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