/linked/2017/02/06/amazon-antitrust-paradox

Comments

Howdy Doody:
A loss leader is as old as business itself. Amazon was taking the loss on popular ebooks and the publishers were still getting their money they normally would have. Amazon took the loss. Colluding on fixing prices/raising prices and not allowing the publishers to sell at a cheaper price on Amazon than through Apple is where they all got into hot water. What Amazon does is good for consumers. What Apple and the publishers did was not good for consumers. Cost to the consumer is the most important thing no matter what the product.

The argument that there is a difference between online and brick and mortar is false. Every book store used to loss lead best seller hard copies before ebooks killed off all the bookstores. I wonder how much Gruber spends with Amazon every month on items available at brick and mortar stores. Sounds like a false equivalency just because it's a digital product.
11:23 pm — Monday, 6 February 2017
anonymous:
Once again, what's bad for Apple does not equal what's bad for consumers.

Colluding to raise the price consumers pay for books is fucking nefarious and Gruber should pull his head out of Tim Cook's ass on this one.
11:56 pm — Monday, 6 February 2017
Sebby:
Indeed. It might be hard nails for Apple but it's simply not their job to fix capitalism.
10:32 am — Tuesday, 7 February 2017
anonymous:
The Grubster is right, the government should go beyond the mindset that make sense in the brick and mortar world and look at who is monopolizing profit share of a market.
11:36 am — Tuesday, 7 February 2017
anonymous:
By that logic Apple has a monopoly on smartphones. Let's break the company up into Hardware, OS, and Services divisions!
4:12 pm — Tuesday, 7 February 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!