Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
I'd say only if they are forced to do so. What rational author would leave a title only in KU if they can publish elsewhere at the same time with no disadvantage.
|
To give a real example, I just finished watching the Martin Scorsese movie Hugo. Prime Video has it for rent for $3 (as does Google Play, YouTube, Vudu, Microsoft, Redbox and Apple). HBO Max has it for 'free' streaming. So Amazon having the same movie 'for sale' is not going to tempt me to cancel my HBO Max subscription. The post that started this even mentioned Amazon having sequel books for sale were not enough to pull him out of KU.
By the same token, Kobo having the Frank Zafiro books I mentioned earlier for sale would not cause KU subscribers to cancel their service.
I did note: I could see Amazon demanding that a KU book cannot be in a competitor's streaming service. So no KU
and Kobo plus simultaneously.
And in general, ereaders are far more locked in. My TV can show me HBO, Prime Video, Hulu, etc. The average Kobo user cannot get books from Kindle Unlimited and Kindle owners cannot get books from Kobo.
Quote:
|
Where were Kobo and others now seeking to compete when Amazon was pioneering self-publishing and then subscription services of this type?
|
Barnes and Noble are huge self-publishers. Most of the books at the discount tables are B&N self published books.
Weren't Scribd and Oyster around before KU? Granted, Amazon was the first with the pockets and the number of customers to make it work.
For what it's worth, I can understand why authors go for KU. It seems to have been a book for many. Multiple reports say authors make about the same or more on KU vs. going wide.
But I do think things like Amazon forcing exclusivity on indy authors to participate in KU will be ammunition in an eventual monopoly case against them. And, as mentioned, I really don't think exclusivity is netting them much.