3 ms·

This seems disingenuous to me. First, on the 1984 scandel he cites, Amazon has apologized, sworn they will never do it again, refunded customers money and give

by SamAtt 17y ago

This seems disingenuous to me. First, on the 1984 scandel he cites, Amazon has apologized, sworn they will never do it again, refunded customers money and given customers new copies of the book. Give them a break already. On the "Gay-Rank" scandal they claimed it was a bug and they fixed the bug within a single business day. He claims that's not enough because "it shows that they've created a frighteningly efficient machine for imposing ideological censorship, should they choose to do so". But here's my question: How could they have a ranking system and not create the possibility of censorship? It's impossible (and the ranking system helps far more people than its ever hurt). Oh, and does Amazon cap the price of books at $9.99 (http://www.amazon.com/CSS-The-Missing-Manual-ebook/dp/B0026OR2QI/ref=amb_link_84616451_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0YQTAKG8E6NAD2YTW0NH&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=482048491&pf_rd_i=726697011 http://www.amazon.com/CSS-The-Missing-Manual-ebook/dp/B0026O...)? After making those claims he goes on to fabricate a sinister reason as to why Amazon doesn't have a Kindle UK store yet (based on no evidence as far as I can tell) So he basically believes Amazon has sinister objectives no matter what they say or what actions they take and based on that he believes Kindle in the UK is a bad thing. The one thing he is right about is DRM but Apple kind of proved that sometimes you have to give publishers their DRM in order to convince them that they don't need it.

ggchappell 17y ago
> First, on the 1984 scandel he cites, Amazon has apologized, sworn they will never do it again, refunded customers money and given customers new copies of the book. Give them a break already. Has Amazon taken any steps to remove the feature of the Kindle software that let them do this in the first place? I don't think so. Thus, I am rather disinclined to "give them a break". To use an analogy: a criminal obtains the key to my house. One night he sneaks in and steals some stuff. I'm upset, of course. But then he apologizes, returns the stuff, and even gives me a few gifts. However, he keeps my house key. Am I happy? (BTW, yes, I know that what Amazon did is not illegal. But it is certainly lousy enough to keep me from ever buying a Kindle.) Unless someone wants to explain to me why being able to muck about with a customer's computer, behind the customer's back, is a Good Thing (?).
- jfager 17y ago
  The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house and agreed with them they could come take back whatever they delivered to you whenever they wanted to. And then when they did, you got ticked off because you didn't think they ever actually would, or something. And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back. Nobody's forcing anyone to buy a Kindle. The DRM and this ability they're retaining is one of the big reasons I don't have one yet (though I have to admit, I'm probably not going to hold out much longer).
  - ggchappell 17y ago
    > The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house .... Yes, that's closer. But closer yet would be that we're developing a new kind of housing, which cannot be bought without signing a contract that says the selling company gets a copy of your key. The problem is when this kind of thing gets on the accepted list of "standard business practices", and then people stop noticing that it's a bad idea. > And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back. True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the house. I agree that Amazon has not broken their word on anything. They do not seem to have broken any laws. What they can and cannot do is part of the deal. However, it is a bad deal. I am not treating Amazon like a company that is not doing what they said they'll do. Rather I am treating them like a company that sells a seriously inferior product. Because the contract is part of that product, and the contract is not good.
    - jfager 17y ago
      True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the [Kindle] I dunno, it is a computer system. As far as I know, it's not jailbroken yet, but there are folks working on it: http://igorsk.blogspot.com/search/label/kindle http://igorsk.blogspot.com/search/label/kindle

by SamAtt 17y ago

ggchappell 17y ago

> First, on the 1984 scandel he cites, Amazon has apologized, sworn they will never do it again, refunded customers money and given customers new copies of the book. Give them a break already. Has Amazon taken any steps to remove the feature of the Kindle software that let them do this in the first place? I don't think so. Thus, I am rather disinclined to "give them a break". To use an analogy: a criminal obtains the key to my house. One night he sneaks in and steals some stuff. I'm upset, of course. But then he apologizes, returns the stuff, and even gives me a few gifts. However, he keeps my house key. Am I happy? (BTW, yes, I know that what Amazon did is not illegal. But it is certainly lousy enough to keep me from ever buying a Kindle.) Unless someone wants to explain to me why being able to muck about with a customer's computer, behind the customer's back, is a Good Thing (?).

jfager 17y ago
The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house and agreed with them they could come take back whatever they delivered to you whenever they wanted to. And then when they did, you got ticked off because you didn't think they ever actually would, or something. And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back. Nobody's forcing anyone to buy a Kindle. The DRM and this ability they're retaining is one of the big reasons I don't have one yet (though I have to admit, I'm probably not going to hold out much longer).
- ggchappell 17y ago
  > The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house .... Yes, that's closer. But closer yet would be that we're developing a new kind of housing, which cannot be bought without signing a contract that says the selling company gets a copy of your key. The problem is when this kind of thing gets on the accepted list of "standard business practices", and then people stop noticing that it's a bad idea. > And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back. True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the house. I agree that Amazon has not broken their word on anything. They do not seem to have broken any laws. What they can and cannot do is part of the deal. However, it is a bad deal. I am not treating Amazon like a company that is not doing what they said they'll do. Rather I am treating them like a company that sells a seriously inferior product. Because the contract is part of that product, and the contract is not good.
  - jfager 17y ago
    True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the [Kindle] I dunno, it is a computer system. As far as I know, it's not jailbroken yet, but there are folks working on it: http://igorsk.blogspot.com/search/label/kindle http://igorsk.blogspot.com/search/label/kindle