NY Times paywall situation and the Kindle. 99 CENTS 1st 4 wks - UPDATE

UPDATE 4/4/11 (Original post was April 2, at 1:40pm.)
The NY Times has an introductory special for full access to the NY Times website and applicable devices:  99¢ for your first 4 weeks.

Some had already used up their 20/mo. quota already and were waiting for Amazon and the NYTimes to get the processes working for the NYTimes on Kindle-Edition option (which may take a few weeks before it's ready) so that they could get the NYT's web access that goes with the Kindle plan which isn't currently available.   This is key for existing Kindle subscribers and works for all the digital device plans being offered right now.

For KINDLE (no choice shown yet), I chose the smartphone app and it worked, as we don't need provide a smartphone model or install the app.

However, you are charged 99 cents and then you give Authorization for them to take autopayments near your due dates.  You can cancel and get refunds or credits and stop the subscription.  I used Paypal.  Some won't want to give such authorizations though.  However, I want my regular full access until I can decide what I want to do next month.

  This was seen by Caddis Nymph of the Amazon Kindle forums, and I finally found it on the Times site.

---

The original posting
When the New York Times site started charging, at the end of March, for access to the news website after 20 articles have been selected for reading in a month, they announced that full-access would be given to people who are either print subscribers or mobile-phone subscribers, and online columnists wondered aloud why e-readers were not also included for a combo deal.

 Within only a few hours, the Times website was changed to show that Kindle-Edition subscribers will also get full access to the new pay web-version of the New York Times.

  However, Amazon says it will keep in touch with subscribers on how it's proceeding during the next few weeks.  So it looks to be awhile before the access kicks in.
  There is no current option for the Nook, Kobe, or Sony e-readers.

  The plan for web-access + mobile phone access is
    $15 every 4 weeks (rather than every month).
  The plan for web-access + iPad access is $20 per month.
  The plan for access to all 3 types is $35.

  In the meantime, I explored the situation because I had taken the 60-day trial-subcription recently for the Kindle Edition and it is the one national paper I -might- subscribe to (in Kindle format) because their articles are so thorough and well written (otherwise I just go get the Sunday Kindle editions which are easily more than worth it), but I decided I couldn't justify $19.99/mo. and said so in the feedback I gave.  While we've been able read the text-only versions via the Kindle web browser, that won't be possible either, with the paywall as a barrier after 20 website-article accesses in a month.

NYT's first Paywall effort and this one - the differences
  The last time the NY Times tried a paywall, they did not allow access to the popular editorial writers' columns and that didn't go over well.  When something is wholly off-limits (and previously was not), people tend to be  resentful and resistant, so people found ways around it, with people getting the articles and emailing them to large lists of people.   So, that experiment failed.

  This time, they've left the full paper available to all, up to 20 articles accessed in a month, with other access possible and expected.
  The smart thing they've done is to allow further access to articles if you read them via a link from Facebook or Twitter.  Digital Faq wording from their help pages:

' Readers who come to Times articles through links from search engines, blogs and social media will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit...On all major search engines, users will have a daily limit on free links to Times articles. [!]
...
Here are a few examples of "section fronts":
Politics | Arts | Opinion

And here are some examples of "blog fronts":
Well | Bits | City Room '

For nonsubscribers, articles from their archives from 1923 through 1986 are $3.50 each, and views of archived articles outside that date range are free alhough they would still count toward the 20-article monthly limit for free access.  Subscribers get full access to the archives too..

Digital-only subscribers to The Times can create only one account (with one e-mail address and password).  I'm not including pricing information for print subscribers, because the focus here is what Kindle subscribers will get.

The NYT subscription options include unlimited access to NYTimes.com on any computer and on NYTimes apps for iPhone, BlackBerry and Android smartphones, as well as iPad tablets.

  BUT, they have no digital subscription to only the NYTimes.  It's always a part of a package, with smartphone apps, the iPad, or the Kindle.

Re the flexibility this time -- To the question below, the New York Times's responses to some questions (emphases mine) :

' Can I still access NYTimes.com articles through Facebook, Twitter, search engines or my blog?

We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media.
  When you visit NYTimes.com through a link from one of these channels, that article (or video, slide show, etc.) will count toward your monthly limit of 20 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you've already read your 20 free articles. '

  BUT access to the web-NYT articles through Search Engines involves somewhat tougher rules:

' Like other external links, links from *search engine* results will count toward your monthly limit. If you have reached your monthly limit, you'll have a daily limit of 5 free articles through a given search engine. This limit applies to the majority of search engines. '

Interesting theory about the flexibility
allfacebook.com reports some theories on why the Times is giving Facebook and Twitter links unlimited access while click-throughs from links using a search engine like Google are limited to only 5 per day.

