
Amazon, a Friendly Giant as Long as It’s Fed - smacktoward
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/technology/amazon-a-friendly-giant-as-long-as-its-fed.html
======
GeorgeOrr
When it comes to book publishing, isn't it Hachette that is the Giant
monopoly?

If you want to buy a book they publish, you are a click away from bying it
from [http://www.barnesandnoble.com/](http://www.barnesandnoble.com/) or from
Apple if you want it on your ipad.

But if Amazon wants to sell it they have no choice but to get it from the
conglomerate Hachette.

My favorite comment on this so far comes from Hugh Howey (author of the WOOL
series)at [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-howey/winning-at-
monopoly...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-howey/winning-at-
monopoly_b_5453482.html)

From that article.

“The real monopoly, once you start examining business practices and attitudes,
is Big Publishing itself,”

"Where is the outcry for Amazon-published authors who are blocked from sale by
practically every brick and mortar store? It doesn't exist. The response is
simply: That's what those authors get for signing with Amazon. Imagine an
observer today saying, "That's what those authors get for signing with
Hachette." The hypocrisy astounds."﻿

~~~
jamesaguilar
If you ask, "cui bono?", the decision on who to side with is pretty obvious,
at least for the average consumer.

Amazon has for decades been one of the most pro-consumer companies out there.
The publishers have been slapped in court for trying to collude to raise
prices. In fact, the whole source of this dispute is that Hachette wants the
option to charge more for its books on Amazon.

So on the one hand, we have a company that wants us to pay more for the same
product. And on the other hand we have a company that, while large in the
ecosystem, is by no means a monopoly ( _maybe_ it is a monopsony, but even
that is someone questionable considering they only have a 65% share of the
market), and wants to charge us less. You can always buy the publishers' books
from a different store if Amazon won't sell them. Well, if it weren't for the
DRM the publishers originally insisted on, you could.

Hrm. Well, I know where I stand on this.

~~~
colechristensen
I see a future where hyper-low-volume printers paired with warehousing and
delivery logistics providers (Amazon) and crowd-funded _investing_ for
advances replace and eliminate the rent extraction of the big publishers in
film, print, and music.

I want to live in a world where the creators set their own prices and reap the
most benefits.

~~~
walterbell
Are you referring to Espresso book printers or another type of print
technology?

~~~
colechristensen
I'm thinking something like an Espresso book printer scaled up to a small
(mostly) automated factory serving logistics companies (shippers and
warehousers like Amazon) and local book shops. The key being the possibility
of producing a large volume of books per day but down to ones of copies per
title eliminating the up front cost of 10,000 units (or whatever a reasonable
industry standard is).

~~~
walterbell
Doesn't Amazon already run their own POD press? One of the rumored disputes
with Hachette is that Amazon wants access to digital masters so they can print
books on demand, if the publisher is unable to supply physical copies for any
logistical reason. That's like demanding access to software source code.

~~~
sigstoat
considering [http://www.diybookscanner.org/](http://www.diybookscanner.org/)
and the speed with which illegal texts of books popped up on the internet even
before drm-breaking of ebooks was a thing, i think it's like demanding access
to the source code of an unobfuscated python program you've already been
given. getting the source isn't hard; the only hurdle is a legal one.

i find it hard to believe that 1) amazon would violate contracts on something
like that or 2) if they did, hachette would somehow suffer financially, but
not notice, or be unable to do anything about it.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I can ship books to 1dollarscan.com, and for $3 per 100 pages, get 600dpi, ocr
layered, human adjusted/verified PDFs of a book.

The hurdle, as always, is layer 8.

------
peaton
It seems the case that the life of a company also follows the Dark Knight
quote "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become
the villain." That is, when a company starts, we all invest because we want
our chance to become majority stake holders in the next big monopoly
destroyer. Once a company accomplishes this, it becomes a target just as the
company(ies) it replaced. I'm no expert and I could be overly generalizing,
but am I the only one that sees a problem with the fundamental form company
growth takes today?

~~~
dm2
Supposedly the plan for the Amazon online store has always been to barely
break even to establish their customer base, then to raise the prices of items
to start making money. They started doing that last year when the price of
their products started being more than competitors. The increased price of
Prime was acceptable to me, but when I can go to a local store and purchase
the items for cheaper, then that's the price increase that I do not want.
Their algorithms determine the maximum amount of money they can make off of
customers rather than basing it off of what the products actually cost, it
makes sense for short-term profits, long-term profits are difficult to
predict.

~~~
jamesaguilar
An oft-suggested plan, but I have yet to see convincing evidence that this is
what they will do. I would guess given the plays that they have been making
that they think they can reduce the cost of servicing orders, and make their
money that way. The idea that they would achieve a monopoly and then raise
prices seems silly, since the government would likely clamp down on that kind
of strategy. And everything about their investments suggests that they think
of themselves as a logistics company, not a monopolist.

