For all those who have e-books listed on Amazon

[AngelofDarkLust]

Just got word from my publisher this morning that, August 1st, without warning, Amzaon.com deleted all E-books from its catalog that were not Mobipocket. Wanna know why, Mobipocket is owned by Amazon. It’s unfair, its anti-competitive. This is anti-trust territory folks.

So now, going back to restructure my links to the publisher. And I’m deleting my Amazon plog.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Just got word from my publisher this morning that, August 1st, without warning, Amzaon.com deleted all E-books from its catalog that were not Mobipocket. Wanna know why, Mobipocket is owned by Amazon. It’s unfair, its anti-competitive. This is anti-trust territory folks.

So now, going back to restructure my links to the publisher. And I’m deleting my Amazon plog.

I understand your disappointment if one of those discontinued items was yours, but why is it anti-trust? They haven't broken any contracts, there are already competitors, the barriers to entry to new competitors are very low, and it's their company. Maybe this is an opportunity for one of those existing competitors, or maybe a new one to carve out a market niche.

 

[Aurora Black]

Very shady.

 

[AngelofDarkLust]

As a retailer (and one of the biggest), forcing every publisher to BUY your product or you won't be sold is exactly what anti-trust was designed to protect against. They have chosen a platform bought it and then said you have to use it. It would be akin to Amazon saying, we now print paperbacks, if you don't print them through our service you cannot be sold.

It's the same thing that Microsoft got in trouble for. What they're doing is telling the publishers you ou have no choice but to buy our platform or we won't carry your books.

 

[SesameStreet]

How about that? I had four E-Books at Amazon and they have pulled all of them. Now I know why my Publisher told me that she liked Fictionwise the best.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As a retailer (and one of the biggest), forcing every publisher to BUY your product or you won't be sold is exactly what anti-trust was designed to protect against. They have chosen a platform bought it and then said you have to use it. It would be akin to Amazon saying, we now print paperbacks, if you don't print them through our service you cannot be sold.

It's the same thing that Microsoft got in trouble for. What they're doing is telling the publishers you ou have no choice but to buy our platform or we won't carry your books.

I don't see it. I get the part about how their service is the equivalent of a retail book store having its own printing press and telling publishers it will only stock books printed on its press, but so what? Publishers are free to tell that bookstore, "Go fuck yourself - we'll sell to Borders.com" or some other bookstore. The mircrosoft comparison is not really apt, because Amazon does not have nearly the market power or the "bottleneck" power. It has many competitors, including some big ones, and it's easy for new players to enter this market. The appropriate market response to this is for one of those competitors to announce it will stock books from all publishers regardless of which printing press they use, and advertise to customers that they have a better selection and prices as a result.

"Anti-trust" only comes into play when one market player has such market dominance that it's predatory actions harm consumers. It is not called for just because some suppliers don't like the decision made by a big customer. Amazon may have wet dreams of having that kind of dominance, but that's just what they are.

All that said, I feel sorry for the creative individuals like those of us here who may get whipsawed by such actions. But in the long run we will be better off if the market is allowed to mature and become a profitable one for all involved. Getting there will require trying and failing at lots of different approaches, and calling on the men with the guns to come in and enforce our preferences every time one of he players does something we don't like will make the long run outcome we all desire less likely, not more.

 

[minsue]

"Anti-trust" only comes into play when one market player has such market dominance that it's predatory actions harm consumers. It is not called for just because some suppliers don't like the decision made by a big customer. Amazon may have wet dreams of having that kind of dominance, but that's just what they are.

To the best of my knowledge, Amazon is the single largest retailer of ebooks, though locating exact numbers is difficult. According to this article from March of this year, Amazon accounted for about 40% of ebook sales. Sure, that's less than half of the total, but think of the number of companies that make up the other 60%. No one else comes close to the customer base, and therefore the power and influence, that Amazon has. If you want your ebook seen by a large number of potential customers, Amazon is the way to go. (Hence the consternation about the fact that they now insist you pay for their new partner product.)

