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

Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#41

Post by fidotron »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40
raverbashing wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the critical function provided by publishing houses that Amazon is in danger of disrupting? Editors Having a "everybody can publish anything" model is great. But it doesn't fit all cases. Yes, an editor is really helpful. Revision, pagesetting, etc, as well.

> an editor is really helpful. Revision, pagesetting, etc, as well. At what point could this function be largely automated? At what point fully? Algorithmic editing brings up novel possibilities. You could have footnotes added as information is corroborated or countered. Editions could be instantly localised for almost every language and cultures. One may even get to on-the-go re-editing for individual readers (for e…

I have the impression the Kindle is heading in that direction. For example, sections other people have highlighted show up, practically as suggestions to do it yourself.

For some reason this creeps me out, as reading is quite a personal thing, but it seems the attempt to turn it social and crowdsource data from it is happening.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#42

Post by rubinelli »

ajross wrote: post #12

I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…

In many ways, publishing houses are to new authors what accelerators and VCs are to startups. They not only vet and fund them, they give guidance, access to contacts, and specialized help in areas like law and marketing. They pick riskier, less proven concepts, knowing that the hits will compensate for the busts.

Well-known authors don't need publishing houses as much, but most of them would rather spend their time writing than publishing, and they know that their sales make it possible to bring in new faces.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#43

Post by nsomaru »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27
ajross wrote: post #12

I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…

The textbook answer to why monopsony is unhealthy is monopsony suppresses investment in production. In this case, the risk is dissuading authors from writing by suppressing their earnings. Imagine a simplified supply chain: authors distribute through Amazon to reach readers. Amazon exerting pricing pressure on authors benefits readers in the short term by reducing their reading costs. But by reducing authors' profits…

A part of me welcomes this. I am sick of the noise. Browsing the Amazon (Kindle) bookstore, I wish that 90% of the junk didn't even appear in my search results.

Rather read works by people who are creating for the sake of art, and not money.

This does not mean that I believe authors should not be correctly compensated, but has more to do with the impetus for action itself and the resulting quality of work that is produced.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#44

Post by k-mcgrady »

davidiach wrote: post #14
ajross wrote: post #12

I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…

That is exactly what I was thinking. Why should I worry that Amazon makes publishers sell their books for lower prices? No explanation is offered...

Because they could squeeze publishers out and publish directly (which they are already doing to some extent). When they control the market they can then raise prices as high as they want because they are publisher and distributor. In the end consumers get screwed.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#46

Post by Perdition »

nsomaru wrote: post #43
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The textbook answer to why monopsony is unhealthy is monopsony suppresses investment in production. In this case, the risk is dissuading authors from writing by suppressing their earnings. Imagine a simplified supply chain: authors distribute through Amazon to reach readers. Amazon exerting pricing pressure on authors benefits readers in the short term by reducing their reading costs. But by reducing authors' profits…

A part of me welcomes this. I am sick of the noise. Browsing the Amazon (Kindle) bookstore, I wish that 90% of the junk didn't even appear in my search results. Rather read works by people who are creating for the sake of art, and not money. This does not mean that I believe authors should not be correctly compensated, but has more to do with the impetus for action itself and the resulting quality of work that is pro…

>A part of me welcomes this. I am sick of the noise. Browsing the Amazon (Kindle) bookstore, I wish that 90% of the junk didn't even appear in my search results.

>Rather read works by people who are creating for the sake of art, and not money.

What does that have to do with the low quality of many self-published works? There is tons of fiction out there written entirely for 'art' and it is nearly all complete trash.

There is so much trash on Amazon because they are killing publishers who traditionally filtered out most of the trash. For every crappy bestseller they published the publishers weeded out tens of thousands of other crappy works.

Crappy authors will still write, even if only for public praise (some people do like rubbish).

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#47

Post by fpgeek »

raverbashing wrote: post #29
ajross wrote: post #12

I normally love Krugman, but it seems like he skipped a step here. Amazon is squeezing publishers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why? I mean, the apocalyptic end game here is that publishers are forced out of business entirely and Amazon ends up buying content directly from authors, I guess. That doesn't sound so bad to me, nor like something that's going to "hurt America". Maybe then they might squeeze…

> What's the critical function provided by publishing houses that Amazon is in danger of disrupting? Editors Having a "everybody can publish anything" model is great. But it doesn't fit all cases. Yes, an editor is really helpful. Revision, pagesetting, etc, as well.

Disrupting editors does not mean eliminating them. Successful self-publishers pay for, among other things, their own editors. Readers are not stupid. Between descriptions, reviews, free samples and so on assessing quality (both abstractly and personally) isn't hard.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#48

Post by davidw »

mironathetin wrote: post #17
raverbashing wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we can buy elsewhere, but they charge more for shipping and oh yeah, your CC is not working here...

Shipping costs dont't matter, do they? Reading a book takes a while. Why do I care whether it comes free of charge or costs a few cents? Books still are great value for the money. I can read 2 or three a month, maximum. Shipping cost for books are really a negligible point in my total budget. Finally, you always pay for shipping. Either with cash or, as we see, by amazon squeezing the price from someone else. It is n…

If they don't matter to you, perhaps you'd be willing to pay mine. I'd gladly buy paper books from http://www.powells.com/ and have them shipped here to Italy, but it's expensive and slow.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#49

Post by yc1234yc »

raverbashing wrote: post #5
amrrs wrote: post #2

So apart from stop buying from Amazon, what else one common citizen of Internet can do?

Yeah, we can buy elsewhere, but they charge more for shipping and oh yeah, your CC is not working here...

https://ebook.farm sells (no DRM) ebooks with bitcoin as one of the payment option (with a bonus)

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#50

Post by k-mcgrady »

icebraining wrote: post #20
amrrs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because what if they repeat the same trick towards Customers? Do we have a choice then?

Why wouldn't we? There are hundreds of companies selling books, and you can start a new one with essentially nothing. Book selling is not a natural monopoly which requires heavy investment to enter into. I see no reason to assume Amazon can keep a monopoly with high prices simply because they squeezed the publishers. Low prices is what keeps them in power. (Btw, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I don't buy at Amazo…

>> "Why wouldn't we? There are hundreds of companies selling books, and you can start a new one with essentially nothing."

If Amazon screws the publishers out of business and begins publishing themselves our alternatives to Amazon would be reduced significantly. Then they have the power to increase prices for consumers because there's very little we can do. We can still use libraries and book shops but for new releases published by Amazon they could make themselves sole distributor.

Post reply on HN