Antitrust laws also should prevent predatory pricing. Amazon selling ebooks at a loss is a barrier for entry. That's how they had 90% of the market. You want fair competition? Start with fair pricing.
There are laws on the books to punish anti-competitive actions such as predatory pricing. I've not seen evidence that Amazon does that any more than Wal-Mart does. Even this most recent EU investigation of Amazon isn't raising that as an issue and they seem pretty willing to call 'em as they see'em even if the US doesn't.
Discounting a certain segment of e-books, even below cost, is not predatory. Most Amazon e-Books are sold at a profit, above their cost, as far as I've read.
Right. Amazon holds the publisher's physical books as hostage.
Wrong. "...we (Amazon) are currently buying less (print) inventory and "safety stock" on titles from the publisher, Hachette, than we ordinarily do, and are no longer taking pre-orders on titles whose publication dates are in the future. Instead, customers can order new titles when their publication date arrives. For titles with no stock on hand, customers can still place an order at which time we order the inventory from Hachette – availability on those titles is dependent on how long it takes Hachette to fill the orders we place. Once the inventory arrives, we ship it to the customer promptly. These changes are related to the contract and terms between Hachette and Amazon.”
Sign the ebook agreement or take your books elsewhere.
Right. The store owner has the right to decide what products they want to sell. Do you think it was Amazon's decision to stop selling Kindles through Target and Wal-Mart?
Originally Posted by jungmark
Antitrust laws also should prevent predatory pricing. Amazon selling ebooks at a loss is a barrier for entry. That's how they had 90% of the market. You want fair competition? Start with fair pricing.
Fanbois always say apple doesn't have to compete on pricing because it's a premium brand.
So why couldn't apple have offered the same ebooks for a few dollars more and be done with it?
Apple knew the animated (superfluous) page turns would not justify the higher price.
Wrong. "...<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:.319999992847443px;">we (Amazon) are currently buying less (print) inventory and "safety stock" on titles from the publisher, Hachette, than we ordinarily do, and are no longer taking pre-orders on titles whose publication dates are in the future. Instead, customers can order new titles when their publication date arrives. For titles with no stock on hand, customers can still place an order at which time we order the inventory from Hachette – availability on those titles is dependent on how long it takes Hachette to fill the orders we place. Once the inventory arrives, we ship it to the customer promptly. These changes are related to the contract and terms between Hachette and Amazon.”</span>
That's Amazon's spin after the contract was signed. What were its tactics prior to the resolution?
Right. The store owner has the right to decide what products they want to sell. Do you think it was Amazon's decision to stop selling Kindles through Target and Wal-Mart?
Amazon has 90% market share in ebooks. They also sell 40-45% of physical books. So basically Amazon is saying sign our ebook agreement or we'll cut 40% of your business.
Fanbois always say apple doesn't have to compete on pricing because it's a premium brand. So why couldn't apple have offered the same ebooks for a few dollars more and be done with it? Apple knew the animated (superfluous) page turns would not justify the higher price.
There you have it, a common troll spelling of "fanboy."
Why is Amazon so afraid of Apple and other competition!
That's Amazon's spin after the contract was signed. What were its tactics prior to the resolution?
None of us can say for sure what happened because none of us were there.
But it couldn't be worse than what apple told GTAT, "Put on your big boy pants and sign the agreement".
It is very telling when the apple fanbois cheer when apple spanks a supplier or competitor, but when apple gets spanked, they cry foul and try to divert the blame and attention to something else.
Amazon has 90% market share in ebooks. They also sell 40-45% of physical books. So basically Amazon is saying sign our ebook agreement...
Yes, the same thing apple does to app publishers that want to sell on apple's app store.
Quote:
... or we'll cut 40% of your business.
No, publishers have other outlets to sell their products. Amazon was not trying to hurt the writers livelihood. Amazon actually encouraged their customers to go to a competitor if the title wasn't available at Amazon.
From the link I provided earlier...
"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."
Would apple do that? No.
Quote:
Why is Amazon so afraid of Apple and other competition!
They're not. If Amazon was afraid of the competition, they wouldn't have told their customers to purchase the book from a competitor. No.
Apple is the one that is afraid. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have colluded with the publishers.
Apple is also afraid to compete for talent. That’s why they had the illegal No Poach Agreements.
Quote:
There you have it, a common troll spelling of "fanboy."
I have to admit, I enjoy pointing out the ridiculous comments apple fanbois make, and my spelling of fanboi does not hurt nor support my argument.
Again, a fanboi tries to divert attention away from the relevant facts.
