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

171–180 of 493 posts

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

#171

Post by paulddraper »

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…

> ban all M&A

That makes about as much sense as banning marriage.

M&A is fundamental and important.

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

#173

Post by monktastic1 »

garciansmith wrote: post #10
CaptainZapp wrote: post #7

> By joining Amazon, Goodreads has accelerated their mission to delight customers with the help of Amazon’s resources and technology. Seriously, reading the diarrhea vomited out by corporate PR shills nowadays seriously makes my teeth hurt. Do those people actually believe the bullshit they're spouting to the general public?

I wish news organizations would not give direct quotes when pure marketing nonsense was written. Just say something like "Amazon did not give us any substantive comment on the matter."

Not giving substantive comments makes it sound more honorable than what was actually said. I actually prefer them exposing the nonsense that corporations spew, so that their disingenuity is in plain sight and on the record.

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

#174

Post by AlbertCory »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #115
AlbertCory wrote: post #29

> But Goodreads allows any user, not just those who’ve received advance copies, to leave ratings months before books are released. Authors who’ve become targets of review-bombing campaigns say there’s little moderation or recourse to report the harassment. Writers dealing with stalkers have pointed to the same problem. "Problem": chicken-and-egg problem. Until it's actually published, there's little or no way for a r…

The thing is that it is a pretty easy to solve problem. Print advance copies with a QR code that contains a link to the publisher's site with a GUID in the params. The publisher would have a page, authenticated with the GUID, with authenticated links to private review pages. This allows for knowing the person had the advance copy. Just that line will kill 95% of review bombing. You can also use the publisher side to…

Good idea. Maybe YCombinator would back it.

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

#175

Post by fsckboy »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #157
unreal37 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If a blanket ban runs into this problem, what about a "ban by default"? Basically just flip the script so it doesn't require a denial based on circumstances but instead an approval based on circumstances.

I like the way you think.

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

#176

Post by AlbertCory »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #57
AlbertCory wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is correct. The acquisition was anti-competitive, and Lina Khan's FTC would probably challenge it.

You mean in retrospect? Is that a thing? If so, how do you folks (assuming here) trigger it - some petition? Or FTC picks its own bespoke fights if at all?

Verb tense. Should have said "would have."

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

#178

Post by thomasahle »

idopmstuff wrote: post #162
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…

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…

> 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?

They could sell it to another mom and pop? It's only an M&A if the shop is bought by / becomes part of another business.

If nobody wants to continue running the independent shop, it doesn't make much difference to consumers if a chain buys it, or if it closes down and the chain just opens a new shop there.

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

#179

Post by vvpan »

I know it is really easy to disparage blockchain but in my opinion smart contracts can mitigate much of the startup buy-up problem. They allow describing a system as an autonomous protocol that is not "owned" by an entity. Yes, the company that builds tooling around the protocol could be bought but unless the protocol is explicitly backdoored nobody can pull the rug from under the users' feet and data ownership remains in the protocol participants' hands. Blockchain UX is not yet where most people would like it to be but it is improving fairly quickly and I think we could see adoption of autonomous protocols in the next couple of years.

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

#180

Post by prox »

AlbertCory wrote: post #150
prox wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a problem with quotes; you have these nobody self-help book writers adding hundreds (?) of quotes that are very poor, and gamed with upvotes. So you some see some nobody authors quote next to Plato.

What does that last sentence mean? Edit: the current comment is not what I was responding to. It's clearer now after editing.

I changed the wording. Basically you get noname brand authors quotes next to really legendary figures quotes because it’s all gamed.
Post reply on HN