"Amazon.com (NYSE: AMZN) has begun to raise the price of some of its e-books above their paper versions." An example is given, which has agency model pricing, then in parantheses: (Ed. note: A small number of publishers price their ebooks under an agency model, which means they set the price. This is clearly marked on the detail page for a book. According to Amazon “this price was set by the publisher.”), then a second example is given, which also has agency model pricing.
The paragraph twice mentions that this coverage is secondary to coverage in the NYT.
Then there are several sentences, with multiple errors per sentence, speculating about how Amazon prices the kindle product, the kindle e-books, and competition from the iPad.
The concluding paragraph: "Amazon customers may be upset, but the price they will have to pay for a low-cost Kindle is more expensive e-books."
Someone is always going to be upset. But given the price-up of the ebook to the hardcover in the examples given (which are new bestsellers temporarily heavily discounted) is under a dollar each. The price drop from kindle 2 to kindle 3 was enough to pay for an awful lot of those kind of price "increases".
Have I complained about Douglas A. McIntyre before? I can't recall.
In any event, I wouldn't have mentioned it at all, because multiple errors per sentence in summarizing the kindle and/or ebooks in general is so common it's just not worth the time. But that paranthetical pseudo-retraction is sort of interesting.
ETA: Needless to say, the underlying coverage over at NYT is less ridiculous, and much more circumspect about who they attribute the pricing choices to. It is unfortunate that the NYT chose to completely leave out of the discussion what prompted the agency model in the first place (the ibookstore entry into bookselling), but I have to say: isn't it bizarre that this many column inches in the NYT got devoted to a 60 cent or so price difference in a couple different books? There's no indication this is a web/online only article.