Amazon at $9.99. I went to Apple’s ibookstore and see that they have bestsellers at $3.99 and $2.99. Did the news of this lawsuit influence these low prices for bestsellers at Apple? Anyway, I’ve only bought a few books from Apple, and they were $4.99. I haven’t paid more than that, and prefer downloading free books to my iPads. Lots of places for free books, like Digital Press Publishing app “Free Books for iPad”. I don’t see the point of a lawsuit against Apple, when others like Amazon are keeping prices high.
Best Sellers are "best sellers" only while they are leading the market, roadcat. Those you are talking about are no longer "best sellers" but once were. They aren't their "new" release best sellers. I get those ads for those as well, and they're are usually for best sellers a year to two or so after being best sellers. . . and I am willing to wait for this kind of pricing to read them. If you wait long enough, they will sometimes even be offered for free.
The best sellers they are talking about in the lawsuit are their A-list authors in the first 90 days after release that everyone wants to read, right now, because everyone is talking about them. These are the books that are on the top of the New York Times list of Best Sellers. Currently. That 90 days is flexible. . . if he book stays on top of the list, the book stays on the Best Seller pricing as long as it does. There have been books that have been there for over a year. Some of Stephen King'a, John Grisham's, and J.K. Rowling's books have been that blessed.
Once that period has passed, the prices drop. The one's you are seeing are usually the ones the publishers use as teasers to get readers hooked on an author, ex-best-sellers that are are two or three cycles back from the latest and greatest. One cycle back are usually around $8.99 to $9.99, Two at $6.99 to $7.99 and then put on sale at the prices you see.
Amazon was selling books with a suggested hard back price of $29.95, e-book price of $22.95, and as soon as it was available slashing the price to $9.99, when the wholesale price for that e-book was $15.95! No one could compete losing an instant $5.96 plus overhead on every sale. That was Amazon's predatory pricing plan. No one could compete with Amazon's subsidized pricing. Even the publishers themselves could not sell below their wholesale price on their own sites because they'd be undercutting their retailers.
Amazon argued they were just "loss leaders" and making all that up on the sales of their other books. . . but studies have shown that most buyers of Best Sellers, simply DON'T buy other titles. They buy their favorite authors. . . and that's it. Brick and Mortar stores make 70% of their income on the new releases and then the balance on the back stock. That's why the new releases are in a prominent location in the stores. To make up a $6 loss plus overhead on every $10 loss leader, Amazon would have to sell one hell of a lot of low margin back stock e-Books to those e-book buyers attracted to Amazon by that loss leader. . . and they cannot demonstrate that. . . not with posting losses on their bottom line year-after-year.
As the judge pointed out, Amazon is running other competitors out of business (or keeping them out) by such predatory pricing. They are the true monopolist.