The Morning Coffee – 18 April 2012 (Amazon Edition)

I'm doing a second links post today with a collection focused just on Amazon. Yes, the collection is one-sided; that's because the other side is wrong.

  • The Worst Article About The eBooks Anti-Trust Suit (Mike Cane’s xBlog)
  • If Publishers Can't Cover Their Costs With $10 Ebooks, Then They Deserve To Go Out Of Business (Techdirt)

  • Monopoly Power Makes You Fat, Dumb and Slow (The Passive Voice)
  • Why Should eBooks Cost $15? (Disruption: David Pakman's Blog)
  • Bass Ackwards: NYT’s David Carr somehow manages to get everything wrong (The Watershed Chronicle)
  •  

     

    About Nate Hoffelder (11372 Articles)
    Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader: "I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

    4 Comments on The Morning Coffee – 18 April 2012 (Amazon Edition)

    1. I must object here for the first time ever! That first link basically REWRITES MY POST, was published a DAY AFTER MY POST, yet gets TOP BILLING? Eff that! Put mine FIRST so people can SEE that!

    2. This isn’t a two-sided debate. I see at least four sides- all increasing stupid.

      There’s Amazon’s position- devious, wrong.

      Then there’s the publisher’s position- out-of-ouch, wrong.

      Then there’s Apple’s position – absurdly wrong.

      Then there’s the DOJ’s position- comically wrong.

    3. Are you talking about me? Hey, I was just thrilled my little meandering rant showed up somewhere. You are more than welcome to top billing or whatever. I suspect, if there’s overlap in our opinions, its because Carr was so consistently wrong in some pretty obvious ways. And to be completely fair, there’s nothing in my post I haven’t said before, some in posts last week, others weeks and sometimes months ago. Carr’s article seemed like a picture perfect opportunity to play off of as it consolidated what I see as many of the numerous backwards and logic-challenged opinions of the blind defenders of publishers in this case. Wasn’t trying to step on anybody’s toes. Well, other than Carr’s, of course.

    Leave a comment

    Your email address will not be published.


    *