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

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#101

Post by ender7 »

gadders wrote: post #95
JackC wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Krugman's point is summed up in another quote from the comment you linked to: "Hachette failed to come to mutually agreeable terms with [Amazon]. That's their most important job as a publisher, and they blew it, to the tune of permanently costing their authors 50-60%+ of sales they'll never recover." When one buyer represents 50-60% of sales, the "most important job" of any seller is to come to "mutually agreeable te…

They didn't come to terms, that's true, but unless we saw each side's balance sheet it's hard to know where the fault lies. Supposing Hachette gets a better price - how do we know this will get passed on to authors?

This comment is still ignoring the main point. It shouldn't matter what Hachette's balance sheet currently is. The point is that Amazon appears to have complete control over it. Given that situation, it will inevitably reach zero.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#102

Post by huxley »

skj wrote: post #84
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?

Paul Krugman did not win the Nobel prize [1]. [1] http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-economi...

The Nobel Foundation begs to differ.

It's not one of the original Nobel Prizes but it is considered by the foundation to be on the same standing as the other prizes. Winners are selected by a committee appointed by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences but voted on by the Academy as a whole.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/

"In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden's central bank) established the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. The Prize is based on a donation received by the Nobel Foundation in 1968 from Sveriges Riksbank on the occasion of the Bank's 300th anniversary. The first Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969.

The Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901."

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#103

Post by fennecfoxen »

huxley wrote: post #98
fennecfoxen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we're talking about former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, we can look up a fuller bio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

You mean the Paul Krugman who was chief staffer (international economics) on the Council of Economic Advisors under the Reagan Administration and was hand-picked by Martin Feldstein? Krugman has a very full bio so you can find all sorts of things there, he hasn't hesitated to work with anyone willing to listen to his opinions and expertise.

That's the guy, yep.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#104

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

_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

It's not intended as an appeal to accomplishment, more as a suggestion that he would have as much to lose in reputation than to gain by getting involved in such a thing if he didn't genuinely believe his position.

EDIT: I'd also suggest that as a default with the participants in this particular disagreement, anyone with self interest at heart should probably think about siding with Amazon. Jeff Bezos doesn't lose too many fights.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#105

Post by PeterisP »

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

I see no entry barrier caused by those Kindles - a book from Amazon appears on the device just as fast as a book from any other supplier that is willing to email that book to myname@kindle.com .

If your service doesn't give easy access to drm-free ebooks in standard formats, then any barriers are caused by them and not Amazon.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#106

Post by Kalium »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #44
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 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.

I, for one, am quite happy to be "screwed" by lower prices.

Recall that Amazon publishes directly right now. They haven't raised prices unreasonably.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#107

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#108

Post by nikbackm »

Perdition wrote: post #99
vixen99 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is that nobody has come up with a good way to filter through the self-published dross to find the gold. Without the publishers filtering you can't just pick a book at random and be ensured it probably won't make you want to claw your eyes out (at least publishers would clean up the major spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and incoherent plots). So what is left is popularity, and as already established…

Wouldn't a system like Goodreads be a good start for that?

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#109

Post by eropple »

fpgeek wrote: post #97
bryanlarsen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Amazon doesn't want to push prices down for the sake of pushing prices down. They want to push prices to where their data says they'll make more money (and, assuming they get a cut of the total, to where everyone will make more). People make a lot out of Amazon not paying 70% for books priced above $9.99. Far fewer notice that they also don't pay 70% for books priced below $2.99.

Amazon wants to push prices down for the sake of their own bottom line. What happens when what's good for their bottom line becomes even more divergent from that of the authors working with them? In a monopsony, where do they go?

That's the problem under examination here.

Re: Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K.

#110

Post by josu »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #104
_almosnow wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not intended as an appeal to accomplishment, more as a suggestion that he would have as much to lose in reputation than to gain by getting involved in such a thing if he didn't genuinely believe his position. EDIT: I'd also suggest that as a default with the participants in this particular disagreement, anyone with self interest at heart should probably think about siding with Amazon. Jeff Bezos doesn't lose too…

In the academic world Krugman-the-journalist has never had that much reputation. It was Krugman-the-academic the one who won the Nobel Memorial Prize.

You can check out some of Krugman-the-journalist's most notorious contradictions here: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#Contradictions

Post reply on HN