4 ms·

The article seems pretty well Amazon-friendly to me, generally spinning Amazon Publishing positively and quoting only supporters and one neutral analyst. Amazo

The article seems pretty well Amazon-friendly to me, generally spinning Amazon Publishing positively and quoting only supporters and one neutral analyst. Amazon is a monopoly which (a) exerts huge control over the whole culture’s literary output, and (b) has driven / is driving many competitors and suppliers at every stage of the publishing process out of business, using its combination of vertical integration, scale, and ruthless contract negotiation. I’m not sure “nefarious” is the right word. But it is dangerous having unaccountable private institutions wield such power. Some of Amazon’s business practices seem to me like violations of anti-trust law (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or legal expert), but the past few decades of Supreme Court precedent have reinterpreted/eroded antitrust laws to the point that there will probably be nothing done about it. I don’t see what their treatment of engineers making the software has to do with the business model or larger cultural impact. (But if you’re worried about labor relations, how do you feel about Amazon’s mistreatment of warehouse workers?)

ghaff 7y ago
At a minimum, you're replacing/have replaced a huge number of publishers of various sizes and booksellers of various sizes (including very boutique and personal operations in both cases) with Amazon. OK, that's an overstatement. You have other major publishers especially in specialty areas like textbooks--but as a general rule... On the one hand, the barriers to actually publishing something are way down. You don't necessarily need to submit your proposal and sample chapter to 100 different publishers. You can just self-publish on Amazon if you're so inclined and do your own marketing. But discoverability is now significantly in the hands of Amazon's algorithms. And those algorithms are designed with Amazon's interests at heart--such as driving more Prime subscriptions. A more efficient and data-driven world isn't necessarily worse than schmoozing with New York or London-based editors over lunch. But it certainly tends to concentrate power.
VvR-Ox 7y ago
Totally agree. When I read the title my mind ignored the "... of Publishing" because this is just one part of this "hydra". Amazon seeks to dominate & assimilate as many things as it can like the Borg. It's not too much of a demand by some to break up such companies as it's not good for the people & govt that single private entities have such power.
tracer4201 7y ago
Amazon certainly isn’t a monopoly. You’ll want to provide more evidence to back up these claims. More of a meta point - there’s generally an anti-FAANG article about everyday on HN, and the underlying editorials are typically these same batch of outlets who directly compete with Facebook, Google, or Amazon directly in ads or video content. I take the latest pieces on Bezos forcing warehouse workers into slavery with a pinch of salt. You can certainly believe whatever you want, but these absolute claims with no evidence are hard to take seriously.
- ghaff 7y ago
  What did you think was anti-Amazon in this article? That Amazon has its own agenda as a publisher? Of course they do. >Amazon certainly isn’t a monopoly. Expensive lawyers spend lots of money arguing about what is and isn't a monopoly. But I think it's hard to argue that, monopoly or not, Amazon is approximately an 8000 pound gorilla in book distribution and, as a consequence, discovery.
- danmaz74 7y ago
  For ebooks, Amazon is de facto a monopoly.
  - mrep 7y ago
    Not only can I can buy ebooks from amazon, google play, barnes and noble, and itunes, but I can also upload books/pdfs/files from elsewhere onto each others apps (albeit, sometimes requiring changing the file type). I wouldn't call that a monopoly.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Under US law¹, a monopoly is a firm that holds monopoly power, and monopoly power is "the power to control prices or exclude competition"². I don't think it's a stretch to say that Amazon has the power to control prices in that market. ¹ Under EU antitrust law, the word "monopoly" is not used ² See United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Amazon has been great for authors and for readers. I've read several books by authors that started out by self publishing on Amazon. People like Andy Weir, Hugh Howey, Ernest Cline, John Scalzi, and indeed Robert Dugoni. Of course it doesn't work out for everyone but lowering the barrier of entry to the market for authors is a good thing. Of course for serious authors, marketing and editing are still essential and there seems to be a notion of successful self published authors quickly getting deals from publishers for exactly that reason. But undeniably the middle men industry is being affected. I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. Marketing and PR is a function that you can pay people to do. Dead tree production and associated logistics is a service as well. Same with editing. There's no need to get all of these things under the same roof.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Yeah. To some degree you've replaced the getting published lottery with the getting people to discover your book lottery (though, even with publishers, that lottery always existed). But I'm not convinced that's necessarily a bad thing because authors arguably have more control over the latter. Amazon certainly isn't the only way people discover new authors. And, truth be told, a lot of publishers today don't do a huge amount of author service, e.g. marketing/PR/etc. especially if they're not a specialty publisher with a built-in readership and channels. There is still some prestige associated with being published by a known brand. Although one sometimes wonders how much of that incremental prestige is really warranted.
- mrec 7y ago
  > I've read several books by authors that started out by self publishing on Amazon. People like Andy Weir, Hugh Howey, Ernest Cline, John Scalzi, and indeed Robert Dugoni. Scalzi's first novel was Agent to the Stars (1997), which was indeed self-published but via his own website, not Amazon. His breakout novel was Old Man's War (2005) which was published traditionally by Tor.
  - jillesvangurp 7y ago
    Right, I did not read everything he wrote. Amazon was barely a thing in 1997.

