Latest Authors United letter to Amazon Board

[pwalker8]

Amazon and Google are good for Amazon and Google. One thing to remember with Google, if you aren't paying for something, then you aren't the customer, you are the product. Google's customers are their advertisers, not the people who use Google. That's why they consistently try to force people to log in. It makes it easier for Google to track you and sell more detailed info to their consumers, i.e. the advertisers.

[DuckieTigger]

Google has customers other than advertisers - the ones that use Android.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So you agree that the mere existence of the business model that Hachette uses is in danger. Maybe instead of fighting for survival of their old model they need to change how they do business?

Based on some of their statements, what Amazon would prefer is that Hachette change from the advance-centered model to something closer to Kindle Direct Publishing's royalty-centered model.

But my experience as a seventy-percent-or-so-nonfiction reader is that advance-model books are, on average, much better.

Perhaps this is not true for every fiction genre, but advance-model books do seem to still be outselling royalty-model books. And advance model books generally do this despite having much higher prices during the first couple years after release.

As far as I can see, Hachette is, on balance, and compared to self-publishing, an artistic success. To judge by the first third of what I am reading now*, so is Simon & Schuster. The big publishers also seem to enjoy modest financial success.

In stark contrast to newspapers and magazines, the prominent publishers some here dislike are managing the digital transition well. If they don't let Amazon roll over them, this should continue.



__________________________________
* http://books.simonandschuster.com/In.../9781476708713. The reason I often mention good major publisher books in these posts is that the most important factor, when it comes to whether I will root for the big publishers, or for Amazon Publishing, is: Whose books do I like better?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Google has customers other than advertisers - the ones that use Android.

Google doesn't charge for the android operating system.

http://9to5google.com/2014/01/23/goo...bile-services/

Google doesn't do this out of the kindness of their corporate heart, they do it to provide more eyeballs for their various ad platforms. I repeat, if you aren't paying for a service you are getting, you aren't the customer, you are the product. In this case, you are the reason that Google can charge their advertisers what they charge them.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Google doesn't charge for the android operating system.

http://9to5google.com/2014/01/23/goo...bile-services/

Google doesn't do this out of the kindness of their corporate heart, they do it to provide more eyeballs for their various ad platforms. I repeat, if you aren't paying for a service you are getting, you aren't the customer, you are the product. In this case, you are the reason that Google can charge their advertisers what they charge them.

Android doesn't have any ads. It is the apps on the playstore that have ads. Google is selling those apps to the android user. Even if they sell it for free, it is still a sale. Most apps you can opt out of the ads by paying money for the ad free version. Part of that money the customer pays goes to Google as comission.

So no, I disagree with your insistence to not calling android users customers.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Android doesn't have any ads. It is the apps on the playstore that have ads. Google is selling those apps to the android user. Even if they sell it for free, it is still a sale. Most apps you can opt out of the ads by paying money for the ad free version. Part of that money the customer pays goes to Google as comission.

So no, I disagree with your insistence to not calling android users customers.

Methinks that you don't understand exactly how Google does ads. Their main thing is by capturing as much information about the users as possible, they allow very precisely directed ads. But hey, if it doesn't bother you fine. If you wish to consider yourself the customer, that's fine. So, what's the 1-800 number for issues with Goggle search? Hum, that's odd, I can't find the 1-800 number for Google maps or gmail either. How odd.

[SteveEisenberg]

When I first wrote, in August, about Amazon's special snowflake treatment of Paul Ryan, it didn't cross my mind that there might be some illegality. But that's what a Washington-based organization is claiming today:

CREW Files Ethics Complaint Against Rep. Paul Ryan

Rep. Ryan’s book came out on August 19, 2014. As with other Hachette titles, Amazon had not made it available for pre-order, which typically hurts sales. Initially, it was difficult to find on Amazon’s site and was not discounted. The next day, Rep. Ryan appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” criticizing Amazon. In short order – and in marked contrast with its treatment of other Hachette authors – Amazon suddenly made Rep. Ryan’s book easily discoverable, discounted it by 25 percent, and shipped it immediately. . . .

House ethics rules prohibit lawmakers from accepting gifts given as a result of their congressional employment. “Gift” includes favors, discounts and anything of monetary value. Amazon employs lobbyists and, if the company arranged more favorable treatment of Rep. Ryan’s book because of his position as a member of Congress, the congressman accepted a gift in violation of House rules.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Methinks that you don't understand exactly how Google does ads. [..] If you wish to consider yourself the customer, that's fine.

