Tag Archives: Amazon

G is for GoodReads

Posted on by
1

Goodreads is a social networking website for readers. I’ve been a member for years. I love the groups, the discussions, the monthly reads and the reviews. Also, it’s a great way to keep a catalog of every book I’ve ever read.

Amazon bought Goodreads. I don’t know how much they paid. Some people are saying 150 million, but neither Amazon nor Goodreads have released any details. I suppose this is a good move for Amazon. They get direct access to 16 million readers.

I don’t know how I feel about it. The Goodreads blog post says they are going to have greater integration with the kindle. That’s good for kindle users, but I have a nook. So nothing for the nook users? I feel kind of left out. Not that it matters that much. I have the Goodreads phone app. Helps me keep up with the group discussions.

I know what I want:

  • I want Goodreads to remain the same vibrant community it is now
  • I don’t want Amazon’s books (and buy links) to be favored above other places. Other places like the Big 6 publishers and all the small ones, who I have found through looking for excerpts and such.
  • I don’t want Goodreads to turn into a book seller
  • I don’t want Goodreads to turn into just another marketing channel for Amazon (or any other publisher).

At the same time, I have to say, I would only leave if Goodreads turns into a horrible experience. I mean, if I feel like it’s not a books focused social-networking site anymore. Than . . . yeah. I am gone.

That’s a key feature of Goodreads. I doubt, I seriously doubt, that Amazon would be stupid enough to mess with that. I mean, that’s why they bought Goodreads, isn’t it? So yeah. Amazon will just collect the data and use it to better market books (possibly acquire books, too. Wonder if they’ll provide any of the data to the authors?).

It’s disturbing, but no different from Google or Facebook or any other big site. It’s too much to hope for Goodreads to be different. I am thinking this is a result of a living in a world with Big Data.

If I had to leave Goodreads for any reason, I would probably move to LibraryThing. I already have an account there. Or Shelfari. But I like LibraryThing better and it predates Goodreads anyway.

Related articles

U is for Ultimately, publishers have to ditch DRM

Posted on by
14

Come July, Tor will get rid of DRM. Tor publishes a lot of the science fiction/fantasy I read. So, yeah, I am excited to hear they are planning on publishing books sans DRM. Between Tor, Baen and Angry Robot, almost all of the books I read will be DRM free.

This is big. It’s big because Tor is ultimately owned by Macmillan, one of the big 6 publishers. The link between Tor and Macmillan is long and kind of twisted. I am not sure I understand it all. Tor is an imprint of Tom Doherty, which a subsidiary of Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which is part of Macmillan, which is one of the big 6 publishers. I suppose at the end Tor is an imprint of Macmillan. Until now, they have insisted on DRM.

Ultimately, publishers have to ditch DRM. DRM helps no one but the retailers. Their price fixing deal was to break Amazon’s hold on the eBook market.

Since the government objected to that illegal activity, they might decide on removing DRM as a way to let people decide who they want to buy from. If kindle owners decide to buy from someone other than Amazon, they could and still read their books on their kindle.

Charles Strauss also a pretty good post on DRM. I think he is right about the planned obsolescence about current ereaders is right (and all other consumer devices).

I have a kindle and I have little doubt that the battery will stop holding a charge sometime soon. (I could replace the battery. Maybe. Maybe not.) I will have to buy something new sometime in the next couple years. I might buy anything, a nook, another kindle, a tablet. I don’t know. But if I am forced to consider DRM, I will have to buy another kindle and that just locks me to Amazon again. Or break the DRM myself, which gives me more choices.

This is an article I read from an anonymous publishing exce on why he/she broke DRM. One admits it here, but there might be more. I have to say, if the publisher execs themselves are breaking DRM, they will soon get rid of it entirely.

So I think other publishers will follow Tor’s example. At some point anyway. Hopefully soon.

Related articles

L is for Lawsuit

Posted on by
21

L is for Lawsuits.

Specifically, the lawsuit the government brought against Apple and five of the big publishers: Simon and Shuster, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan and Penguin. Basically, they are accused of conspiring to fix e-book prices. (The lawsuit is a 36 page document. I have read only half of it so far. It’s pretty interesting, for a legal paper.)

Which they probably did. They deny it (who wouldn’t?) but I think they probably did do exactly that. If they hadn’t, I doubt they Agency Model could have worked.

Three of the publishers – Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster – have settled. Part of their settlement includes the right for retailers to set their own prices. (A right retailers had before!!!!)

I mean, I kind of understand why they did it. Amazon is no angel. Amazon was selling bestsellers at a discount in order to sell kindles and get the bulk of the market share. So, yeah, lots of stores have loss leaders. Even physical bookstores discount popular books in order to get people in the store and maybe buy other books (how many readers you know who can actually just buy one book in a store, hmm?). Physical stores still do and the publishers have nothing to say about them.

The thing with Amazon is that Amazon is bigger than most (all!) physical bookstores. If they had succeeded in gaining most of the e-book market, if the e-book market grew larger than physical book, and if it got to the point where a good chunk of a publisher’s money came from Amazon, Amazon could than have turned around and said: you must sell your books to me at this price or don’t sell to me at all. The books would have stayed cheap (or at least cheaper than hardcovers!). But Amazon would be making a profit, too.

From what I remember from one and only business class, Walmart did the same thing. Since their stores provided most of a manufacturer’s money, they threatened to discontinue selling their products if the manufacturer didn’t sell to them at the price Walmart wanted. It’s why a lot of businesses started outsourcing their manufacturing jobs.

Amazon might have done that, too. (They did get rid of the buy buttons for one of the publishers’ books when they first fought over pricing. Amazon lost.) I doubt it would have worked. The readers, us, would have objected if we couldn’t buy the books we wanted. Maybe Amazon would be willing to risk it. I don’t know.

Either way, I think the publishers were afraid of falling victim to Amazon.  They wanted to decrease or slow down the speed with which Amazon was gaining market share. I understand that.  They were afraid being forced to sell bestsellers to Amazon at the paperback price instead of the hardcover price like always. Fixing e-book prices, with Apple, was their solution.

IMHO, it was a bad solution. They managed to break the law. Price fixing is illegal. Okay, yes, no one has actually been convicted of price-fixing and they all deny it. But, really, what am I to believe? Also, three publishers settled.

Then they set e-book prices which are almost the same or higher than physical copy (this makes so little sense I have to conclude they were trying not to sell ebooks in an effort to hurt Amazon.). I ranted on this topic a while back.

I think, at some point or other, Amazon would have stopped using ever single bestseller as loss leaders. A few maybe, but not every single one. Thing is, 9.99 is still higher most paperbacks. Cheaper than hardcovers, but paperbacks are usually cheaper, just not a whole lot cheaper. (Used books are cheaper still. Sometimes only 1 penny. But by the time the physical book drops to that price, the e-book version will likely be less than 9.99.) So.

Also, I don’t think there is anything wrong with selling ebooks at a little less than paperback prices instead of slightly less than hardcover prices.

So . . . I think the publishers deserve this lawsuit. Yeah.

Related articles