7 ms·

When it comes to book publishing, isn't it Hachette that is the Giant monopoly? If you want to buy a book they publish, you are a click away from bying it fro

When it comes to book publishing, isn't it Hachette that is the Giant monopoly? If you want to buy a book they publish, you are a click away from bying it from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/ http://www.barnesandnoble.com/ or from Apple if you want it on your ipad. But if Amazon wants to sell it they have no choice but to get it from the conglomerate Hachette. My favorite comment on this so far comes from Hugh Howey (author of the WOOL series)at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-howey/winning-at-monopoly_b_5453482.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-howey/winning-at-monopoly... From that article. “The real monopoly, once you start examining business practices and attitudes, is Big Publishing itself,” "Where is the outcry for Amazon-published authors who are blocked from sale by practically every brick and mortar store? It doesn't exist. The response is simply: That's what those authors get for signing with Amazon. Imagine an observer today saying, "That's what those authors get for signing with Hachette." The hypocrisy astounds."

skriticos2 12y ago
Hugh Howey is really one of my favorite Authors and I picked up all of his books on the Kindle. I probably wouldn't know him if he'd signed with brick-and-mortar stores for paper books, as I stopped buying those dust-magnets.
jamesaguilar 12y ago
If you ask, "cui bono?", the decision on who to side with is pretty obvious, at least for the average consumer. Amazon has for decades been one of the most pro-consumer companies out there. The publishers have been slapped in court for trying to collude to raise prices. In fact, the whole source of this dispute is that Hachette wants the option to charge more for its books on Amazon. So on the one hand, we have a company that wants us to pay more for the same product. And on the other hand we have a company that, while large in the ecosystem, is by no means a monopoly (maybe it is a monopsony, but even that is someone questionable considering they only have a 65% share of the market), and wants to charge us less. You can always buy the publishers' books from a different store if Amazon won't sell them. Well, if it weren't for the DRM the publishers originally insisted on, you could. Hrm. Well, I know where I stand on this.
- rtpg 12y ago
  > (maybe it is a monopsony, but even that is someone questionable considering they only have a 65% share of the market) 65% of distribution volume is more than enough to practice monopolistic practices, especially if the industry is hurting. I'm not necessarily against traditional publishers disappearing, but it would be nice to have a more diversified spread when it comes to the surviving distribution channels
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    I don't know how true that really is Everything I've read suggests that exercising monopoly power requires very high market shares when it comes to fungible products with low marginal cost, like delivery of e-books. Example citation: section A.2. of http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.ht...
    - ewzimm 12y ago
      I think monopoly power is especially difficult with digital distribution because the company is using technology that everyone else has access to. If Amazon suddenly started overcharging, it would not be difficult for Barnes and Noble or someone else to take over their business. This is why free software like Apache and Linux is so important. However big Amazon gets, as long as other companies, however small, have the necessary technology to provide similar services and the option to scale operations with increased business, Amazon has to offer superior services and prices to stay competitive. Book publishers, on the other hand, use specialized factories and distribution networks to throw their power around. With commoditized servers, free software, and an open Internet, Amazon can't leverage those same unique advantages.
      - shykes 12y ago
        I disagree, the technology is necessary but not sufficient. To compete as a distributor of mass consumer goods, you need a distribution infrastructure (warehouses, trucks, servers and the logistics operation to run them). The technology that makes up trucks, warehouses and servers may be commoditized, but the ability to own and operate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of them, with enough profit to keep growing the fleet every year - that's a very real barrier to entry because customers like getting their purchases the next day or even the same day, and doing that consistently for many customers requires that kind of a fleet. On top of that, you need a way to reach customers online. The brand is sticky enough that many people start their book search directly on Amazon. To get a chance to compete for that search (presumably on Google) you'll need to hope that they find the price outrageous enough to overcome the promise of a convenient and reliable next-day delivery, pre-configured shipping and billing, etc. Lastly Amazon is working hard to move the battle away from the open web: once a customer has a Kindle, the bar is even higher to compete for their future purchases.
cafard 12y ago
Talk to a publisher that has resisted Amazon, and ask what happened to the sales.

skriticos2 12y ago

Hugh Howey is really one of my favorite Authors and I picked up all of his books on the Kindle. I probably wouldn't know him if he'd signed with brick-and-mortar stores for paper books, as I stopped buying those dust-magnets.

jamesaguilar 12y ago

If you ask, "cui bono?", the decision on who to side with is pretty obvious, at least for the average consumer. Amazon has for decades been one of the most pro-consumer companies out there. The publishers have been slapped in court for trying to collude to raise prices. In fact, the whole source of this dispute is that Hachette wants the option to charge more for its books on Amazon. So on the one hand, we have a company that wants us to pay more for the same product. And on the other hand we have a company that, while large in the ecosystem, is by no means a monopoly (maybe it is a monopsony, but even that is someone questionable considering they only have a 65% share of the market), and wants to charge us less. You can always buy the publishers' books from a different store if Amazon won't sell them. Well, if it weren't for the DRM the publishers originally insisted on, you could. Hrm. Well, I know where I stand on this.

rtpg 12y ago
> (maybe it is a monopsony, but even that is someone questionable considering they only have a 65% share of the market) 65% of distribution volume is more than enough to practice monopolistic practices, especially if the industry is hurting. I'm not necessarily against traditional publishers disappearing, but it would be nice to have a more diversified spread when it comes to the surviving distribution channels
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  I don't know how true that really is Everything I've read suggests that exercising monopoly power requires very high market shares when it comes to fungible products with low marginal cost, like delivery of e-books. Example citation: section A.2. of http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.ht...
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    I think monopoly power is especially difficult with digital distribution because the company is using technology that everyone else has access to. If Amazon suddenly started overcharging, it would not be difficult for Barnes and Noble or someone else to take over their business. This is why free software like Apache and Linux is so important. However big Amazon gets, as long as other companies, however small, have the necessary technology to provide similar services and the option to scale operations with increased business, Amazon has to offer superior services and prices to stay competitive. Book publishers, on the other hand, use specialized factories and distribution networks to throw their power around. With commoditized servers, free software, and an open Internet, Amazon can't leverage those same unique advantages.
    - shykes 12y ago
      I disagree, the technology is necessary but not sufficient. To compete as a distributor of mass consumer goods, you need a distribution infrastructure (warehouses, trucks, servers and the logistics operation to run them). The technology that makes up trucks, warehouses and servers may be commoditized, but the ability to own and operate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of them, with enough profit to keep growing the fleet every year - that's a very real barrier to entry because customers like getting their purchases the next day or even the same day, and doing that consistently for many customers requires that kind of a fleet. On top of that, you need a way to reach customers online. The brand is sticky enough that many people start their book search directly on Amazon. To get a chance to compete for that search (presumably on Google) you'll need to hope that they find the price outrageous enough to overcome the promise of a convenient and reliable next-day delivery, pre-configured shipping and billing, etc. Lastly Amazon is working hard to move the battle away from the open web: once a customer has a Kindle, the bar is even higher to compete for their future purchases.

cafard 12y ago

Talk to a publisher that has resisted Amazon, and ask what happened to the sales.