Amazon says 'will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms'

[Mr. Goodbar]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Score one for missing the point.

I would prefer to pay no more than Baen prices for e-books. However, when Amazon pulled all the Macmillan dead tree books from their site they played dirty pool. That is the behavior I do not want to support.

I would agree. To a certain extent they are both acting like spoiled children, but history has certainly shown that those business who resist the march of progress are doomed for obsolescence.

Just one anecdotal piece of information, but one that surprised me this week. I've been reading ebooks for years utilizing PDA's and then ereaders starting with an iLiad and then various Sony and Kindle models. It's safe to say that I've been doing it since the very beginning of the market. I also used to travel extensively, but for the past year have been in a job that requires minimal travel. In the past I would very rarely see another ebook reader, maybe one or so, but it was not common. This past week I was on a flight from Boston to Atlanta and had three additional ereader users within two rows of me. If the publishers want to believe there is not a risk to their business they will not last long. The momentum is clearly in the favor of the ebook.

[kennyc]

Very important to vote with our wallets -- especially now. I'll likely be ordering lots of used paper books until MacMillan goes out of business and their successor offers the books at reasonable prices.

[MikeRo]

When two elephants fight (the fight here is between Amazon and Apple, not Amazon and MacMillan), we're the ones who get stomped.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MikeRo

When two elephants fight (the fight here is between Amazon and Apple, not Amazon and MacMillan), we're the ones who get stomped.

Actually it appears to be MacMillan that is throwing it's weight around, first with the Apple (pre) announcement of pricing and now with Amazon, trying to up the Amazon Price (which they apparently accomplished).

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

This is what I don't understand. Were they trying to pitch it to Amazon that they would make more money? Why would the publishers want a deal that makes them and their authors LESS money? What's the motivation? Something doesn't add up (at least for me).

I suspect the existing model wasn't sustainable and both sides knew it. They couldn't continue to pretend the list price for ebooks was $30 when nobody was buying them at that price.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Connallmac

So Macmillan has the right to say that this is how much we want to charge for our product, but Amazon doesn't have the right to not sell it in protest? This is awfully twisted logic you're using....

The new system was to go into place in March, and would only apply to e-books, not to dead tree which would be handled the same way as they currently are.

So rather than trying to deal with the situation over the next two months, Amazon exercised the nuclear option and removed all Macmillan product including that which was not in contention - and in so doing hurt people I know (authors).

It's not about Amazon refusing to sell e-books because they couldn't get the deal they wanted - which would be perfectly within their rights. It's that they pulled all the dead tree product and by so doing hurt people who were not directly involved and had no say in the matter.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sonist

When the labels were pushing for $2+ per song prices a year and a bit ago, Jobs pointed out that piracy will skyrocket again, if prices go up that much.

I'd imagine we'll see a lot of Macmillan titles floating around. For free.

Exactly and they need to be continuously made aware of it.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I suspect the existing model wasn't sustainable and both sides knew it. They couldn't continue to pretend the list price for ebooks was $30 when nobody was buying them at that price.

Yes but if I understand things correctly, publishers are selling ebook "hardcovers" to Amazon for around $12, and amazon is taking a $2 loss. How much would MacMillan be selling them now?

[Kali Yuga]

Well, I'm surprised. I'd be curious to know why Amazon reversed course so quickly, but I doubt the public will ever get a straight answer.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Macmillan has the right to say "this is how we want to sell e-books through your site," and give Amazon the options they did....

True, but it's not clear that Macmillan has the right to require all vendors to sell a product at a specific price. Retailers set prices, not vendors.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I don't care so much whether new release hardcovers are $15 or $10 in e-book; both prices are more than I would normally pay. What I want to see are books that are currently available in mass market paperback priced no higher than mass market paperbacks....

You're less likely to get that with the current pricing scheme, just so you know....

Originally Posted by Sonist

When the labels were pushing for $2+ per song prices a year and a bit ago, Jobs pointed out that piracy will skyrocket again, if prices go up that much. I'd imagine we'll see a lot of Macmillan titles floating around. For free.

I don't. IMO the overwhelming majority of piracy is people looking for Free Stuff. For example, there isn't much evidence that affordable DRM-free music downloads have put a dent in music piracy. Even $0.99 iPhone apps may be getting pirated at high rates.

The idea that people adopt piracy to "punish" high prices or corporate misbehavior is, IMO, more myth than reality.

That said, if the $15 price point really is too high, I do expect the people who actually buy ebooks to make their point somewhat clear, as they have in the past.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Sonist

When the labels were pushing for $2+ per song prices a year and a bit ago, Jobs pointed out that piracy will skyrocket again, if prices go up that much.

I'd imagine we'll see a lot of Macmillan titles floating around. For free.

This bullheadedness from a major publishing company will encourage "free" copies to circulate more freely ala the music/movie industry.

I had hoped that there were lessons learned in regards to the blundering and mishandling of digital media distribution by the MPAA, RIAA et al. But alas, no.

[guyanonymous]

I'd say you're better off sending your letters and complaints to the authors themselves. Let them know that because of the publisher they choose, you will not be buying their works. The publisher, I don't believe, gives a damn what you and I think, but if their authors start leaving...they might.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I'd say you're better off sending your letters and complaints to the authors themselves. Let them know that because of the publisher they choose, you will not be buying their works. The publisher, I don't believe, gives a damn what you and I think, but if their authors start leaving...they might.

Not really. They only care about the bottom line that's the income, not the authors. There's tons of writers begging to get in and the bestsellers are whatever they decide to spend the advertising budget on.

[CopperTrail]

In the end, it's up to the consumers. This consumer won't pay more than $9.99 for an eBook.

[whitearrow]

If Macmillan winds up charging $12-15 for a new book, fine, whatever, but then drop the price after a reasonable time. My concern is that prices won't drop commensurately with the print titles, and we'll end up in the same situation as Fictionwise is in, where they have books that have been in paperback for years and years still at $18 or $20 a pop.

[Barcey]

Well John Sargent said the new pricing would from $5.99 to $14.99 so my new high price for buying ebooks is $5.99.