' According to Matt Rosoff from Business Insider, the Times sees a clear traffic pattern, where social networking sites are driving “a ton of newspaper traffic.”  MG Siegler at TechCrunch basically shares the same opinion, but adds an interesting nuance:  Because people who use Facebook and Twitter to access news are usually younger, tech savvy, and are used to getting information at no cost, the NYT is trying to preserve that relationship with those users… at least for now. '

Their last FAQ point is this:

' Subscribers to The New York Times on Kindle will receive full access to NYTimes.com.  We are currently working through the technical requirements to verify Kindle subscriber accounts and offer access.  More information will be available soon.

At this time, we're not able to connect other e-reader subscriptions to an NYTimes.com subscription.  Each must be purchased separately. '

So, the upshot is that the $19.99/mo. for a Kindle subscription to The NY Times becomes somewhat more attractive to those who enjoy that newspaper, with the unhindered access to the new NYT website included now.

Why the NYT is trying a paywall again
Like other U.S. newspapers, the NYT is losing money, with less print advertising revenue, falling circulation and readers going to to the Web for their news.  This has been documented.

Some might enjoy the article from The Onion on this situation.

Reaction to the new NY Times plans?
I haven't seen much reaction to the New York plans this time, probably due to the flexibility mentioned.  And I've not noticed forum threads on the New York Times inclusion of the Kindle edition.

  I'd like to read any thoughts some of you may have on this one.  In this climate, many may feel a national newspaper subscription is a luxury.  Some will find it worthwhile.  It's a gamble for the NYTimes.

 And if they succeed in this plan the way they have implemented it, will other newspapers decide they want to do this too?  Would other newspaper sites attract as many subscribers as the NY Times might?  I doubt it.  It's staid but it is incredibly thorough.

  Does bundling it to the Kindle make it more attractive?  It does for me, but it's only because I've become convinced The NYT has to do something to stay viable and I like that they've given free access to 20 articles a month and, in essence, unlimited access for those who will depend on getting stories from others linking to their NYT stories from places like Facebook and Twitter (although it's been said the NYT will not be supporting blog or webpages created just to hold NYT links).

  Also, Google searches will get you another 5 a day, and then so would bing.com and blekko.com ...

  Many of my friends forward New York Times articles for private e-mail group discussions of stories (ostensibly maybe not part of NYT and news-reader agreements, but reality enters here) and say it's the one paper they might find worth a subscription.  Some are thinking of finding a way to share a subscription by chipping in to be able to keep discussions going instead of finding links at Facebook.

  But I'm interested in the thoughts of others reading this blog article.  It's a bit of a sea change, for one thing.

Kindle 3's   (UK: Kindle 3's),   DX Graphite

---

Check often: Temporarily-free late-listed non-classics or recently published ones
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.
UK-Only: recently published non-classics, bestsellers, or £5 Max ones
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

Updating of Best Kindle Bookmarks for Kindle web browser.

This is just a link to the updated blog entry for the free, downloadable Best Kindle Bookmarks for the Kindle Web Browser;  for some reason, the Google Reader does not place older updated articles at the top, even when they have new dates on them, so this is to make sure RSS readers can find it.

As mentioned there, today's update was to add special links to Facebook and to Google News that work better on all the Kindles.  I also explain what can't be done on the Kindles at those sites.

I also modified some of the notes about all the links to try to make the tips a bit clearer. The filename remains the same, so you can just re-download it if you already have the older copy.

Free Download of Best Website Bookmarks for Kindle Web Browser - UPDATE5

UPDATED December 5.
  Today's update was to add special links to Facebook and to Google News that work better on all the Kindles.  I also explain what can't be done on the Kindles at those sites.

  I also modified some of the notes about the links to try to make the tips a bit clearer.  The filename remains the same, so you can just re-download it if you already have the older copy.

You can see earlier updated info (9/29/10) here on how to get the file to your Kindle via WiFi directly or via 3G and how to transfer it to the Kindle via USB if unable to send it there directly.

  As of December 5, the Kindle orders are limited to three per customer, and estimated shipping time for orders outside the U.S. is several weeks.

