151–160 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EPUB, PDF, the web. All good options.
Why not an open-source one something like where everyone has power? something like Reddit or Bitcoin?
I say this because it appears to be a middling-common belief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me explain further. Take this scenario: - Amazon continues to drops prices. Great for consumers. - They drop prices so low that either publishers reduce how much they pay writers or they go out of business. - Writers then start shifting publishing to Amazon who can give them a bigger piece of the pie. - Publishers die out leaving Amazon as sole publisher + distributor. - NOW they can exploit their power. They can…
Being the internet, it's easy for new competitors to start up, and existing competitors to expand. See oreilly.com, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rather read works by people who are creating for the sake of art, and not money. So basically the independently wealthy.
Point of information: back before I got the opportunity to write novels for a living, it took me 3-4 years to write one on a part-time/hobbyist/learning-the-art basis. That's because I had a day job, which came first. As someone who is earning a living by writing, I typically produce a book a year, plus change (sometimes up to two books per year). If downward pressure on production costs results in me having to seek…
Books have a high up front cost and low unit cost. This means that quadrupling sales is better than doubling prices and books "that lots of people like" will always be dramatically more successful than books that are "neither artistic, meritorious, or even popular". There is no risk of the type of commodification you are worried about.
I think there is a valid point to be made about books of serious artistic or literary merit losing out as we shift focus to books that lots of people like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being the internet, it's easy for new competitors to start up, and existing competitors to expand. See oreilly.com, for example.
It's easy unless Amazon has signed people to exclusive contracts, such that your new startup can't get any of the authors people want to read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Let me explain further. Take this scenario: - Amazon continues to drops prices. Great for consumers. - They drop prices so low that either publishers reduce how much they pay writers or they go out of business. - Writers then start shifting publishing to Amazon who can give them a bigger piece of the pie. - Publishers die out leaving Amazon as sole publisher + distributor. - NOW they can exploit their power. They can…
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…
> dissuading authors from writing by suppressing their earnings. I take it you do not know what the median author makes from writing a book. Lets just say if an author was also a rational economic agent they would flip burgers rather than write books.
"It's not enough to just live. You have to have something to live for."
And flipping burgers ain't it.
The same people who come up with ideas like "rational economic agent" either have their bills taken care of or are surrounded by other people who think that stuff up, too. Individuals are sometimes rational, but a lot of people have to consider quality of life, life having other plans, etc., which doesn't seem to have been included in the ideas behind "rational economic agent."
"Rational economic agent" boils all the "life" out of life. There's what we should be doing; there's what we want to be doing; sometimes there's what we need to be doing; and then there's the idea of what we need to be doing. Some of it earns us money, but all of it has value, which "rational economic agent" completely misses.
We're human beings, not some godsdamned little spreadsheet automatons.
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 if we replace Amazon with Walmart and publisher with manufacturers? "Walmart is squeezing manufacturers to push prices down, which is bad becuase... why?"
When minimizing price becomes the dominant merchant behavior, quality suffers. Yes, you can get a computer mouse shipped to your door in 2 days or less for $7. But you will also be replacing it in a few months when its cheap microswitch starts randomly double-clicking from a single button press.
This, in itself is no big deal. You got what you paid for, basically. The danger is when other manufacturers, that formerly had more trustworthy brands, replace their microswitches with the cheaper part, without informing the customer that their build quality has been reduced. So you can also buy a $60 name-brand mouse that experiences exactly the same failure mode as the $7 item.
Then value-based shoppers and cost-based shoppers end up buying exactly the same item, even though the former would dearly love to buy just one mouse that lasts for 10 years rather than 20 that last anywhere from 1 to 24 months each. Meanwhile, the quality-based shoppers have to pay higher prices for parts that are no longer available at scale. Or, as is more frequent, they take to the secondary market to buy goods manufactured before the cost-driven breakdown in overall quality.
Aggressive cost controls are great for people who always buy the goods with the lowest up-front cost. But they absolutely suck for people who do not want to ensure things work by purchasing an ongoing subscription for replacement parts. I want my goods to be durable and reliable, not cheap enough to replace when it inevitably breaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
To Amazons various competitors: Google Play Books, iBooks, Barnes and Noble...
Paul Krugman is a foam at the mouth kook. He's consistently wrong, and only continues to be "relevant" because he promotes a particular view of the world, which is both absurd and popular because it is based on feelings and not reality. Capitalism is based on grow and destruction. It is just as absurd to argue against Amazon as it would have been to argue for Blockbuster. Netflix comes along, and Blockbuster disappea…
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…
>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. I just spent $10,000 editing and producing my latest book that's going to be self-published. Comparing the royalties I'll get with self-publish (not using CreateSpace BTW…
And more important, to many new and more established writers, the editors in publishing houses provide serious value in the form of advice and guidance. It's easy to think that because you read books you surely know how to write a good one. But that's similar to thinking that because you use applications you surely know how to code a good one.
And lastly, good publishing houses serve as brands for consumers. People won't see a self-published technology book with the same eyes as if it was published by O'Reilly (for example). From past experiences they probably feel guaranteed of a certain level of quality from the O'Reilly book that a small lone author almost never can provide
I'm not claiming that the publishing system is a panacea or that all editors are amazing. But you described it as mostly useless, bordering on a ripoff, and I think it's far from the truth.