![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Amazon gives in to Macmillan with all the petulance and bad manners of a kid throwing a tantrum. Really, go read their statement. It's hilariously self-serving.
Amazon says "Oh, we have tried valiantly to protect you, our customers, and the Big Bad Greedy Publisher is trying to gouge you, but we have no choice."
Umm. Yeah. Don't be swayed by that propaganda. This is all about money and profit. That's all. It ain't about amazon's customers.
What Macmillan wants is flexible pricing -- which frankly makes sense to me. This is why publishers don't release the hardcover edition and the mass market paperback on the same day... because then far fewer people would buy the hardcover. If you must have the shiny new book by your favorite author on Day One, you're going to pay a premium. If you can wait a year, you can get the book for $8 as a paperback. Same way with e-books: if they're available on the day the hardback is released, they cannibalize sales (and profit -- and just BTW, the author's profit, too...).
And if you really must read the book NOW and can't afford it -- hey, go to the library, damn it. They bought the hardcover.
When you want to see a first-run movie, you pay first-run prices. Wait a few months, and you can see the film at a discount theater for less. Wait a few more months, and you can rent it from Netflix for even less. It's a normal business model... and the publishers would like to use it with e-books, too. I think they're right to do so -- but then, I'm one of those evil, traditionally-published writers.
EDITED TO ADD: Toby Buckell has a hilarious response to amazon's announcement. Great idea! Let's break amazon's monopoly on Kindles!
Amazon says "Oh, we have tried valiantly to protect you, our customers, and the Big Bad Greedy Publisher is trying to gouge you, but we have no choice."
Umm. Yeah. Don't be swayed by that propaganda. This is all about money and profit. That's all. It ain't about amazon's customers.
What Macmillan wants is flexible pricing -- which frankly makes sense to me. This is why publishers don't release the hardcover edition and the mass market paperback on the same day... because then far fewer people would buy the hardcover. If you must have the shiny new book by your favorite author on Day One, you're going to pay a premium. If you can wait a year, you can get the book for $8 as a paperback. Same way with e-books: if they're available on the day the hardback is released, they cannibalize sales (and profit -- and just BTW, the author's profit, too...).
And if you really must read the book NOW and can't afford it -- hey, go to the library, damn it. They bought the hardcover.
When you want to see a first-run movie, you pay first-run prices. Wait a few months, and you can see the film at a discount theater for less. Wait a few more months, and you can rent it from Netflix for even less. It's a normal business model... and the publishers would like to use it with e-books, too. I think they're right to do so -- but then, I'm one of those evil, traditionally-published writers.
EDITED TO ADD: Toby Buckell has a hilarious response to amazon's announcement. Great idea! Let's break amazon's monopoly on Kindles!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Scalzi
B
From:
Re: Scalzi
From:
Re: Scalzi
It's interesting. Amazon is definitely the powerhouse in this whole market shakeup. Apple is giving publishers better terms right now because they're the underdog, but I don't think for a minute that they will be a more benevolent dictator than Amazon would be. Still, it's amazing how badly Amazon flubbed the tactics in this case.
Whatever happens, Macmillan is going down. Like the record labels, they don't have nearly the power they had when they controlled distribution.
B