7 ms·

This makes absolutely no sense and has no relation to any economic variables. Goodreads isn’t some struggling self-funded startup — it’s owned by Amazon.com. Th

by numair 6y ago

This makes absolutely no sense and has no relation to any economic variables. Goodreads isn’t some struggling self-funded startup — it’s owned by Amazon.com. The acquisition was a deal that should have never been approved, if the Obama administration had been anything beyond completely impotent at protecting us from monopoly games: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/apr/02/amazon-purchase-goodreads-stuns-book-industry https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/apr/02/amazon-purchas... I would like to understand the true strategic interest behind this. Is Amazon simply penny-pinching now that they’ve successfully obliterated the market for both new and used books online? There’s way more to this story than appears on the surface.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
> Goodreads isn’t some struggling self-funded startup — it’s owned by Amazon.com Not that I like Amazon, but it is not philanthropy. I assume goodreads take non trivial cost to run operations, moderations and the site and just because Amazon is doing well financially it doesn't mean they have free money. This move makes it easier for Amazon to monetize on goodreads, it is as simple as that.
- mattmanser 6y ago
  You're missing his larger point by focusing on the first few sentences. Effectively the only reason it's not supporting itself is precisely because Amazon bought it.
  - YetAnotherNick 6y ago
    The only reason it was supporting itself previously is because investors are pouring money in it with the hope that some big company will buy it with the hope that they can have value to them.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      Nope. Per Crunchbase, Goodreads took only $2.8m in funding to cover the more than 6 years they were in operation.
veidr 6y ago
I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but I think it does actually make sense: destroying Goodreads and turning it into just another sales funnel was presumably why Amazon acquired it. A bunch of book reviews and book recommendations that can be used separately from Amazon doesn't help Amazon.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Amazon acquired Goodreads because it was forced to: when still independent, Goodreads made its money through affiliate links to various online bookshops. Soon Amazon's dominance in this sector was so entrenched that most purchases from GR were being made through Amazon.com and not the other sites like Barnes & Noble that GR linked to. It got to the point where Amazon was paying GR so much money in referral fees every month, that it struck Amazon as cheaper just to buy the site outright.
  - veidr 6y ago
    Oh, I hadn't heard that. Well then, perhaps destroying Goodreads is just the cherry on top of a deal that made sense to Amazon for other reasons.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    I would want to rephrase that. Amazon acquired Goodreads because it was cheaper to do so than to allow a good service to continue, and prevents those referrals from going to any site other than Amazon. To me, this sounds like textbook anti-competitive behavior, and grounds for Goodreads to be split off from Amazon.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      Exactly. Amazon wasn't forced to do anything. Other companies like having a healthy vendor ecosystem. E.g., Toyota is famous for that.
      - hombre_fatal 6y ago
jeswin 6y ago
> The acquisition was a deal that should have never been approved Regulators should step in when businesses/startups are being harmed by a monopoly via unfair practices such as bundling. But intervening otherwise will simply deny founders and employees a decent exit. And if the economics are not sound enough it'll be harmful for customers as well - the app will get loaded with too many ads or simply shutdown. So IMHO not a good case for regulation.
- numair 6y ago
  I think the 2010s model of “just build it to be acquired by the industry giant” was a mistake, and is officially dead. You can’t expect to sell to the giants anymore, because they can’t expect to be allowed to buy everything that could grow to be a threat. It’s time to come up with a new model (maybe even a return to the 1990s model of small IPOs and mini-consolidation into a crop of strong mid-tier players, rather than giants).
- mdoms 6y ago
  Founders and employees are not a priori entitled to "a decent exit", especially not at the expense of healthy market conditions. Or at least this should be the case, but American regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades now.
picardo 6y ago
It's not mentioned in the article but Amazon had disabled their affiliate link program for Goodreads ahead of this announcement, which cut off a major source of their revenue for them, and forced them to sell. They had no choice. The strategic reason for Amazon is obvious. As someone else mentioned, Amazon doesn't want Goodreads data to be used to add value to their competitors' offerings. Speaking as a developer who tried to build on top of Goodreads API, I also want to add that this was a long time coming. The API had been neglected for some time. And some of the most interesting datasets weren't even made available through the API.
- wzy 6y ago
  > Amazon doesn't want Goodreads data to be used to add value to their competitors' This is it exactly. Goodreads was/is the best/largest source of information on books available online.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    See also WorldCat: > WorldCat is a union catalog that itemizes the collections of 17,900 libraries in 123 countries and territories[4] that participate in the OCLC global cooperative. It is operated by OCLC, Inc.[5] The subscribing member libraries collectively maintain WorldCat's database, the world's largest bibliographic database.[6] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat * https://www.worldcat.org https://www.worldcat.org
    - benibela 6y ago
      that would be great, if it had an open API It is useless without API
      - FalconSensei 6y ago
        Also, user review, lists and tagging/bookshelves. Just massive data
      - ErikBjare 6y ago
propogandist 6y ago
Don't worry, Joe Biden's bringing back the old gang together to protect the people https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1326387797347930114 https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1326387797347930114
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Depending on how charitable you want to be, a lot of the specific claims in that thread range from "a bit misleading" to "complete bullshit". If I know he's making false claims about topics that I'm semi-knowledgeable about, I have a hard time trusting what he says in areas where I'm less informed.
wpietri 6y ago
I think there's been a long-term trend away from open APIs toward ever-more-proprietary treatment of data. Data that wasn't created by the companies; they just happen to have control of it. Another example is the recent FB lawsuit threat against researchers. [1] Facebook will squawk about user privacy to justify this, but I have a hard time thinking Mark "privacy is dead" Zuckerberg is particularly worried about that. What I think all off these large companies are doing is pulling up the open-web ladder after they've climbed it to dominant positions. The problem with anti-trust action is that it's reactive; we wait until a company has gotten too big, and then hope we can cut it down to size. I'd love to see moves toward proactive open-data and open-algorithm requirements, so that we guarantee a level playing field. That won't be easy, but neither is trying to rein in companies with annual profits in the tens of billions. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/tech/facebook-nyu-political-ad-data/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/tech/facebook-nyu-political-a...
- heyoni 6y ago
  They did the same thing with IMDb a few years ago. Their data dumps now are absolutely useless and they don’t generate any of the information themselves.
  - whymauri 6y ago
    It's a moat for Amazon. That simple.
  - banana_giraffe 6y ago
    And the real data is now behind AWS Data Exchange at $150k/yr. Oh, and the old IMDB API you could pay for is gone (or, gone soon), and some of the features it provided are gone permanently.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > Another example is the recent FB lawsuit threat against researchers. [1] Facebook will squawk about user privacy to justify this, but I have a hard time thinking Mark "privacy is dead" Zuckerberg is particularly worried about that. I think you're flattening a lot of complexity here. Yes, I agree that Mark Zuckerberg is probably not terribly interested in our privacy. But one of the biggest outrages in FB privacy history, the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, was driven entirely by a researcher inappropriately accessing and sharing user data. While you might not trust Zuckerberg, and maybe you shouldn't, there is definitely some "there there" when it comes to how researchers handle our data too.
rasz 6y ago
Its Amazon MO. They similarly killed IMDB by disabling message boards, my main source of interesting details about movies/actors. Why bother with IMDB now when I can read same info on wikipedia?
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Amazon was forced to shut down IMDB boards, because the discussions on the most popular blockbusters had devolved into flamewars, people posting obscenities and threats, etc. Amazon ended up having to pay a lot of money for workers to police the forums. It does suck that cinephiles having reasonable discussions about less-popular movies got caught in the crossfire, but I totally understand why Amazon did it, and in fact many large companies have taken down fora on their websites for the same reason.

