Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Surrenders To Macmillan On eBook Pricing
CuteSteveJobs writes with a followup to news we discussed on Saturday of a disagreement between Amazon and Macmillan Publishers over ebook pricing: "Amazon has thrown in the towel and announced it will now sell books at Macmillan's increased prices; up to $14.99 from $9.99. Said Amazon in a statement: 'We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.' Macmillan has sensed Apple's iBooks opens the way for higher prices. Perhaps the question should be: do we even need publishers like Macmillian? Publishers have long managed to keep their old business model chugging along nicely despite the Internet; Academics are still forced to give up copyright (PDF) of their work in exchange for publication. Textbook publishers have a history of unethical practices like frequent edition changes, unjustifiable price increases and bribing teachers. For that matter, why do the RIAA's members still control the music business? Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet?"
"monopoly over their own titles" That word does not mean what you think it means...
$14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK?!?!?!? No. No no no, and no.
Why would I pay twice the cost of a paperback version just so I could have a digital version? I realize there are costs associated with OCR services, but most writers use computers now anyways. What gives with the exorbitant prices?
Living With a Nerd
"Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet?"
Because development, editing, and marketing--and even distribution--have value and take skill to do well.
Less than the publishers believe or would like, perhaps, but more than the /. crowd gives them credit.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
The solution is easy: don't buy ebooks from extremely greedy publisher like this one. Even if you can afford it. Just say no. I don't.
--
El Guerrero del Interfaz
Why? If they have a book I want and I think the $14.99 price is worth it, why wouldn't I buy it?
Publishers still exist largely because of their editorial and "filtering" services. Editorially, they help to ensure that the best possible version of a text makes it to market -- that it is as technically (grammar, spelling, etc) correct and engaging as possible. As for filtering, they are meant to ensure that only works that have a reasonable degree of merit actually make it to market -- this is why people tend to believe printed word over that which they find on the internet, and why for those who create content, being accepted by a publisher for print production is highly valued. Anyone can put whatever crap they like on the internet, but the publishing industry exists to make sure that random crap doesn't flood the actual shelves.
For certain types of content, such as text books and works of history, philosophy, and journalism the effect this has can go either way in how people, including myself, are willing to weigh benefits vs detractions. Certainly, it would be better if this content was more democratically available -- however, facts still need to be checked for correctness, copy edited etc. For works of literature, the potentially stifling affect on discourse is much more limited and even though I've almost always been on the losing side of the submission, I'm willing to accept the judgement of poetry and fiction editors as far as to what's actually worth something and what isn't, as they deal in literature every day and see submissions from all kinds of sources -- and when you finally do get a piece accepted then the fact that you had to try so hard to get through the filter makes the joy of it all the greater. That's not really a feeling one can get on the internet where the cost of reproduction approaches zero and so there is no real reason not accept a piece, or when one can stick whatever crap they would like on their own site and eventually someone will see it.
However, for music -- where the bands mostly exist to play live and have fun, where the record itself is really just a form of marketing of their live performance, and where the technical ability to produce recordings of quality and distribute them directly to fans who will then come to their shows is now within the reach of just about everyone, then direct distribution without much filter makes more sense. However, poets and authors tend not make their money from live recitation but from the printed book itself, and the services of the publishers and distributers there are therefor more necessary and valuable. As someone who writes a lot, submits a lot, gets accepted rarely, and who has been in a few bands, played shows and cut a couple of demos I can see the difference, it is what it is, and I'm totally cool with it.
If I am going to waste money paying far too much for a book than I really need to, then I'm going to at least get a version that I can pass on to someone else.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
In fact, Amazon was the one who was trying to use their market dominance as a tool to set prices, which is what we call monopolistic behavior. Note that what they did was not merely decide not to sell those books that they thought were overpriced-- they attempted to force the publisher by pulling all Macmillan titles from their store, including the physical (paper) ones-- saying "either you accept our prices for e-books, or else we will not sell any of your books." (And, of course, also all the imprints of Macmillan, such as Tor.)
That only works, though, if Amazon were enough of a monopoly that people wouldn't just go elsewhere... and it turns out that Amazon isn't. Yet.
In the long run, it benefits consumers that Amazon backed down-- it's never good for one vendor to have the power to set prices, even if (initially) they claim that they are only using that power to lower prices to the consumer.
As Charlie Stoss commented, Amazon was fighting this one because if the publisher wins, it hurts their profitability because it pushes prices down.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The question should really be 'what function that publishers perform do we still need and how should those functions be provided?'
One function of a publisher, as opposed to a vanity press, is to have a reputation for checking the facts in what it publishes. There's a perception that works self-published through a vanity press can't be counted on as reliable sources of information.