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

51–60 of 208 posts

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#51

Post by MereInterest »

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…

>At what point could this function be largely automated? At what point fully?

Once we have strong AI capable of analyzing semantic content, determining which passages most strongly support the intended message, determining which unwritten passages could be written to more strongly support the intended message, determining the semantic linkings between different sections as the message is built up and optimizing the order of those sections.

In other words, never.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#52

Post by davidw »

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…

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

So basically the independently wealthy.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#53

Post by MarkMc »

onthedole wrote: post #34
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…

Forbes has a good response piece to Krugman: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/10/20/paul-krug...

I found the Forbes article unconvincing, especially this bit:

> applying the same strictures to Standard Oil would have left that company alone rather than breaking it up. And that’s a conclusion that I’m entirely happy with too.

So it would have been fine far Standard Oil to take over the entire US economy as long as it reduced prices far consumers?

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#54

Post by gadders »

It looks like Hachette's PR department has stepped up a gear. This subject has been covered several times before and I think this comment [1] did a good job of explaining Hachette and Amazon's positions. To summarise:

When Hachette's contract with Amazon expired, Amazon (rightfully) stopped ordering advance inventory for stocking, but continued taking orders for available titles and transmitted those orders to Hachette as they arrived. From there, it's Hachette's responsibility to deliver the orders to an Amazon distribution center. Once the books arrive, Amazon packs & ships them to purchasing customers as normal.

That's why, when Hachette's contract expired, all of their books were listed as "Out of stock: ships in 1 to 6 weeks" - that's how long it takes Hachette to deliver stock. That's slow as hell.

Amazon didn't "boycott" or "drop" or "betray" authors or "discourage" readers from buying their books - it ceased offering retail inventory management services to a supplier whose contract had expired, and made a rational and defensible business decision when it became clear that the supplier was not negotiating in good faith to establish a new agreement.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8151181#up_8151480

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#55

Post by vixen99 »

Perdition wrote: post #46
nsomaru wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I can't see this as a problem. Let the market decide. Probably my treasured reading is your rubbish and just possibly, vice versa.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#56

Post by monkeyprojects »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #37
icebraining wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopoly usually follows monopsony. Does it? For a business with a low barrier to entry like selling books? I'd like to see some examples. The reason Amazon can have a monopsony is because it keeps prices low. It retains customers and forces publishers to go through them. If they raised prices, they'd lose their advantage, and there are plenty of competitors ready to take the market, including well funded companies (…

Hmm, you have a very good point. Amazon are sitting pretty at the moment, but if something like crowdfunding authors became popular, Amazon could lose market pretty quickly. That said, if you look at the big 4, they largely consist of mergers of very old companies, and Amazon is really the only successful ebook seller in english at the moment, even Google seems to have problems getting far in that market. So the barr…

The barrier to entry against the Kindle that is on my bedside cabinet and many others is virtually impossible to remove.

Amazon offer a painless way of adding books to the device. Buying a book takes seconds and it magically appears on the front page of the device waiting to be read. Its one reason why book piracy didn't go as insane as music piracy, the means of adding books was easier than the device

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#57

Post by fpgeek »

rubinelli wrote: post #42
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 w…

Unless you're talking about predatory VCs, comparing them to publishers is an insult.

Publishers routinely demand that authors submit their next book (or even everything you write in the same genre for years) to them first and even if they reject it they have the right to match any offer you get later.

How many VCs demand rights over your next N years of startups?

Or we could talk about high-discount clauses: Where publishers get a bigger percentage when your books are discounted below a threshold they claim is unlikely... Only to turn around and encourage retailers (including Amazon) to discount your book just below that threshold - where they make more per book and you make substantially less.

How often do VCs make more money by going behind your back to convince an acquirer to pay less?

Or we could talk about rights reversion games, shuffling sales through shell companies cut royalties and on and on and on.

I know VCs can be ruthless, underhanded and worse, but traditional publishers can make them look like kittens by comparison.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#58

Post by fpgeek »

monkeyprojects wrote: post #56
lotsofmangos wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, you have a very good point. Amazon are sitting pretty at the moment, but if something like crowdfunding authors became popular, Amazon could lose market pretty quickly. That said, if you look at the big 4, they largely consist of mergers of very old companies, and Amazon is really the only successful ebook seller in english at the moment, even Google seems to have problems getting far in that market. So the barr…

The barrier to entry against the Kindle that is on my bedside cabinet and many others is virtually impossible to remove. Amazon offer a painless way of adding books to the device. Buying a book takes seconds and it magically appears on the front page of the device waiting to be read. Its one reason why book piracy didn't go as insane as music piracy, the means of adding books was easier than the device

Yes, but the Kindles on bedside cabinets are a rounding error compared to the smartphones and tablets in use today (let alone in a few years). I know there are people who prefer e-ink readers, but they're a small and shrinking slice of the market (at least if the pace of new e-reader releases is anything to go by).

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#59

Post by antientropic »

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...

Actually Krugman did give an explanation: "It’s not just about the money, although that’s important [...] What matters is whether it has too much power, and is abusing that power. Well, it does, and it is."

And why that abuse of power is a bad thing: "It’s definitely possible, with some extra effort, to buy a book you’ve heard about even if Amazon doesn’t carry it — but if Amazon doesn’t carry that book, you’re much less likely to hear about it in the first place."

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#60

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

gadders wrote: post #54

It looks like Hachette's PR department has stepped up a gear. This subject has been covered several times before and I think this comment [1] did a good job of explaining Hachette and Amazon's positions. To summarise: When Hachette's contract with Amazon expired, Amazon (rightfully) stopped ordering advance inventory for stocking, but continued taking orders for available titles and transmitted those orders to Hachet…

Are you suggesting that Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman is speaking out against Amazon because Hachette have drafted him for some sort of PR campaign?
Post reply on HN