![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ok, now can we be pissed off at Amazon?
[ETA: Nope. I'm wrong that Amazon will claim it was some sort of glitch. Courtesy of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gregvaneekhout, A letter from the CEO of Macmillan. This is a deliberate act on Amazon's part because Macmillan suggested two possible new terms of sale for ebooks and Amazon apparently didn't like either one of them.]
When they hid books from search, some of us were extremely upset. Some of the rest of us came off all holier-than-thou because Amazon eventually claimed it was just a "glitch," as they had said all along. Obviously, anyone who was upset was being paranoid or suffering from some sort of persecution complex. Actions, apparently, take place in a vacuum. No one ever interprets them within a context.
When they deleted books from people's Kindles, some of us were extremely upset. However, that time, they made a proper apology, and all was forgiven. (Some of us groused wondering why they couldn't have made a proper apology for hiding books from search, even if the hiding was unintentional.)
Now, they appear to have removed Macmillan books from their bookstore because Macmillan wants to sell their ebooks for $15 rather than $10. Note this information comes from an unsourced "person in the industry with knowledge of the dispute." Right now, this is no better than rumor or speculation about Amazon's motives.
With this article though, I don't see claims that it's just a glitch any longer. Interesting. Actions have suddenly started taking place in a context. Maybe if I look outside, I'll see pigs flying.
In all likelihood, Amazon will come back in a few days and claim that a "glitch" caused the "accidental" deletion of Macmillan books from their database. Honestly, that doesn't put them in a very good light either. That's saying, "We're not malicious; we're incompetent." (And it still has inconvenienced people and is still something that deserves a proper apology.)
Another possibility is that Macmillan picked up their toys and went home. That strikes me, though, as an even dumber move than Amazon removing those books as a negotiation tactic. It doesn't make sense for Macmillan to pull their paper books from Amazon in a dispute over ebook pricing.
Anyway, John Scalzi has some interesting points on the current kerfuffle. Note that he does allow for the possibility that the article is incorrect. That doesn't actually affect any of his points except for maybe point 5. Incompetence may cure him of any desire to get a Kindle as much as asshattery (his word) though.
gregvaneekhout, A letter from the CEO of Macmillan. This is a deliberate act on Amazon's part because Macmillan suggested two possible new terms of sale for ebooks and Amazon apparently didn't like either one of them.]When they hid books from search, some of us were extremely upset. Some of the rest of us came off all holier-than-thou because Amazon eventually claimed it was just a "glitch," as they had said all along. Obviously, anyone who was upset was being paranoid or suffering from some sort of persecution complex. Actions, apparently, take place in a vacuum. No one ever interprets them within a context.
When they deleted books from people's Kindles, some of us were extremely upset. However, that time, they made a proper apology, and all was forgiven. (Some of us groused wondering why they couldn't have made a proper apology for hiding books from search, even if the hiding was unintentional.)
Now, they appear to have removed Macmillan books from their bookstore because Macmillan wants to sell their ebooks for $15 rather than $10. Note this information comes from an unsourced "person in the industry with knowledge of the dispute." Right now, this is no better than rumor or speculation about Amazon's motives.
With this article though, I don't see claims that it's just a glitch any longer. Interesting. Actions have suddenly started taking place in a context. Maybe if I look outside, I'll see pigs flying.
In all likelihood, Amazon will come back in a few days and claim that a "glitch" caused the "accidental" deletion of Macmillan books from their database. Honestly, that doesn't put them in a very good light either. That's saying, "We're not malicious; we're incompetent." (And it still has inconvenienced people and is still something that deserves a proper apology.)
Another possibility is that Macmillan picked up their toys and went home. That strikes me, though, as an even dumber move than Amazon removing those books as a negotiation tactic. It doesn't make sense for Macmillan to pull their paper books from Amazon in a dispute over ebook pricing.
Anyway, John Scalzi has some interesting points on the current kerfuffle. Note that he does allow for the possibility that the article is incorrect. That doesn't actually affect any of his points except for maybe point 5. Incompetence may cure him of any desire to get a Kindle as much as asshattery (his word) though.