This is also a problem for self-published authors who want to reach a wider audience but are restricted because they e-published with Amazon (who make it unavailable in certain areas). I agree with some other posters that ebooks should be made available globally. What's the point of withholding?
Perhaps rather than below what the market would bear they want to to go to just what it can barely bear. It sounds like Walmart - they crunch their supplier to save pennies per orders, which both increases Walmart's profit and allows them to operate a competitive advantage through being a price leader. Maybe Amazon's trying to offer the lowest possible price both to increase their profits and offer the buyer a slightly lower price.
Here's one author's take: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/05/amazon-malignant-monopoly-or-j.html
There is a post over at the Smashwords blog that describes and discusses the dispute between Hatchette and Amazon, as seen by the owner of Smashwords. It looks at what's at stake and the potential consequences to each participant in the dispute, and what would likely result, and the effects that translate to other publishers, and self-published authors as well. Link: Amazon's Hachette Dispute Foreshadows What's Next for Indie Authors
From the horses' mouths: http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1UO5T446WM5YY http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014/hachette-puts-out-response-to-amazon-statement-rejects-author-pool-before-agreement-is-reached/
That's a corking article, and I've bookmarked it. Thanks for posting this. A lot to think about, regarding an industry (indie publishing) that's relatively new. I've passed this link on to a few people outside the forum, too.
I just bought Stars in my Pocket Like Grains of Sand (because @Wreybies thinks highly of it - I've never read Delany except for the first couple of chapters of Dahlgren when I was fourteen; I couldn't make head or tail of it) from Amazon for my Kindle and had no trouble at all. It wasn't listed as unavailable. It's on my Kindle now.
On the surface, one billion dollar business is bullying another billion dollar business, and the people who suffer are the customers of both businesses (readers who can no longer acquire certain books as conveniently or inexpensively, and authors whose books will be read by fewer people). As an individualist and an advocate of free market competition, I would not have recommended Amazon's decision. As a spectator and a member of a society that is affected by Amazon's business practices, I am thrilled by their decision. Under the surface, the situation represents the ongoing transition from a publisher-controlled literature industry to an author-controlled industry. It also represents the ongoing transition from ebooks being an extension of printed books, to printed books being an extension of ebooks. If Amazon could have their way, then all authors would publish through Kindle Direct Publishing. From authors' and readers' perspective, universal self-publishing would be paradise compared to the 20th century. The fact that Amazon can get away with this is proof that the new industry is displacing the old industry.
Well, if one is an evangelist for self-publishing, I suppose until Amazon bites SPs in the ass (which would be pretty foolish not to expect down the road), I suppose Amazon is the Golden One. But one really has to remember that books (in all formats) are only 7% of Amazon's income. If they can screw publishers (including self-publishers) to bring lower prices to the customer and thus garner sales from those same folks in their other products, they will. The people who produce books (authors and publishers) are nothing more than a small group of suppliers among all their myriad other suppliers. Thinking authors are considered something special to Amazon is misguided, IMO.
It is not necessary to think that in order to welcome the downfall of the traditional publishing industry.
I'm befuddled. Are you saying that this paradise would be achieved if everyone did publish through Kindle Direct Publishing? Or are the above two separate thoughts? Because there's nothing to stop Amazon from exercising control over Kindle books with regard to price, content, availability, or anything else.
Well this shows the exploitative nature of multi-national corporations. It's always best to try and purchase everything from independent stores or worker's cooperatives.
It probably isn't quite that simple. Amazon has ~ 120,000 employees, most, if not all, of whom are just regular folks like us and the owners of the independent bookstores. I don't really know what a 'worker's cooperative' is, or if there are any here in the US. It appears Amazon has announced a Netflix-type service for ebooks called Kindle Unlimited. "But in addition to some well-known titles, self-published books will likely make up much of the Unlimited library. The publishing industry newsletter Publisher's Lunch reported that the terms of service for Amazon's self-publishing service Kindle Direct Publishing Select have changed in light of the Kindle Unlimited announcement: All titles self-published using KDP Select are "automatically" included in Kindle Unlimited." USA Today
So now the war of words gains momentum with authors ganging up on Amazon and Amazon trying to fight back by sending emails to Kindle readers. Good grief. It should never have got to this stage, really. Though I'm still leaning towards the Hachette side, as I don't trust Amazon's reasons behind this being for the good of authors and readers. (They have a bad track record whenever their suppliers are concerned, like changing the terms for Amazon marketplace traders. They will do the same with KDP authors in the future, such as unfavourable royalty terms - you can count on it.) So where do others stand on this? Are you a #authorsunited or #readersunited?
Current situation aside (just speaking generally), there is not even a contest there. Nothing should get in the way of people reading. Whether or not authors do get in the way of people reading is a different question.
i used to work with amazon and im in no way backing their stance here or any other policy they might have, that being said amazon is a marketplace, they provide a service to suppliers and customers, if you wish to use the amazon network (dist, storage and customer base) then you must abide by their rules. On my side of it, i did see many many many suppliers ripping amazon off tbh The printing service they offer is pretty new over here in the UK, my centre i think was the first to have it. I thought it was a good thing, interestingly they had big plans for its uses, one of which was to for amazon to retain a copy of every book to date by xyz year and have them all available for printing. They saw it as a preservation thing.
indeed, but you can look at it two fold, its a preservation of literature AND something that makes them money. 50-100years time we might be glad Amazon have gone down this route, and be happy to pay them for it. On the other issue mentioned, amazon might have a monopoly but so do many other companies in their respective sectors, its easy to complain about the big bad wolf but it 'should' create opportunities for innovation, if someone comes up with a service and or product to rival amazon, doesnt sell out etc etc then it can only be a good thing.
According to Amazon, Hachette have simply refused to negotiate a new contract with them after the old one ran out. In pretty much any other industry, that would have meant an instant end to sales of Hachette's products. If that continues, I'm guessing Amazon will just drop them all at some point in the not too distant future. Eventually, they'll have no other option. As for which side, that's like asking which side you're on in a battle between a T-Rex and a Triceratops. They're both huge monsters who could squash us like bugs without even realizing.