You keep circling back to ads. Ads are not the only service that Google provides. And yes, if you are talking only about ads as service then I am not the customer of that particular service.

[darryl]

Google's search service is a wonderful product. Their customers do not pay for the service in cash but in information which Google is able to monetize. If someone else provides a more appealing service or Google becomes too "evil" it's customers can vote with their feet.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You keep circling back to ads. Ads are not the only service that Google provides. And yes, if you are talking only about ads as service then I am not the customer of that particular service.

Because ads is how Google makes money. Everything they do is driven by the desire to increase ad revenue. I happen to find services by Google, such as Google search, Google maps, etc quite valuable and use them, but I am well aware of why Google provides those services "for free", it isn't because of their desire not to be evil. They are a company looking to make a profit, just like all the other companies out there.

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You keep circling back to ads. Ads are not the only service that Google provides. And yes, if you are talking only about ads as service then I am not the customer of that particular service.

Because WE, the people who use google created items, ARE the product. What we use isn't the product, our usage of said item is the product.

No, google isn't selling Android, they are selling US! Our usage of the product to their customer, the advertisers.

They have wonderful things to use in maps, and gmail and things like that, but that's just a means to an end, getting OUR information to sell to ADVERTISERS, so they can advertise a product that we looked at 15 minutes ago and relate it to something we may want but didn't know it until it showed up!

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because ads is how Google makes money. Everything they do is driven by the desire to increase ad revenue. I happen to find services by Google, such as Google search, Google maps, etc quite valuable and use them, but I am well aware of why Google provides those services "for free", it isn't because of their desire not to be evil. They are a company looking to make a profit, just like all the other companies out there.

Search and Maps? Really? You are fixiated on the services that are either ads themselves or free for the user, financed by the ads. I am mildly aware that Google is the largest advertisement company.

"Because ads is how Google makes money " - doesn't mean that revenue from ads is their only way they make money. Sure, probably the largest by a huge margin, but not the only one. When I say Google I do not automatically limit it to the search. Just as misleading to describe Amazon as the largest bookstore - not a false statement, but not all that Amazon is anymore.

By saying providing search for free "it isn't because of their desire not to be evil"
you are trying to imply that Google is evil? Nice try in pushing your evil agenda and still have deniability since you didn't say it outright. Two negatives don't make a right, and yada yada. The ads in Google Search are done so nicely and unobtrusive that it is no wonder they are the best in advertising. Compare that to all those ad-riddled webpages that require a higher skill level just to navigate around the ads.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

When I first wrote, in August, about Amazon's special snowflake treatment of Paul Ryan, it didn't cross my mind that there might be some illegality. But that's what a Washington-based organization is claiming today:

CREW Files Ethics Complaint Against Rep. Paul Ryan

Sounds like a problem with Paul Ryan, not with Amazon...

Also, fix your link.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/leg...wisconsin-book
not
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=542

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Search and Maps? Really? You are fixiated on the services that are either ads themselves or free for the user, financed by the ads. I am mildly aware that Google is the largest advertisement company.

"Because ads is how Google makes money " - doesn't mean that revenue from ads is their only way they make money. Sure, probably the largest by a huge margin, but not the only one. When I say Google I do not automatically limit it to the search. Just as misleading to describe Amazon as the largest bookstore - not a false statement, but not all that Amazon is anymore.

By saying providing search for free "it isn't because of their desire not to be evil"
you are trying to imply that Google is evil? Nice try in pushing your evil agenda and still have deniability since you didn't say it outright. Two negatives don't make a right, and yada yada. The ads in Google Search are done so nicely and unobtrusive that it is no wonder they are the best in advertising. Compare that to all those ad-riddled webpages that require a higher skill level just to navigate around the ads.

My, that's quite a lot of smoke and bombast to cover the fact that there really is no response to the fact that Google makes their money selling user information to 3rd parties and presenting eye balls to ads.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My, that's quite a lot of smoke and bombast to cover the fact that there really is no response to the fact that Google makes their money selling user information to 3rd parties and presenting eye balls to ads.

Could that possibly be because nobody was attempting to argue with you?

(Personally, I don't consider it a problem. It is exactly what they should be doing, considering the business they are in, and I do not fault them for it, and I wish them much luck. It would be different if there was Anyone On The Planet* who didn't know this.)

All DuckieTigger said was that in your zeal to castigate Google, you seem to be forgetting that Google is multiple things, and not all Google products are evil even by your standards.

* -- not including people too stupid to be allowed on a computer, who coincidentally don't really get the idea of anything other than some pretty pictures. I heard there was still one or two of these people around, somewhere.