I've updated the freely downloadable bookmarks file andrys.com/mobiweb.azw to include links to sites that work better for Kindle 3 models  (UK: K3), as some of the websites have worked well with Kindle 2 and Kindle DX's but not with the Kindle 3, due to the new model's typed-input not always being recognized by some of Google's productivity sites.

This is a separate Kindle file (in 'book' format) for mainly mobile-device-optimized website bookmarks, which you can use as a Kindle file made up OF the bookmarks listed -- the websites are linked already in that file so that you can use them for the Web when your Wireless is On and this 'book' is open.  The Kindle 3 seems to do better in some cases on non-mobile-device-optimized sites, so those are included also.

  Still part of that bookmarks file are the website links that work well for Kindle 2's and DX's, and at the bottom there are general websites that work well for all Kindles.  See the original blog article that explains it and which also has links to how to use the various web-browsing modes of the earlier Kindles, and with tips in general for browsing on the experimental and limited web browser, whether through the free 3G cellphone network capability (usable without a need to locate a 'hotspot') or via the faster WiFi option (if one has access to a local WiFi network) available for Kindle 3's.

  For anyone not clear on 3G vs WiFi-only, you can read the blog article on 3G and WiFi-Only Kindle 3's - What does it all mean? Which should I get?.

  The Kindle 3 shortcuts added should avoid problems w/some sites when accessing with that model.

    Kindles earlier than Kindle 3 use BASIC and ADVANCED/DESKTOP modes.
    Kindle 3 uses WEB Mode, with ARTICLE Mode available for some web articles.


You can download the file to a computer for transfer to the 'documents' folder of the Kindle or download it directly to your Kindle using the Kindle itself to get the file.  To do any of this, you can

  . either use a USB cable to transfer or "sideload" the
      downloaded file from computer to Kindle's "documents" folder.

  . OR type into your Kindle at the Home screen, bit.ly/kmobiweb
      then 5-way right to "go to" and click on that
        and that will download the file direct to the Kindle

  . OR if in the Kindle Edition blog,
      click on the file link and it should download the file direct to Kindle. 

UPDATE: 10/1/10
Possible problem for some (corrected since, at the server, for lack of recognition of file types by the Kindle 3  even though the Kindle 1, 2, and DX models recognized Amazon Kindle format files for normal download).
  The Kindle 3 opened the Amazon file instead of downloading it as a file, and Kindle 3 users saw gibberish appearing on the screen, which was harmless but ugly.  For me, it happened only with the Kindle 3.  The Kindle 1, 2, and DX's were able to see it as a file.

  I'm putting the details into a new post so that the programmers might become aware it's happening, as my feedback received a boilerplate response.  See today's post (Friday, Oct. 1) for why it happened and how it was corrected for access at this server.

The ALWAYS RELIABLE ways are #1 above (move downloaded-to-computer file to Kindle) and the similar but more direct way of computer-to-Kindle transfer, which is:

  . Attach Kindle to your computer that is online with the Net
  . The Kindle will be seen as a separate 'drive' such as "F: {Kindle}"
  . Click on the 'documents' folder of the Kindle drive, to enter it.
  . In your browser, right-click your mouse on the file-link
      (some Macs require holding the mouse button instead).
  . Choose "Save Link as" or "Save Target as" or "Download/Save"
      depending on your computer and browser
  . Choose the Kindle 'documents' folder for the download.

Then the file will be where it belongs on the Kindle.  After that, use your computer's way of "safely ejecting" the USB device - in this case, the Kindle. 

The Kindle will show the Home screen again, and eventually the new 'mobiweb' file.

(That's like slower ground transport vs air travel.)

Also, Amazon is, for some reason, not considering an .azw Amazon file that IS a personal doc which they converted, to be a file that is acceptable for emailing to your Kindle.   For over a year, that caused no problem, but it is one now, so I deleted the instructions for emailing personal docs to the Kindle.

    Otherwise, you normally can send personal documents to [yourself]@free.kindle.com or to [yourself]@kindle.com once you have gone to your ManageYourKindle page and have approved any mail-to-Kindle-from-email-addresses for the section titled "Your Kindle Approved E-mail List."

The bookmarks file includes the following advice along with the links:

MAPS option works with Kindle 3, but is blocky and slow.

  Directions sub-option will show you text AND map (workable if ROTATED to landscape -
   almost impossible in portrait or vertical mode.

  TEXT directions, step-by-step are much easier to get and read.

    USE http://maps.google.com/m/directions

      See Kindleworld guide for that at bit.ly/kdriving.

