3 ms·
It is sad to read that people want a monopoly for a minor convenience. Same with steam (that takes a big money cut and their buggy launcher is awful)
by rvba 5y ago
It is sad to read that people want a monopoly for a minor convenience.
Same with steam (that takes a big money cut and their buggy launcher is awful)
- ghaff 5y agoPeople don't "want a monopoly." But they do want to order things in a way that is by no means a "minor convenience." Just going back to when Amazon was getting started, finding a book that wasn't in stock at your local store was a massive hassle and could take months. Today, not spending an hour running errands is not really a minor convenience. Again, I'm good with there being more competition--and, in fact, I order things from multiple places--but Amazon is often the easiest choice.
- ectopod 5y ago> finding a book that wasn't in stock at your local store was a massive hassle and could take months. Or you could just ask your local store to order it for you and you would have it in a week. It's not like this was an unusual situation.
- ghaff 5y agoThere was a time when that was definitely not the norm. You looked a book up in a big Books in Print volume and an order could take quite a long time to come in. Yes, the situation improved over time with certain big city bookstores and then Barnes and Noble prior to Amazon. But I can certainly remember a time when getting things generally that weren't in local stock took considerable effort and time.
- beezle 5y agoI would be fine ordering from a local store and waiting but not if they are going to charge me full price as if they had to keep stock on the shelves.
- ectopod 5y agoBack in the day (round these parts anyway) books were always full price [1]. Nowadays, I'm not going to pay full price to wait for a week either, but there are alternatives to Amazon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement