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

61–70 of 208 posts

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#61

Post by monkeyprojects »

fpgeek wrote: post #58
monkeyprojects wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

True but once you've got that original library of books on your reading device on what app are you going to purchase additional books on?

On my ipad I have iBooks, Marvin and Kindle. The first app I open is the Kindle due to the 180+ books that already sit on Kindle's cloud. And I doubt that is going to change.

As an utter aside I do have an e-ink reader. I went from an ipad and kindle to an ipad mini and then back to the former. Reading on an e-ink device a fall asleep reading on an ipad mini the light kept me awake...

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#62

Post by dingaling »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #11
amrrs wrote: post #2

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

Join your local library and make full use of the inter-library lending agreement, or internet 0.1b as I like to think of it.

> Join your local library and make full use of the inter-library lending agreement

Soon adds up:

60p (plus £3.40 if an interlibrary loan is necessary)

Often cheaper just to find it for £1 plus postage costs on Amazon or Abebooks.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#63

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

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…

And I'm sure the 90% that vanishes will be the 90% you want gone.

What I'm curious about is why you think Amazon's actions will drive away those creating crap for the sake of money. When I look through the Kindle Store the thing that always strikes me is how many knocked together short books written by people with no great expertise there are. To me that's the main current impact of Amazon's democratization of publishing.

There's a very good question to be asked about why the current publishing elite should be the gate keepers to who gets published and who doesn't, however you don't have to browse much of Amazon to see the impact on quality when there is no gate keeper at all and, to me at least, it doesn't look like a utopia of art for art's sake.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#64

Post by bryanlarsen »

fpgeek wrote: post #47
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.

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.

How are self-publishers supposed to pay editors if Amazon keep pushing prices down?

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#65

Post by fpgeek »

monkeyprojects wrote: post #61
fpgeek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

True but once you've got that original library of books on your reading device on what app are you going to purchase additional books on? On my ipad I have iBooks, Marvin and Kindle. The first app I open is the Kindle due to the 180+ books that already sit on Kindle's cloud. And I doubt that is going to change. As an utter aside I do have an e-ink reader. I went from an ipad and kindle to an ipad mini and then back t…

> once you've got that original library of books on your reading device on what app are you going to purchase additional books on?

My answer is: it depends. My wife and I have well over a thousand books on Kindle, but I've got a growing library of Kobo books (from taking advantage of some impressive discount coupons) and almost everything DRM-free I get outside a major ebookstore (e.g. books bought directly from publishers or authors) goes straight into Google Books (they're the best with uploads).

Yes, having books scattered across multiple apps isn't perfect, but it isn't that big a deal, either. Amazon has a significant edge (especially with customer service), but it is nowhere near insurmountable.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#66

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

davidw wrote: post #52
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…

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

Lots of people from all classes of life out there writing fanfic.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#67

Post by _almosnow »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #60
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?

Yes he is, and it looks like that to me as well. What's the deal with Paul Krugman being a Nobel Prize winner? [1]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#68

Post by gadders »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #60
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?

I am suggesting that Paul Krugman is speaking as a New York Times Op Ed writer whose duty is to sell newspapers, rather than as an academic.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#69

Post by AlexandrB »

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…

Talent discovery.

Like in the music industry, where a few hits fund a lot of up-and-coming bands publishing has a few hits and many smaller authors that may or may not get big but need up-front funding to try. It's like VC for authors.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#70

Post by fluidcruft »

raverbashing wrote: post #21
amrrs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so Skip Amazon? But all users won't go to each publishing company's page to check for their new releases. That's how Amazon is sandwiched in the middle.

This, but also iBooks, Google Play, etc And of course, just provide DRM-Free books on their website for a discounted price.

Slightly off topic, are there any e-ink Google Play readers? It seems like Amazon, Apple and Google all like to silo their devices and there isn't really any independent path.
Post reply on HN