certainty is a common refuge for those backed into corners by untenable positions, it's not a rational criteria. However, given that a government sanctioned monopoly would inevitably lead to Amazon having end-to-end control of the entire publishing industry -- i.e., everything from publishing to bookselling -- and given what we know of how monopolies operate, and human nature, the only rational conclusion that can be reached is that an Amazon monopoly of the publishing industry will result in higher prices, less consumer choice and, most importantly, restricted speech as Amazon controls what actually gets published.
Now, you can ridiculously keep repeating that, 'one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly,' but, if you determine to base all your decisions on absolute certainty, you'll never decide anything, never take any action, never come to any conclusion.
In the rational world, however, people base decisions on the preponderance of evidence. In the rational world, the only reasonable expectation in this instance is that if the DoJ succeeds in this folly, we'll be paying more for all books, digital and physical, in a few years, and we'll have fewer options of what to read. Now, if you disagree with that analysis, present an argument based on facts shows a rational reason why that won't be the case. If all you've got is the schoolyard taunt that we can't be "absolutely certain", your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to transmit it.
Maybe you just don't understand understanding, but, one cannot state anything at all with absolute certainty, so, while a demand for absolute certainty is a common refuge for those backed into corners by untenable positions, it's not a rational criteria. However, given that a government sanctioned monopoly would inevitably lead to Amazon having end-to-end control of the entire publishing industry -- i.e., everything from publishing to bookselling -- and given what we know of how monopolies operate, and human nature, the only rational conclusion that can be reached is that an Amazon monopoly of the publishing industry will result in higher prices, less consumer choice and, most importantly, restricted speech as Amazon controls what actually gets published.
Now, you can ridiculously keep repeating that, 'one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly,' but, if you determine to base all your decisions on absolute certainty, you'll never decide anything, never take any action, never come to any conclusion.
In the rational world, however, people base decisions on the preponderance of evidence. In the rational world, the only reasonable expectation in this instance is that if the DoJ succeeds in this folly, we'll be paying more for all books, digital and physical, in a few years, and we'll have fewer options of what to read. Now, if you disagree with that analysis, present an argument based on facts shows a rational reason why that won't be the case. If all you've got is the schoolyard taunt that we can't be "absolutely certain", your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to transmit it.
I can say that we're all going to die with absolute certainty, and the past is a poor indicator of the future, no one would accomplish anything if they relied so heavily in the past and persevered where others have failed. Having said that, yes past practice would indicate that if allowed to monopoly in all likely hood Amazon would raise prices. I have never denied that fact but the funny thing is that many posters here would readily accept if the monopolist was Apple.
I can say that we're all going to die with absolute certainty, and the past is a poor indicator of the future, no one would accomplish anything if they relied so heavily in the past and persevered where others have failed. ...
The funny thing is, the only reason you think you know with "absolute certainty" that we're all going to die (you don't, btw) is that you actually believe that the past is a perfect indicator of the future. Everyone to date that has lived that we know about has died, thus, you reason, we are all going to die.
Quote:
... Having said that, yes past practice would indicate that if allowed to monopoly in all likely hood Amazon would raise prices. ...
So, finally, you admit that that is the only rational conclusion. Now, it's just one short, rational step to recognizing that the DoJ has been played by Amazon and screwed up big time. You can do it.
Quote:
... I have never denied that fact ...
We'll give you a pass on that, seeing that you've come so far.
Quote:
... but the funny thing is that many posters here would readily accept if the monopolist was Apple.
Damn, now you are back to the baseless conjectures. I had hope... but alas...
The funny thing is, the only reason you think you know with "absolute certainty" that we're all going to die (you don't, btw) is that you actually believe that the past is a perfect indicator of the future. Everyone to date that has lived that we know about has died, thus, you reason, we are all going to die.
So, finally, you admit that that is the only rational conclusion. Now, it's just one short, rational step to recognizing that the DoJ has been played by Amazon and screwed up big time. You can do it.
We'll give you a pass on that, seeing that you've come so far.
Damn, now you are back to the baseless conjectures. I had hope... but alas...
Btw saying "nothing can be said with a absolute certainty" is exactly that. How's that for understanding?
I would amend your last two-word sentence to: Consumer first AND last.
In the case of Amazon, with monopolistic power, under the old model had the ability to sell e-books below cost (while making profits on other items) UNTIL they have run out of business all the other outlet competitors. THEN as the only source for the e-books Amazon can raise prices to whatever they wish to the consumer.
So, the consumer, AT FIRST, can see lower prices, but in the END will pay higher prices.
Amazon's basically run every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.
The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.
Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.
If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?
Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?
Amazon's basically run every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.
The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.
Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.
If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?
Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?