------
plicense
Big publishers turn down good authors(more often than usual) and no one bats
an eye. Amazon _delays_ delivery of books from one publisher, just because the
publisher's terms were unfair and everybody loses their minds.

------
dm2
I think Amazon should split it's company between AWS and the Amazon store.

AWS is great and is a very important part of the internet these days, it would
be a shame to have their quality decrease if the Amazon store ever starts
losing money.

The Amazon store has too many flaws. There is a huge opportunity for a
competitor to come in. It would be easy for "Walmart Online" to be a
significant competitor to Amazon in a very short time, I don't think they're
trying too hard for some reason though (fear of cannibalism of current walmart
customers maybe).

I would pay 10 cent per item to be able to pick out items online and have them
boxed at the customer service desk at Walmart, that sounds reasonable and
profitable for both parties, doesn't it?

1+ years ago I was a huge Amazon.com supporter, these days I will avoid them
if possible. Their prices and shipping changed, plus they won't allow people
to always filter out all of the "not sold or shipped by Amazon" products which
I absolutely do not want to have constantly clutter my search results. I've
ordered several products from Amazon which they did not have in stock (but did
not say they didn't), this resulted in long shipping times and in a few cases
they automatically ordered the "not sold by Amazon" product and had it shipped
to me, that product was very near expired (as is the case with many of them)
and I have no clue where it came from, for all I know they found found it in a
hot warehouse that was sold.

Then there are the "not sold by Amazon" sellers who charge huge Amounts for
products just hoping that people accidentally order them. The reviews will be
from people who ordered the Amazon.com version and automatically promote the
seller just trying to trick people. Huge flaws in your system Amazon, get it
fixed please. Don't even get me started on the "we've passed your package off
to your local carrier, there's no telling when it'll get delivered and you'll
probably have to drive somewhere to pick it up", that they refuse to fix. I
canceled my Prime account out of protest and now they delay shipping my
product for at least 7 days then they 2 day or overnight ship my items, wtf
Amazon.

~~~
mattmcknight
I disagree with most of your points, but agree somewhat with the non-sold by
Amazon nonsense, and the generally poor quality of 3rd party sellers. You have
to be very watchful with this. Not using Prime isolates you from this pretty
well, as you can easily filter by items available under Prime shipping terms,
and 3rd party sellers that put their stuff in the Amazon warehouses to make
them Prime eligible avoid the slow shipping problems and are generally not an
issue. However, the third party sellers on there are giving them a bad
reputation, because people are not distinguishing them from Amazon proper.

I seriously doubt there is any personal retaliation going on.

I don't think they should split the business, as one of the things that makes
AWS good is that it has to keep Amazon running. The initial concept of AWS as
something that Amazon can use to meet demand peaks, while selling excess
capacity makes a lot of sense.

~~~
justincormack
AWS was never really something to sell excess capacity, thats a myth. And
anyway now, it is vastly bigger than Amazon's compute needs. The stockmarket
would like it to be sold off, but not sure it will be.

~~~
vidarh
It would be terrifying if AWS was just Amazon's excess capacity, as then one
might want to ask what would happen when Amazon suddenly needed the
capacity... Apart from for spot instances, a lot of people have never seemed
to get that Amazon needs to over-provision massively because of how the
product works, and that their customers still need to cover the cost of all
that over capacity.

~~~
mattmcknight
No one said it was "just" Amazon's excess capacity. However, they do use
it...so it is way of not paying for their excess capacity, just like everyone
else's use is.

------
bonchibuji
Isn't this behind a paywall? Doesn't HN got some guidelines on posting
articles behind a paywall?

------
Suncho
In the end, I think writers, publishers, and Amazon alike will all lose in
their efforts to profit from the sale of information. Information is moving
closer and closer to being free. And that's a good thing.

~~~
ebiester
That fine, so long as you've figured out a way to provide authors food,
shelter, and health care via alternate means. Otherwise, we will see people
less willing to put the work into making great literature.

It isn't that the author is motivated by money as much as great work is all
but impossible when fit between the gaps of everything else. Professional
authors spend months of full time work to put out a book.

Worse, we will still get works, but they won't be as well-edited, well-
researched, and those take a toll on quality.

~~~
Suncho
Even today, only the superstar authors actually earn any decent money from
their writing.

You're absolutely right that we need to find a way to provide people food,
shelter, and health care. It's true today and it will be true in the future.
And it's true for everyone, not just superstar authors.

Publishers will continue to have a role as curators of information, but
they're going to have to change their business model. Instead of profiting
through the sale and distribution of information, they'll have to earn money
by selling their editing and curating services.

Amazon will be fine. They'll always find products to sell. It just might not
be books or movies or other forms of information.

Edit: People already _are_ less willing to put the work into creating great
literature. Being a writer is not a reliable way to earn a living. Imagine how
much creative potential we might unlock with something like a basic income.