[@]Russell[/@] you do yourself an injustice when you resort to inflammatory terms like "fanboi". It's unnecessary, disruptive and adds nothing to otherwise thoughtful and considered posts. Rather than help it distracts from whatever point you;re making. You should refrain from doing so and edit any previous post where you used the derogatory term to remove it if for no other reason than it's a ban-able offense.
Intelligent posters don't need to use name-calling to support an argument. The tactic never works except to incite more of the same.
None of us can say for sure what happened because none of us were there.
But it couldn't be worse than what apple told GTAT, "Put on your big boy pants and sign the agreement".
It is very telling when the apple fanbois cheer when apple spanks a supplier or competitor, but when apple gets spanked, they cry foul and try to divert the blame and attention to something else.
Except the supplier could have said no and walked away. The publishers can't without effectively removing almost half their sales outlets.
Yes, the same thing apple does to app publishers that want to sell on apple's app store.
nope. Apple's App Store rules are set. There's no negotiating them. In addition Androiders keep telling us Apple has low market share.
No, publishers have other outlets to sell their products. Amazon was not trying to hurt the writers livelihood. Amazon actually encouraged their customers to go to a competitor if the title wasn't available at Amazon.
"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." Would apple do that? No.
The authors didn't agree. Again, Amazon has a big slice of the book market. Lots of folks only shop via Amazon.
Amazon has 90% ebook market. Amazon effectively killed that competition.
When Apple Maps came out, it referred to other mapping apps. So once again you're wrong.
Apple is the one that is afraid. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have colluded with the publishers.
Now you're delusional. It was the wrong verdict and lots of experts agree with Apple. Price shouldn't be the only issue.
Apple is also afraid to compete for talent. That’s why they had the illegal No Poach Agreements.
So Apple's the only company involved with that? Genius trolling.
Except the supplier could have said no and walked away. The publishers can't without effectively removing almost half their sales outlets.
Half their sales outlets? Amazon is only 1 outlet.
Yes, any supplier can walk away, some do, some don't. Examples below.
GTAT described their negotiation with apple as a "bait and switch"
Apple Inc pulled a "bait and switch" move to force GT Advanced Technologies into a money-losing deal to supply the iPhone maker with sapphire, according to an affidavit by a senior executive at the company.
At the start of negotiations, Apple offered to buy 2,600 sapphire growing furnaces from GT Advanced, which GT Advanced would operate on behalf of Apple, the "ultimate technology client to land," according to Squiller.
"In hindsight, it is unclear whether Apple even intended to purchase any sapphire furnaces from GTAT," he wrote.
But after months of hard negotiating, Apple offered a deal under which it would shift away economic risk by lending GT Advanced the money to build the furnaces and grow the sapphire, and then sell it exclusively to Apple for less than market value, Squiller wrote.
GT Advanced was effectively forced to accept the unfair deal in October 2013 because its intense negotiations with Apple had left it unable to pursue deals with other smartphone makers, he said.
Comments
Discounting a certain segment of e-books, even below cost, is not predatory. Most Amazon e-Books are sold at a profit, above their cost, as far as I've read.
EDIT: By the way, I found this to be a mildly interesting article on eBook pricing.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/15/ten-things-you-may-not-know-about-ebook-prices/
EDIT2: I'm assuming this is still accurate and certainly even more interesting The article explains how Amazon pays eBook royalties and how a small publisher might determine a selling price.
http://bubblecow.com/the-shocking-secret-about-ebook-prices-that-will-help-you-price-your-ebook
Right. Amazon holds the publisher's physical books as hostage.
Wrong. "...we (Amazon) are currently buying less (print) inventory and "safety stock" on titles from the publisher, Hachette, than we ordinarily do, and are no longer taking pre-orders on titles whose publication dates are in the future. Instead, customers can order new titles when their publication date arrives. For titles with no stock on hand, customers can still place an order at which time we order the inventory from Hachette – availability on those titles is dependent on how long it takes Hachette to fill the orders we place. Once the inventory arrives, we ship it to the customer promptly. These changes are related to the contract and terms between Hachette and Amazon.”
http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1UO5T446WM5YY
Right. The store owner has the right to decide what products they want to sell. Do you think it was Amazon's decision to stop selling Kindles through Target and Wal-Mart?
Antitrust laws also should prevent predatory pricing. Amazon selling ebooks at a loss is a barrier for entry. That's how they had 90% of the market. You want fair competition? Start with fair pricing.
Fanbois always say apple doesn't have to compete on pricing because it's a premium brand.
