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

161–170 of 493 posts

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

#161

Post by CobaltFire »

cratermoon wrote: post #125
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.

DPReview was bought and saved, at least. So let’s not label them late and lamented yet!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36409566

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

#162

Post by idopmstuff »

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…

So what happens to the mom and pop hardware store that's been running for 30 years when mom and pop want to retire? They just have to shut their doors?

Banning all M&A would run into a brick wall of unintended consequences. If no one can sell their business, then a significant percent of potential small business owners just wouldn't start businesses.

Then what would happen? Those people would go get jobs. Instead of them owning the things they create, those things would be owned by their employers. Instead of having the issue where someone goes and creates Goodreads but it gets bought by Amazon, nobody would ever create Goodreads. All you've done is save Amazon the acquisition cost.

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

#163

Post by CaptainZapp »

unethical_ban wrote: post #110
deanCommie wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish people also learned some critical reading: Amazon spokesperson Ashely Vanicek said that " " Is journalistically neutral. Amazon was asked about what we wrote. Here's what they said. You decide if you believe us, or Amazon. I see nothing wrong with this, unless the headline of this story was "Goodreads' accelerated mission in delighting customers with the help of Amazon’s resources and technology.”

I see both peoples' points. Yes, journalism can objectively report the fact that Amazon said something. I think it is also fair to wish for informationally bankrupt statements to be called out by decent institutions. As you say, the headline suggests an opposition to Amazon's position, so maybe that's enough.

I really liked Hunter S Thompson's gonzo journalism take in that regard.

It went along the lines:

"The defence secretary said that we're fighting a righteous and humane war in Vietnam. The defense secretary is full of shit!"

Nowadays they send their spokes drones and have the spin masters cook up even more ridiculous shit.

Hunter S Thompson (RIP) must be spinning in his grave.

e: added quotes around Hunter's fictious statement

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

#164

Post by fsckboy »

unreal37 wrote: post #126
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…

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?

> Company A is 6 days away from going out of business...But then Company B agrees to buy them for $1...Ban it?

versus scenario 2, Company A is profitable. Company B is smaller, but up and coming. An announcement is made that A will buy B and everything will be better. Layoffs ensue, product lines are dropped, employees and customers are very unhappy, but prices and profits are up.

Since scenario 2 is quite common today, and scenario 1 is relatively uncommon, yes, ban it, that's a better way to run markets.

We're conducting a thought experiment here. So we think through the implications and try to figure out if there is a way to achieve benefits for all, benefits that we know exist. Don't be scared of a single negative scenario, have to look at the big picture, what is better overall. I'm glad billionaires have the freedom to build kooky submarines that other multimillionaires can climb aboard and go on dangerous adventures, sometimes ending in the ultimate sacrifice. Why a whole bunch of other people who were uninvolved engage in weeks of hand-wringing, I can't grok at all.

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

#165

Post by kawera »

dopa42365 wrote: post #111

80% of reviews being "got the ebook for free before release in exchange for a very honest review" or "here're my 10000 words thoughts on spoiler spoiler spoiler" and overuse of goddamn inline gifs everywhere made the review section unreadable. It's more like a social network with gamification of book reviews. Looking at a random book: 4.36 stars, 74 ratings, 28 reviews. Release date: 18. July 2023 (in 15 days) No com…

Not to mention reviewers with 3k+ reviews. Who in their right mind properly read and review 3k books?

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

#166

Post by dexterdog »

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.

Which is why founders should have a network where one creates good reads and sells to Amazon and then one of the others starts a better good reads right away. Then when founder A's handcuffs come off he goes and makes a new version of the most recent thing that sold to one of the FAANGs.

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

#167

Post by golergka »

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…

I don't even need to know what unintentional consequences of this will be, but I know that they will be catastrophic.

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

#168

Post by kortilla »

fourmajor wrote: post #28
fastball wrote: post #12

Eh, Goodreads has always suffered from the same problem that plagues every other review system which uses "score out of X" ranking. Humans just aren't very good at ranking things on a normal distribution, so you invariably end up with every item (books in this case) being ranked somewhere in the 3.5-4.5 range (since Goodreads is out of 5). For IMDB the rankings all hover around 8ish. When in reality the average book…

I disagree that stars should be evenly distributed between 1 to 5 stars. I think it's quite possible that most books that people choose to read end up being a 3 (good with some flaws) or 4 (good but not all-time great). It's kind of like the same thing with pizza. I'd give most pizza a 3 or 4. Very few 1s and 5s to be sure. 1 doesn't have to mean bottom 20% of pizzas. It can mean "awful, couldn't finish," where very…

“Normal distribution” doesn’t mean evenly distributed. Most being in the middle is a normal distribution.

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

#169

Post by crazygringo »

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…

No, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There's no problem if a company with 2% of the market merges with another company with 2% -- it tends to lower prices by removing inefficiencies. It's only a problem when prices rise or innovation stops when there are only ~2 competitors left, or when the a single player has 40%+ market share.

Also a large proportion of mergers have nothing to do with market share -- they're acquiring a supplier for vertical consolidation, they're buying a product because it's faster than building it in-house, etc. These are generally entirely legitimate as they enable companies to compete more, not less -- which is good for consumers.

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

#170

Post by user_7832 »

yurishimo wrote: post #98
tecleandor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like this is culturally different for some things. And corporations can influence too. I have a friend who has four restaurants in Tokyo, and I've been several times there. If you keep attention to the restaurant reviews in Google Maps, Japanese people is very hard. They'd go like "The food is great, incredible service, surprising flavors, very good experience, best Spanish food I've had in a long time..." and…

100% it's cultural. In the Netherlands, companies brag about a 7 or 8 out of ten as proof of their amazing customer service. When I lived in America, it seemed the consensus of anything under a 9 is killing puppies. Coincidentally, NPS is entirely based on this fact. 8+ is required for a "happy customer". 7 is given a little wiggle room to win them back and under 6 is a lost cause.

> In the Netherlands, companies brag about a 7 or 8 out of ten as proof of their amazing customer service.

Huh, could you give an example of it? I am new to the Netherlands and hadn’t realized this yet.

Post reply on HN