4 ms·

Amazon’s Tactics Confirm Its Critics’ Worst Suspicions

21 points by panarky 12y ago

click170 12y ago
I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! Sarcasm aside, honestly I would be more shocked if they hadn't behaved this way. I'm happy to continue to not buy anything from Amazon. Especially when there's folks like NewEgg around who are quite the opposite.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
001sky 12y ago
The main issue is that selective-delay in order fulfillment is the essence of what comcast and the cable companies want to do (and the opposite of Net Neutrality). Amazon is one of the comanies that supports the Net Neutrality--because if comcast did this to Amazon make no mistake they would be fucked. It would be much better (for everyone) if AMZN stuck by its principles, and did not just revert to being a bully (when they think they are in-vulnerable). There are plenty of other ways for them to negotiate and exert leverage with their business partners.
revelation 12y ago
So it is better for customers when Amazon accepts whatever prices the publisher dictates and does not use its customer base to get better prices for its customers? This line of argumentation wasn't exactly seen through here. The fear was that Amazon, having crushed any online shopping competition, would increase prices on their customers. Nobody loses sleep if they devour some publishers margin to decrease prices.
- infinotize 12y ago
  The publisher clearly wasn't willing to deal to whatever Amazon's requests were. Amazon's response is then to stiff-arm them, and that's not cool. What if you made an app, charged $5, and Google/Apple said we really insist you charge $3 or do such-and-such. You, who worked super-hard and believe the market will support your $5 price, decline, and then in turn Google/Apple take your app off the store. I'm not implying publishers are saints or anything but this is just bullying, not sticking up for the customer.
- panarky 12y ago
  What if we were talking about Walmart instead of Amazon, and shoes instead of books? There are many brands and styles of shoes that Walmart doesn't carry because they can't get a low enough price to make it worthwhile. Of the brands and styles of shoes that Walmart does choose carry, some they may promote by placing them on an end cap, and others can be hard to find, or even stuck in the stockroom and not displayed for customers. Nobody thinks Walmart is being unfair. Walmart can choose what merchandise to carry and how to display it. So what's different with Amazon? Is it their infinite shelf space? Is their industry dominance and market power?
dang 12y ago
Not exactly a dupe, but covered by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753.
- 001sky 12y ago
  the underelying stories are being added to and re-written. this story (for example) is a supplemental piece. even the eiarlier story has had its headline changed (by the publisher) and had extensive revisions to its text/body. Problem is--the comments--aren't going to reflect this. So, the issue is this becomes a corner case. By banishing all articles besides the first one, the comments get locked into a single worldview--one that is less informed. Its sort of a catch-22 of actively moderating a #hot-topic
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    A better idea than submitting a near dupe might be to post a comment to the active thread addressing the update, in which case the comments may all be in one place, but it will no longer be less informed.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      This would be good if it was stickied at the top. But that's not how HN comments, as a default, work. (Mod's might be able to sticky a reference comment, tho)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
smoyer 12y ago
I don't know Hachette at all but if they behave anything like Pearson then I'd say they probably NEED to be taken down a notch (or two or three).
dollaaron 12y ago
Am I the only one who doesn't really have a problem with this? A store increasing prices and not offering pre-orders does not seem like much of a problem. Increasing shipping times is a little more questionable, but assuming they aren't slowing already ordered books' shipping times, then again, what's the problem?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  More extensive discussion addresses your question in the previous thread on this issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753
- Nacraile 12y ago
  It isn't a problem when one store among many decides to increase prices /etc, because business can shift to other stores. The problem arises when there is only one store. I think the comparison with ISPs refusing to upgrade transit links is much more apt than the comparison with a book store raising prices. Of course, Amazon is not techincally the only store. But they are large enough to have substantial market power (and, indeed, the current dispute proves it: it would make no sense for Amazon to embargo a publisher if Amazon had no reason to believe this would do any harm to that publisher). You also need to take into consideration the prevailing trend in the market (power accruing to Amazon) and what this says this about how Amazon will behave in the future (use of power to benefit itself). As much as I dislike publishers: replacing multiple old publishers with a single high-tech publisher does not seem likely to be a happy ending for either consumers or authors.