I believe you're mistaken. Apple was not I believe an active participant in any alleged collusion. The publishing houses in question are all old, big, and in close proximity of each other. I'm sure all the CEOs know each other quite well and gather often to discuss the industry. They saw Apple as the crowbar they could use to break the chain that was their agreements with Amazon. Apple will be cleared of any wrongdoing but I don't think the publishers will not fare as well. I also fear any ruling that will benefit Amazon when it should be for our best interest and I don't have enough business knowledge to know what that would be.
... Apple and certain publishers were allegedly, according to the DoJ who got played by Amazon, colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.
If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?
Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?
There, I fixed that for you. I know you wouldn't want to assert things as true that so far are simply unsubstantiated allegations.
And, try to lay off the bad analogies. An analogy in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to make one is like a loaded gun in the hands of a toddler.
Amazon's basically run every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.
The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.
Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.
If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?
Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?
First of all the ONLY difference between Amazon's wholesale model and Apple's Agency model is that publishers get to set the selling price under the agency model. That 'Most Favored Nations' clause is a red herring. Phrased another way its Apple's 'You must be fair to us' clause. Apple is essentially saying to the publishers" Look, we know you don't like how Amazon is devaluing your IP so here, you set prices. But don't screw us over by favoring other ebookstores through lower listed prices. If someone else gets a lower price we should get the same."
BTW - have you never wondered why physical books usually have the same MSRP when released? Price collusion, you betcha, since wayyyyyy back when. Yet only now the DoJ steps in.
You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.
Sorry but I have a hard time wrapping my head around your 'internet' market forces. I well understand your argument if it was physical world economics where you have a physical location with a fixed physical target market. On the internet, the world is your oyster. Does the iBookstore T&C forbid publishers from letting other ebookstores offer discount coupons for orders? Loyalty points that can redeem cash value/prizes? There is so many other things one can do to drive sales other than slashing prices. Plus the onus is on the bookstores themselves, not publishers.
Over Apple's vehement objections, Judge Cote has approved the proposed DOJ settlement with three of the 5 booksellers accused of price-fixing.
"Among other things, the agreement requires the publishers -- Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster -- to abandon the pricing system that they had conceived with Apple before it released its iPad tablet in 2010. The change is supposed to come within the next week."
"We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 percent,'" Jobs told Isaacson. "And, yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."
Interesting that Apple and publishers facing a nearly identical lawsuit in the EU have recently decided to settle without a trial. Why did they do that?
What is materially different in the EU case compared to DOJs?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Then show me where I said that? All I said is that one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly . As I said before I am for you and I as consumers, I want what's best for us, more choices, and better prices.
Maybe you just don't understand understanding, but, one cannot state anything at all with absolute certainty, so, while a demand for absolute certainty is a common refuge for those backed into corners by untenable positions, it's not a rational criteria. However, given that a government sanctioned monopoly would inevitably lead to Amazon having end-to-end control of the entire publishing industry -- i.e., everything from publishing to bookselling -- and given what we know of how monopolies operate, and human nature, the only rational conclusion that can be reached is that an Amazon monopoly of the publishing industry will result in higher prices, less consumer choice and, most importantly, restricted speech as Amazon controls what actually gets published.
Now, you can ridiculously keep repeating that, 'one cannot say "Amazon will raise prices if allowed to have a monopoly" with an absolute certainly,' but, if you determine to base all your decisions on absolute certainty, you'll never decide anything, never take any action, never come to any conclusion.
In the rational world, however, people base decisions on the preponderance of evidence. In the rational world, the only reasonable expectation in this instance is that if the DoJ succeeds in this folly, we'll be paying more for all books, digital and physical, in a few years, and we'll have fewer options of what to read. Now, if you disagree with that analysis, present an argument based on facts shows a rational reason why that won't be the case. If all you've got is the schoolyard taunt that we can't be "absolutely certain", your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to transmit it.
I can say that we're all going to die with absolute certainty, and the past is a poor indicator of the future, no one would accomplish anything if they relied so heavily in the past and persevered where others have failed. Having said that, yes past practice would indicate that if allowed to monopoly in all likely hood Amazon would raise prices. I have never denied that fact but the funny thing is that many posters here would readily accept if the monopolist was Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I can say that we're all going to die with absolute certainty, and the past is a poor indicator of the future, no one would accomplish anything if they relied so heavily in the past and persevered where others have failed. ...
The funny thing is, the only reason you think you know with "absolute certainty" that we're all going to die (you don't, btw) is that you actually believe that the past is a perfect indicator of the future. Everyone to date that has lived that we know about has died, thus, you reason, we are all going to die.
Quote:
... Having said that, yes past practice would indicate that if allowed to monopoly in all likely hood Amazon would raise prices. ...
So, finally, you admit that that is the only rational conclusion. Now, it's just one short, rational step to recognizing that the DoJ has been played by Amazon and screwed up big time. You can do it.
Quote:
... I have never denied that fact ...
We'll give you a pass on that, seeing that you've come so far.
Quote:
... but the funny thing is that many posters here would readily accept if the monopolist was Apple.
Damn, now you are back to the baseless conjectures. I had hope... but alas...
