51–60 of 125 posts
> The paperback edition of Brad Stone’s “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon” — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as “unavailable.” I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? If they wanted to impede its distribution why are they still selling the Kindle, Hardcover, and Audio versions?
Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Everything-Store-Bezos-Amazon/dp/0...
What is supposed to happen here? This article and each of the others linked don't offer much beyond jabs at Amazon.
As far as I can tell, publishers are unhappy with Amazon - period. Two years ago the hot news was about Amazon pricing books too low [1]. Now at least part of the complaint is that Amazon isn't discounting enough and allowing prices to approach list price - which I assume is set by the publisher. Isn't that a publisher problem?
Also, this all reminds me of what we used to hear in the music industry - creators hurting because the label (publisher) they're contracted with is feuding and refusing to eat whatever compromise rather than pass it on directly or indirectly.
Would it be a terrible thing if Amazon pressured books into changing the same way iTunes changed music?
1: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/tech/web/apple-lawsuit-cheaper...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true. However, making a JK Rowling book completely unavailable? That's incredibly suspicious. It's pretty much a guaranteed bestseller.
That book is still a preorder, so a lot easier for Amazon to play games with. If they aren't selling it on release date, that's a much bigger deal.
> The paperback edition of Brad Stone’s “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon” — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as “unavailable.” I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? If they wanted to impede its distribution why are they still selling the Kindle, Hardcover, and Audio versions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Theres not a single Amazon statement in this article From the article: "An Amazon spokesman declined to comment"
And... A Hachette spokeswoman did not return a message for comment. A Bonnier spokesman could not be reached. Looks like no one wanted to talk to these reporters/bloggers. :)
I don't know the NYTimes's plan to succeed in the digital age, but acting like a 24/7 TV news outlet probably isn't that way to go.
I also worry that newspaper publishers see themselves as the publishing industry does and have a bias against digital distribution and will do anything to damage it. This piece feels anti-Amazon in an unfair way. The publishers aren't these poor underdogs, they're all well-heeled corporations with lawyers and experts. Let them hash it out.
Honest questions here... What is supposed to happen here? This article and each of the others linked don't offer much beyond jabs at Amazon. As far as I can tell, publishers are unhappy with Amazon - period. Two years ago the hot news was about Amazon pricing books too low [1]. Now at least part of the complaint is that Amazon isn't discounting enough and allowing prices to approach list price - which I assume is set…
The core point of the article is to claim that Amazon is abusing his dominant position; which is a real problem, and in some countries illegal, regardless of the nature of the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, so in this case, Amazon wants better terms than Hachette will give, so Amazon plays hardball. In the e-book conspiracy, all the publishers wanted better terms than Amazon would give, and they didn't want to give Amazon the chance to play hardball, so they banded together and forced Amazon's hand. Not really sure how the second is better. It's certainly way more illegal.
Assuming the first player has monopoly power (which its tactics wouldn't have any effect if it didn't) both are equally illegal.
Honest questions here... What is supposed to happen here? This article and each of the others linked don't offer much beyond jabs at Amazon. As far as I can tell, publishers are unhappy with Amazon - period. Two years ago the hot news was about Amazon pricing books too low [1]. Now at least part of the complaint is that Amazon isn't discounting enough and allowing prices to approach list price - which I assume is set…
No, the claim is that they are doing that selectively, along with other things like directing people searching for a book to other publishers books, and extending the shipping time for the targeted publisher's physical books -- as means of discouraging purchases of the targeted publisher's physical books to create leverage on contract terms related to e-books.
Honest questions here... What is supposed to happen here? This article and each of the others linked don't offer much beyond jabs at Amazon. As far as I can tell, publishers are unhappy with Amazon - period. Two years ago the hot news was about Amazon pricing books too low [1]. Now at least part of the complaint is that Amazon isn't discounting enough and allowing prices to approach list price - which I assume is set…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming the first player has monopoly power (which its tactics wouldn't have any effect if it didn't) both are equally illegal.
You don't need a monopoly to have enough power to push around your suppliers.