Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
Or do you think that the way Fictionwise was treated by the Big Publishers under Agency was a good thing?
|
I doubt Fictionwise was specifically targeted, by publishers, for destruction. With that caveat, I'm going to answer yes to your question.
On March 5, 2009, Barnes & Noble acquired Fictionwise for $15.7 million.
On October 9, 2009, the Nook was announced (or at least leaked to the Wall Street Journal), with sales beginning in late November.
Steve Jobs' incriminating draft email, regarding agency, was written on
January 14, 2010.
Agency began
on January 28, 2010.
On February 21, 2014, Kobo stated that, without agency, it
will lose market share to E-book Retailers who are willing to consistently price their E-books at unsustainably low levels that other competitors simply cannot meet.
What does this time line tell us about Fictionwise's future in an alternative America of unbridled eBook price competition?
The publishers weren't doing something to damage Fictionwise. Fictionwise was already a part -- a small part -- of Barnes & Noble, and was competing with its parent while, it's highly likely, losing it money from day one of acquisition.
There's nothing the publishers could have done to save Fictionwise in a low price war against Amazon and it's own parent, Barnes & Noble.
As for retail price maintenance in books AKA agency, it seems to do a good job of limiting consolidation of book stores in France and Germany, where it is legally mandated, and where two of the big five are headquartered. And in the US, where I can find just about anything I want to read at a public library, and book publishers remain more financially healthy than newspapers and magazine publishers, it seems to me at least as good an idea.
If you want to blame someone for the demise of Fictionwise, Barnes & Noble seems to me a more plausible punching bag than the publishers. See:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...1&postcount=12