MAIL – If you choose this from this Google menu, it does the usual over-complex mail-threading and folders display and is painfully slow or cumbersome even with WiFi.
  Shortcut to painful mode: http://bit.ly/gmail

  USE http://bit.ly/g_mail for a faster experience and bear in mind that to finish a Reply, you need to arrow to the end and leave the Reply box. If you know a better way, let me know.
  (PgDn gets you down faster but doesn’t allow exiting the box
   but you can PgDn and end with cursor-down to exit.)

    Credit to Bill in Kindleworld's Comments area for the Gmail and Gtasks URLS

  ALTERNATE: For a compromise, here’s Advanced Gmail in Basic HTML
    USE for that: http://bit.ly/gmailmobile
      It’s slower but not so painful.

TASKS/CALENDAR (Google still)
  There are problems, with the Kindle 3, in being able to type input into login or search-fields sometimes, with Google features, even though the Kindle 2 and DX’s can handle those fine.  The new shortcuts I‘ve made for google sites are to versions that work with the K3.

  USE http://bit.ly/g_tasks (that’s with an underscore)

  Tasks are coordinated with your calendar when in Gmail on the computer.

GOOGLE READER (RSS feeds)
  USE http://bit.ly/g-reader '

The bookmark links start with the ones Amazon put on the Kindles, and modifications or recommendations are included.

  At the end, I've added general bookmarks to websites I've enjoyed using on the Kindle.

  That includes pure-text versions of the full NYTimes - much faster to read through on the Kindle when you just want to see the latest news.

You can also reference these on the PC or Mac at the same time if you want, while using the file on the Kindle.  If you haven't already downloaded either of these free apps for your computer, you can do that at Kindle for PC page or at Kindle for Mac page.

Suggestions for links I might add later would be very welcome.


Kindle 3's   (UK: Kindle 3's),   DX Graphite

---

Check often: Temporarily-free late-listed non-classics or recently published ones
  Guide to finding Free Kindle books and Sources.  Top 100 free bestsellers.
    Also, UK customers should see the UK store's Top 100 free bestsellers.

Amazon plays hardball to keep lower pricing option

NY Times's Motoko Rich and Brad Stone or their editor wrote a rather black-hat title for their column on the latest stage of the hardball battle between Amazon and Apple's "guidance" of the Big 6 publishers toward higher prices (Random House, to its credit, is not following, however).  So, we see "Amazon Threatens Publishers as Apple Looms."  Very dramatic.

  One might say the publishers have "threatened" to force Amazon to follow the Apple-Agency plan of higher pricing for book customers and if Amazon balks, the publishers would not provide a Kindle book for new or NY Times Bestseller books.  Do we ever see that described as 'threatening' Amazon?

Traditional Wholesale Agreements - and Authors' revenue basis
  Bear in mind that the traditional wholesale arrangement Amazon has used does NOT affect the author as the publishers seem to like to get their authors to write on the forums.

  Amazon has always paid the publishers an agreed percentage based on the Publisher-Set LIST price.  Don't be fooled by the mantra "Let the publisher set the price" because they always have.

  Again, if Amazon pays the publisher 50% of $25 (traditionally), Amazon pays the publisher $12.50.  Period.  It doesn't matter, for the author (except for pride of an expensive book maybe), that the bestseller might be sold at $10 by Amazon.  The publisher (who pays the author) GETS the full $12.50, from which the author is paid.

Amazon manages to do well with loss leaders while selling some 'cooled' e-books at higher rates.

  The low pricing does not mean less money for the author, unless the publisher decides the author should get a lower percentage.

Trouble-making, Non-physical E-Books Available for Less
  Large, long-time book publishers worry about Kindle books selling too well "causing" e-book consumers to not buy their hardcover books (as the publishers have said).  They should wake up and realize that most e-reader buyers are NOT going to go get new hardcover fiction books after buying e-readers.

  It's a new world, and most will wait and then probably decide not to get the book at all if book reviews are not great or if the book is Old News by the time it's released.  The latter is already happening.

  Publishers are refusing money being offered them for e-titles, preferring to attempt to artificially inflate the attractiveness of hard-cover books in a new digital age.  The audience has changed.  Whether they know it or not, publishers will do better following the Amazon pricing, because most I know will not be running to hardcovers.  There is just too much we want and can buy to read now.  People are also discovering why the classics (free) are classics :-)

The Genesis and Evolution of the Push for Higher E-Book Prices
  All right, back to the NY Times article and the drama going on between Amazon and the publishers, and Apple's part in it.

