|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
> They needed (IMHO) to make it right in a
> similar fashion rather than taking advantage of the fact that they
> *could* just "unsell" it electronically.
Which they did, yes. I mean, after the mistake, they gave the books back,
gave you money, and wrote into their contracts they wouldn't do it again.
That seems pretty upstanding compared to a lot of places.
> Just because you can do
> something, doesn't mean you should. It created a lot of uncertainty
> about eBooks.
Indeed.
>> True, and he acknowledged that *and* gave people back the book as well.
>> Not sure what more you could ask for.
>
> Not doing it in the first place. Yes, he can't undo what's been done,
> the best he can do is correct it, and the best we can do is hope that he
> has learned from it. But it troubles me that businesses make decisions
> that really on the surface should be clearly the wrong way to approach
> things and then deal with it as a PR issue, when clearly it's not a PR
> issue, but a decision-making process issue.
It sounds like the lawyers got into it first, actually. I wouldn't be
surprised if there was no policy in place to handle such an event, or if the
policy hadn't been reviewed by anyone other than the lawyers.
> Honestly, I think it would be in the best interests of eReader
> manufacturers not to lock consumers in. You see this with gaming
> consoles as well - someone wants a particular game, they've got to
> purchase a particular game console if there's an exclusivity clause in
> their contracts.
Kindle is, amusingly, doing just the opposite. You can get like 30% of the
sales of your book, or you can get 70% the sales of your book if you don't
rip off Kindle users or lock them into a specific format.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |