I doubt Amazon is too concerned. I’d be shocked if physical sales (as opposed to ordering directly from Amazon) were at all substantial. And it’s hardly as if Amazon needs Wal-Mart or Target to be successful.
Frankly I’m amazed other stores carried Kindles at all. It’s hardly a screwup on Amazon’s part; the conflict of interest is pretty freaking obvious. “Buy this thing that will let you buy from another store instead of us!”
Isn’t the problem that almost nobody buys a Kindle at these stores? The stores are basically just places to look at Kindle before ordering off Amazon, where they are cheaper (taxes) and come per-set up and linked to your account. I think all Kindles still come with free two-day shipping, and if not two-day shipping, it is still free.
You’re correct. The New York Times said that Target sent a letter to its vendors, “What we aren’t willing to do is let online-only retailers use our brick-and-mortar stores as a showroom for their products and undercut our prices.”
So I don’t know why you described this as a business screw-up on Amazon’s part.
You know what Amazon should do? It should totally start a contractual obligation with someone that looks just like Wal-Mart, CostCo for example, and then then the middle of a business negotiation, it should totally breach that contract. Just to show them.
The real reason that WalMart stopped selling Kindles is because Amazon refused to put out. WalMart said that it had been business partners with Amazon since last spring and wanted to take their partnership to “the next level”. Amazon said it liked being business partners with WalMart but didn’t feel “that way” about the company. Things got ugly when WalMart brought up Amazon’s previous relationship with Target and accused Amazon of just forming a rebound partnership with them to make Target jealous.