For background, see the genesis of all this unnecessary, forced raising of prices.

  Adding another layer of normal business manipulations was the discovery that Apple is inserting language into the Agency plan that insists that THEY be able to sell "hottest" books or bestsellers at $10 if they want (!)  I'd love to see the publisher reactions to that, but the last I read they were still "in negotiations" on that.

Rich and Stone write that Amazon.com has "threatened to stop directly selling the books of some publishers online unless they agree to a detailed list of concessions regarding the sale of electronic books, according to two industry executives with direct knowledge of the discussions."

 In other words, the tone of the reports is colored by those IN publishing and unhappy that Amazon has not agreed to their demands.  They don't like the concessions wanted to get their way, so what are those awful concessions?

 Reading on ...

' "An Amazon spokesman, Craig Berman, declined to comment on any talks with publishers."   [Wise man.]

Five of the country’s six largest publishers — Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, Hachette, HarperCollins and Penguin — have already reached deals with Apple to sell their books through its iBookstore, which will be featured on the iPad. (The holdout is Random House.)

Under those agreements, the publishers will set consumer prices for each book, and Apple will serve as an agent and take a 30 percent commission.  E-book editions of most newly released adult general fiction and nonfiction will cost $12.99 to $14.99.

Amazon has agreed in principle that the major publishers would be able to set prices in its Kindle store as well.  But it is also demanding that they lock into three-year contracts and guarantee that no other competitor will get lower prices or better terms. '

  Well, that demand for a guarantee when agreeing to raise prices to Apple iBookstore standards is certainly rude of Amazon, isn't it?  All emphases in the quoted areas are mine.  Back to the NYT article

' Apple, for its part, is requiring that publishers not permit other retailers to sell any e-books for less than what is listed in the iBookstore. '

Oh, I see.  Apple is not 'threatening' or 'demanding' -- they are just 'requiring' that the publishers not permit other online bookstores to sell anything for less than what Apple has decided for its own iBookstore.

Who's In Charge of Making and Maintaining Fixed Pricing, U.S. wide?
 And if the publishers refuse? What? Would Apple 'threaten' to do something unpleasant?

  This reporting of Apple's "requirement" for publishers is different, for Rich, from Amazon's "demanding" a similar guarantee for AGREEING TO Apple's publisher-plan.  Good grief.

  Notice who's in charge in this battle?  Notice who all have to follow whatever Apple (Steve Jobs?) ever decides is right for the customer in the way of book pricing?  Do we get black headlines about how Apple is threatening publishers with not signing contracts to sell their books?

Who is Threatening to Remove Buy Buttons
  The publishers are threatening to remove from access, Kindle editions of bestseller books if higher pricing wants aren't met.  They are 'removing' access ahead of time and are refusing to allow 'Buy' buttons for their bestsellers if in Kindle format.  This is a change.

  So, Rich/Stone continue, the publishers have 'sought,' not 'insisted on,' but 'sought' (much more polite) to renegotiate agreements with Amazon to make them align their selling practices with what Apple decides is right for the book-readers of the entire United States.

The Digital World is What's Looming
  I don't blame publishers for resisting 3-year contracts, as they are right that the digital book world is changing rapidly, but then why don't they acknowledge the changes as a reality and adjust to that instead of trying to stall, slow down, and stop it, as has been written?

  This particular article ultimately does a pretty fair job of reporting, but it is worded initially and headlined as if fed by publishers again, as was perceived by many in a recent article by Motoko Rich on the publishers' lament that they earn practically nothing much on e-books because of the expenses they need to charge against them.

Publishers make small margins on E-Books?
  Read the excellent analysis by Fair.Org's Jim Naureckas with regard to the publishers' claims and to that earlier NYT piece itself.  This wasn't a shining moment for NY Times's objectivity.  But they are a publisher also in need of a way to meet the challenges of the digital reading world.

What Choices will Smaller Publishers Have?
Amazon is talking with smaller publishers (let's call them the Small Thousands vs the Big 6) that haven't yet signed with Apple, in hopes of retaining its wholesale pricing model with them.

The Push to Fix Prices to be Never Lower than what Apple has Chosen
 However, some of the smaller publishers are of course talking with Apple too, and have been told the following by Apple, according to Motoko Rich:

'...any publisher that wishes to sell its books on the iPad must offer the same terms to all booksellers.  In other words, to do business with Apple, publishers must export Apple’s business model to all retailers. '

  Our-way-or-the-highway... And if the small publishers don't want to do that, then what ?
  No Apple Buy-Buttons for them?  It's an arena filled with implied threats.
Life in the rough lane.

