Critcizing and/or boycotting Audible is probably the strategy that's most likely to effect change. Yes, I do think the government should intervene, but is that

Critcizing and/or boycotting Audible is probably the strategy that's most likely to effect change. Yes, I do think the government should intervene, but is that realistic? How often does the US file antitrust suits against big tech companies or their subsidiaries? I've seen lawsuits to block mergers/acquisitions, but the last time I remember actually breaking up an existing monopoly as an option on the table was Microsoft over 20 years ago. I dont see any deliciously ripe business opportunity here. If you want to compete with Audible, you need to attract authors to your platform. Yes, you can try luring them with a more generous share of the profits. But you will run into a brick wall because the sheer size of Audible's user base means that authors have bigger potential earnings there even though Audible takes an extortionate cut. And you won't be able to match Audible's user base until you have a similarly large/diverse selection of authors and works to choose from. The only way to break the chicken and egg problem is to come with a huge amount of capital that allows you bribe authors/users onto your platform by selling at a loss while you build up volume. Which, of course, is exactly how Audible built its monopoly in the first place. But back then it was an emerging market and the competitors were smaller and less entrenched. Audible feels comfortable taking an extortionate cut now precisely because it knows that no one else has both the capital and the will to compete with them. This is not something that I would bin under "the free market working as it should." I'm surpised that some people still don't recognize the playbook. This is 20th century tech strategy. Amazon was already doing this with physical books in the 90s - it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that they are doing it again with digital audiobooks.