 

[SesameStreet]

Amazon no longer sells any E-Books at Amazon.Com. They bought MobiPocket in 2005 and now Amazon only sells E-Books through them. I found this at Amazon.Com.

http://www.amazon.com/b/002-9608531-3256838?ie=UTF8&node=551440

All of the E-Books that I had at Amazon are now at Mobipocket.

http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/AuthorDetails.asp?AuthorID=8544

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

To the best of my knowledge, Amazon is the single largest retailer of ebooks, though locating exact numbers is difficult. According to this article from March of this year, Amazon accounted for about 40% of ebook sales. Sure, that's less than half of the total, but think of the number of companies that make up the other 60%. No one else comes close to the customer base, and therefore the power and influence, that Amazon has. If you want your ebook seen by a large number of potential customers, Amazon is the way to go. (Hence the consternation about the fact that they now insist you pay for their new partner product.)

I understand that, but the purpose of anti-trust laws is not to make the world of commerce a kinder and gentler place for competing sellers, but to protect consumers from the abuses that is feared would result from one firm having a monopoly. 40 percent is not a monopoly. If Amazon tries to use its positon as a market leader to jack up prices, it will very quickly lose "market leader" status, and its 40 percent market share.

 

[AngelofDarkLust]

Monopoly is a fluid definition. A 40 percent market share is a monopoly when you're nearest-biggest "competitor" has less than 10 percent market share.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Monopoly is a fluid definition. A 40 percent market share is a monopoly when you're nearest-biggest "competitor" has less than 10 percent market share.

Irrelevant. The test is:

Is a single seller (or a small group acting in concert) the sole producer of a good or the sole provider of a service?

Are there no close substitutes? Is the the product or service unique in ways which go beyond brand identity?

Is the firm able to exert a significant degree of control over the price, by changing the quantity supplied?

Are there barriers that keep would-be competitors from entering the market?


With regard to Amazon, the answer to all of these is, "No."

 

[AngelofDarkLust]

Legally (and in real life I play a lawyer) it's not. If you dominate the market place and you then attempt to force your product on the remainder of the market you are treding in Unfair Comp/anti-trust markets. The issue is the repression of competition. To say, "I controll the marketplace and therefore I will controll the distribution" is a violation. You are forcing people with no power (the small e-book publishers) to buy your product or risk being cut out of major Market Share. That is an anti-trust violation. It is what hit Microsoft in the shorts with Java.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Legally (and in real life I play a lawyer) it's not. If you dominate the market place and you then attempt to force your product on the remainder of the market you are treding in Unfair Comp/anti-trust markets. The issue is the repression of competition. To say, "I controll the marketplace and therefore I will controll the distribution" is a violation. You are forcing people with no power (the small e-book publishers) to buy your product or risk being cut out of major Market Share. That is an anti-trust violation. It is what hit Microsoft in the shorts with Java.

MS had (has) a "bottleneck" position as the producer of the operating system for PC computers. This gives it potential power that dwarfs Amazon's share of a hyper-competitive on-line book market.

Anyways, the proper lens through which to view the use of government power in this area is, does the seller have the power to harm consumers by jacking up prices. Not does it have the power to piss off suppliers by not stocking their products. It is unethical and short-sighted to use anti-trust laws to tilt the playing field to benefit or punish particular market players, with no evidence that consumers are being harmed. Basing procecutions on speculative theories of how consumers might be harmed is an invitation for the government to involve itself in every decision by every big supermarket to stock its shelves with Fritos instead of Doritos. This just throws sand in the wheels of commerce, and benefits no one but the jilted suppliers, and overly-ambitious lawyers in the Justice Department's anti-trust division.

 

[wishfulthinking]

I bet Amazon's competitors are happy. Seriously. Because people like me say Amazon can bite my arse. They don't tell me what I have to download so I can purchase a book. I'll take my business elsewhere, thanks.