Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by fsckboy » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:45 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #169

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…

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…

Vertical consolidation is also monopolistic, it reduces competition by removing a buyer and a seller from a healthy marketplace.

what is actually good for consumers is fierce competition spoiling the sleep of capitalists.

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

#202

Post by vGPU » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:49 PM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #153

ethbr0 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies also acquire and merge to vertically integrate.

So, for example Coca Cola has saturated the drinks market, and they vertically integrate by buying bottling companies... which means their competitor Pepsi can no longer buy from that bottling company because Coke has decreased competition in that market? Here's what they teach in business school: if you have a cloud computing business, and you have an advertising business, and your cloud business wants to advertise…

Except in reality, the cloud business would “buy” ads from the ad business, and now you have an “expense” despite the fact that the money never went anywhere.

Shuffle here, shuffle there, viola! Tax evasion.

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

#203

Post by hospitalJail » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:55 PM UTC

yurishimo wrote: post #105

hospitalJail wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Modern Zelda reviews are a prime example of this. The non-industry people reviewing Zelda have 4 options, 7/10, 8/10, 9/10, 10/10. A 7/10 means the game was bad and you had a hard time finishing it, and won't be playing again. 8/10 means the game was also bad, but you had fun for a few minutes/hours. 9/10 means the game meet minimum expectations. 10/10 means you enjoyed the game, but there were countless flaws th…

Devils advocate; Is it not possible that Nintendo just makes good games? They spend a lot of time on development, don't rush things, the trailers are honest about gameplay and what to expect. I can understand it's not your cup of tea or arguments that their online service is shit (it is) but reviewing a video game in isolation, many of them seem to be good games objectively. Games that don't appeal to the average CoD…

Nah, you can see it on subreddits as people discuss the game. Complaining about a few enemies, copypaste world, etc... Its not a 10/10, but it will still be reviewed like this.

Imagine you got rid of the Zelda skins and Zelda name, released it on Xbox. What would it get then?

Don't get me wrong, I religiously play all the zelda's and find ways to enjoy them. I am under Nintendo's spell, but I also know these are the corporate mascots I grew up with. Nintendo markets to children, we basically need therapy if we want to be free from their grip.

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

#204

Post by libraryatnight » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:55 PM UTC

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 agree generally, I'm sure an actual solution is more nuanced but coming from the angle of no M&A seems like a good ideal. My personal issues with business after having worked in it for awhile as an employee and not a capitalist:

1) building a business with a goal of being acquired often builds lazy unsustainable businesses built only to be cashed out, often at the expense of employees.

2) buying good businesses seems frequently to do what you said: they get absorbed and lost and the social cost is a lost source of jobs, innovation, and competition.

I know the companies I worked for acquired wonderful smaller companies doing decent things, made happy speeches about their future, then they were gradually pushed out and shut down. Would they have failed anyway? Maybe, but I'd like to see more businesses rise and fall rather than cannibalize each other.

I'm not a smart man, so I don't know what to do specifically, but I definitely see the problem this solution is getting at - I hope some day society has figured out a good answer.

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

#205

Post by bstpierre » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:56 PM UTC

Curvature5868 wrote: post #182

hcal wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not advocating for banning M&As, but I think that could be addressed by only allowing acquisitions under specific bankruptcy conditions. Again, though, I'm not advocating for that position. I'd hate to spend part of my life building a business and not be able to cash out when the time comes for me to retire.

Is it possible for private companies to pay dividends? Let's say you retire and you own a portion of a small but thriving company. Could that company potentially provide you with dividends as a form of income?

Yes, a private company can pay dividends. Or you could loan it the money to buy out your shares and collect interest as it pays back the loan. Or a mixture of the two, with a thousand little variations on terms. I believe I ran into an employee-owned company once that had gone through some version of the loan scenario.

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

#206

Post by yurishimo » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

user_7832 wrote: post #170

yurishimo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. I was looking up energy price comparisons last night and came across this.

https://www.overstappen.nl/energie/vergelijken/

Under "Beste energievergelijker"

> Onze klanten beoordelen ons daarom met gemiddeld een 8,6.

If you scroll further, you can see their ratings for other services; none reach even an 8.

Compare that to Nerd Wallet's "Best Life Insurance Companies" (a segment that is nearly identical from all providers if you purchase term life).

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/best-life-insur...

5/5 across the board for all parties. I get that it's a "best of" list, but you seriously mean to tell me all of these companies are exactly the same? The rest of Nerd Wallet's top pick lists are the same.

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

#207

Post by idopmstuff » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

thomasahle wrote: post #178

idopmstuff wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

If the only people who can buy businesses are individuals, you've cut the potential acquirer pool, and thus the value, by an enormous amount.

> 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.

You're pointing out exactly why banning M&A would be good for big businesses. Now instead of having to buy out the little guy, they just wait for it close and then buy all the assets (can assets be sold under this regime? do you just have to throw everything away?) and reopen under their own name. Now the mom and pop lost a bunch of money and the big company got a new location at a big savings.

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

#208

Post by paulddraper » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 7:02 PM UTC

Joker_vD wrote: post #185

paulddraper wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ban all M&A That makes about as much sense as banning marriage. M&A is fundamental and important.

> That makes about as much sense as banning marriage. Banning marriage actually makes a lot of sense, according to some. Why is the state even involved in such private matters in the first place anyhow?

Same reasons it's involved in medicine, housing, education, etc etc.

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

#209

Post by sigstoat » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 7:04 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #143

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?

They can still go bankrupt and company buys the assets without employees ever losing pay. Many bankruptcies work this way.

this sounds like it was dreamt up by a bunch of lawyers trying to get themselves more work. there's a lot more paperwork and bullshit involved in going into bankruptcy than just being bought out.

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

#210

Post by ggwareago » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 7:05 PM UTC

stevebmark wrote: post #194

What’s the insider report on the Goodreads technical staff? Did they all quit after the site was bought? Did they stay, and they’re just coasting? Did Amazon nix the tech team? The site has received almost no technical improvements, so there’s clearly not an effective tech team anymore. Can someone at Amazon share the the gossip?

Nothing salacious. People left over time. Maybe higher turnover than other Amazon orgs because change is harder there.

>The site has received almost no technical improvements,

Not true. Theyre under the surface or not webfacing. (Like Kindle integration)

The biggest technical issue with Goodreads is this: the site was originally built as a giant pile of Rails spaghetti with views mixed with business logic and such and then a fuck ton of weird features built and left to sit there. Like way WAY more than you'd think unless you actively hunted through the webmap.

There is an ongoing metaproject to detangle the spaghetti into an api that sits in front of the databases and deprecate the Rails hell pit (derisively called 'the monolith' internally). It's taken years. It is still in progress. It was started far too late in the game. When people talk about tech debt at Goodreads thats mainly what they mean.