So why couldn't apple have offered the same ebooks for a few dollars more and be done with it?
Apple knew the animated (superfluous) page turns would not justify the higher price.
That's Amazon's spin after the contract was signed. What were its tactics prior to the resolution?
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-amazon-and-hachette-explained-20140602-story.html#page=1
Amazon has 90% market share in ebooks. They also sell 40-45% of physical books. So basically Amazon is saying sign our ebook agreement or we'll cut 40% of your business.
There you have it, a common troll spelling of "fanboy."
Why is Amazon so afraid of Apple and other competition!
That's Amazon's spin after the contract was signed. What were its tactics prior to the resolution?
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-amazon-and-hachette-explained-20140602-story.html#page=1
Amazon has 90% market share in ebooks. They also sell 40-45% of physical books. So basically Amazon is saying sign our ebook agreement...
Yes, the same thing apple does to app publishers that want to sell on apple's app store.
Quote:
... or we'll cut 40% of your business.
No, publishers have other outlets to sell their products. Amazon was not trying to hurt the writers livelihood. Amazon actually encouraged their customers to go to a competitor if the title wasn't available at Amazon.
From the link I provided earlier...
"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."
Would apple do that? No.
Quote:
Why is Amazon so afraid of Apple and other competition!
They're not. If Amazon was afraid of the competition, they wouldn't have told their customers to purchase the book from a competitor. No.
Apple is the one that is afraid. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have colluded with the publishers.
Apple is also afraid to compete for talent. That’s why they had the illegal No Poach Agreements.
Quote:
There you have it, a common troll spelling of "fanboy."
I have to admit, I enjoy pointing out the ridiculous comments apple fanbois make, and my spelling of fanboi does not hurt nor support my argument.
Again, a fanboi tries to divert attention away from the relevant facts.
Intelligent posters don't need to use name-calling to support an argument. The tactic never works except to incite more of the same.
Except the supplier could have said no and walked away. The publishers can't without effectively removing almost half their sales outlets.
nope. Apple's App Store rules are set. There's no negotiating them. In addition Androiders keep telling us Apple has low market share.
The authors didn't agree. Again, Amazon has a big slice of the book market. Lots of folks only shop via Amazon.
Amazon has 90% ebook market. Amazon effectively killed that competition.
When Apple Maps came out, it referred to other mapping apps. So once again you're wrong.
Now you're delusional. It was the wrong verdict and lots of experts agree with Apple. Price shouldn't be the only issue.
So Apple's the only company involved with that? Genius trolling.
Except the supplier could have said no and walked away. The publishers can't without effectively removing almost half their sales outlets.
Half their sales outlets? Amazon is only 1 outlet.
Yes, any supplier can walk away, some do, some don't. Examples below.
GTAT described their negotiation with apple as a "bait and switch"
Apple Inc pulled a "bait and switch" move to force GT Advanced Technologies into a money-losing deal to supply the iPhone maker with sapphire, according to an affidavit by a senior executive at the company.
At the start of negotiations, Apple offered to buy 2,600 sapphire growing furnaces from GT Advanced, which GT Advanced would operate on behalf of Apple, the "ultimate technology client to land," according to Squiller.
"In hindsight, it is unclear whether Apple even intended to purchase any sapphire furnaces from GTAT," he wrote.
But after months of hard negotiating, Apple offered a deal under which it would shift away economic risk by lending GT Advanced the money to build the furnaces and grow the sapphire, and then sell it exclusively to Apple for less than market value, Squiller wrote.
GT Advanced was effectively forced to accept the unfair deal in October 2013 because its intense negotiations with Apple had left it unable to pursue deals with other smartphone makers, he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/07/us-gt-advanced-tech-bankruptcy-apple-idUSKBN0IR2G220141107
Asia-based Pegatron, which makes iPhones for Apple at this time, is reportedly being asked to cease production of Ultrabook laptops for Asus or face the consequences of losing orders from Apple.
Apple believed the MacBook Air and Asus Zenbookdesigns to be so similar that they asked Pegatron to stop building the Asustek devices.
Pegatron stands to suffer a lot if it loses Apple contracts.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/13/apple-forcing-pegatron-to-stop-production-of-macbook-air-lookali/
As I have said before, Amazon earned that market share fair and square by creating their own e-reader with the publishers providing the content.
If the publishers didn't like the deal, they could have walked away instead of signing the agreement.
As I have proved above, Apple has made their suppliers face the same decisions.
Yes, lots of folks like Amazon's prices, service and selection.
So Apple's the only company involved with that? Genius trolling.
I'm glad you noticed.