by numair 6y ago

YetAnotherNick 6y ago

> Goodreads isn’t some struggling self-funded startup — it’s owned by Amazon.com Not that I like Amazon, but it is not philanthropy. I assume goodreads take non trivial cost to run operations, moderations and the site and just because Amazon is doing well financially it doesn't mean they have free money. This move makes it easier for Amazon to monetize on goodreads, it is as simple as that.

mattmanser 6y ago
You're missing his larger point by focusing on the first few sentences. Effectively the only reason it's not supporting itself is precisely because Amazon bought it.
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  The only reason it was supporting itself previously is because investors are pouring money in it with the hope that some big company will buy it with the hope that they can have value to them.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Nope. Per Crunchbase, Goodreads took only $2.8m in funding to cover the more than 6 years they were in operation.

veidr 6y ago

I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but I think it does actually make sense: destroying Goodreads and turning it into just another sales funnel was presumably why Amazon acquired it. A bunch of book reviews and book recommendations that can be used separately from Amazon doesn't help Amazon.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Amazon acquired Goodreads because it was forced to: when still independent, Goodreads made its money through affiliate links to various online bookshops. Soon Amazon's dominance in this sector was so entrenched that most purchases from GR were being made through Amazon.com and not the other sites like Barnes & Noble that GR linked to. It got to the point where Amazon was paying GR so much money in referral fees every month, that it struck Amazon as cheaper just to buy the site outright.
- veidr 6y ago
  Oh, I hadn't heard that. Well then, perhaps destroying Goodreads is just the cherry on top of a deal that made sense to Amazon for other reasons.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I would want to rephrase that. Amazon acquired Goodreads because it was cheaper to do so than to allow a good service to continue, and prevents those referrals from going to any site other than Amazon. To me, this sounds like textbook anti-competitive behavior, and grounds for Goodreads to be split off from Amazon.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Exactly. Amazon wasn't forced to do anything. Other companies like having a healthy vendor ecosystem. E.g., Toyota is famous for that.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago

jeswin 6y ago

> The acquisition was a deal that should have never been approved Regulators should step in when businesses/startups are being harmed by a monopoly via unfair practices such as bundling. But intervening otherwise will simply deny founders and employees a decent exit. And if the economics are not sound enough it'll be harmful for customers as well - the app will get loaded with too many ads or simply shutdown. So IMHO not a good case for regulation.

