Amazon's vertical integration/monopoly

[knc1]

Originally Posted by johnnyb

- - - -
Before, all that could be owned was th actual material the print consisted of, after you could own the idea (which lead to the introduction of the large scale leagl constructions). This is something that makes your Gutenberg comparisons really off topic.
- - - - -

Hmm....

Originally Posted by knc1

- - - -
We should be reading about how Gutenberg stole the concept of movable type from the Chinese, cast the type in metal rather than ceramic and then mechanized the press.
- - - - -

I did write:
"stole the concept" which does imply that somebody else owned the concept.

My bad.
I should have been less figurative and more exact.

Of course, concepts could not be owned, either then or now.
And the implementation of movable type in metal rather than ceramic is even now sufficient to be a "new" implementation of the concept.

So I have to agree, I wrote in haste and did not convey my point well.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Of course. When Gutenberg kickstarted the mass-production of books, the literati were furious at the destruction of culture that was sure to follow, once the unwashed masses got ahold of the suddenly-cheap books and decided they were worthy of the Art of Reading as well...

A better description than what I wrote myself.
And one that spans hundreds of years, not something that happened overnight.

It was notimp that introduced comparisons with Gutenberg.

Now, hundreds of years later, hindsight tells us his work marked a revolution in the publishing industry.

Also now, with less than a decade of hindsight, we can't really say if Jeff Bezos' practices have marked a revolution in the publishing industry.

Another place where I failed to convey my point well . . . .

In-between those two events (one a revolution, the other as yet undecided) was the introduction of electronic phototypesetting that (eventually) brought an end to the movable type era.

That change took place within our own lifetimes.
(Well, at least for some of us. Within our parents or grandparents in some other cases.
Such an opportunity here, to have a debate of opinions among at least three generations.)

Was electronic phototypesetting also a "publishing revolution" ?
Probably, although we could use a bit more hindsight to judge that one also.

And one more point I was not clear on -

There are (possibly) three revolutions in the (printing or) publishing industry that could be described as:
"An end to the (publishing) world (as we know it)."

Those three "End of the World" events:
Gutenberg - For certain.
Electronic typesetting - A definite maybe.
Amazon's vertically integrated monopoly - A slim "maybe", but too soon to say.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by johnnyb

I think this shows patent disregard for actual history. There lie hundreds of years between the invention of the combination of moving letters with mechanical contraptions and the actual mass production of really large print series (in fact, this only really took off in the 19th century).
Second, another innovation was the introduction of copyright (ip in general) came much later. This really separates the current situation and history.
Read for example Cerquiglini on the matter...
Before, all that could be owned was th actual material the print consisted of, after you could own the idea (which lead to the introduction of the large scale leagl constructions). This is something that makes your Gutenberg comparions really off topic. The problems notimp addresses are to no small degree legal questions which absolutely cannot be contained within the Gutenberg-galaxy analogies presented here (that goes for Daryll, too)...

Oddly enough, my specific, pointed reference to "kickstarting" the mass-production of books, and the lurking fear of culture destruction "that was sure to follow" was meant to indicate that yes, I am aware Gutenberg's press did not create that revolution over the course of a single 12-hour night.

And as darryl pointed out, the Reformation had a pretty powerful impact long before the 19th century.

[elborak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ideas have no legal protection.

Sadly no longer true, at least once you enter the insane realm of software patents.

But that's getting OT I guess (patent vs. copyright). I'll save that rant for another forum.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And once again, that matters because... ???
If Amazon sells bad-quality books, they will stop selling.

But this is COMPLETELY

Your purpose in this thread was to argue the point that Amazon is too powerful, with market share that dominates the industry, yadda yadda yadda... halting the jailbreak, more control... KFX is just a part of Amazon's vertical integration attempts to own the physical act of publishing...

Discussions about the quality of KFX belong elsewhere.

Seriously? How on Earth is a discussion of KFX not on-topic? Here's the first post to the thread, by noimp, the thread author:

Originally Posted by notimp

[COLOR="Green"]

That amazon now controls

- the format (proprietary nature of kfx (format))
- the distribution (only Amazon can distribute kfx)
and
- production (only Amazon can produce kfx)

really warrants a discussion...

A discussion of KFX is central to the thread. In future, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject of the thread before trying to shut down discussion by declaring a post off-topic

[Rizla]

One interesting point about KFX and its encoding is that it will not much impact normal Amazon clients BUT it will impact the Amazon clients that frequent these boards. Perhaps that explains the extreme reaction against any attempt at discussion of the KFX file format.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Seriously? How on Earth is a discussion of KFX not on-topic? Here's the first post to the thread, by noimp, the thread author:



A discussion of KFX is central to the thread. In future, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject of the thread before trying to shut down discussion by declaring a post off-topic

Discussion about KFX does not inherently have nothing to do with this thread. In fact, as you so wisely pointed out, discussion about the singular control Amazon has over producing KFX, is inherently this thread.


Discussion of how aesthetically satisfying KFX is, has nothing to do with this thread.
As I have not heard so much as a token effort to explain how the aesthetics of KFX has to do with this thread, I will continue to think it has nothing to do with this thread.

It belongs in either the Kindle Formats subforum, or perhaps the Vent And Rant thread.

