Amazon removes Macmillan books

The move is one result of the strong disagreement between the Internet company and the publisher over the pricing of e-books.
(From The New York Times)

The story "Amazon removes Macmillan books" published January 30, 2010 at 9:09 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[Hoodgrown_Magazine]

This is the same tatic the music companies did to try and gain leverage over Apple when they wanted them to raise prices of music.

[Ecrah_X]

I for one hope the iBookstore loses money and then forces book publishers and Apple to lower their prices to match Amazon.

When companies stand up for such issues they need to be commended and supported. Go Amazon.

[solitare_pax]

On the other hand, there is a Kindle reader for both computers and the iPhone / iTouch - so you could purchase an Amazon edition at a significantly lower cost than you could from Apple. However, a more savvy solution for the obvious discrepency in price would be for the publishers to offer their books as different versions for Kindle and iBookstore - something as simple as making one version black and white (as the Kindle does not yet offer color) and the Apple version being in color.

For now, we will see this move and countermove between the publishers, Amazon and Apple. But the real losers in fights like this are the consumers.

The winners, at least, are the small local stores that can order books for you.

Go Local!

[naterandrews]

Makes you wonder if Apple is going to pull the "similar functionality" argument about the new iPad iBooks store and the Kindle app.

Wouldn't really surprise me- Apple typically pushes their own agenda before they listen to us customers and what we want.

[badasscat]

iBookstore = vaporware for now

Amazon and Kindle = real product, real service, making actual money

So MacMillan is throwing its pricing strategy behind a service that doesn't yet exist, on a product that hasn't been released yet and that received tons of criticism when it was announced... and allowing itself to be removed from a service that does exist, that sells lots of books TODAY, has a large and growing userbase, and the biggest name in online bookselling behind it?

Smooth move, MacMillan. Smooth move. Leave that money on the table. That's the way to grow a business.

[Ecrah_X]

Considering the HUGE success of the iTunes store and the App Store that dominate the market each one is in - and how well Apple have made each store work.

Calling the iBookstore "vapourware" is just plain stupid.

[JimmyBobbly]

Based on Apple's results with the appstore, it's very short-sighted to label iBooks "vaporware for now", and therefore not worthy of action. Do you feel that Apple won't know how to make it work? That they will not be able to make the publishers, and themselves, a lot of money?

[Synthmeister]

Amazon already changed its pricing structure to match the vaporware iBook store 70/30 split. The iBook store is coming for sure. Amazon better hedge its bets and get the Kindle app optimized for the iPad.

[Deelron]

Did you even read the article?

"A person in the industry with knowledge of the dispute, which has been brewing for a year, said Amazon was expressing its strong disagreement by temporarily removing Macmillan books. The person did not want to be quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the matter."

Amazon removed the books, not MacMillan. Amazon is the one behaving unreasonably, MacMillan is merely fighting to get more money for their products, like they should. Instead of the knee-jerk "bite us" responses, Amazon should have just said no and let Macmillan pull them if they're unhappy. That sort of pettiness should be a big red flag for the rest of the publishers out there that they should do their best to avoid only one huge player in their industry, a la Apple with music.

[Random_Walk]

Vaporware?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

"Vaporware describes a product, usually software, that has been announced by a developer during or before its development, if there is significant doubt whether the product will actually be released.[1] The term is usually applied to products which fail to emerge after having well-exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product, or when the release date is delayed repeatedly without adequate evidence of specific unforeseen hurdles that cause these delays."

So far, there have been no delays, the ship date remains firm (and is rapidly approaching), and there have been no credible doubts voiced otherwise.

Meanwhile, the similarly-priced Kindle still has one massive disadvantage: DRM, with an unprecedented willingness to actively enforce it.

[svgtom]

@Random_Walk

The eBooks sold by every major store use DRM, whether it's Amazon, B&N, or Sony. I have not heard anything to indicate that books sold through iBooks would be DRM free. In fact, I would be shocked if the publishers allowed it.

[rapier1]

Amazon is behaving unreasonably because they want to keep the prices of digital books low? On the other hand, Apple is fine with letting publishers charge significantly more and they are being reasonable? Didn't Apple, at one time fight tooth and nail to keep song prices low even if it meant having some labels withhold their music? So what happened?

[svgtom]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was what Jobs was hoping for all along by allowing publishers to set their own price with Apple. There was no way Apple could sell more eBooks than Amazon even if their pricing was the same. He needed to find some way to get people to switch to buying from Apple instead, and it makes sense that the only way it could happen if eBooks are unavailable on Amazon. It will be interesting to see what happens with Sony's and Barnes and Noble's stores,

[Synthmeister]

Apple doesn't need for people to buy e-books from Apple any more than they needed people to buy music from iTunes. That's why why they chose the open e-book format, to make sure people have content for their iPads.

What they do need is to make sure that someone like Amazon or Microsoft or Adobe has a headlock on music, books, movies, etc.

Apple wants to sell books so it can sell the iPad

[milrtime]

Interesting situation where added competition may actually lead to increased prices...

[Lerianis4]

It shouldn't..... and if it does, the feds need to stop in once again and put the smackdown on these companies.

[HoustonDan]

These book companies need to thank Amazon et al. for saving them from having to print books on expensive paper. But no, instead they raise their prices. Greed is so bad..

[Deelron]

You're kidding right? Printing is ~10% of a book price (and of course highly variable depending). When Amazon discounts more then that, they're losing money per copy regardless of using a cheaper media.

