Greg Bensinger:

The statement, from an Amazon spokesman, refutes a report from website JessicaLessin.com on Friday that the Seattle company has been exploring options to offer a smartphone free of cost.

So let me get this straight: if you legitimately break news, you get neither a link or a citation from WSJ. But if you publish a bunch of “exclusive” bullshit, you get both?

Also not mentioned is the fact that both Lessin and author Amir Efrati used to work for WSJ — which I’m sure doesn’t factor in here…

Will Oremus asks the larger question

In the hypercompetitive online news landscape, is being first and wrong sometimes better for business than being last and right?

It is without question the former.

Sean Buckley:

The Kindle brand and its sunlight-readable e-paper display probably aren’t going anywhere, but the category is edging away from the mainstream. Users demand more out of their devices these days, and slow-refreshing E Ink just can’t cut it for a media tablet. If our predictions for the future need to be grounded in reality, then maybe it’s time we finally put our color e-reader dreams to bed. The technology may eventually find a home somewhere, but at this rate, it likely won’t be on our nightstand.

Are we really ready to fully rule-out Amazon making a move into color e-ink at some point? I’m not sure they will or even should, I just wouldn’t bet against it.

Just because others have tried and failed means nothing. Others tried and failed at eReaders for years as well.

Nick Wingfield on Amazon’s new MatchBook program:

One benefit of MatchBook is that Amazon will let its customers buy Kindle editions of books that they purchased in print as far back as 1995, the year Amazon opened for business. The discounted Kindle edition prices apply to book purchases made in the future on Amazon too.

In an interview, Russ Grandinetti, vice president of Kindle Content, said one of the most common requests Amazon receives from its Kindle customers is a way to build parallel print and digital book libraries, which hasn’t been practical at full retail prices. He said many print lovers will enjoy Kindle features like text searching of books, especially reference books. Kindle fans, meanwhile, still want print editions of books as souvenirs and art objects.

Books as souvenirs and pieces of art. Yep, it has come to this.

mattruby asked:

About a year ago you wrote about the iPad mini fitting into your device lineup. I have an iPad mini and I'm wondering if your Kindle Paperwhite still gets any use. Is it worth picking up a Paperwhite as well? What do you think of the benefits of the Kindle inventory and the lending library vs iBooks inventory?

I do use the Kindle Paperwhite on nearly a nightly basis. After staring a backlit screens all day long, I still find the Paperwhite nice on my eyes before I go to sleep. I’m also about to take off to a beach for the long weekend and it’s definitely great in that setting. 

Overall, the Kindle inventory and lending library aspect seems better than iBooks, but I actually like the look of iBooks better. Kindle has been getting better at removing some of the cruft in the reading experience, but there’s still more to go. 

Long story short: I don’t really use the iPad mini for reading books, but I use it all the time for reading the internet. I use the Kindle Paperwhite for reading books. We’ll see if a retina iPad mini changes that equation.

Larry Dignan:

The advantages to the store-as-fulfillment center plan are that Best Buy can deliver products faster and cheaply. The downside to that strategy is that Best Buy’s in-store inventory visibility isn’t good and the staff may not be as efficient as people in a distribution center.

The conventional wisdom would say that Best Buy’s stores are an albatross around their neck — much like they were for Blockbuster. But what if they can shift them into being more along the lines of warehouses — much like the ones Amazon is trying to build as quickly as possible — for fast local delivery? And what if only a small area of those warehouses were actually a storefront to show off their goods?

This would all take a lot of logistics (and possibly some re-zoning?) but it doesn’t sound like the craziest idea in the world. Again, what if your weakness is actually your strength?

David Streitfeld and Christine Haughney on Jeff Bezos:

But then, few newsrooms have ever been confronted with a new owner whose zeal for disruption is matched by his obsession with tinkering until he gets it right. As Steve Yegge, a former employee, once put it, “He just makes ordinary control freaks look like stoned hippies.” A relevant fact: Mr. Bezos originally thought of naming Amazon “Relentless.”

Mr. Marcus, now the executive editor of Harper’s Magazine, said it all made sense, kind of: “Bezos is fascinated by broken business models. And whatever else you think of newspapers, the business model is broken.”

They did $16 million in sales and lost $5 million last year, so they’re more of a threat to their stockholders.

David Unowsky, owner of Hungry Mind Bookstore, who spoke to Jim Romenesko in 1997 for a profile on Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. 

Romensko dug up the entire article, entitled: THE HEIGHT OF ONLINE SUCCESS//TINY AMAZON.COM SQUARES OFF AGAINST INDUSTRY GIANT BARNES & NOBLE. (It wasn’t online, so Pioneer Press staffers had to pull it up from their own archives.)

It’s so full of win. Amazon had just gone public (in the thick of the dot-com bubble) and Barnes & Noble was just entering the web and everyone seemed sure they would crush Amazon. It’s something important for every entreprenuer to remember every time they hear “but what if XXXXX enters your business”?

Hungry Mind Bookstore, meanwhile, went out of business in 2004, as Romenesko notes. Yet the notion of Amazon as a “threat” to stockholders endures 16 years later. 

[via @carr2n]

David Streitfield:

Penguin and Random House were innovators who made paperbacks into a disruptive force in the 1940s and ’50s. They were the Amazons of their era, making the traditional book business deeply uneasy. No less an authority than George Orwell thought paperbacks were of so much better value than hardbacks that they spelled the ruination of publishing and bookselling. “The cheaper books become,” he wrote, “the less money is spent on books.”

Orwell was wrong, but the same arguments are being made against Amazon and e-books today. Amazon executives are not much for public debate, but they argue that all this disruption will ultimately give more money to more authors and make more books more widely available to more people at cheaper prices, and who could argue with any of that?

It will be interesting to look back on this in hindsight.