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

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Deneb

I read that then too, did you really believe it? trully?
The chances of Amazon dominating the market are not so great anyway, not with so many little independant publishers.
Months to come are going to be quite interesting.

Of course I believed it since it is the rational thing for Amazon to do. And they are already domination the paper book market so they can use their dominance to get lower prices. The initial sales rating on Amazon for a newly released book is very important for authors for example.

[JSWolf]

So then complaining about mismatched prices should not happen until April when we know the new pricing structure is in place and then we can complain. I hope this new pricing actually works though I doubt it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

First, I agree with you on file sharing not being theft. It's a very complex issue that's been compounded by what's going on in other industries, but equating file sharing to theft is just not accurate.

I would be much more comfortable with your characterization of Amazon's response if it was the first time they had done such a thing. It's not. There was the Hachette delisting in 2008, and the whole GLBT thing last year. Not to mention their lawsuit against the pre-existing "Amazon Bookstore," where a large part of their legal strategy seemed based on pointing out that the owners of a women's bookstore were lesbian.

My two cents for what it's worth.

Thanks.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Actually you do. Compare prices in other eBook stores now with what they were before Amazon introduced a $9.99 price-point for best-sellers. Many of the other stores have matched that price. Everybody's gained, Kindle or no Kindle.

Quoted for truth..particularly Sony who seems to follow very closely then Amazon drops the price on the bestsellers and others.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by Deneb

I read that then too, did you really believe it? trully?

I do. Absolutely. It's the exact same thing they did with paper books originally.

Andy Wheeler has some good points of clarity in the whole Amazon-Macmillan issue.
http://antickmusings.blogspot.com/20...macmillan.html

[Deneb]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course I believed it since it is the rational thing for Amazon to do. And they are already domination the paper book market so they can use their dominance to get lower prices. The initial sales rating on Amazon for a newly released book is very important for authors for example.

Amazon is not dominating the paper book market, you can still go elsewhere to buy books. It's a very big player, not an inescapable one.
Lower prices are good for us. Please don't go in the "decrease of creativity" line. If authors would stop to write then, there wouldn't be so many already keeping a day job while writting. And that's not troubling the publishers.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

My own take is that Macmillan is the "less evil guy" in this dispute.
That's not what I call the behavior of the good guy.

I didn't say Amazon was the good guy. You said Amazon is worse, I disagree. What's the difference between "do as we say or we don't sell your books" and "do as we say or we don't sell you our books to resell"? Who's the biggest bully tell me?
They are big enought to handle each other, what we have to watch is which one is more dangerous for us consumers...And here, in my opinion, it's MacMillan.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As for buying elsewhere, I'm not a Kindle owner and I can't buy Kindle books for my Reader. That means I get no benefit from Amazon's $9.99 price policy because it doesn't apply to me. Amazon's not saying "we want low prices because they are good for consumers," they're trying to use low prices to get people to buy in to their own particular form of ebook vendor lock-in.

Precisely, you can go elsewhere to buy the books, and you can choose not to own a kindle. What choice do you have with MacMillan fixing prices for all the resellers?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Actually you do. Compare prices in other eBook stores now with what they were before Amazon introduced a $9.99 price-point for best-sellers. Many of the other stores have matched that price. Everybody's gained, Kindle or no Kindle.

Yes, I agree too

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Deneb

I didn't say Amazon was the good guy. You said Amazon is worse, I disagree. What's the difference between "do as we say or we don't sell your books" and "do as we say or we don't sell you our books to resell"? Who's the biggest bully tell me?

Macmillan wasn't saying "do as we say or we don't sell you our books to resell." They were saying "if you want to sell our books for less, you'll have to wait until we drop the price."

They neither said nor implied they would remove Amazon's ability to sell books on Kindle, only that they would delay release of books to Kindle if Amazon insisted on maintaining their current system.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Deneb

Amazon is not dominating the paper book market, you can still go elsewhere to buy books. It's a very big player, not an inescapable one.
Lower prices are good for us. Please don't go in the "decrease of creativity" line. If authors would stop to write then, there wouldn't be so many already keeping a day job while writting. And that's not troubling the publishers.

Well, dominating does not imply inescapable. I meant that the are so big that they can force lower prices from publishers.

[kennyc]

And then there is this little gem of an advertisement:

http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknews...zon_151113.asp

"Available everywhere but Amazon"

[kilofox]

If this has already been mentioned please excuse.....

Its obvious that Amazon is selling ebooks as loss-leaders to drive Kindle sales. Couple this with Amazon being mum about Kindle sales numbers only gives credence.

Amazon sells the ebook for less than they paid for it, and more than makes up the difference in the Kindle sale. Amazon knows exactly what they are doing... and now that publishers are calling them on it they try to paint themselves as being a "victim".

Right or wrong, publishers probably feel that they were being used and having their content devalued in order to boost sales of the Kindle. Since Amazon is a market leader, their content is devalued everywhere.. not just with Amazon.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kilofox

If this has already been mentioned please excuse.....

Its obvious that Amazon is selling ebooks as loss-leaders to drive Kindle sales. Couple this with Amazon being mum about Kindle sales numbers only gives credence.

Amazon sells the ebook for less than they paid for it, and more than makes up the difference in the Kindle sale. Amazon knows exactly what they are doing... and now that publishers are calling them on it they try to paint themselves as being a "victim".

Right or wrong, publishers probably feel that they were being used and having their content devalued in order to boost sales of the Kindle. Since Amazon is a market leader, their content is devalued everywhere.. not just with Amazon.

I would disagree with the "devalued" statement. It's more like it is not being properly valued. The only reason money is "lost" at the $9.99 price is because the publisher has set too high a price on the product.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

This ensures that, after collecting 'hits' for more than 80 years now, they will have amassed an enormous 'default' income that other publishers will never be able to compete with. And with this money they can buy up the more successful authors, creating even more concentration.

EMI is currently proving you wrong, tbh.

[kennyc]

This just in:

From PC World:

"Publishers are Shortsighted"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/18876...ice_fight.html

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I would disagree with the "devalued" statement. It's more like it is being properly valued. The only reason money is "lost" at the $9.99 price is because the publisher has set too high a price on the product.

That is our fundamental point of disagreement. I don't believe the publisher has placed too high a price on the product for the value contained. However I think I may be valuing both time and content more highly than you are.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

That is our fundamental point of disagreement. I don't believe the publisher has placed too high a price on the product for the value contained. However I think I may be valuing both time and content more highly than you are.

And that's the whole point of marketing and setting prices and making money as a business.