Quote:
Originally Posted by Dulin's Books
at least someone over there sees it- and hopefully not just on this particular topic
|
Actually, I don't think they saw it at all. I didn't find the "analysis" very analytical nor did I find any of the "complaints" such as sufficient to demonstrate a level of bias.
I do think the articles could have been more nuanced and perhaps expanded a little. For example, it could have been pointed out clearly in the articles that the petition favoring Amazon was open to anybody to sign and very few significant authors signed it. Even being open to the world to sign, it only gathered 8,000 signatures. In contrast, the 900 who signed the anti-Amazon petition (a) used their own money to buy the ad, (b) are, in many cases, well-known authors, and (c) in most cases are not published by Hachette.
Another significant difference that could have been noted was that the pro-Amazon petition was definitely pro-Amazon and anti-BPH. In contrast, the anti-Amazon petition was anti-Amazon but not necessarily pro-BPH (excluding the idea that if one is anti-Amazon one must be pro-BPH).
I also think the public editor who did the analysis missed the greater concern: Sure Amazon says it wants lower prices, but look at how many ebooks it doesn't discount or doesn't discount significantly; consider that what Amazon wants is Hachette to make up any losses that Amazon would incur from discounting titles; that Amazon has not promised that it would pass on any savings to consumers -- it has only said that discounting should be allowed and that it should be at the BPH's expense, not Amazon's; and that the primary concern of the 900 authors is keeping channels of distribution other than Amazon alive and healthy, whereas Amazon's only concern is to keep Amazon alive, healthy, and in control of the ebook market.
There seems to be running rampant this notion that Amazon is the bookbuyer's best friend when the reality is that Amazon's best friend is Amazon.