Originally Posted by Rizla

One interesting point about KFX and its encoding is that it will not much impact normal Amazon clients BUT it will impact the Amazon clients that frequent these boards. Perhaps that explains the extreme reaction against any attempt at discussion of the KFX file format.

Not really sure where you are going with this.

Are you indicating you feel censored?
Here is the post you made in the thread where general discussion of KFX, both as a format and how it impacts ebook producers trying to put out a good product, was allowed to flourish for some time now:

Originally Posted by Rizla

Thou shalt not criticize Amazon.

So you criticize Amazon in the discussion about the format, and you discuss the format in the thread about criticizing Amazon, and you wonder why you get strong reactions...

Although I don't believe you have been censored, despite all that...

[knc1]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Seriously? How on Earth is a discussion of KFX not on-topic? Here's the first post to the thread, by noimp, the thread author:



A discussion of KFX is central to the thread. In future, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject of the thread before trying to shut down discussion by declaring a post off-topic

The concerns are the first part of each point, the parenthical examples are not controlling.

If you read only the points, ignoring the examples, you will see that they correspond to the thread title.

There is a dedicated thread for discussion of the KFX format, and this one isn't it.

[elborak]

Originally Posted by Rizla

the extreme reaction against any attempt at discussion of the KFX file format.

The only negative reaction to discussing KFX I've seen has been in this thread (and that largely due to a disagreement about the goal of this thread). There are dedicated KFX discussions elsewhere.

Must you always react to any criticism with a hyperbolic "stop trying to stifle me!" rant?

[eschwartz]

You know, I find it strangely unsurprising that people discussing Amazon's Evil Empire always somehow end up convinced that everyone who disagrees with them is a pawn of the aforementioned Evil Empire, attempting to stifle them.


This forcing-of-viewpoints-on-others reminds me of the behavior Amazon has just been accused of.

(Oh, and the nameless Kobo zealot who always conflates his own opinions with with objective fact. But my point still stands. )

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Discussion of how aesthetically satisfying KFX is, has nothing to do with this thread.

Originally Posted by notimp

rendering, format choices, defaults and layout and did so in the past - are ample proof for them being exactly the wrong guys to entrust with the development of new electronic book formats. Which curiously all turn out to be increasingly proprietary and then being forced onto customers without even an opt out...

So is the idea to still have publishers and authors do the mastering in azw3 which then gets converted - but hey, we all know why Amazon wont be releasing any authoring tools this time around.

Also - if it isnt apparent by now, no - .kfx certainly is not a "delivery format" - its a file format, no one but Amazon is allowed to create anymore. Thought I repeat that one again...

How is that off-topic? It relates to Amazon's control of the ebook production and distribution process. The post is on-topic. Did you not read it?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

How is that off-topic? It relates to Amazon's control of the ebook production and distribution process. The post is on-topic. Did you not read it?

Unlike you, I guess, I read the vast majority of the post that came in between your cherry-picked sentences as well.

Was the intention of your post to be blatantly mendacious?


I really don't understand what you think there is to argue about, but since you're not doing a very good job of it, I will warn you ahead of time:

Since apparently we are now reduced to the level of arguing over whether or not people said what they said (something that is not hard for other people to check )...

I am no longer responding to anyone's posts, as long as they are putting forth a statement that is simply detached from reality. I am noticing more than a bit of that, lately...
Not until I feel there is something genuine to respond to.

This circular reasoning is getting nowhere. I am not going to continue a conversation that belongs in Alice In Wonderland.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by elborak

The only negative reaction to discussing KFX I've seen has been in this thread (and that largely due to a disagreement about the goal of this thread). There are dedicated KFX discussions elsewhere.

Must you always react to any criticism with a hyperbolic "stop trying to stifle me!" rant?

I have pointed out that a post labelled as off-topic was not off-topic, and provided a citation proving that point. Characterizing my post as a "rant" is inaccurate and counter to calm debate.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Unlike you, I guess, I read the vast majority of the post that came in between your cherry-picked sentences as well.

Quoting 30% of a post is not cherry-picking. Admittedly noimp can be less than direct at times, but English is not his first language, and we should treat his posts and his ability with a foreign language with consideration.

His post was pertinent to the discussion, and I defend his right to contribute to the debate.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Was the intention of your post to be blatantly mendacious?

Are you suggesting I am a liar? As I understand it, calling someone a liar is against the rules of this forums. I'm sure that is not what you meant

Thanks for debating.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Quoting 30% of a post is not cherry-picking.

I did say I wasn't going to respond to this.

Admittedly noimp can be less than direct at times, but English is not his first language, and we should treat his posts and his ability with a foreign language with consideration.

His post was pertinent to the discussion, and I defend his right to contribute to the debate.

One of the emotional fallacies.
Direct != good English.

Please don't mischaracterize this as "Evil Amazon drones annihilating dissent by mocking peoples' English skills".
You are doing no one whatsoever, on either side, any favors.

Are you suggesting I am a liar? As I understand it, calling someone a liar is against the rules of this forums. I'm sure that is not what you meant

If you are sure that is not what I meant, then why did you suggest it?

But as you say, you are fully aware that I merely said: you were wrong (in an unusually powerful way) in your analysis.
And then inquired if it was deliberate or accidental.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I did say I wasn't going to respond to this.

Strengthen your resolve! And thanks for debating