<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The e-book wars: Google vs. Amazon vs. Apple&#8212;and how they may duke it out</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.teleread.org/2009/07/05/e-books-and-google-vs-amazon-vs-apple-how-they-may-duke-it-out/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.teleread.org/2009/07/05/e-books-and-google-vs-amazon-vs-apple-how-they-may-duke-it-out/</link>
	<description>News &#38; views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:55:06 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Pressman</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.org/2009/07/05/e-books-and-google-vs-amazon-vs-apple-how-they-may-duke-it-out/comment-page-1/#comment-1095520</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Pressman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:22:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/2009/07/05/e-books-and-google-vs-amazon-vs-apple-how-they-may-duke-it-out/#comment-1095520</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure I can even follow all of this - it&#039;s going to be one wild ride, it sounds like. But I think that major book publishers are going to follow the strategy that convinced Apple to raise prices 30% on most new, popular music in the iTunes store, even in the midst of a steep recession. 

The strategy is to go to smaller competitors, ironically in the music case it included Amazon&#039;s MP3 store, and offer much better terms, like no DRM requirement, higher quality and lower prices. Book publishers could do the same using Google&#039;s new ebook platform. 

In the music case, of course, Apple capitulated to the demands of publishers and hiked prices. It maintained its market-leading position. Not long after, $1.29 songs hit all the other music sellers online including Amazon. While the demise of DRM-infested music files is good thing, consumers ended up paying a lot more. The prior status quo, with some DRM-free tracks in iTunes, all DRM-free tracks at Amazon, and lower prices everywhere, was a better deal for consumers who shopped around. 

And p.s. remember how the record labels promised the higher prices would only be for new music? Guess how much Michael Jackson&#039;s suddenly-hot-again 1982 single Thriller is at iTunes or Amazon? Yep, $1.29.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure I can even follow all of this &#8211; it&#8217;s going to be one wild ride, it sounds like. But I think that major book publishers are going to follow the strategy that convinced Apple to raise prices 30% on most new, popular music in the iTunes store, even in the midst of a steep recession. </p>
<p>The strategy is to go to smaller competitors, ironically in the music case it included Amazon&#8217;s MP3 store, and offer much better terms, like no DRM requirement, higher quality and lower prices. Book publishers could do the same using Google&#8217;s new ebook platform. </p>
<p>In the music case, of course, Apple capitulated to the demands of publishers and hiked prices. It maintained its market-leading position. Not long after, $1.29 songs hit all the other music sellers online including Amazon. While the demise of DRM-infested music files is good thing, consumers ended up paying a lot more. The prior status quo, with some DRM-free tracks in iTunes, all DRM-free tracks at Amazon, and lower prices everywhere, was a better deal for consumers who shopped around. </p>
<p>And p.s. remember how the record labels promised the higher prices would only be for new music? Guess how much Michael Jackson&#8217;s suddenly-hot-again 1982 single Thriller is at iTunes or Amazon? Yep, $1.29.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
