Packer Vs Amazon

The article paints a detailed picture – if somewhat unfavorable to Amazon – of the uneasy relationship, even dependency, between book publishers and the largest US online retailer. While they don’t like to admit it, their competencies are actually complementary. Editors and publishers have the experience to discover the best books and authors, whereas Amazon has the skills and technological expertise to sell them to the widest audience. If both parties cooperate with each other, they both get benefited from each other. I think the conflicts between publishers and Amazon come from different views on the concept and value of books. Publishers see books as premium products, with good quality finishing and a matching price. On the other hand, Jeff Bezos thinks books should be available to the largest possible number of readers, and to do that you need a large distribution platform with small marginal costs and wide reach, hence the digital channel. Personally, I tend to favor the latter view as books are …show more content…
As mentioned in the article, publishers pay Amazon a percentage of the profits they make through the online store each year. I also found interesting that Amazon often gets Payments from publishers in the form of discounts. I also think the question raised by Packer, which is that “Is Amazon good for books?” is a really stupid question. Since books are objects and as much as we love them, they have no feelings or intentions. It is similar to asking “Are highways good for cars?” Additionally, Packer doesn’t even answer the question that whether or not Amazon is good for books. In fact, he doesn’t even really address the question. Most of the article talks about Amazon’s ruthless business practices, its treatment of books as “widgets” and a few anecdotes about poor working conditions in