36 ms·

Jeff Bezos apologizes for 1984-Kindle debacle

77 points by blazamos 17y ago

ube 17y ago
Perhaps a little of Zappos' culture is filtering through (though I doubt it). The most important thing that Amazon has not addressed is labeling the kindle versions with clear and concise information as to the DRM that the publisher chose (i.e. number of devices, limitations, "the publisher through us can revoke this copy from you at anytime" blurb, etc..). If they did this then I'd say they have integrity and sales of kindle versions of books would be reflective of the publishers' use of DRM. By not doing this they're trying to play both sides - appeasing the publisher at all cost and then giving a weak apology to the customers with no concrete actions to address the problem (saying "We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission" is just marketing speak for - we'll continue doing what we're doing since we can't point you to concrete steps that we have taken).
blazamos 17y ago
Putting into practice "obsess over customers."
- vaksel 17y ago
  protecting the customer from themselves
zacharypinter 17y ago
Actually, I think Amazon did the anti-DRM crowd (myself included) a favor by this whole debacle. They gave a very public example of the problems with locked/controlled content and how it tends to directly oppose the consumer. When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context.
- dfranke 17y ago
  s/right/revocable privilege/
- andreyf 17y ago
  When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context. Actually, that's what you do when you purchase any copyrighted work. Copyright law prohibits you from doing a wide variety of things with some things you buy - copying and creating derivative works being the big ones.
  - icey 17y ago
    Except a physical copy doesn't disappear when the person who owns the copyright decides the store you bought it from didn't sell it to you the right way.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    Not quite, copyright law prohibits you from doing some things with the presentation of the information such as distributing copies and creating certain types of derivative works. I am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all eternity, loan out relentlessly, sell, or chop into small sections and sell the sections. I can even copy within certain contexts (archival copies of software, for example) and I can create certain types of derivative works (parodies and certain limited educational uses for instance).
    - ntoshev 17y ago
      > am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all eternity You are not allowed to show to an audience a movie you bought on a dvd. There may be other examples.
      - fno 17y ago
        You are allowed to watch it with your friends though, of course that might depend on the country you live in. In Germany you are even allowed to give copies to close friends and family members (but you are not allowed to break copy protection).
dfranke 17y ago
This apology doesn't fly for me. The issue is not with their use of discretion in yanking paid-for content off users' devices. The issue is that they gave themselves that ability to begin with. Once I see that "feature" removed, I'll be happy.
- frossie 17y ago
  I actually think it is a textbook apology - short, no excuses and straight to the customers. I think having a quick apology is more important than presenting some kind of ten point plan as the first step. But I agree that the end of the matter is the solution, not the apology, and we have yet to see how this ends.
  - zimbabwe 17y ago
    If Bezos wanted to fuck around with his apology, he'd have used more cushiony words. "Stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles" doesn't allow for much leeway with how he views Amazon's actions here. He's saying straight out that they made a mistake.
- seasoup 17y ago
  They are apologizing for using the capability the gave themselves but are doing nothing towards a real solution. They still have the ability to remotely wipe your books. I'm glad I never bought a kindle and will not buy one as long as it "licenses" me the books instead of selling them to me.
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    They are apologizing for using the capability the gave themselves but are doing nothing towards a real solution. Which is Jeff's modus operandi from way back. Remember the one-click patent, and how he agreed that it was a goofy thing to be allowed to patent, and how he promised to spearhead a patent-reform effort?
- mrlebowski 17y ago
  I totally agree. I wonder what other unadvertised "features" the kindle has, which are transmitted secretly by the always on wi-fi. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
pmichaud 17y ago
It rings a little empty to me -- I mean, it's one thing to say you screwed up, but it's another to make it right. Has there been any actual action taken or is it really just: "Sorry, we shouldn't have done that... but we're not sorry enough to undo it."
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Undo what? Give people back their illegal files?
  - vaksel 17y ago
    why not? any other website, they'd just remove the file from their store, to stop future sales, but wouldn't touch already downloaded files. For all intents and purposes Amazon "hacked" their customer's private property
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      > why not? Because that would be illegal? Amazon doesn't own the copyright to 1984 either you know... The OP wasn't complaining about the handling of the original situation, he was complaining about how Amazon refuses to reverse their action. The answer: they can't.
      - vaksel 17y ago
        because Amazon sells the legal version of 1984, surely they can cover the cost to give the customers what they paid for http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248388330&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref...
        jemmons 17y ago
        The 99¢ paid would only buy the first chapter of 1984. I'm not sure customers would appreciate getting what they paid for in this instance.
hyperbovine 17y ago
I had no idea Jeff Bezos had a real Amazon account which he used to post reviews (guess that shouldn't come as such a surprise.) Always entertaining to hear a man worth $8 billion call something expensive. :) http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...
- mvg 17y ago
  Although he's a billionaire, I doubt his sense of value has changed. Especially since he is so close to retail.
thras 17y ago
That's the best damage control they can come up with? I realize that Bezos probably thinks he slumming when he delivers a personal apology, but I'm less impressed with Bezos than Bezos is. I would have liked an explanation for what happened. I would have liked to see what steps were being taken to see that it never happens again and that it couldn't happen again. I would like to see what is being done to recompense the customers (have they been shipped complimentary hardcovers of the yanked books yet?). This apology fails on all three fronts.
aaroniba 17y ago
Conspicuously absent from this apology is the explicit promise that they won't do it again.
onreact-com 17y ago
It took him a week of bad press to apologize! This means it's not sincere but just an attempt to appease the raging crowds. He just figured out after a week of horrible publicity that no other tactic will work so he had to apologize. Next time apologize immediately so I can believe you are truly sincere.