Updated: I forgot to add that Rich's article included this interesting tidbit:

' Apple is not likely to give up on smaller publishers.  A new job posting on its Web site is for an “independent publisher account manager, iBookstore.”  The posting says the person would be “responsible for building and growing relationships with small- and medium-size book publishers, self-published authors and other content providers for the iBookstore.” '

  But back to Amazon's "threatening" behavior, did we ever see Amazon insist, under the traditional wholesale arrangement, that publishers not allow other stores to price any of their books lower than Amazon's pricing?

 What would the NY Times have written about that?

  But casually "fixed" pricing will bring all these problems with it.

I do agree that if Amazon ever felt it had to remove 'buy' buttons again for awhile, it could hurt its own reputation.  Point to Steve Jobs there.  Good play.  The books would be available elsewhere anyway, at of course higher prices.  Consumers want to consume.

Smaller Publishers and pricing plans
Rich and Stone point out that

' Amazon may believe that if it can keep those publishers from moving to an agency model, Apple will choose not to sell their e-books, and Amazon will be seen as having a broader selection.

Amazon’s strategy “is to work very hard to limit participation in the agency model to only the big four or five firms that are already announced,” said Evan Schnittman, vice president for global business development at Oxford University Press. “This would leave 50 to 60 percent of the content out there subject to the standard distribution terms, enabling Amazon to promote and price as it does today, and forcing Apple to have to compete with Amazon’s strength.” '

  But, as Rich and Stone point out, Apple wouldn't likely just give up on smaller publishers.  And shouldn't.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING
Fair.Org's Jim Naureckas is not resting.  He has a wonderfully ironic piece about this New York Times article, titling his response:
"NYT Exposes Amazon's Fiendish Plot to Sell Books for Less Money"

Sampling:

' By implication, the hero would be Apple, which is also entering the electronic book market.
  Apple's business model, at any rate, doesn't get the harsh spin from the Times that Amazon receives. '

EXACTLY right.  More...

' Which is funny, because Apple's plan would result in consumers paying from 30 percent to 50 percent more to buy most e-books, and prevent publishers from allowing anyone else to undercut Apple's inflated prices. [Emphasis mine] '

  He says it's a "terrible deal for consumers ... but the piece is written with the unstated assumption that we're all rooting for the publishers. "

  And worse, the last two NY Times articles on this, with Rich headlining them, seem worded to make us root for the publishers.

Amazon won't be undersold on book pricing

The New York Times's Nick Bilton confirms what many of us suspected: that Amazon would not have agreed to a fixed pricing that allowed Apple, Barnes & Noble, or any other bookstore to offer a lower pricing than Amazon's despite Macmillan's insistence on higher pricing while Apple has negotiated a $9.99 pricing for bestsellers.

There were several news stories that asked if Apple might have 'burned' or 'undercut' Amazon by suggesting that publishers raise e-book prices, with four publishers then pressuring Amazon to go along with this because they'd have Apple to rely on based on Apple's recommendation of those higher prices.

MacNewsWorld, in an article Feb. 18, titled "Apple's E-Book Pricing Flip: Chaotic or Cunning?," wrote:

'Apple's reasons for the pricing change, if the report is correct, remain murky.  They could be evidence that Apple's gaming the market.  "Apple's trying to play both sides of the fence," Andrew Eisner, director of content at Retrevo, told MacNewsWorld.  "On the one hand, it's trying to appear friendlier to book publishers with its willingness to let them charge higher prices; on the other, they know they're going to be out there doing battle with the likes of Amazon and Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), who already skirmished in a book price war late last year."

Or, Apple could be wracked by internal dissension. "It sounds like there could be several different people working on this, and I wonder if Steve Jobs was involved at all," Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, told MacNewsWorld. "It does seem like the change is kind of fast, and it's scaring all the publishers." '

  After the ensuing brouhaha with Macmillan's John Sargent insisting on his $15 new e-book pricing, the NY Times found that Apple had inserted language into their "Agency" agreements that the publishers, whom they'd encouraged to raise their pricing, would have to allow Apple to sell e-books for $9.99 once they hit the bestsellers list.

  What?  Yes.   They'd be allowed to do what has been Amazon's policy all along.  Note all the Amazon Kindle marketing about NY Times bestseller books for $9.99 since the birth of the Kindle.