21 points by panarky 12y ago

I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! Sarcasm aside, honestly I would be more shocked if they hadn't behaved this way. I'm happy to continue to not buy anything from Amazon. Especially when there's folks like NewEgg around who are quite the opposite.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

001sky 12y ago

The main issue is that selective-delay in order fulfillment is the essence of what comcast and the cable companies want to do (and the opposite of Net Neutrality). Amazon is one of the comanies that supports the Net Neutrality--because if comcast did this to Amazon make no mistake they would be fucked. It would be much better (for everyone) if AMZN stuck by its principles, and did not just revert to being a bully (when they think they are in-vulnerable). There are plenty of other ways for them to negotiate and exert leverage with their business partners.

revelation 12y ago

So it is better for customers when Amazon accepts whatever prices the publisher dictates and does not use its customer base to get better prices for its customers? This line of argumentation wasn't exactly seen through here. The fear was that Amazon, having crushed any online shopping competition, would increase prices on their customers. Nobody loses sleep if they devour some publishers margin to decrease prices.

infinotize 12y ago
The publisher clearly wasn't willing to deal to whatever Amazon's requests were. Amazon's response is then to stiff-arm them, and that's not cool. What if you made an app, charged $5, and Google/Apple said we really insist you charge $3 or do such-and-such. You, who worked super-hard and believe the market will support your $5 price, decline, and then in turn Google/Apple take your app off the store. I'm not implying publishers are saints or anything but this is just bullying, not sticking up for the customer.
panarky 12y ago
What if we were talking about Walmart instead of Amazon, and shoes instead of books? There are many brands and styles of shoes that Walmart doesn't carry because they can't get a low enough price to make it worthwhile. Of the brands and styles of shoes that Walmart does choose carry, some they may promote by placing them on an end cap, and others can be hard to find, or even stuck in the stockroom and not displayed for customers. Nobody thinks Walmart is being unfair. Walmart can choose what merchandise to carry and how to display it. So what's different with Amazon? Is it their infinite shelf space? Is their industry dominance and market power?

dang 12y ago

Not exactly a dupe, but covered by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753.

001sky 12y ago
the underelying stories are being added to and re-written. this story (for example) is a supplemental piece. even the eiarlier story has had its headline changed (by the publisher) and had extensive revisions to its text/body. Problem is--the comments--aren't going to reflect this. So, the issue is this becomes a corner case. By banishing all articles besides the first one, the comments get locked into a single worldview--one that is less informed. Its sort of a catch-22 of actively moderating a #hot-topic
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  A better idea than submitting a near dupe might be to post a comment to the active thread addressing the update, in which case the comments may all be in one place, but it will no longer be less informed.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    This would be good if it was stickied at the top. But that's not how HN comments, as a default, work. (Mod's might be able to sticky a reference comment, tho)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

smoyer 12y ago

I don't know Hachette at all but if they behave anything like Pearson then I'd say they probably NEED to be taken down a notch (or two or three).

dollaaron 12y ago

Am I the only one who doesn't really have a problem with this? A store increasing prices and not offering pre-orders does not seem like much of a problem. Increasing shipping times is a little more questionable, but assuming they aren't slowing already ordered books' shipping times, then again, what's the problem?

dragonwriter 12y ago
More extensive discussion addresses your question in the previous thread on this issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789753
Nacraile 12y ago
It isn't a problem when one store among many decides to increase prices /etc, because business can shift to other stores. The problem arises when there is only one store. I think the comparison with ISPs refusing to upgrade transit links is much more apt than the comparison with a book store raising prices. Of course, Amazon is not techincally the only store. But they are large enough to have substantial market power (and, indeed, the current dispute proves it: it would make no sense for Amazon to embargo a publisher if Amazon had no reason to believe this would do any harm to that publisher). You also need to take into consideration the prevailing trend in the market (power accruing to Amazon) and what this says this about how Amazon will behave in the future (use of power to benefit itself). As much as I dislike publishers: replacing multiple old publishers with a single high-tech publisher does not seem likely to be a happy ending for either consumers or authors.