http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214492194024292.htmlWhat a crappy url.
Trachtenberg covers how Amazon isn't selling new release Penguin titles for the kindle because they can't, lacking an agreement with Penguin. So Amazon is pricing those hardcovers at $9.99. Here are the titles that Trachtenberg lists as representative of affected books, after noting they aren't necessarily bestsellers:
"The books include Roger Lowenstein's "The End of Wall Street," Drew Perry's novel "This is Just Exactly Like You," Olga Grushin's novel "The Line" Anne Lamott's novel "Imperfect Birds," and Stuart Woods' novel "Lucid Intervals.""
Notice the _utter_ lack of mention of the titles that so got bloggers attention over the last week(s): Jim Butcher's _Changes_, the latest from JR Ward, and the latest in the Sookie Stackhouse novels by Charlaine Harris.
Expect ETAs galore.
ETA the zeroth: R. calls this an interesting case of reading miscomprehension. It is partly Trachtenberg's fault:
"Penguin stopped providing digital editions of new titles to Amazon as of April 1...Since Amazon can't sell the digital editions of Penguin's books"
And those are a full paragraph apart. His phrasing is right, but people consistently misunderstood what he said and what is actually going on.
ETA the first:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1634875/ebooks-penguin-amazon-e-publishing-pricing-agency-model-appleHere's an example of how _not_ to explain something. The author has chosen the snappy and incorrect:
"Since there's no deal, since April 1 Amazon's not been permitted to sell any Penguin e-books."
Clause misplaced. Should have been, "Since there's no deal, Amazon's not been permitted to sell any Penguin e-books released since April 1." One extra word. It is so important. It also would have been more accurate to say that the people most affected by this are die-hard kindle readers, rather than die-hard Amazon customers.
It is a little mean to pick on Fast Company for the can't sell Penguin e-books error, since just about all the secondary coverage is making this error.
While most of the articles are noting that these e-books can be purchased for the iPad or through B&N, they aren't necessarily saying what the bloggers have been saying, which is that Penguin is actively redirecting complaining customers to B&N. Which I would _think_ would be newsworthy.
ETA the second: but when you get it wrong, you get it _wrong_!
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/amazon-goes-to-war-with-penguin-over-e-book-pricing-all-penguin-hardcovers-now-cost-9-99-20100430/Yup. _All_ Penguin hardcovers? I think not.
ETA the third: you have to _work_ to screw up this bad:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/04/30/amazon.cuts.physical.book.prices.to.hurt.penguin/Highlights include (and these are all _not_ true):
"Coming weeks after Penguin stopped providing Kindle books on April 1st, Amazon has cut the costs of some brand new hardcover books to the same $10 it would normally charge for a digital edition."
Nope -- price cuts have been there right all month.
"Amazon had allegedly tried to threaten smaller publishers into maintaining wholesale deals, but it has since signed deals with independents"
Really? The link they include for the smaller publishers part of the assertion is to an article at NYT about Apple making a deal with Perseus -- nothing about Amazon being involved in that, and to the extent rumor is making it online, it is suggesting that Amazon is still flipping everyone other than the 4 majors already signed (Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, Hachette and Macmillan) the bird. So to speak. I don't know -- and maybe the author does. But I won't believe it without some evidence, especially since they got the time frame on the pricing that wrong.