  So, we're to think that the publishers had no idea of the $9.99 bestseller-provisions going into their 'Agency' agreement with Apple?  If they weren't aware, then Apple inserted these in a later version.

At any rate, I'd opined in the comments-area here that Amazon's lawyers would have added language to ensure that Amazon would not be undercut by any other book-selling entity   (if any new changeover to the Apple-style "Agency" agreement effective March 2010 had been signed or finalized with Macmillan so soon after the iPad launch and corresponding Macmillan deal with Apple's Steve Jobs).

 In fact, the NY Times wrote at the time that there was "likely" some kind of language to protect Amazon plus a bit more:

' So what did Amazon hold out for?  The company would not comment, but it is likely that Amazon demanded that no other e-book vendors, such as Apple, get preferential access to new titles, or any kind of pricing advantages.
  Amazon may also have negotiated terms into its agreement with the publisher that would allow users of Kindles or Kindle software to lend e-books to each other. '

Today's NY Times article by Bilton makes it clear that Amazon hasn't been standing still in this area:

' Amazon...is determined not to be out-priced by Apple or any other rival.

Since December [before the iPad launch], Amazon has been pushing publishers to sign a new round of legal agreements that would guarantee that the Kindle price for their content is always the same or lower than the price on other electronic reading devices, such as the iPad or the Sony Reader.  The clause, a variation of a legal concept known as “most favored nation,” would guarantee that Amazon’s customers would always get the best price for electronic versions of magazines, newspapers and books. '

What I didn't know was that "many e-publishing contracts with Amazon are still in a month-to-month cycle as the publishers negotiate to try to gain more revenue or more control over their content."  For some reason I had just (wrongly) assumed they were yearly or at least quarterly (which Macmillan's appears to be).

The article also notes Amazon's more complex negotiations with newspapers and magazines, which has to do with the "tiny slice" of revenue (typically 30%) for the publishers.   I've written earlier that insiders have been quoted as saying that Amazon shares the rest of the revenue with the wireless providers, who deliver the subscription content on a daily (or more frequent) basis.

  Despite subscription-publisher discontent with the Amazon contracts, some are considering signing the new Amazon contract while offering for the iPad a free, limited application for their content, as they'd rather not lose their current subscribers on the Kindle.  Also, the publishers have not been ecstatic about their current negotiations with Apple.

When the Kindle can display richer types of media (probably near the end of this year), subscription publishers could then, Bilton writes, release a paid product that looks and works the same across multiple devices.

Follow-up to the David Pogue review - Nook-Kindle

This is a follow-up because Nook-interested are very unhappy with David Pogue's review, and he replies to some of it.

Also, the video he made to go with his review is clear that besides the navigational and lag diffculties that frustrated him, the marketing of features by Barnes and Noble was misleading, and the video makes sport of the "fine print" that was never mentioned (with the help of a Nook Footnotes guy - hilarious concept).

 Most of his frustration would come from having used another ereader that does not have the many steps and long-waits reported and which are seeable in video examples on many review sites on the net, even from one site whose review was positive (which has been a rare thing this week).

 The Public Library loan ability was, strangely, not marketed by B&N, and B&N did not confirm that capability this week when asked, but it does work (perhaps inadvertently?) because the Nook does come with Adobe Digital Edition DRM reading capability), and this feature is a real boon for Nook users.

 If Nook fixes the many problems, too many of them caused by basic design decisions causing many steps to get anything done (font changes, book-formatting upon re-opening, the many steps to get searches done and then the one-word at a time search results, which those with e-reader experience will find frustrating), then there will be even more interested in buying.

That B&N kept calling it "The most advanced" e-reader, due to having WiFi capability that is ultra-limited (access to B&N store), was odd when a "less-advanced then" e-reader gives 24/7 free access to the web and does read-to-me for those who can use it when in a rush, even on articles and personal/business documents, and offers well acted Audible books -- that was what was worthy of the treatment given in the video, in the eyes of those not happy with the half-truths in the advertising.  Fine print restrictions that are not given exposure will upset some people.

From the Comments section to the article:
Here are some letters to David Pogue and his responses to some of them.

---

Sam wrote: "3 seconds to turn a page? that's ridiculous, and if it was what you experienced, you have a defective model."

You can see the 3-second page turn in my video, side-by-side with the 1-second Kindle. Do I have a defective model? Barnes & Noble doesn't think so --the company hasn't challenged that result.

