Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
I think you probably mean most BPH insiders agree with him, right? Again... hardly surprising or indicative of much.
|
Actually, its the accuracy of his analysis that should matter, not his " insider status" . But then, you would have to read and think it through.
Don't like Shatzkin? Try Tim Carmody of WIRED-as new media as you wouldwant:
Quote:
But if it’s “a big win for Kindle owners,” it’s a huge win for Amazon. If you read the text of Justice’s proposed settlement with e-book publishers, it sounds like an argument for Amazon’s business model.
The settlement gives Amazon everything it wants in its dealings with publishers, and enshrines it as part of an agreement with the federal government, and compliance with antitrust law.
With publishers who agree to the settlement, Amazon will have the right to set final prices of e-books for customers, including the right (within some limits) to set those prices below cost. It enshrines Amazon’s ability to charge publishers for promoting their e-books and to factor those costs into its total balance sheet with each publisher. It allows Amazon to stagger negotiations over time, so that it can’t be pressured by every publisher asking for better terms all at once.
Sure, Amazon loses the ability to negotiate its own most favored nation agreements with these publishers — but the agreement prohibits those publishers from establishing such an agreement with anyone else. Ultimately, Amazon’s market share let it pursue lower margins than its most robust competitors, so that’s a net win for Amazon, too.
In short, the settlement forces publishers who agree to it to go back to the negotiating table with Amazon while systematically taking away every piece of leverage those publishers have had — whether ill-gotten or not.
|
Jeff Bezos Should Send Eric Holder a Christmas Card
His analysis makes it very clear that the DOJ practically hands the ebook market back to Amazon.