3 ms·

Probably e-book pricing. Hachette doesn't really have any reason to come out publicly and says they are trying to keep e-book prices high, since while that is

by smackfu 12y ago

Probably e-book pricing. Hachette doesn't really have any reason to come out publicly and says they are trying to keep e-book prices high, since while that is good for authors and Hachette, it's bad for the consumer pocketbook.

tsunamifury 12y ago
Can we stop with the mindless idea that the point of capitalism is only to drive down the price for consumers. The point is to provide an equilibrium between suppliers and customers. The difference between 12.99 and 9.99 doesn't hurt consumers and provides significant difference in paying authors. Amazon is unfairly trying to kill the suppliers for short term gains at the expense of the industry.
- hershel 12y ago
  In a similar vain, one could say that selling ebooks at $9.99 and sharing profits between authors and retailers[1] is a better result all around. [1]Of an amazon monopoly on retail is a bad result, but in principal that has nothing to do with publishers
- sib 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but the difference between $12.99 and $9.99 is precisely a cost (hurt) to the consumer of $3. It's certainly a reduction in consumer surplus and, when multiplied by the millions of books sold every year, is a meaningful impact.
  - DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
    Except that the hurt is widely distributed at the higher price, but not at the lower price (where it's felt by a few large publishers). This kind of unequal distribution can cause the slight lessening of pain for a large number of people to mortally wound the few actually producing content, leading to a serious destabilizing of the market, which requires that both parties have something to provide. Which was the point of the GP comment, and something you didn't even remotely address, instead making a pedantic point about words chosen for effect.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Not only is this measurable, but laws of supply and demand are pretty well established economic theory. I'm honestly surprised to see such gesticulation about economics in a start-up oriented forum.
- smackfu 12y ago
  Yeah, my point is that nuance gets lost if they go public with the terms of the dispute. "Amazon fighting to keep e-book prices down" is not the headline Hachette wants to see. In fact, Hachette is probably quite happy with the headline they got, "Amazon Escalates Its Battle Against Publishers."
- lauradhamilton 12y ago
  I don't agree with this. I think that a 30% price difference is significant. In the current market, I think that publishers get far too large a fraction of the revenue and authors far too small. If the author creates the content and promotes the content (with the help of Amazon) what value is the publisher adding? Copyediting? Legitimacy stamp?
  - hughw 12y ago
    A better deal from Amazon than individual authors could get on their own.
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      Not true. Amazon pays individual authors 70% of retail. That's far more than they get from any publisher.

by smackfu 12y ago

tsunamifury 12y ago

Can we stop with the mindless idea that the point of capitalism is only to drive down the price for consumers. The point is to provide an equilibrium between suppliers and customers. The difference between 12.99 and 9.99 doesn't hurt consumers and provides significant difference in paying authors. Amazon is unfairly trying to kill the suppliers for short term gains at the expense of the industry.

hershel 12y ago
In a similar vain, one could say that selling ebooks at $9.99 and sharing profits between authors and retailers[1] is a better result all around. [1]Of an amazon monopoly on retail is a bad result, but in principal that has nothing to do with publishers
sib 12y ago
I'm sorry, but the difference between $12.99 and $9.99 is precisely a cost (hurt) to the consumer of $3. It's certainly a reduction in consumer surplus and, when multiplied by the millions of books sold every year, is a meaningful impact.
- DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
  Except that the hurt is widely distributed at the higher price, but not at the lower price (where it's felt by a few large publishers). This kind of unequal distribution can cause the slight lessening of pain for a large number of people to mortally wound the few actually producing content, leading to a serious destabilizing of the market, which requires that both parties have something to provide. Which was the point of the GP comment, and something you didn't even remotely address, instead making a pedantic point about words chosen for effect.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Not only is this measurable, but laws of supply and demand are pretty well established economic theory. I'm honestly surprised to see such gesticulation about economics in a start-up oriented forum.
smackfu 12y ago
Yeah, my point is that nuance gets lost if they go public with the terms of the dispute. "Amazon fighting to keep e-book prices down" is not the headline Hachette wants to see. In fact, Hachette is probably quite happy with the headline they got, "Amazon Escalates Its Battle Against Publishers."
lauradhamilton 12y ago
I don't agree with this. I think that a 30% price difference is significant. In the current market, I think that publishers get far too large a fraction of the revenue and authors far too small. If the author creates the content and promotes the content (with the help of Amazon) what value is the publisher adding? Copyediting? Legitimacy stamp?
- hughw 12y ago
  A better deal from Amazon than individual authors could get on their own.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    Not true. Amazon pays individual authors 70% of retail. That's far more than they get from any publisher.