77 points by blazamos 17y ago

ube 17y ago

Perhaps a little of Zappos' culture is filtering through (though I doubt it). The most important thing that Amazon has not addressed is labeling the kindle versions with clear and concise information as to the DRM that the publisher chose (i.e. number of devices, limitations, "the publisher through us can revoke this copy from you at anytime" blurb, etc..). If they did this then I'd say they have integrity and sales of kindle versions of books would be reflective of the publishers' use of DRM. By not doing this they're trying to play both sides - appeasing the publisher at all cost and then giving a weak apology to the customers with no concrete actions to address the problem (saying "We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission" is just marketing speak for - we'll continue doing what we're doing since we can't point you to concrete steps that we have taken).

blazamos 17y ago

Putting into practice "obsess over customers."

vaksel 17y ago
protecting the customer from themselves

zacharypinter 17y ago

Actually, I think Amazon did the anti-DRM crowd (myself included) a favor by this whole debacle. They gave a very public example of the problems with locked/controlled content and how it tends to directly oppose the consumer. When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context.

dfranke 17y ago
s/right/revocable privilege/
andreyf 17y ago
When you make a purchase for the Kindle, you're not buying a book, you're buying the right to view the content of the book in a limited context. Actually, that's what you do when you purchase any copyrighted work. Copyright law prohibits you from doing a wide variety of things with some things you buy - copying and creating derivative works being the big ones.
- icey 17y ago
  Except a physical copy doesn't disappear when the person who owns the copyright decides the store you bought it from didn't sell it to you the right way.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  Not quite, copyright law prohibits you from doing some things with the presentation of the information such as distributing copies and creating certain types of derivative works. I am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all eternity, loan out relentlessly, sell, or chop into small sections and sell the sections. I can even copy within certain contexts (archival copies of software, for example) and I can create certain types of derivative works (parodies and certain limited educational uses for instance).
  - ntoshev 17y ago
    > am free to do virtually anything with the original including archive for all eternity You are not allowed to show to an audience a movie you bought on a dvd. There may be other examples.
    - fno 17y ago
      You are allowed to watch it with your friends though, of course that might depend on the country you live in. In Germany you are even allowed to give copies to close friends and family members (but you are not allowed to break copy protection).

dfranke 17y ago

This apology doesn't fly for me. The issue is not with their use of discretion in yanking paid-for content off users' devices. The issue is that they gave themselves that ability to begin with. Once I see that "feature" removed, I'll be happy.

frossie 17y ago
I actually think it is a textbook apology - short, no excuses and straight to the customers. I think having a quick apology is more important than presenting some kind of ten point plan as the first step. But I agree that the end of the matter is the solution, not the apology, and we have yet to see how this ends.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  If Bezos wanted to fuck around with his apology, he'd have used more cushiony words. "Stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles" doesn't allow for much leeway with how he views Amazon's actions here. He's saying straight out that they made a mistake.
seasoup 17y ago
They are apologizing for using the capability the gave themselves but are doing nothing towards a real solution. They still have the ability to remotely wipe your books. I'm glad I never bought a kindle and will not buy one as long as it "licenses" me the books instead of selling them to me.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  They are apologizing for using the capability the gave themselves but are doing nothing towards a real solution. Which is Jeff's modus operandi from way back. Remember the one-click patent, and how he agreed that it was a goofy thing to be allowed to patent, and how he promised to spearhead a patent-reform effort?
mrlebowski 17y ago
I totally agree. I wonder what other unadvertised "features" the kindle has, which are transmitted secretly by the always on wi-fi. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

pmichaud 17y ago

It rings a little empty to me -- I mean, it's one thing to say you screwed up, but it's another to make it right. Has there been any actual action taken or is it really just: "Sorry, we shouldn't have done that... but we're not sorry enough to undo it."

potatolicious 17y ago
Undo what? Give people back their illegal files?
- vaksel 17y ago
  why not? any other website, they'd just remove the file from their store, to stop future sales, but wouldn't touch already downloaded files. For all intents and purposes Amazon "hacked" their customer's private property
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    > why not? Because that would be illegal? Amazon doesn't own the copyright to 1984 either you know... The OP wasn't complaining about the handling of the original situation, he was complaining about how Amazon refuses to reverse their action. The answer: they can't.
    - vaksel 17y ago
      because Amazon sells the legal version of 1984, surely they can cover the cost to give the customers what they paid for http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248388330&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/dp/B002A9JO9W/ref...
      - jemmons 17y ago
        The 99¢ paid would only buy the first chapter of 1984. I'm not sure customers would appreciate getting what they paid for in this instance.

hyperbovine 17y ago

I had no idea Jeff Bezos had a real Amazon account which he used to post reviews (guess that shouldn't come as such a surprise.) Always entertaining to hear a man worth $8 billion call something expensive. :) http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm http://www.amazon.com/review/R11KACPP85PGCA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...

mvg 17y ago
Although he's a billionaire, I doubt his sense of value has changed. Especially since he is so close to retail.

thras 17y ago

That's the best damage control they can come up with? I realize that Bezos probably thinks he slumming when he delivers a personal apology, but I'm less impressed with Bezos than Bezos is. I would have liked an explanation for what happened. I would have liked to see what steps were being taken to see that it never happens again and that it couldn't happen again. I would like to see what is being done to recompense the customers (have they been shipped complimentary hardcovers of the yanked books yet?). This apology fails on all three fronts.

aaroniba 17y ago

Conspicuously absent from this apology is the explicit promise that they won't do it again.

onreact-com 17y ago

It took him a week of bad press to apologize! This means it's not sincere but just an attempt to appease the raging crowds. He just figured out after a week of horrible publicity that no other tactic will work so he had to apologize. Next time apologize immediately so I can believe you are truly sincere.