Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
It's a meaningless question. Companies are neither "good" nor "evil"; they simply have policies which one may personally agree or disagree with. I see no benefit in using such terms.
|
Well, there is one definition of "evil" that might apply: doing clearly unnecessary harm.
(Like conspiring to limit your own employee salaries and mobility at a time you're sitting on Scrooge McDuck cash reserves. Or making consumers pay more for your product even if it means you earn less.)
On those terms, I would keep an eye on Kindle Unlimited. To date, the exclusivity requirement seems justifiable on the bases of boosting visibility for the enrolled titles: there wouldn't be much of a boost if everything were in it, after all. But if the KU catalog keeps expanding (and competitors keep imploding) the rationale for exclusivity would come into question.
That is a long ways off, though. So far KU adds up to less than 10% of industry cash flow even though it is a very significant source of revenue for Indies.
Even with KU factored in, Amazon isn't doing anything that isn't a common practice in gaming consoles, digital media companies, and other creative tech businesses.
Most of their bad press is simply that; bad mouthing from a culture clash with the legacy publishing establishment suddenly faced with a paradigm shift, a transition to 21st century business practices they can't quite grasp.
People used to 9-5 timeclock work culture who can't grasp the achievement-focused self-starter culture of tech start-ups; people used to soak-the-buyer pricing incapable of understanding basket pricing or loss-leader strategies...
All of Amazon's attributed crimes to date stem from their perceived (and occasionally true) role as instigator of change in an industry that wants nothing to do with modernity. Luddites always see change as evil.
It all comes down to the old Star Trek saw: "the needs of the many (readers) outweight the desires of the few (publishers)..."
Or something like that.
