[tsunamifury]

Can we stop with the mindless idea that the point of capitalism is only to drive down the price for consumers. The point is to provide an equilibrium between suppliers and customers. The difference between 12.99 and 9.99 doesn't hurt consumers and provides significant difference in paying authors. Amazon is unfairly trying to kill the suppliers for short term gains at the expense of the industry.

[sib]

I'm sorry, but the difference between $12.99 and $9.99 is precisely a cost (hurt) to the consumer of $3. It's certainly a reduction in consumer surplus and, when multiplied by the millions of books sold every year, is a meaningful impact.

[DerpDerpDerp]

Except that the hurt is widely distributed at the higher price, but not at the lower price (where it's felt by a few large publishers).

This kind of unequal distribution can cause the slight lessening of pain for a large number of people to mortally wound the few actually producing content, leading to a serious destabilizing of the market, which requires that both parties have something to provide.

Which was the point of the GP comment, and something you didn't even remotely address, instead making a pedantic point about words chosen for effect.

[spacemanmatt]

Not only is this measurable, but laws of supply and demand are pretty well established economic theory. I'm honestly surprised to see such gesticulation about economics in a start-up oriented forum.

[smackfu]

Yeah, my point is that nuance gets lost if they go public with the terms of the dispute. "Amazon fighting to keep e-book prices down" is not the headline Hachette wants to see. In fact, Hachette is probably quite happy with the headline they got, "Amazon Escalates Its Battle Against Publishers."

[lauradhamilton]

I don't agree with this. I think that a 30% price difference is significant.

In the current market, I think that publishers get far too large a fraction of the revenue and authors far too small. If the author creates the content and promotes the content (with the help of Amazon) what value is the publisher adding? Copyediting? Legitimacy stamp?

[hughw]

A better deal from Amazon than individual authors could get on their own.

[Turing_Machine]

Not true.

Amazon pays individual authors 70% of retail. That's far more than they get from any publisher.

[hershel]

In a similar vain, one could say that selling ebooks at $9.99 and sharing profits between authors and retailers[1] is a better result all around.

[1]Of an amazon monopoly on retail is a bad result, but in principal that has nothing to do with publishers