numair 6y ago
I think the 2010s model of “just build it to be acquired by the industry giant” was a mistake, and is officially dead. You can’t expect to sell to the giants anymore, because they can’t expect to be allowed to buy everything that could grow to be a threat. It’s time to come up with a new model (maybe even a return to the 1990s model of small IPOs and mini-consolidation into a crop of strong mid-tier players, rather than giants).
mdoms 6y ago
Founders and employees are not a priori entitled to "a decent exit", especially not at the expense of healthy market conditions. Or at least this should be the case, but American regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades now.

picardo 6y ago

It's not mentioned in the article but Amazon had disabled their affiliate link program for Goodreads ahead of this announcement, which cut off a major source of their revenue for them, and forced them to sell. They had no choice. The strategic reason for Amazon is obvious. As someone else mentioned, Amazon doesn't want Goodreads data to be used to add value to their competitors' offerings. Speaking as a developer who tried to build on top of Goodreads API, I also want to add that this was a long time coming. The API had been neglected for some time. And some of the most interesting datasets weren't even made available through the API.

wzy 6y ago
> Amazon doesn't want Goodreads data to be used to add value to their competitors' This is it exactly. Goodreads was/is the best/largest source of information on books available online.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  See also WorldCat: > WorldCat is a union catalog that itemizes the collections of 17,900 libraries in 123 countries and territories[4] that participate in the OCLC global cooperative. It is operated by OCLC, Inc.[5] The subscribing member libraries collectively maintain WorldCat's database, the world's largest bibliographic database.[6] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat * https://www.worldcat.org https://www.worldcat.org
  - benibela 6y ago
    that would be great, if it had an open API It is useless without API
    - FalconSensei 6y ago
      Also, user review, lists and tagging/bookshelves. Just massive data
    - ErikBjare 6y ago

propogandist 6y ago

Don't worry, Joe Biden's bringing back the old gang together to protect the people https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1326387797347930114 https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1326387797347930114

Rebelgecko 6y ago
Depending on how charitable you want to be, a lot of the specific claims in that thread range from "a bit misleading" to "complete bullshit". If I know he's making false claims about topics that I'm semi-knowledgeable about, I have a hard time trusting what he says in areas where I'm less informed.

wpietri 6y ago

I think there's been a long-term trend away from open APIs toward ever-more-proprietary treatment of data. Data that wasn't created by the companies; they just happen to have control of it. Another example is the recent FB lawsuit threat against researchers. [1] Facebook will squawk about user privacy to justify this, but I have a hard time thinking Mark "privacy is dead" Zuckerberg is particularly worried about that. What I think all off these large companies are doing is pulling up the open-web ladder after they've climbed it to dominant positions. The problem with anti-trust action is that it's reactive; we wait until a company has gotten too big, and then hope we can cut it down to size. I'd love to see moves toward proactive open-data and open-algorithm requirements, so that we guarantee a level playing field. That won't be easy, but neither is trying to rein in companies with annual profits in the tens of billions. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/tech/facebook-nyu-political-ad-data/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/tech/facebook-nyu-political-a...

heyoni 6y ago
They did the same thing with IMDb a few years ago. Their data dumps now are absolutely useless and they don’t generate any of the information themselves.
- whymauri 6y ago
  It's a moat for Amazon. That simple.
- banana_giraffe 6y ago
  And the real data is now behind AWS Data Exchange at $150k/yr. Oh, and the old IMDB API you could pay for is gone (or, gone soon), and some of the features it provided are gone permanently.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> Another example is the recent FB lawsuit threat against researchers. [1] Facebook will squawk about user privacy to justify this, but I have a hard time thinking Mark "privacy is dead" Zuckerberg is particularly worried about that. I think you're flattening a lot of complexity here. Yes, I agree that Mark Zuckerberg is probably not terribly interested in our privacy. But one of the biggest outrages in FB privacy history, the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, was driven entirely by a researcher inappropriately accessing and sharing user data. While you might not trust Zuckerberg, and maybe you shouldn't, there is definitely some "there there" when it comes to how researchers handle our data too.

rasz 6y ago

Its Amazon MO. They similarly killed IMDB by disabling message boards, my main source of interesting details about movies/actors. Why bother with IMDB now when I can read same info on wikipedia?

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Amazon was forced to shut down IMDB boards, because the discussions on the most popular blockbusters had devolved into flamewars, people posting obscenities and threats, etc. Amazon ended up having to pay a lot of money for workers to police the forums. It does suck that cinephiles having reasonable discussions about less-popular movies got caught in the crossfire, but I totally understand why Amazon did it, and in fact many large companies have taken down fora on their websites for the same reason.