7 ms·

My guess is that they either play nice with the publishing companies, or not at all. Believe me, amazon hates this as much as you do. They had to credit a bun

by blhack 17y ago

My guess is that they either play nice with the publishing companies, or not at all. Believe me, amazon hates this as much as you do. They had to credit a bunch of people's accounts for the books. Amazon is a company. One that spends money. The publisher is not the ONLY person that is seeing a taste of the $9.99. They're out the money they had to give to sprint (is it sprint that provides the connectivity? somebody correct me if I'm wrong), and every other cost that was covered by the money you spent on the book. This was a horrible horrible move for all parties involved.

anatoly 17y ago
Sony is able to sell ebooks for its reader w/o being able to retroactively delete them. Why can't Amazon? I'm not sure they "hate it as much as I do". They may hate the fact that they're out of the refund money in this case, but love their ability to own the books on the customers' Kindles and be able to delete them at will.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  The answer to your question correlates to the answers to "why does Amazon have so many more titles available than sony?"
  - anatoly 17y ago
    I don't think it does. Where Amazon is the single largest online player in the book business, Sony is a small-scale newcomer. Where Amazon can exert an extraordinary amount of pressure on book publishers, Sony can exert bupkis. These differences are probably much more important to Amazon's ability to muster an impressive list of titles than the fact that it can withdraw books already purchased. Amazon didn't have to put that ability in the Kindle. Without it, it'd still have a huge list of titles. Amazon wanted to have that kind of control.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Amazon wanted to have that kind of control (1) Amazon makes money when it sells books (2) Amazon loses money when it "recalls" them (3) Amazon is a public company, hence it tries to maximize (1) and minimize (2) --- Hence, Amazon is really on the customers' side here when it comes to "buying" versus "refunding random books, rubbing hands together, and laughing manically". The only reason Amazon would want this kind of control is to extend it to publishers.
      - anatoly 17y ago
        I don't see where you contradict anything I've said. Sure it wanted this kind of control to extend it to publishers. It preferred the interests of the publishers (its suppliers) to the interests of the readers (its customers). How is that being on the customers' side again? No Kindle owner is interested in the publishers' being able to delete books of their device. The stuff about maximizing profits is just a red herring. Any time any public company is criticized for anything it does there's always a chance someone'll pop out with "they're a public company, so they're just trying to maximize their profits". It's a sorta-meaningless universal excuse.
        andreyf 17y ago
        I don't see where you contradict anything I've said. Well, a reply doesn't have to be a contradiction, but I didn't (and don't) agree with your implied assumptions. One being: "they're a public company, so they're just trying to maximize their profits". It's a sorta-meaningless universal excuse That's kind of like saying that gravity is a universal excuse for rocks falling on your head. They aren't excuses, they're physical/economic realities. "Public corporations" are institutions in which decisions are made by individuals not just a contractually obliged to maximize shareholder value (meaning they'll be fired if they don't), but also a legal obligation to do so (meaning they can be sued and go to jail). Add to that the extraordinary competition for those positions and the over-abundance of people willing to take those jobs, and you'll get very simple behavior - profit maximization. If I may, allow me (humbly) point out the fallacy in your thinking - you're personifying corporations. But they're nothing like people - they're economic entities defined and reacting to laws, just as moths are defined by physical laws. Just a moth doesn't "know" any better than to fly towards light, corporations can't "know" any better than to maximize shareholder value. I don't mean that as a criticism of corporations, but rather of the ways in which their legal environment (copyright laws in particular) drives them to maximize those profits. Also worth criticizing: the ways in which the legal environment allows them to affect (via lobbying) it in ways which hurt the public good.

by blhack 17y ago

anatoly 17y ago

Sony is able to sell ebooks for its reader w/o being able to retroactively delete them. Why can't Amazon? I'm not sure they "hate it as much as I do". They may hate the fact that they're out of the refund money in this case, but love their ability to own the books on the customers' Kindles and be able to delete them at will.

lallysingh 17y ago
The answer to your question correlates to the answers to "why does Amazon have so many more titles available than sony?"
- anatoly 17y ago
  I don't think it does. Where Amazon is the single largest online player in the book business, Sony is a small-scale newcomer. Where Amazon can exert an extraordinary amount of pressure on book publishers, Sony can exert bupkis. These differences are probably much more important to Amazon's ability to muster an impressive list of titles than the fact that it can withdraw books already purchased. Amazon didn't have to put that ability in the Kindle. Without it, it'd still have a huge list of titles. Amazon wanted to have that kind of control.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Amazon wanted to have that kind of control (1) Amazon makes money when it sells books (2) Amazon loses money when it "recalls" them (3) Amazon is a public company, hence it tries to maximize (1) and minimize (2) --- Hence, Amazon is really on the customers' side here when it comes to "buying" versus "refunding random books, rubbing hands together, and laughing manically". The only reason Amazon would want this kind of control is to extend it to publishers.
    - anatoly 17y ago
      I don't see where you contradict anything I've said. Sure it wanted this kind of control to extend it to publishers. It preferred the interests of the publishers (its suppliers) to the interests of the readers (its customers). How is that being on the customers' side again? No Kindle owner is interested in the publishers' being able to delete books of their device. The stuff about maximizing profits is just a red herring. Any time any public company is criticized for anything it does there's always a chance someone'll pop out with "they're a public company, so they're just trying to maximize their profits". It's a sorta-meaningless universal excuse.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        I don't see where you contradict anything I've said. Well, a reply doesn't have to be a contradiction, but I didn't (and don't) agree with your implied assumptions. One being: "they're a public company, so they're just trying to maximize their profits". It's a sorta-meaningless universal excuse That's kind of like saying that gravity is a universal excuse for rocks falling on your head. They aren't excuses, they're physical/economic realities. "Public corporations" are institutions in which decisions are made by individuals not just a contractually obliged to maximize shareholder value (meaning they'll be fired if they don't), but also a legal obligation to do so (meaning they can be sued and go to jail). Add to that the extraordinary competition for those positions and the over-abundance of people willing to take those jobs, and you'll get very simple behavior - profit maximization. If I may, allow me (humbly) point out the fallacy in your thinking - you're personifying corporations. But they're nothing like people - they're economic entities defined and reacting to laws, just as moths are defined by physical laws. Just a moth doesn't "know" any better than to fly towards light, corporations can't "know" any better than to maximize shareholder value. I don't mean that as a criticism of corporations, but rather of the ways in which their legal environment (copyright laws in particular) drives them to maximize those profits. Also worth criticizing: the ways in which the legal environment allows them to affect (via lobbying) it in ways which hurt the public good.