ghaff 7y ago

At a minimum, you're replacing/have replaced a huge number of publishers of various sizes and booksellers of various sizes (including very boutique and personal operations in both cases) with Amazon. OK, that's an overstatement. You have other major publishers especially in specialty areas like textbooks--but as a general rule... On the one hand, the barriers to actually publishing something are way down. You don't necessarily need to submit your proposal and sample chapter to 100 different publishers. You can just self-publish on Amazon if you're so inclined and do your own marketing. But discoverability is now significantly in the hands of Amazon's algorithms. And those algorithms are designed with Amazon's interests at heart--such as driving more Prime subscriptions. A more efficient and data-driven world isn't necessarily worse than schmoozing with New York or London-based editors over lunch. But it certainly tends to concentrate power.

VvR-Ox 7y ago

Totally agree. When I read the title my mind ignored the "... of Publishing" because this is just one part of this "hydra". Amazon seeks to dominate & assimilate as many things as it can like the Borg. It's not too much of a demand by some to break up such companies as it's not good for the people & govt that single private entities have such power.

tracer4201 7y ago

Amazon certainly isn’t a monopoly. You’ll want to provide more evidence to back up these claims. More of a meta point - there’s generally an anti-FAANG article about everyday on HN, and the underlying editorials are typically these same batch of outlets who directly compete with Facebook, Google, or Amazon directly in ads or video content. I take the latest pieces on Bezos forcing warehouse workers into slavery with a pinch of salt. You can certainly believe whatever you want, but these absolute claims with no evidence are hard to take seriously.

ghaff 7y ago
What did you think was anti-Amazon in this article? That Amazon has its own agenda as a publisher? Of course they do. >Amazon certainly isn’t a monopoly. Expensive lawyers spend lots of money arguing about what is and isn't a monopoly. But I think it's hard to argue that, monopoly or not, Amazon is approximately an 8000 pound gorilla in book distribution and, as a consequence, discovery.
danmaz74 7y ago
For ebooks, Amazon is de facto a monopoly.
- mrep 7y ago
  Not only can I can buy ebooks from amazon, google play, barnes and noble, and itunes, but I can also upload books/pdfs/files from elsewhere onto each others apps (albeit, sometimes requiring changing the file type). I wouldn't call that a monopoly.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Under US law¹, a monopoly is a firm that holds monopoly power, and monopoly power is "the power to control prices or exclude competition"². I don't think it's a stretch to say that Amazon has the power to control prices in that market. ¹ Under EU antitrust law, the word "monopoly" is not used ² See United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Amazon has been great for authors and for readers. I've read several books by authors that started out by self publishing on Amazon. People like Andy Weir, Hugh Howey, Ernest Cline, John Scalzi, and indeed Robert Dugoni. Of course it doesn't work out for everyone but lowering the barrier of entry to the market for authors is a good thing. Of course for serious authors, marketing and editing are still essential and there seems to be a notion of successful self published authors quickly getting deals from publishers for exactly that reason. But undeniably the middle men industry is being affected. I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. Marketing and PR is a function that you can pay people to do. Dead tree production and associated logistics is a service as well. Same with editing. There's no need to get all of these things under the same roof.

ghaff 7y ago
Yeah. To some degree you've replaced the getting published lottery with the getting people to discover your book lottery (though, even with publishers, that lottery always existed). But I'm not convinced that's necessarily a bad thing because authors arguably have more control over the latter. Amazon certainly isn't the only way people discover new authors. And, truth be told, a lot of publishers today don't do a huge amount of author service, e.g. marketing/PR/etc. especially if they're not a specialty publisher with a built-in readership and channels. There is still some prestige associated with being published by a known brand. Although one sometimes wonders how much of that incremental prestige is really warranted.
mrec 7y ago
> I've read several books by authors that started out by self publishing on Amazon. People like Andy Weir, Hugh Howey, Ernest Cline, John Scalzi, and indeed Robert Dugoni. Scalzi's first novel was Agent to the Stars (1997), which was indeed self-published but via his own website, not Amazon. His breakout novel was Old Man's War (2005) which was published traditionally by Tor.
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  Right, I did not read everything he wrote. Amazon was barely a thing in 1997.