|
|
By Nico Vreeland, on February 10th, 2010 Some news about books and ebooks from around the web (more after the jump):
- So Amazon is absolutely terrified of the iPad. Amazon is releasing a Kindle software development kit (or SDK), which means we’ll soon see iPhone-style apps for the Kindle. Those apps will suck, because there’s little you can satisfyingly do with an ereader besides read, and one of the rules (according to Kindle 2 Review) states that an app can’t be “a generic reader.” RSS? Nope, can’t use more than 100Kb/month in bandwidth. K2R speculates that apps will be such things as crossword puzzles and simple timers. Color me underwhelmed. To raise the stakes, Amazon bought a touchscreen company the other day. This is all just awful. Amazon needs to realize that the singular purpose of the Kindle (and ereaders like it) is a selling point, not a liability. You compete with the iPad by making the Kindle cheaper, and as simple and easy-to-use as possible; then, you allow library books and hype them. That’s it. Trying to compete with Apple on Apple’s turf will only end in tears, Bezos.
- Speaking of Bezos’s screw-ups, did you hear about this whole Amazon/Macmillan thing? Macmillan wanted to set their prices higher, so Bezos removed all Macmillan books and ebooks from Amazon.com (like a four-year-old who doesn’t get his way). Basically, it was two big stupid corporations fighting to see who could screw up worst, and the winner was Amazon! John Scalzi breaks down exactly how bad they screwed up. Of course, Macmillan’s no prize, either—softly strangling a flourishing market is just not a good idea—but they’re too scared to see straight. Amazon capitulated almost immediately, when the entire world told them they were stupid. But then it took EIGHT DAYS for Amazon to relist the Macmillan books, and now the Kindle editions of books like Wolf Hall are…. wait for it… still $9.99! So, presumably, Macmillan will set its own prices starting in the future, not now. Which means it took Amazon eight days to relist the books because why again? Anyway, this whole thing brought us this awesome Macmillan ad, and makes about the hundredth stupid decision hamfistedly made by Bezos and Amazon’s Kindle team. So congrats to them. For further reading, check out Booksquare and the Guardian. …
Continue reading »
By Nico Vreeland, on January 31st, 2010  You can only buy Wolf Hall and other Macmillan books through third-party sellers at Amazon.com (click for full-size)  Sony's Reader Store still stocks Macmillan books, and for the controversial $9.99 price point (click for full size) [UPDATE: Amazon gave in, and will sell Macmillan books via the "agency model" Macmillan laid out. Which means Macmillan ebooks will cost $13-$15, even at Amazon. I'm putting the over/under on the date of Amazon's next major Kindle screw-up at March 15.]
So Amazon has barred all Macmillan books (print and digital) from its U.S. website after the publisher insolently disagreed with Amazon’s stringent pricing policies. Macmillan asked for either a different pricing structure or “windowing,” i.e. delayed ebook releases (Macmillan CEO John Sargent claims Amazon will make more money, and Macmillan will make less under the new structure, which confuses me). Amazon responded with the Macmillan ban.
You can still find Macmillan books at the Sony Reader Store, however, and you can find many selling for the $9.99 price point that started all this. I’m assuming either higher Macmillan prices or windowing is coming to Sony, but at least you can buy the books.
For the record, I think the entire hardcover pricing system is greedy and predatory; it’s essentially publishers milking their biggest fans’ excitement to make a few extra bucks. I think Macmillan’s making a big mistake in trying to preserve hardcover pricing, and refusing to fully embrace ebooks.
However, this Amazon move is thuggery of the first order, and it doesn’t feel like the stalemate will be resolved very quickly [UPDATE: Or maybe it will, what do I know] (or that it will be the last of its kind). The Macmillan ban combined with Amazon’s continued refusal to allow library ebooks on the Kindle makes one thing clear: Kindle is simply not the best ereader for book readers. If you read mostly books, get a Sony Reader or an Astak Pocket Pro. If you read mostly newspapers or magazines, get an iPad. [UPDATE: Amazon's cave-in brings the Kindle back to the realm of relevancy for book readers. But it still comes with too many questionable corporate decisions for my taste.]
I’m just not sure who the Kindle is for.
[More Macmillan/Amazon analysis by Edward Champion, E-Reads, Ars Technica, and the Guardian.]
By Nico Vreeland, on January 25th, 2010  Martin Amis Here’s a quick weird thing. Martin Amis (60) and Joan Brady (70), a couple of old authors, somehow got in a spat about euthanasia, despite both supporting it.
It happened like this. Amis laid out his pro-euthanasia views—inspired by proximity to the ugly, protracted death of his stepfather—in an interview in the Sunday Times. Step two: the Times reported on its own interview here.
Then, Brady got in a snit and took Amis to task in the Guardian with this editorial, in which she says people should not be forcibly killed (that’s not what Amis said, but she linked to the Times‘s self-reportage, so presumably she didn’t read the actual interview).
The Guardian‘s book blog then simultaneously (check the timestamp) published this self-reportage of Brady’s editorial, in which they quote Brady saying she’s pro-euthanasia (which she didn’t say in the editorial) because of her proximity to the ugly, protracted death of her husband. Scoop!
Still with me? Once more, with alacrity: Amis says he’s pro-euthanasia in the Times, the Times quotes him in a filler piece about their own article, Brady reads the filler piece, rails against Amis in the Guardian, the Guardian runs filler piece about their own article, saying Brady is pro-euthanasia.
For those keeping score, that’s FOUR articles, ONE manufactured scandal, and ZERO stories of any substance whatsoever. [EDIT: OK, that's not quite fair. The original interview was pretty good, and covered a lot more than this one euthanasia thing. But the Times tried to cancel that out by playing up a couple of lines for controversy's sake.] Welcome to modern newspapership!
Nabokov would’ve loved this one.
|
|
