It is either an existential threat to intellectual freedom or a rustbelt media industry meeting its comeuppance at the hands of disruptive technology. The battle between the multibillion-dollar publisher Hachette (and now the Scandinavian publisher Bonnier) and the even more multibillion-dollar Amazon is usually discussed in high-minded tones, particularly by publishers and their authors. But at heart, it is merely another collision between producers and consumers that has a particular significance only if you ascribe a value to books as cultural artefacts. It is perfectly possible, instead of Hachette and Amazon, and the 900 writers who took out a two-page ad in the New York Times to protest, to substitute supermarkets, dairy farmers and the price of milk.

Although books account for only 7% of the sales of “the Everything store”, Amazon sells a lot of them. In particular it has 60% of the ebook market. It believes a flat-rate sales price for new books and bestsellers delivers higher sales and bigger profits. Hachette disagrees. Amazon is forcing the issue by disadvantaging Hachette books (no pre-order button, no discounts and so on).

This particular dispute only erupted in May this year, but the tension between publishers and Amazon goes back to the creation of the Kindle, and then the iPad as a challenger ebook platform. Hachette won the first round, doing a deal with Apple and forcing Amazon to accept an agency agreement, rather than a flat rate that gave publishers more control over prices. The US Federal Trade Commission overturned the decision. Hachette is now appealing against this ruling.

There are many ways of arguing the rival cases, but the important question is whether a one-size-fits-all, low-price, consumer-dominated sales model can support a diverse, innovative, challenging literary output. Publishers, and their authors, feel that without the front-loaded system of royalties and editorial and marketing support that publishers provide, many important books would never reach an audience. Amazon and its supporters argue that the digital world slashes the back-office costs of publishing, opens up a world of self-publishing, demolishes the gatekeepers of taste, and democratises the literary world.

Neither side is entirely right, nor entirely wrong. Publishing is not perfect. It has a heavily concentrated ownership and a tendency to publish only what has already proved successful (and plenty of booksellers demand a payment for a place on the table by the door too). But Amazon’s business model, which ranks books neither higher nor lower than ladies’ shavers and pet supplies, claims low prices invariably benefit consumers. Publishers are not the first to feel the pain. They should look around, and build themselves a better model.

• This article was amended on 19 August 2014. An earlier version said “Amazon is forcing the issue by disadvantaging Hachette books (no buy button, no discounts and so on)”. This has been corrected.