Evil Apple in trouble again

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:39:53 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article
,
RichA wrote:

No printing costs. No warehousing. No retail environments, no
shipping costs. All characteristics of e-books.

you are neglecting production costs (not the same for print), storage &
bandwidth, order processing, updating the books and more.

Which is why they
were cheaper than hard and soft-bound physical books.

no that's not why at all.

amazon was selling ebooks below cost to kill off any competition and to
increase sales of the kindle. losing money can only last for so long,
and once there's little to no competition left, the prices will go back
up.

But Apple, that
"customer friendly" company didn't like that. And they wanted a 30%
cut just for disseminating electronic copies of books.

the 30% is not 'just for disseminating.' it's the agency model versus
the wholesale model.

So they
colluded with publishers to fix prices at much higher levels. I hope
they throw the "book" at that company.

according to the ceo of one of the book publishers in the lawsuit,
there was no collusion with his company which probably means there was
not with any others.
http://us.macmillan.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=28237

It is also hard to settle a lawsuit when you know you have done no
wrong. The government¹s charge is that Macmillan¹s CEO colluded with
other CEO¹s in changing to the agency model. I am Macmillan¹s CEO and
I made the decision to move Macmillan to the agency model. After days
of thought and worry, I made the decision on January 22nd, 2010 a
little after 4:00 AM, on an exercise bike in my basement. It remains
the loneliest decision I have ever made, and I see no reason to go
back on it now.

I actually would like to see
someone in jail.

that should be amazon's ceo.

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I actually would like to see someone in jail.

that should be amazon's ceo.

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

selling below cost to squash all competition.

On 2012-04-14 08:57 , nospam wrote:
In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I actually would like to see someone in jail.

that should be amazon's ceo.

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

selling below cost to squash all competition.

Where Amazon appear to be most below cost is in S&H. Free shipping on
orders over $25 is excessively generous (used to be for over $50, then
$35 ...).

Further, they will split a shipment if not immediately available -
shipping costs double. (If you request them to 'hold' until complete, a
computer replies that you should not worry, they'll ship what they can
immediately. Wasteful).

But, that is Bezos' goal: to make Amazon the go to for online shoppers.
Amazon's profit is near 0. (Revenue growth is near 50% but net income
growth is negative). Net profits are 2%.

Some shareholders are howling. (On $10B less annual income, Google
makes about 15X more net). This is reflected in the stagnant stock price.

I purchase a lot of DVD's and books via Amazon, but usually from
resellers, mostly used. I get most DVD's for about $6 - $8 including
shipping. Books a bit more because of the higher S&H.

My SO buys a lot of books from Amazon. In the Montreal area where
English titles are harder to get, Amazon is the go to.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:57:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I actually would like to see someone in jail.

that should be amazon's ceo.

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

selling below cost to squash all competition.

What competition? There wasn't any.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

selling below cost to squash all competition.

What competition? There wasn't any.

traditional hardcover & paperback books.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:34:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

selling below cost to squash all competition.

What competition? There wasn't any.

traditional hardcover & paperback books.

That's a different market. We are currently talking about e-books.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

selling below cost to squash all competition.

What competition? There wasn't any.

traditional hardcover & paperback books.

That's a different market. We are currently talking about e-books.

it's not a different market. it's a different form of the same book and
the popularity of ebooks is causing traditional bookstores to close.
remember border's?