

Jeff Bezos Eats Kittens - barry-cotter
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/news_from_the_ebook_dimension.html

======
SamAtt
This seems disingenuous to me. First, on the 1984 scandel he cites, Amazon has
apologized, sworn they will never do it again, refunded customers money and
given customers new copies of the book. Give them a break already.

On the "Gay-Rank" scandal they claimed it was a bug and they fixed the bug
within a single business day. He claims that's not enough because "it shows
that they've created a frighteningly efficient machine for imposing
ideological censorship, should they choose to do so". But here's my question:
How could they have a ranking system and not create the possibility of
censorship? It's impossible (and the ranking system helps far more people than
its ever hurt).

Oh, and does Amazon cap the price of books at $9.99
([http://www.amazon.com/CSS-The-Missing-Manual-
ebook/dp/B0026O...](http://www.amazon.com/CSS-The-Missing-Manual-
ebook/dp/B0026OR2QI/ref=amb_link_84616451_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0YQTAKG8E6NAD2YTW0NH&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=482048491&pf_rd_i=726697011))?

After making those claims he goes on to fabricate a sinister reason as to why
Amazon doesn't have a Kindle UK store yet (based on no evidence as far as I
can tell)

So he basically believes Amazon has sinister objectives no matter what they
say or what actions they take and based on that he believes Kindle in the UK
is a bad thing. The one thing he is right about is DRM but Apple kind of
proved that sometimes you have to give publishers their DRM in order to
convince them that they don't need it.

~~~
ggchappell
> First, on the 1984 scandel he cites, Amazon has apologized, sworn they will
> never do it again, refunded customers money and given customers new copies
> of the book. Give them a break already.

Has Amazon taken any steps to remove the feature of the Kindle software that
let them do this in the first place? I don't think so. Thus, I am rather
disinclined to "give them a break".

To use an analogy: a criminal obtains the key to my house. One night he sneaks
in and steals some stuff. I'm upset, of course. But then he apologizes,
returns the stuff, and even gives me a few gifts. _However_ , he keeps my
house key. Am I happy? (BTW, yes, I know that what Amazon did is not illegal.
But it _is_ certainly lousy enough to keep me from ever buying a Kindle.)

Unless someone wants to explain to me why being able to muck about with a
customer's computer, behind the customer's back, is a Good Thing (?).

~~~
jfager
The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house
and agreed with them they could come take back whatever they delivered to you
whenever they wanted to. And then when they did, you got ticked off because
you didn't think they ever actually would, or something. And then they
apologized, and you didn't take your key back.

Nobody's forcing anyone to buy a Kindle. The DRM and this ability they're
retaining is one of the big reasons I don't have one yet (though I have to
admit, I'm probably not going to hold out much longer).

~~~
ggchappell
> The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house
> ....

Yes, that's closer. But closer yet would be that we're developing a new kind
of housing, which cannot be bought without signing a contract that says the
selling company gets a copy of your key. The problem is when this kind of
thing gets on the accepted list of "standard business practices", and then
people stop noticing that it's a bad idea.

> And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back.

True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the house.

I agree that Amazon has not broken their word on anything. They do not seem to
have broken any laws. What they can and cannot do is part of the deal.

However, _it is a bad deal_. I am not treating Amazon like a company that is
not doing what they said they'll do. Rather I am treating them like a company
that sells a seriously inferior product. Because the contract is part of that
product, and the contract is not good.

~~~
jfager
_True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the [Kindle]_

I dunno, it is a computer system. As far as I know, it's not jailbroken yet,
but there are folks working on it:
<http://igorsk.blogspot.com/search/label/kindle>

------
steveplace
_I make literally five times as much money in royalties per $24 hardcover as I
do per $8 paperback. I'd like to be able to make that money off $10 ebooks via
Amazon, but my publishers (and their contracts departments) aren't set up that
way; we're locked in place with legal boilerplate written years ago._

Ah, there's the rub. The author's current model, as negotiated by the
publisher, has them cutting into margins for ebooks. Is that amazon's problem?
I would think that if the author redefined the model through renegotiation or
cutting out the publisher altogether, the attitude would change.

------
st3fan
"Let me explain why I think this is very bad news for writers."

"I don't link to Kindle ebooks because Amazon don't pay an affiliate fee on
them."

Riiiiight.

~~~
teamonkey
That isn't his explanation why he thinks it's bad for writers, that's his
answer why he doesn't link to kindle ebooks.

His explanation is summarised at the end of the article.

~~~
teamonkey
And because I was downmodded for that, here it is...

> So, to summarize: what have I got against Amazon's Kindle?

1) DRM. (It's unethical, immoral, fattening, and a royal pain in the ass. To
be fair: this also goes for other ebook platforms.)

