Amazon vs Hachette

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

How many reporters and columnists in the NYC media routinely supplement their income with cozy book deals with their friends from down the street?

And how informative and good those books often are! I recommend:

102 MINUTES
The Unforgettable Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers

"The paper of record", remember. They chose which presidents to cover for and which ones to vilify and bring down.

No Dick Nixon to kick around anymore, I see.

I know this board is not the place to pull out the most passionately political passage, from within a long post, for special discussion. But this was just too revealing not to highlight.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I seriously doubt that the publisher could have protected themselves from Amazon by giving increased author royalties.

Sure they could have. No huge margins (the new ones on ebooks that they're so proud of) ... nothing for Amazon to take. Plus fat, sassy, and productive authors attracting other authors looking to get fat and sassy. Foresight wins the war. Not instant gratification.

[fjtorres]

And... here we go... right on schedule:
HITLER HATES AMAZON.
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/05/20...-hates-amazon/

[fjtorres]

Here's some great advice for Hachette on how to beat Amazon from their good friends at Digital Book World:

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...n-with-amazon/

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
Just do it, Hachette.
Go for it!

think that if Hachette wants to have a shot at beating Amazon in this round of fighting, it has to pull its books and ebooks from the retailer. And it has to do so publicly, explaining to its authors, the industry and as many readers as possible why it’s doing what it’s doing.

And what would that “why” be?

Well, knowing little of the inner workings of the negotiation, maybe something like, “we have decided to discontinue selling our books through Amazon because the retailer will not agree to a deal with us that we believe allows us to continue publishing the books you love.” Simple, glossing over the details.

[fjtorres]

"History repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce."

Karl Marx.
Heh. Dude got one right.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

"History repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce."

Karl Marx.
Heh. Dude got one right.

I didn't know you were a Marxist. LOL

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, they say that when everyone disagrees with you, then maybe you should stop and think about it. Perhaps they wave it away because it didn't actually happen. Price fixing is when a specific price is set. What the publishers were accused of was getting together and telling Amazon that each of the publishers wanted the ability to set their own price in a model know as agency pricing. A model that is actually quite legal. Price fixing is not legal.

If everyone does disagree with you it's wise to reconsider the facts. In this case it's not everyone and the people who disagree have no facts.

The district court ruled that Apple had conspired with five book publishers to increase the price of e-books for consumers. The opinion pieces never mention this or the fact that Macmillan was one of the five publishers when they talk about the horror of Amazon removing the buy buttons. Any real journalist would at least consider that criminal conspiracy is a bigger story then removing a buy button. Also that Macmillan admitted telling Amazon that if they don't accept being an agent they would window books to Amazon. That seems to be as powerful of a threat and negotiating tactic, especially when Macmillan has an unquestionable monopoly on their author's books.

Two of the NY Times articles were written by the same two people and neither of them are journalism. The third is at least clearly called out as an opinion piece.

[sirmaru]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If everyone does disagree with you it's wise to reconsider the facts. In this case it's not everyone and the people who disagree have no facts.

The district court ruled that Apple had conspired with five book publishers to increase the price of e-books for consumers. The opinion pieces never mention this or the fact that Macmillan was one of the five publishers when they talk about the horror of Amazon removing the buy buttons. Any real journalist would at least consider that criminal conspiracy is a bigger story then removing a buy button. Also that Macmillan admitted telling Amazon that if they don't accept being an agent they would window books to Amazon. That seems to be as powerful of a threat and negotiating tactic, especially when Macmillan has an unquestionable monopoly on their author's books.

Two of the NY Times articles were written by the same two people and neither of them are journalism. The third is at least clearly called out as an opinion piece.

This is probably one of the articles you referenced

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/op...=15417582&_r=0

The author claims that Amazon is a monopsony and is improperly driving book prices down to benefit consumers. He claims many books are being sold at a loss by Amazon and taking away rightful profits of the publishers.

This is a quote from that article: "If Amazon bought an e-book from Hachette for $13, it resold it to a consumer for $9.99, losing $3.01 per e-book. It should come as no surprise that under these circumstances, e-book buyers flocked to Amazon."

The author's recommendation: "Perhaps the best solution would be an online marketplace controlled by the publishers — with the 30 percent commission being split 50-50 with the authors in addition to the author’s royalty."

I sincerely doubt any eBook consumer is going to run to a new competitor of Amazon and really want to pay higher prices for eBooks.

Frankly, that tendency of Amazon to drive down ALL consumer prices, is why I ONLY buy ALL products now from their Prime list. I wouldn't dream of buying anything from the Amazon Marketplace or anywhere else if Amazon sells it at Prime.

The fact that Apple has held consumer prices up since 1979 is why I've never purchased any Apple products. I purchased PC's from Radio Shack, IBM and Dell and now only buy PC's from Dell and everything else from Amazon.

Its also the reason why Android phones are swamping the iOS phones lately with Google and Samsung leading the charge against Apple. If some folks prefer paying higher prices thinking they are getting better products, that is their privilege. However, I've found the lower price competitors have just as good or BETTER products than the higher price products.

Its not really a question if book publishers deserve higher profits or consumers deserve lower prices, its really selfishness on the consumer's part. If Amazon will represent the consumer's interests, then that is where the consumer will park.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I didn't know you were a Marxist. LOL

I'm a marxist....Groucho, that is....

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'm a marxist....Groucho, that is....

I was always more of a Harpo fan.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'm a marxist....Groucho, that is....

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I was always more of a Harpo fan.

Double. Ditto.
Harpo is worth emulating: he knew when to keep his mouth shut.
Hachette should've followed his example.

More seriously and much more impressive:

Harpo gained his stage name during a card game at the Orpheum Theatre in Galesburg, Illinois. The dealer (Art Fisher) called him "Harpo" because he played the harp.[5][6] (In Harpo's autobiography, he says that mother Minnie Marx sent him the harp.) Harpo learned how to hold it properly from a picture of an angel playing a harp that he saw in a five-and-dime. No one in town knew how to play the harp, so Harpo tuned it as best he could, starting with one basic note and tuning it from there. Three years later he found out he had tuned it incorrectly, but he could not have tuned it properly; if he had, the strings would have broken each night. Harpo's method placed much less tension on the strings.[citation needed] Although he played this way for the rest of his life, he did try to learn how to play correctly, and he spent considerable money hiring the best teachers. They spent their time listening to him, fascinated by the way he played.[6] In his movie performances he played the harp with his own tuning.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Or maybe we can stop lashing out in emotional tirades when the narrative that we hold so dear turns out to be not so well rooted in reality.

That would be good. It is becoming annoying in this thread with people not knowing the facts just assuming things. Or just refusing seeing the evidence.

[SteveEisenberg]

The canary I've been watching is the hardcover Instinct by T. D. Jakes, still at #1 in the New York Times Advice genre bestseller list.

And: It is now available for immediate shipment after previously having been shown with estimated ship dates of 1 - 2 weeks, 2 - 4 weeks, 3 - 5 weeks, and 1 - 2 months, back and forth.

I, at first, was thinking this meant that Amazon v. Hachette was over. But there still is no advanced order button for The Silkworm.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'm a marxist....Groucho, that is....

I actually meant to add that in but you read my mind.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tompe

That would be good. It is becoming annoying in this thread with people not knowing the facts just assuming things. Or just refusing seeing the evidence.

Since there are no facts, just rhetoric and no evidence, just accusations, it is kind of hard to not assume things.

If you've got facts and/or evidence, I for one would be glad to look at it.