[chrisx1]

There is no way they are "losing money" on eBooks. The savings on selling eBooks is more than just what it cost the publisher to buy the paper. There are manufacturing, storage and shipping costs also.
As long as the lower prices on eBooks increases the number of sales, they can make more money at the end of the year even with the lower margin. They still continue to sell the paper books to the majority of people who prefer to have the physicsl books or where eBook versions don't even exist for the time being.

If Macmillan thinks they are better off on the Apple store than Amazon so they can sell ebooks for higher prices, they are now free to do so. Maybe the iPad will sell more than the Kindle and maybe no one will be bothered by reading entire books on an LCD screen as opposed to e-Ink. We will have to wait and see.

[ctwise]

A printed book's cost is approximately 15% author, 10% printing, 5% marketing, 15% publisher, 10% distributor and 45% retailer. An electronic book doesn't require the 10% printing and 10% distributor. And for the Apple and Kindle store, the retail cut drops to 30%. So the possible slice for the publisher and author increases from 30% to 65%. That means a book that retails for $25.95 in print can be equally as profitable when sold for $16.95 on-line. And that explains why they don't like the $9.99 price point. And why they're shooting for the $14.95 one.

[Lerianis4]

14.95 is way too much for one book. I got to Barnes and Noble and REFUSE to touch any book that isn't in the 'bargain rack' or over 9.00..... 9.99 is a VERY good price for these books, considering that you left out transportation, shelf space, etc..... things that would be wrapped up in the retailers cost that they don't have to pay for now.

As to marketing? UNNECESSARY, with the advent on online sites.... word of mouth on the internet is good enough if your books are good.

[bsimpsen]

If we all want intellectual property to be free, what incentive will there be for people to think? MacMillan is trying to survive just as are newspapers and musicians. If Apple doesn't offer a compelling reason for people to pay more money for an e-book than Amazon, they won't do much business. If they do provide a compelling reason (and I think the iPad will), MacMillan and others will abandon Amazon in a heartbeat.

Amazon still carries clout as a distributor of physical books, but Apple will be doing its best to kill that business. Amazon hasn't got the ability to match Apple's prowess in device and ecosystem design. I believe Amazon is worried and that is beginning to show.

[smd66]

Amazon isn't the one who should be worried. Amazon was taking a loss when they sold new releases for 9.99. Macmillan got their regular cut. Macmillan wants to control what the retailer, Amazon, should sell their product for. 9.99 is a reasonable cost for an eBook. Macmillan and Apple are the ones that look like the bad guys trying to push prices up to the consumer. Go Amazon....hold your ground!

[svgtom]

"Amazon hasn't got the ability to match Apple's prowess in device and ecosystem design."

Last time I checked, the Kindle ecosystem looked pretty successful.

[scottfillmer]

Incredible, you would think the publishers would actually learn from the music industry or at least from common sense, the consumer barely wants to pay $9.99 for an ebook, many of which are free from publishers, and Macmillan wants Amazon to raise their prices, brilliant. I just love publishers that think they can charge the same price for an ebook that they charge for a printed book. An ebook costs the publisher less to produce and distribute, saves trees, and allows the customer to buy instantly without having to find a B&M store or wait for the mail to come. All things that should make the price LESS than a printed version, h-e-l-l-o.

Apple probably contracted with Macmillan for a $15.99 ebook and wanted Amazon to do the same. Either way it is the consumer who looses unless the consumer decides that a $9.99 McGraw book is better than a $15.99 Macmillan book.

[Lerianis4]

You hit the nail on the head.... a lot of these companies want to charge the SAME PRICE or MORE for online things as compared to offline things..... 1, 2, 3 SAY IT WITH ME! NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THEIR WORST DREAMS AND NIGHTMARES!

[stropestringfellow]

As long as Macmillan is getting their cut for the sale of the book, I don't see why they should dictate how much a retailer should sell the book for. Will publishers next decide to tell Walmart and Target that they can't sell books at a 25% discount?

[Lerianis4]

Actually, you didn't see the things where they were trying to do that awhile ago? It was like.... 6 years ago when they tried to file a case about that.... the courts threw it out without any decision however.

[sismoc]

An electronic copy of a book should cost between one and five dollars. It's not worth any more than that. Again, an industry used to a stranglehold on the distribution chain can not see the writing on the wall. Apple likes to price gouge so they can make more money. If we could buy eBooks from numerous vendors then supply and demand would set the market value. As soon as authors realize they don't need publishers the house of cards will crumble.

[eferron]

You heard it here first - the eBook reader will be determined by content deals http://eferron.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C3AEE2520BD1390F!1126.entry

[snumpkins]

itunes and the Kindle are making it next to impossible for new authors and musicians to make enough money to break into the business. Macmillian should simply hold fast. Amazon will lose out to Barnes and Noble if it doesn't carry Macmillian's New York Times Bestseller books.

[svgtom]

"itunes and the Kindle are making it next to impossible for new authors and musicians to make enough money to break into the business."

Except for the fact that Amazon allows self publishing. Granted, most self-publishers charge low prices for their books, but at least they have a way to het their material out without going through literary agents and publishers.

[Lerianis4]

svgtom hit the nail on the head..... there is nothing 'complex' about publishing a book on Amazon or even EXPENSIVE about it.... .500 dollars, tops!

[AndroidFTW]

As usual Cnet is late...their books are back on Amazon. Read it on my Droid.