- regarding your faulty price comparison between Amazon and Barnes & Noble -- To use an outdated comparison like this is simply bad journalism. 5 minutes on the Barnes & Noble discussion boards would have clued you into the price drops.

The data is a month old. That's not bad journalism. I also hand-inspected the 175 NY Times bestsellers, and the proportion of cheaper Kindle books-to-Nook books is still there. Amazon is cheaper almost 100% of the time that there's a price difference.

- 'audible audio-book playback'? nook plays mp3 files as well, so I'm not seeing the advantage.'

Then you're obviously not an Audible audio-book subscriber! They're fantastic.

[Khurt wrote:] "The software update that fixes all those bugs will be out before the Nook is available to buyers."

Not quite. The first software update, next week, fixes a small number of the most egregious bugs:

1) reduces the interval that the "FORMATTING" message is on the screen every time you open a book (but does not eliminate it).

2)Eliminates the SECOND tap required to open a book after your initial tap.

3) Fixes the bug that takes you to the Home screen when you tap the Down button.

They still have a LONGGGGG way to go after that!

Just got my own Nook and have seen very few of the problems David Pogue has described. I already own a Sony Reader and have found on my Nook that page turns are no slower than the Sony Reader. I have had 5 books download very quickly and I have not had the same formatting issue. I have found the touchscreen strip to be somewhat unresponsive, but so is my iPhone, occasionally. And isn't generally available WiFi better than none? Maybe BN was quick to the draw, but so is a two day long review. You couldn't give it a week?

I had the Nook for 6 days, same as all other reviewers.

The free google books were even slower, needing 30 seoconds of extra "formatting" before displaying, and left stange [sic] mangled artifacts on the screen.
[ No response to this one but I found it worth quoting. ]

No mention of the update B&N already pushed out Monday afternoon to address some of the early issues with formatting time and responsiveness?...
Was this written last week and you never bothered to follow-up with B&N at all this week?"

I was in constant contact with Barnes & Noble, up to, and even after, the review was published.

The other factor that you failed to mention (surprisingly, given your appreciation of the iPhone aesthetic advantages over its competitors) is that the Nook is *so* much better looking than the Kindle. I actually don't feel there's much between the Nook and the Kindle in terms of the primary capabilities - call me shallow, but the good looks of the Nook mean that its the one I want to take to bed with me!

[No response but I found it worth quoting.  I have always noticed that the looks were key here.]

Okay, so I went back to B and N today to check it out again. Three devices all freezing up, dying, and not working properly. THe pages flipped fine, but the rest of the device was bunk. Furthermore, B and N had a nervous girl who KNEW these things were not working right trying to sell them...I hope they pay her well, because there was a legion of confused potential customers disappointed in the device. Oh well, this review was harsh. In a world of dying newspapers, I think nytimes should be behind an e-reader movement to increase circulation and hopefully develop a new revenue stream.
[ Worth quoting as the writer preferred a softer review. ]

David, I got my Nook last night. It is a nice piece of hardware with some flaws in the software that should not be a deal-breaker for many folks. (I timed my page-turning whilst reading a book--less than one second.) I am happy with my Nook. I suggest that potential buyers try out a demo at the local B&N, if possible, and judge for themselves. It's not as bad as your snide article suggests, but it's not the Second Coming, either.
[ Worth quoting as a view from a customer with less expectations. Many will not care about the tougher navigation if they've not used another, good, e-reader in the past -- and the Nook has its attractions. ]

Kindle Offers Free U.S. News For a Year

With the April 15 release of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on the Kindle, owners can now get a full year of domestic newspaper subscriptions absolutely free.

Granted, cycling through 14-day trial subs of all 26 domestic papers Amazon now offers for the Kindle would certainly require some serious dedication. But the result would be a free education comprised of a broad range of news voices. Besides the old-school stalwarts like the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Washington Post, the fare includes more topic-specific rags like Investor's Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal, plus Politico, which is mostly associated with its online presence and not the free print version that makes the rounds in D.C.

For me, this represents a benchmark of sorts at a time when the newspaper industry finds itself in a life-or-death struggle. As someone who came from a print background, I've lamented the loss of one daily after another with colleagues. But I see a potential for rebirth in devices like the Kindle, which replicate the old model by charging a reasonable fee and "delivering" the paper to your virtual door.

The chance to nab a free year of newspapers might appeal to the freebie-lover in all of us. But I also hope it leads to more people exposing themselves to a (hopefully) higher standard of journalism, and ultimately choosing to support an important industry by picking a favorite and ordering a regular subscription.