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

81–90 of 208 posts

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#81

Post by homarp »

_almosnow wrote: post #67
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/lau... quoting Wikipedia "Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics), the sole recipient for 2008. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#Nobel_Memorial_Pri...

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#82

Post by JackC »

fpgeek wrote: post #57
rubinelli wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

To reverse your point: unless you're talking about predatory publishers, comparing them to VCs is an insult.

You can't get anywhere useful by excluding the bad actors in one industry and focusing solely on the bad actors in another industry.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#83

Post by a3n »

yc1234yc wrote: post #49
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...

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

There's nothing on their front page about how it works. I tried applying for an invite out of a leap of faith, but I don't qualify as I don't have an account with any of the below. I wonder what sort of customer they're trying to filter for.

To get an invite:

    Send a private message to @ebookfarm on Mobilism [Must have an active Mobilism account]

    Send a private message to @ebookfarm on Reddit [Must have an active Reddit account]

    Send a private message to Ebooka Farmer on Facebook [Must have an active Facebook account]

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#84

Post by skj »

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?

Paul Krugman did not win the Nobel prize [1].

[1] http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-economi...

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#85

Post by mikeash »

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?

Why is that so outrageous? Double Nobel winner Linus Pauling became a complete nutcase in later life, for example, strenuously advocating baseless and potentially destructive alternative medicine. Winning a Nobel Prize doesn't make a person immune to misbehavior.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#86

Post by mikeash »

Monopolies and monopsonies only matter when they're difficult to overcome because their size gives them an insurmountable competitive advantage. Absent that, they only exist as long as people are happy with them.

Amazon is easy to bypass. The major publishers could set up their own online stores tomorrow if they wanted to. Authors could set up their own stores too. There are a ton of viable alternatives.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#87

Post by yxhuvud »

amrrs wrote: post #16
davidiach wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Repeat what trick? Selling cheaper? Bring it on!

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#88

Post by exelius »

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…

Yeah; I agree. He would have a good argument except for the fact that the value of a single piece of content is declining across the board. That is fucking with a lot of established business models, specifically with the publishers.

The value of a music album has decreased significantly because anyone can create one in their bedroom with free software and under $1000 worth of equipment. Same with a book - all you need is a laptop and you can self-publish either through e-books or on-demand publishing. Even video content - you can film entertainment content with your cell phone and distribute it on YouTube.

It's a zero-sum game with entertainment, because the public only has so many hours in a day that they can spend consuming media content. So 30 minutes spent watching YouTube videos where the author makes MAYBE $0.05 per view means 5 minutes less to spend watching content with a higher value.

Publishers will never go away for "premium" content: they do serve a marketing function where they can spread risk among a number of options. But their importance in a highly segmented market like book publishing is likely to decrease.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#89

Post by bryanlarsen »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #78
bryanlarsen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard monopsony effect is on quality. Monopsonies push the price below the cost of production, so producers cut production costs to an unreasonable level. In the case of books, you'd see that by cuts in editing, by authors shortening the amount of time that they spend writing a book, and through authors dropping out and leaving the field to less talented writers with fewer alternative income sources. The textb…

Except Amazon is arguing for a lower price because it will increase sales and make both Amazon and the publisher more money. They aren't asking for more books or less editing. They're trying to make everyone more money. Worse, the argument is over pricing on e-books, not physical stock, so Hachette's stance makes even less sense. As usual, Paul Krugman sees everything through a political lens, so naturally Amazon is…

Lower prices increase sales and profits for Amazon because they compete against book stores.

Lower prices decrease profits for book publishers who make money both from Amazon and book stores.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#90

Post by yxhuvud »

raverbashing wrote: post #4

Distribution channels are important, and editors will have to adapt to these new means. I wonder if there was a way of cutting the middle man and selling the books directly from their website in a way that is readable in all e-book readers, hummm

Depends on what middleman you want to cut out. Authors can already sell directly via amazon, and there are editors for hire the authors can use if they want quality editing.
Post reply on HN