So many falsehoods in this article, I don't know where to begin. The parties interviewed were mostly on the publishing side, and some of the statements were plainly uninformed.
First (Kris777 deleted this), the article states: "...Buying music, after all, is so much cheaper now that there aren’t discs and plastic cases. Shouldn’t the same logic apply to books?..."
Not true. Most albums are actually a better deal in physical form, than in electronic. For instance, take a look at
Eminem's Relapse. The CD has 20 songs, in uncompressed format, without DRM, plus art and packaging. I costs $9.99.
To purchase the same number of tracks in digital format from iTunes, in compressed, lower quality format, at $0.99, would cost you about double.
I understand, that with iTunes, users get instant gratification, and can cherry-pick only the best songs, but still..., double, for inferior quality?!
As for the Apple-bashing, it's a little misguided, and a little uninformed. Apple does enough bad things, but digital music prices would have been higher, if Jobs didn't hold out. See, for example
this article.
The music execs succeeded to twist Apple's arm and
raise prices, although less than they wanted to. But guess what? The sales for the $1.29 tracks immediately dropped. Surprise, surprise....
So, back to books and publishers. The dire warnings from the publishers are pathetic (remind me of the teacher's unions:-). Seriously, if they can't turn profit on a $9.99 sale, without any printing, shipping and storage costs, they shouldn't be in this business.
And if they want to charge more, it is their right, but they shouldn't whine when consumers refuse to pay up. It is their right, too.