Comments on: Borders to break free of Amazon

Amazon has run the bookseller's site since 1991, but Borders is finally ready to do its own thing. Its beta site includes a "magic shelf."

1991?

by Madrone January 16, 2008 7:15 AM PST

I think you meant 2001

Yeah...
by ebeamsales January 16, 2008 8:56 AM PST: Considering Amazon.com didn't go online until 1994...; Like this

2001
by nasserd January 16, 2008 11:14 AM PST: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB986946353234468786.html?mod=googlewsj (subscription required)

On April 11, 2001, this news article ran in the WSJ.; Like this

1991 Indeed
by garrk January 16, 2008 9:13 AM PST: Nevermind that Amazon was founded in '95, Jeff Bezos has the power to go back in time. Just think about the web experience back in '91 without a suitable web browser (no SSL, pictures, payment processing, etc). :); Like this Reply to this comment

1991... great reporting!
by medavis824 January 16, 2008 10:25 AM PST: Amazon was even founded until 1994 and the "Internet" as we know it didn't really start until the first web browser came out in 1993 so how does Amazon take care of Borders web site since 1991. Great fact checking!; Like this Reply to this comment

fact checking
by jeremyblaze January 16, 2008 10:35 AM PST: Its too bad this is a reuters story, I wanted to use it as another example of how CNET doesn't do any fact checking, investigations, or reviews beyond press releases.; Like this Reply to this comment

Rename Walden
by TV James January 16, 2008 3:46 PM PST: Considering that most temporary/holiday signage in the store features the Borders name instead of Walden, why not just drop Walden? If the website backs up the stores, then throw in a kiosk and you've got instant access to a width and depth much larger than the mall stores and suddenly you've got all the books available to the larger chain, not to mention brand-reinforcement in places you never did before.; Like this Reply to this comment

Are you kidding me?
by MrKhaki January 16, 2008 10:31 PM PST: Any moron knows it ain't 1991. Can't blame it on a typo... 1001 or 2991 perhaps, but is anyone approving these articles before they're posted? Someone asleep at the wheel (editor, producer, anyone else at Cnet)? The writer phoning it in?

Cnet gets the facts wrong on occassion, but a simple call to Amazon would have given an accurate date on this one. Shabby journalism. Negligance. Did a high schooler (who wasn't even concieved when the World Wide Internets was born) write this one?; Like this Reply to this comment