DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**creewespock** · 05-04-2012, 05:01 AM

I think you've re-written history there. Amazon renegotiated with 4 of 5 publishers before iBooks even launched, so they were hardly frozen out, and Apple has never had much more than 10% of the eBook market, so they didn't 'corner the market' either.

Sorry, you're right about that. They did corner the market, though, or else they couldn't have dictated price. They used threats.

Who do you think set the current standard price for ebooks at $9.99? Amazon. They had the monopoly of e-book market with the kindle so they got to dictate the price. Needless to say, publishers were not happy. The ten dollar price point for every ebook is scarcely profitable, so when Apple offered to sell their books at $12 to $15 they jumped at the offer. There's nothing unethical about being able to set prices on your own product and service. Amazon did the same thing, but their price was lower than Apple's, evidently that doesn't count as price fixing. Right. The notion that consumers are entitled to the lowest prices regardless of whether it is profitable for the individuals and corporations that produce the goods is dangerous.

There are many sound reasons why Amazon is so utterly reviled by authors, publishers, and booksellers. They should not be allowed to have a monopoly on the ebook market.

Sorry, but this is total bunk. The assertion that publishers were losing money on $10 eBook prices is absurd. If they can afford to sell physical paperback copies of books at similar and sometimes lower prices, they can certainly afford to sell eBooks at those prices. The marginal cost of an eBook is approximately zero (and Amazon was paying it, BTW) and the industry cuts out very substantial expenses in the form of printing, physical distribution, retail space, etc. with the eBook model.

I've also heard assertions that Amazon was selling eBooks as loss-leaders for their Kindles, which are loss-leaders for their eBooks. So they were losing money on everything? Nonsense. Amazon's model is to give you the printer and sell you the ink. eBooks at $10 were handsomely profitable and those profits subsidized the sales of Kindles at a loss.

As to your assertion that negotiating lower prices through the power of monopoly is price fixing, well that sort of turns the definition of price fixing on its head. It may be monopoly, but you cannot collude on your own to set lower prices.

05-04-2012, 05:01 AM	#19
creewespock Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 517 Senior Member	I think you've re-written history there. Amazon renegotiated with 4 of 5 publishers before iBooks even launched, so they were hardly frozen out, and Apple has never had much more than 10% of the eBook market, so they didn't 'corner the market' either. Sorry, you're right about that. They did corner the market, though, or else they couldn't have dictated price. They used threats. Who do you think set the current standard price for ebooks at $9.99? Amazon. They had the monopoly of e-book market with the kindle so they got to dictate the price. Needless to say, publishers were not happy. The ten dollar price point for every ebook is scarcely profitable, so when Apple offered to sell their books at $12 to $15 they jumped at the offer. There's nothing unethical about being able to set prices on your own product and service. Amazon did the same thing, but their price was lower than Apple's, evidently that doesn't count as price fixing. Right. The notion that consumers are entitled to the lowest prices regardless of whether it is profitable for the individuals and corporations that produce the goods is dangerous. There are many sound reasons why Amazon is so utterly reviled by authors, publishers, and booksellers. They should not be allowed to have a monopoly on the ebook market. Sorry, but this is total bunk. The assertion that publishers were losing money on $10 eBook prices is absurd. If they can afford to sell physical paperback copies of books at similar and sometimes lower prices, they can certainly afford to sell eBooks at those prices. The marginal cost of an eBook is approximately zero (and Amazon was paying it, BTW) and the industry cuts out very substantial expenses in the form of printing, physical distribution, retail space, etc. with the eBook model. I've also heard assertions that Amazon was selling eBooks as loss-leaders for their Kindles, which are loss-leaders for their eBooks. So they were losing money on everything? Nonsense. Amazon's model is to give you the printer and sell you the ink. eBooks at $10 were handsomely profitable and those profits subsidized the sales of Kindles at a loss. As to your assertion that negotiating lower prices through the power of monopoly is price fixing, well that sort of turns the definition of price fixing on its head. It may be monopoly, but you cannot collude on your own to set lower prices.
	Quote