Btw saying "nothing can be said with a absolute certainty" is exactly that. How's that for understanding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Btw saying "nothing can be said with a absolute certainty" is exactly that. How's that for understanding?
Seems like regression on your part. You know, trying to play your way out with word games? Oh, well, you almost adopted reason as a principle.
Weak argument from a weak mind. Your argument was contradictory onto itself, you ended up proving my point better than I could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
I would amend your last two-word sentence to: Consumer first AND last.
In the case of Amazon, with monopolistic power, under the old model had the ability to sell e-books below cost (while making profits on other items) UNTIL they have run out of business all the other outlet competitors. THEN as the only source for the e-books Amazon can raise prices to whatever they wish to the consumer.
So, the consumer, AT FIRST, can see lower prices, but in the END will pay higher prices.
Amazon's basically run every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.
The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.
Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.
If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?
Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?
I believe you're mistaken. Apple was not I believe an active participant in any alleged collusion. The publishing houses in question are all old, big, and in close proximity of each other. I'm sure all the CEOs know each other quite well and gather often to discuss the industry. They saw Apple as the crowbar they could use to break the chain that was their agreements with Amazon. Apple will be cleared of any wrongdoing but I don't think the publishers will not fare as well. I also fear any ruling that will benefit Amazon when it should be for our best interest and I don't have enough business knowledge to know what that would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
... Apple and certain publishers were allegedly, according to the DoJ who got played by Amazon, colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.
If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?
Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?
There, I fixed that for you. I know you wouldn't want to assert things as true that so far are simply unsubstantiated allegations.
And, try to lay off the bad analogies. An analogy in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to make one is like a loaded gun in the hands of a toddler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Amazon's basically run every other company out of business as it is, but they haven't jacked up their prices yet. Part of that is due to the "Amazon Marketplace" which allows for other resellers/distributors of both new and used copies. I use amazon as a portal to buy books, but usually end up buying from other resellers that are cheaper.
The other important thing is that Amazon is smart enough to know that if they try to jack up prices for books, more people will use libraries, borrow from friends or just watch TV, steal ebooks online or surf the net instead of reading. As it is, buying books from Amazon is about as cheap as Netflix rentals and in many ways more convenient than borrowing a book from a friend, which has been a very successful business model.
Apple and certain publishers were colluding to price-fix which is nothing but bad for consumers, not to mention illegal.
If McDonalds made a deal with the meat packers to only allow other restaurants to charge $5 or more for a burger, nobody would say that should be allowed or was fair business practice, so why is it okay for Apple and the Publishers?
Similarly, if a new gas station took a loss by offering 30% cheaper gasoline for it's first couple weeks of operation in an effort to steal costumers from its competitors, I doubt anyone would complain, so why complain about Amazon?
First of all the ONLY difference between Amazon's wholesale model and Apple's Agency model is that publishers get to set the selling price under the agency model. That 'Most Favored Nations' clause is a red herring. Phrased another way its Apple's 'You must be fair to us' clause. Apple is essentially saying to the publishers" Look, we know you don't like how Amazon is devaluing your IP so here, you set prices. But don't screw us over by favoring other ebookstores through lower listed prices. If someone else gets a lower price we should get the same."
BTW - have you never wondered why physical books usually have the same MSRP when released? Price collusion, you betcha, since wayyyyyy back when. Yet only now the DoJ steps in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You're correct I should've just said demand, and I was referring to a publisher not the actual estore, which a publisher has no control over and who is what is whole suit is really about. Apple's method only levels the playing for them. Again if you're a publisher and your ebook is selling well in the iBook store but not well at another ebook store its only basic business to lower your price in an attempt to increase sales but in order to do so you have to lower the price at the Apple store as well where demand is high. I can understand Apple not wanting to be screwed but it handcuffs the publishers from reacting to market forces.
Sorry but I have a hard time wrapping my head around your 'internet' market forces. I well understand your argument if it was physical world economics where you have a physical location with a fixed physical target market. On the internet, the world is your oyster. Does the iBookstore T&C forbid publishers from letting other ebookstores offer discount coupons for orders? Loyalty points that can redeem cash value/prizes? There is so many other things one can do to drive sales other than slashing prices. Plus the onus is on the bookstores themselves, not publishers.
Over Apple's vehement objections, Judge Cote has approved the proposed DOJ settlement with three of the 5 booksellers accused of price-fixing.
"Among other things, the agreement requires the publishers -- Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster -- to abandon the pricing system that they had conceived with Apple before it released its iPad tablet in 2010. The change is supposed to come within the next week."
http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21485146/over-apples-objections-judge-oks-settlement-e-book
"We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 percent,'" Jobs told Isaacson. "And, yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."
Guilty.
Originally Posted by Russell
Guilty.
Of what, creating competition?
Interesting that Apple and publishers facing a nearly identical lawsuit in the EU have recently decided to settle without a trial. Why did they do that?
What is materially different in the EU case compared to DOJs?