http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... ers-uk-oft

Not cool.

Why not cool? This would be like Apple saying "if you want to sell your album on iTunes, you can't sell it cheaper elsewhere". I used to buy a lot from Amazon because you knew it was a genuine item, despite the cost. I've now been looking further afield for a lot of stuff.

No I meant what Amazon was doing. I only really use Amazon these days for the secondary sellers and if it's an item I might need to return, usually I can find what I want cheaper elsewhere.

What Amazon were doing is wrong. Only this week I have found independents who are cheaper than Amazon. Only yesterday I found some food storage cheaper on eBay than from Amazon, and it was the same trader selling through both stores. In fact I accidentally discovered that Paypal now have a delayed payment system. Paypal pays the supplier but the customer gets debited two weeks later. The OFT should fine Amazon a sizeable sum as punishment.

Isn't this exactly what they accused Apple of doing to them with the book publishers? Pot, kettle, black.

I do not think so. Apple allowed the publishers to set the price of eBooks, they just took a percentage. Amazon set the prices of eBooks not the Publishers. What Amazon are doing here is restricting competition by imposing a minimum price that is the one sold via Amazon. Apple prices would have been higher than Amazon because publishers would have set higher prices themselves. Apple did not demand that the prices on the Apple store would be lowest, just that they took 30% whatever that was. While Apple would not have been the cheapest they did not impose price restrictions like Amazon have done.