I've read most of the blogs. One reason I didn't post about it is that I didn't think I had anything to add.
Scott Westerfeld's sum-up is great. The line "...one of the sides in this negotiation spat their pacifier across the room..." makes me want to buy all his books. Twice.
I have a like-hate relationship with Amazon. I bought my new set of pots/pans from a 3rd party link on their site. I have been buying books, dog food, people food, from them for years.
And I think that's part of the issue for me. Amazon sells so much besides books, and if you're a low-end midlister like me, they probably didn't sell all that many of my books over the years, period, when compared to B&N, Borders. Powell's, and the SF indies. I don't know how many books they sell overall--they hold those numbers close. I don't know how many of the Jani ebooks that sold wound up on Kindles. I do know that the books sold in multiple formats, so they could be winding up on any number of non-Kindle readers. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see why a publisher should do an unattractive deal with Amazon when there are so many other options out there.
Another part of the issue, as I understand it, is that Amazon wanted Macmillan to agree to e-book pricing that was designed to move the Kindle. I don't think it's coincidence that all this blew up after Apple released news of the iPad. Amazon tried to lock something down in order to preempt the competition. It has apparently not worked. Macmillan wants to make deals that will ensure that they maintain control over the pricing of their books. Why wouldn't they?
So. Nothing much new to add. All the talk about ebook pricing, writers being paid too much, all writers being rich, etc etc--I tried to avoid it. It got nasty in places, and I like to avoid nasty unless I really see the need to wade in.
I will say to Mr Bezos that when folks grin at the thought of Rupert Murdoch having you in his sights, it may be time to reassess your public image.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 07:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 12:52 am (UTC)Scott Westerfeld's sum-up is great. The line "...one of the sides in this negotiation spat their pacifier across the room..." makes me want to buy all his books. Twice.
I have a like-hate relationship with Amazon. I bought my new set of pots/pans from a 3rd party link on their site. I have been buying books, dog food, people food, from them for years.
And I think that's part of the issue for me. Amazon sells so much besides books, and if you're a low-end midlister like me, they probably didn't sell all that many of my books over the years, period, when compared to B&N, Borders. Powell's, and the SF indies. I don't know how many books they sell overall--they hold those numbers close. I don't know how many of the Jani ebooks that sold wound up on Kindles. I do know that the books sold in multiple formats, so they could be winding up on any number of non-Kindle readers. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see why a publisher should do an unattractive deal with Amazon when there are so many other options out there.
Another part of the issue, as I understand it, is that Amazon wanted Macmillan to agree to e-book pricing that was designed to move the Kindle. I don't think it's coincidence that all this blew up after Apple released news of the iPad. Amazon tried to lock something down in order to preempt the competition. It has apparently not worked. Macmillan wants to make deals that will ensure that they maintain control over the pricing of their books. Why wouldn't they?
So. Nothing much new to add. All the talk about ebook pricing, writers being paid too much, all writers being rich, etc etc--I tried to avoid it. It got nasty in places, and I like to avoid nasty unless I really see the need to wade in.
I will say to Mr Bezos that when folks grin at the thought of Rupert Murdoch having you in his sights, it may be time to reassess your public image.