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

281–290 of 493 posts

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

#281

Post by collaborative »

floren wrote: post #230
meepmorp wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, why not just do something well and make a living from it? I've seen the word enshittifcation plenty lately, and it strikes me that the focus on exits and payouts is a big part of the problem. I feel old and you goddamn kids better be off my lawn by the time I get back with the shotgun.

Well, for a long time, you would just get an MVP up and then collect as many users as possible by offering free accounts, and if you were somewhat aligned with something Facebook or Google was vaguely interested in, you'd get acquired for $100m. Getting $100m for two years of work is a lot more lucrative than working hard for a decade to build a self-sufficient company, so I can't really blame people for doing it.

Plus, in the case where you'd choose to build a real business, now you'd have to meet user expectations of everything being free because that's what they get everywhere else.

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

#282

Post by [deleted] »

zerkten wrote: post #276

Is there a relationship between the application of product management "techniques" and the outcomes for many of these sites? It seems that many of these sites hit this wall when they get acquired. It feels like they start experimenting incoherently with things that don't align with the vision, or even the goals of the acquirer. My personal theory is that this stems from many disjointed experiments where the experimen…

[deleted]

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

#283

Post by cratermoon »

jzonedotcom wrote: post #149
cratermoon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my opinion Amazon’s purchase and immediate dismantling of the vaunted Stanza was most egregious & anticompetitive. I loved that app. And then poof gone.

That purchase would not have been allowed to go through in the pre-Reagan monopoly legal era.

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

#284

Post by yibg »

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…

So only businesses under a certain size can ever be sold. If you happen to do well and the business is worth say 10 million, which mom and pop can buy it?

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

#285

Post by Apocryphon »

idopmstuff wrote: post #279
Apocryphon wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a buyout even the only option? Just find new management. Keep it in the family. Turn it into a co-op. There’s also such as a thing as community businesses, apparently.

I'm guessing you've never run a small business? Sometimes people want to exit. They want to retire, move onto a new chapter of their lives and not be involved in the business anymore. Finding new management doesn't allow that - they can take on the day to day, but you still own the place and are ultimately responsible. Keeping it in the family isn't an option if you don't have family that want it. If you have multipl…

Fortunately in a democratic society, the hoi polloi need not actual experience to have a say- nor to have a vote on changing policy.

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

#286

Post by CamperBob2 »

cratermoon wrote: post #152
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…

The insiders say never to rent from AirBnB if the property isn't at least 4.8 stars. These days those ranking systems don't truly start from 0 or 1. The statistically significant range is much smaller. I don't personally know have the stats chops to do it, but I'm sure determining that range can be done.

The important thing is to actually read the reviews. A five-star place that's located 2 blocks away from a railroad crossing that's active all night won't yield a five-star experience, but the host can hardly be expected to mention that.

The last AirBnB I rented was a five-star house where the host had installed one of those Nest smoke detectors with the motion-sensing night light directly above the bed. He still got a five-star rating, but I went well out of my way to mention the night light in my review.

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

#288

Post by garfieldnate »

I don't really understand the sentiment in the article about Amazon not doing anything with it. When Goodreads was acquired, general opinion was "oh no, I hope they don't ruin it -- don't worry, Amazon is known for acquiring working businesses and letting them be." I don't want new social functions on Goodreads; I get an email digest with activity of my friends, and I keep the friend list very, very short so I'm not overloaded with activity. And why on Earth does the author of the article want Amazon to get more involved with detecting bad reviews? As if their track record on their main site would provide any evidence of their being good at that!

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

#289

Post by JohnFen »

collaborative wrote: post #281
floren wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for a long time, you would just get an MVP up and then collect as many users as possible by offering free accounts, and if you were somewhat aligned with something Facebook or Google was vaguely interested in, you'd get acquired for $100m. Getting $100m for two years of work is a lot more lucrative than working hard for a decade to build a self-sufficient company, so I can't really blame people for doing it.

Plus, in the case where you'd choose to build a real business, now you'd have to meet user expectations of everything being free because that's what they get everywhere else.

This is a factor you need to take into account, but in my experience, people overstate it. It's not actually that hard to get people to pay for things online.

The way you do it is the way it's always been done historically: offer a value proposition that justifies the money. And don't offer it for free at the beginning. People rightfully get very angry if you change the deal after they've come to rely on your product or service.

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

#290

Post by akiselev »

turmacar wrote: post #245
hakunin wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t work in practice due to typically severe time constraints. You cannot expect a business that has 6 days of life left to wait for such an approval process. These things never happen fast.

What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? I know this is already a stressed straw man in the first place but M&A are aren't a short simple process anyway. Adding some oversight isn't going to change that. Yes there are tradeoffs to more regulation vs total anarchy/free market. That doesn't mean they're not worth it. "Good" is not the enemy of "perfect" and all.

> What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe?

Youtube, for one: https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/30/the-entire-1-65b-acquisiti...

Android as well, if I'm remembering correctly.

They don't necessarily need to complete the acquisition in a week, just get the broad details negotiated and agreed to. Given the GP's bankruptcy example, if they thought it was worth the risk the acquirer can extend a bare minimum amount of credit to keep the company alive while they do the rest of due diligence and finish the acquisition, folding it into a breakup fee.

Post reply on HN