Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 493 posts

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#121

Post by scrum-treats »

bryan0 wrote: post #25
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Goodreads wasn't "the future of book reviews", it was a good review site that might have innovated great new things or might not have at all. But regardless, Amazon should never have been allowed to acquire it -- it was incredibly anti-competitive. Amazon never wanted to do anything with Goodreads at all -- as demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't done anything. It was a purely defensive move to prevent anyone else…

And this wasn’t Amazon’s only acquisition in this space. They bought Shelfari before this and also drove it into the ground.

Same thing with Book Depository, AbeBooks, and Avalon Books. And more generally Whole Foods, Alexa Internet, IMDB, Fabric.com, Woot, Zappos, Evi, Graphiq...

When will consumers have protection against this degrading of the marketplace already?

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#122

Post by arvidkahl »

JohnFen wrote: post #101
arvidkahl wrote: post #13

Besides Goodreads falling into complete disarray, it is equally painful to know that Amazon owns the .book TLD ( https://icannwiki.org/.book ) and has yet to make that available to anyone. A lot of Amazon's publishing-related acquisitions tend to stray from what they were intended to be.

> Amazon owns the .book TLD I'm actually fine with that, because it lets me reliably know that site is affiliated with Amazon, so I know to avoid going there.

Making the best of it :D

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#123

Post by scrum-treats »

andsoitis wrote: post #67
tivert wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think that Amazon is concerned that a database is enough to threaten their business? Didn't the GP already answer the question you asked of them? >> It was a purely defensive move to prevent anyone else from acquiring or partnering with Goodreads, because their database of books and reviews could be used to instantly start competing with Amazon's book business. Amazon snuffed out that threat of competiti…

On Goodreads, the Buy button allows you to buy from: - Amazon - Audible - Barnes & Noble - AbeBooks - Walmart - Libraries

Amazon, Audible, and AbeBooks are owned by Amazon.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#124

Post by unreal37 »

fsckboy wrote: post #109
enriquec wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about this would succeed. Do only monopolies perform mergers?

> Do only monopolies perform mergers? companies merge to concentrate market share, i.e. eliminate competition, i.e. increase prices, i.e. monopol ize . Let's not ban just monopol ies , let's also ban monopol ize .

Unprofitable companies get bought out to simply continue existing.

Like Twitch and YouTube.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#125

Post by cratermoon »

crazygringo wrote: post #6

Goodreads wasn't "the future of book reviews", it was a good review site that might have innovated great new things or might not have at all. But regardless, Amazon should never have been allowed to acquire it -- it was incredibly anti-competitive. Amazon never wanted to do anything with Goodreads at all -- as demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't done anything. It was a purely defensive move to prevent anyone else…

Amazon's inshittification of everything continues. They also own AbeBooks, have their own cargo airline, Twitch, Audible, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Kindle, Ring, Whole Foods, IMDb, Zappos, Egghead, the late lamented DPReview, and a few others.

> incredibly anti-competitive.

A description of Amazon in general.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#126

Post by unreal37 »

fsckboy wrote: post #85
teamspirit wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately that's exactly why so many startups get bought. Not to become part of the parent company's business, no, just not to become a competitor later. Would stronger (and enforced) anti trust laws be a solution? I believe businesses would just lie and say they are going to be part of the business but then just bury them anyway.

> I believe businesses would just lie and say they are going to be part of the business but then just bury them anyway. That's where my pet antitrust solution succeeds where others fail: ban all M&A. Companies only engage in mergers to consolidate market share, but their market share consolidation (i.e. monopolization) not only decreases competition, but also comes at the expense of employees and customers of the acq…

Company A is 6 days away from going out of business. They will shut their doors. All employees will lose their jobs. All customers will lose access to whatever Company A does that they find helpful.

But then Company B agrees to buy them for $1 so that they continue running. Pays the employees, and continues running the service for customers.

Ban it?

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#127

Post by gAI »

ethbr0 wrote: post #113
fsckboy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do only monopolies perform mergers? companies merge to concentrate market share, i.e. eliminate competition, i.e. increase prices, i.e. monopol ize . Let's not ban just monopol ies , let's also ban monopol ize .

Companies also acquire and merge to vertically integrate.

Lazy, entitled companies should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and build their own supply chains from scratch. Maybe if they had some work ethic, they wouldn't need all that hard-earned tax money - corporate welfare queens.

All joking aside, supply chain shenanigans are a nightmare.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#128

Post by ameister14 »

teamspirit wrote: post #22
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Goodreads wasn't "the future of book reviews", it was a good review site that might have innovated great new things or might not have at all. But regardless, Amazon should never have been allowed to acquire it -- it was incredibly anti-competitive. Amazon never wanted to do anything with Goodreads at all -- as demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't done anything. It was a purely defensive move to prevent anyone else…

Unfortunately that's exactly why so many startups get bought. Not to become part of the parent company's business, no, just not to become a competitor later. Would stronger (and enforced) anti trust laws be a solution? I believe businesses would just lie and say they are going to be part of the business but then just bury them anyway.

We don't need stronger laws - just the enforcement part.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#129

Post by ardacinar »

enriquec wrote: post #104
fsckboy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe businesses would just lie and say they are going to be part of the business but then just bury them anyway. That's where my pet antitrust solution succeeds where others fail: ban all M&A. Companies only engage in mergers to consolidate market share, but their market share consolidation (i.e. monopolization) not only decreases competition, but also comes at the expense of employees and customers of the acq…

Nothing about this would succeed. Do only monopolies perform mergers?

By the way, acquisitions are easier to defend IMO. There are definitely cases of "Business X acquires business Y" that have no anti-competitive intent or anti-competitive consequences. But at least anecdotally, I can say mergers that do not lead to anti-competitive behavior are quite rare.
Post reply on HN