5 ms·

The news is fine but why drag Amazon into it? >At Amazon headquarters, however, they're probably popping open the champagne. >Amazon, however, is probably gri

The news is fine but why drag Amazon into it? >At Amazon headquarters, however, they're probably popping open the champagne. >Amazon, however, is probably grinning like the Cheshire Cat. The author is not doing justice to his job as a reporter. If you want to opine then separate it from the facts. Amazon which has nothing to do with the ruling gets depicted as a villain and Apple which actually is guilty doesn’t get its share of bad words. What is worse is that he starts to paint Amazon that way before he gives any of the details of ruling.

studentrob 11y ago
I do not think Amazon looks like a villain in the article. Good guys drink champagne too, and the Cheshire Cat was not a bad guy, he was neutral. It is relevant to mention Amazon. Although Amazon isn't named in the case, Apple was competing with Amazon directly by offering publishers a service through which they can set their own prices. With Amazon, publishers don't set the price of books, Amazon does. The ruling does effect Amazon's business. They have one less competitor model to worry about.
- tantalor 11y ago
  > the Cheshire Cat was not a bad guy, he was neutral This checks out. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/20/c6/af20c61ffdaaf42a4e0d4a6c77856089.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/20/c6/af20c61ff...
mhaymo 11y ago
Not that I disagree with your point, but it's not true that Amazon had "nothing to do with the ruling". According to Wikipedia, they were the original complainants: > Shortly after January 31, Amazon sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission complaining about the simultaneous nature of the demands for agency model agreements from the Publishers who had signed with Apple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.
rjbwork 11y ago
>The author is not doing justice to his job as a reporter. If you want to opine then separate it from the facts. Implying internet bloggers are reporters. The prestige of the journalist today is in the toilet because the barrier to entry is essentially nil. You can just start writing for some fly by night site and get hundreds to thousands of readers overnight, without any basic understanding of the profession or established practices.
- baldfat 11y ago
  > Implying internet bloggers are reporters. If your making a living by reporting your a reporter. Just like all other professions you make a living at it that's your profession. To belittle that profession if they don't have a degree or at a smaller place well that isn't quite the same thing. This is the place where journalism lives since there are so few non-internet reporting positions.
  - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
    Saying a blogger isn't a reporter is not belittling. Its correct. Blogging isn't reporting, as plumbing isn't carpentry.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      zdnet.com isn't even a blog it comes from ZiffDavis originally a print magazine firm's first effort to come to the internet. zdnet is owned by CBS Interactive. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols isn't a blogger the guy has been around since the 1980s reporting on technology. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sjvn1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/sjvn1
    - baldfat 11y ago
      > Blogging isn't reporting, as plumbing isn't carpentry Care to qualify that with something that even makes that analogy work? Blogger and Reporting are almost meaningless words. Some of the best reporting in technology would also be called a blog. Mary Jo Foley is a great example and re/code with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher.
morganvachon 11y ago
I think it's made clear in the article why the author is so biased: > "The publishers Apple had joined forces with were Hachette; News Corp's HarperCollins; Penguin Group Inc; Macmillan; and Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS (ZDNet's parent company)."

studentrob 11y ago

I do not think Amazon looks like a villain in the article. Good guys drink champagne too, and the Cheshire Cat was not a bad guy, he was neutral. It is relevant to mention Amazon. Although Amazon isn't named in the case, Apple was competing with Amazon directly by offering publishers a service through which they can set their own prices. With Amazon, publishers don't set the price of books, Amazon does. The ruling does effect Amazon's business. They have one less competitor model to worry about.

tantalor 11y ago
> the Cheshire Cat was not a bad guy, he was neutral This checks out. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/20/c6/af20c61ffdaaf42a4e0d4a6c77856089.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/20/c6/af20c61ff...

mhaymo 11y ago

Not that I disagree with your point, but it's not true that Amazon had "nothing to do with the ruling". According to Wikipedia, they were the original complainants: > Shortly after January 31, Amazon sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission complaining about the simultaneous nature of the demands for agency model agreements from the Publishers who had signed with Apple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.

rjbwork 11y ago

>The author is not doing justice to his job as a reporter. If you want to opine then separate it from the facts. Implying internet bloggers are reporters. The prestige of the journalist today is in the toilet because the barrier to entry is essentially nil. You can just start writing for some fly by night site and get hundreds to thousands of readers overnight, without any basic understanding of the profession or established practices.

baldfat 11y ago
> Implying internet bloggers are reporters. If your making a living by reporting your a reporter. Just like all other professions you make a living at it that's your profession. To belittle that profession if they don't have a degree or at a smaller place well that isn't quite the same thing. This is the place where journalism lives since there are so few non-internet reporting positions.
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago
  Saying a blogger isn't a reporter is not belittling. Its correct. Blogging isn't reporting, as plumbing isn't carpentry.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    zdnet.com isn't even a blog it comes from ZiffDavis originally a print magazine firm's first effort to come to the internet. zdnet is owned by CBS Interactive. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols isn't a blogger the guy has been around since the 1980s reporting on technology. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sjvn1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/sjvn1
  - baldfat 11y ago
    > Blogging isn't reporting, as plumbing isn't carpentry Care to qualify that with something that even makes that analogy work? Blogger and Reporting are almost meaningless words. Some of the best reporting in technology would also be called a blog. Mary Jo Foley is a great example and re/code with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher.

morganvachon 11y ago

I think it's made clear in the article why the author is so biased: > "The publishers Apple had joined forces with were Hachette; News Corp's HarperCollins; Penguin Group Inc; Macmillan; and Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS (ZDNet's parent company)."