2) Amazon reserves the right to delete work from your Kindle. (Under
circumstances which are now a little clearer and a little tighter, but
nevertheless still present.)

3) Censorship.

4) They're using their monopsony position to fuck over their suppliers (i.e.
the publishers) in a manner that threatens a catastrophic crash in author
royalties in the medium term (up to 5 years). NB: as a reader, you may enjoy
the short term price benefit, but you'll pay for it in the long term in
reduction of choice.

5) Their actions may start a trans-Atlantic price war between publishers, to
the detriment of authors (again, in the medium term).

------
ATB
DISCLAIMER: I haven't worked at Amazon for some time now.

The author makes a number of unsourced assumptions about the business models
involved, as well as his moral rights. You'll have to decide for yourself if
those are correct:

"The US Kindle store caps book prices at $9.99 even for hardcovers that
normally have a retail price of $23.95 and which would typically cost $16 in
dead tree format via Amazon. Amazon gets the books at this price by taking the
publishers for a huge [...] discount"

That is a fact, is it? Publishers happily sell their books for much less money
so they become _Kindle_ bestsellers, thereby undermining their traditional
distribution models and pissing off every bookstore? REALLY?

"and by saying "screw you" to the small fry like me, who are looking for our
points on the referral scheme"

Because Amazon has given you a few % off sales coming from your links, you
have the moral right to extend this scheme to all future ways in which Amazon
will ever sell anything? How is that a "screw you" in any way?

"One nasty suspicion of mine is that Amazon were demanding discounts so
ludicrous that publishers would be making a net loss on each book sold after
expenses and royalties"

Publishers are just lining up to make heavy losses so they can sell electronic
content, i.e. they are just desperate to subsidize Amazon's ebook reader?
Think this through for a minute.

"what have I got against Amazon's Kindle?

1) DRM. (It's unethical, immoral, fattening, and a royal pain in the ass"

That's strange, since most of the complains seem to be about the cut from
referral fees he's not making anymore. A point that, coincidentally, doesn't
appear anywhere in the conclusion anymore.

"4) They're using their monopsony position to fuck over their suppliers (i.e.
the publishers) "

You'd think someone from a publisher (horribly leak-happy companies, the lot
of them) would've let something on by now. Strange how nobody's done so.

------
tjic
> 4) They're using their monopsony position to fuck over their suppliers (i.e.
> the publishers) in a manner that threatens a catastrophic crash in author
> royalties in the medium term (up to 5 years). NB: as a reader, you may enjoy
> the short term price benefit, but you'll pay for it in the long term in
> reduction of choice.

This is all based on conjecture, and it turns out to be bullshit.

Stross just asserts, with no data, that

(a) Amazon is a monopsony (Amazon sells $5 billion of books per year, out of a
$13 billion ecommerce book market, out of a $30-40 billion total book market).

(b) the discounted price of ebooks comes from the publisher. In fact Slate (or
maybe it was The Atlantic?) had an article within the last month about how
Amazon is paying THE SAME AMOUNT for ebooks as for hardovers, and Amazon is
actually losing money on each kindle book sale, but is doing so to build
mindshare.

I like half or so of Stross' fiction, but his conspiratorial ranting annoys
the piss out of me.

~~~
jfager
_(a) Amazon is a monopsony (Amazon sells $5 billion of books per year, out of
a $13 billion ecommerce book market, out of a $30-40 billion total book
market)._

If you want to sell ebooks right now, the only way to do it (and actually get
significant sales) is through the Kindle, isn't it? Lots of publishers with
only one viable reseller - sounds like a monopsony to me. The question isn't
if they are one, it's if they're abusing their position as one. I'm not
convinced by this article that they are, but the potential is certainly there
as the popularity of the Kindle goes up.

------
raquo
I wonder how the publishers failed to see Amazon as a monopsony threat before,
or if they did, why did they not develop their own ebook sales channels.
Several times in the past years I wanted to buy a pdf of various books and
could never find it online.

~~~
mediaman
I suspect that book publishers introducing their own digital distribution
mechanism would not make the traditional book distributors (e.g. Ingram) very
happy, and you don't want a major channel partner getting angry with you.

Because Amazon merely is a competing distributor, rather than a
publisher/vendor trying to go vertical, distributors have less leverage.

~~~
raquo
That's probably right. Do you think Amazon will inevitably become the iTunes
of books, or is there anything that could stop this?

~~~
unalone
That's a weird way to ask it. iTunes has competitors, after all. Just today I
bought a slew of mp3s from the Amazon store, because they offer incredible
deals.

If you mean will Amazon become the majority store, the answer is that they
will be unless something better comes up. Isn't that how it always is?

