[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There is actually a purpose to it all. From Hatchette's point of view, they have basically preempted Amazon from playing the evil monopolistic publishers card again. They learned that lesson from last time. Amazon is a bit like Google in that they prefer to have customers think of them as the good guy. They don't particularly enjoy having their business tactics brought out in the light for everyone to see. Thus, from Hatchette's point of view, the publicity of the process works on several levels.

Who are you kidding? Amazon and Google ARE good for their customers. They are that good that enough people hate them for being so good. Both having so many customers, the amount of the ones unhappy is huge, but the amount of happy customers is even bigger. Same with Walmart - small shops hate Walmart with a vengence, but yet there is still a lot of people shopping at Walmart. Business tactics of Walmart are even more obvious than Google and Amazon. Walmart sells a lot of cheap crap, but at those prices it is crap I gotta have. Not everything is cheaper at Walmart, same with Amazon, but on average you save money. Unless you are after groceries - and then Aldi is even cheaper. Aldi makes no secret out of their cheap stuff, they get it cheap because they demand it cheap from their suppliers. It is tough to be an Aldi supplier - the low cost that Aldi pays is offset by high volume.

IMPO, both companies are in this for the long haul. Amazon's hope was that they could strong arm Hatchette into accepting Amazon's terms during the time period that Judge Cote had decreed that the contract negotiations had to be staggered and then use that contract to strong arm the other publishers in line. That hasn't worked, but Amazon is now in a situation that they would lose a lot of face and reputation if they backed down.

That hasn't worked yet. It remains to be seen if it will work or not. The judge on that is still out (pun intended). Even if Hachette waits long enough for more than one publisher to negotiate at the same time, does not mean at all that they will have any stronger pull than alone. What they (the publishers) cannot afford is to uniformly demand the exact same terms - that is what got them into trouble the last time.

In addition, the bill seems to be coming due for Amazon's grab for market share and Amazon needs someone to help pick up the cost.

That remains to be seen as well. We have to wait if and how any court will decide, if it even goes to court.

The publishers know that if they can't move to control the public's perception of the value of their product, then the future is going to be pretty bleak for them. So from their point of view, this is a fight for survival.

So you agree that the mere existence of the business model that Hachette uses is in danger. Maybe instead of fighting for survival of their old model they need to change how they do business? It is far from a black and white decision - even if they survive, they might have to make changes. If they would't survive, they will definitly have to make drastic changes as to not to fall into nonexistance.

I would not be surprised if this is still going on a year from now. The longer this goes on, the more likely, IMPO, that we will see deep pocketed competition pop up in the ebook store. If that happens, then it will be very good for consumers. Strong competition always improves the product for the end consumer.

IMPO, that cuts both ways. Not just for a retail ebook store to give Amazon hell, but also for a new kind of publisher (different from the old model) to give Hachette & friends hell.