If big 4 (6?) are so scared of Amazon why don't they ...

[murg]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Now there is your strawman. Sure, dogs can be very nice animals, but the domesticating and breeding from wolf to dog is rather cruel.

I'm sure Fluffy would love to have to hunt for her food to be able survive.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

but there is no doubt that the publishers and many main stream authors see that as the likely outcome of Amazon's drive to commoditize books.

We really need to stop using phrases like "drive to commoditize books" as if it's a new concept invented by Amazon--or even relevant/accurate for that matter. Books are commodities. Have been for a long time. So are the authors who write them. Have been for even longer. The problem publishers (and some authors) have is that Amazon is threatening the stranglehold that they have historically held on those commodities. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have no doubt that there are people who work for publishers who care deeply about literature. Just as I have no doubt that there are people who work for Amazon who care about the plight of the working man. But publishing companies care no more about the "integrity of literature" than Amazon cares about the common man.

They are corporate entities at odds for control of how money gets made by the sale/promotion of commodities. Period.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I have no doubt that there are people who work for publishers who care deeply about literature. Just as I have no doubt that there are people who work for Amazon who care about the plight of the working man. But publishing companies care no more about the "integrity of literature" than Amazon cares about the common man.

Then why does Farrar, Straus and Giroux publish so much poetry:

http://www.fsgpoetry.com/

And why is it that when you use the search term "ebola" at www.amazon.com/books, you find loads of panic-mongering Kindle Direct Publishing instant titles, with the major publishers sticking to sober older titles?

You could point out that major publishers sometimes release works of medical quackery. But it seems to me that, more often than not, they do have more integrity than that.

Maybe the major publishers release less commercial titles out of a selfish desire to attract bestselling authors who themselves like poetry, or who wouldn't want to share their imprint with Ebola: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid. As I reader, I don't care about the motive, when it results in great medical-topic books like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Ma...eywords=cancer

It's not a matter of being scared of Amazon. It is a matter of asking -- where is the Kindle Direct Publishing -- or Amazon Publishing -- book to match my last link?

Originally Posted by TimW

The implication was, if "scourge Wylie" is siding with the "scourged publishers" against Amazon, Ammy must be REALLY bad.

If depends on how friendly one thinks it was to quote Wylie's extreme statements, such as the mention of ISIS. I didn't see it as a pro-Wylie gesture.

If Gessen wanted to say Amazon was REALLY bad, why the heck did he write what amounted to a advertisement for their human interface testing?

And, for what it's worth, Gessen is not on the Author's United list.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Then why does Farrar, Straus and Giroux publish so much poetry:

http://www.fsgpoetry.com/

I don't understand the question. Are you asking me why they sell poetry? If so, I have no idea. I'd guess it's because they've found readers who want to buy poetry, no? Are they in a battle with Amazon over something?

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

And why is it that when you use the search term "ebola" at www.amazon.com/books, you find loads of panic-mongering Kindle Direct Publishing instant titles, with the major publishers sticking to sober older titles?

You could point out that major publishers sometimes release works of medical quackery. But it seems to me that, more often than not, they do have more integrity than that.

Maybe the major publishers release less commercial titles out of a selfish desire to attract bestselling authors who themselves like poetry, or who wouldn't want to share their imprint with Ebola: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid. As I reader, I don't care about the motive, when it results in great medical-topic books like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Ma...eywords=cancer

It's not a matter of being scared of Amazon. It is a matter of asking -- where is the Kindle Direct Publishing -- or Amazon Publishing -- book to match my last link?

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking me. If I had to guess, it seems you're asking me why KDP/Amazon doesn't publishes more stuff you like/respect, and why traditional publishers do. I can't answer that question--and have no interest in doing so. It's not really all that relevant to whether or not books are commodities that people buy/sell. Are you under the impression that only books you desire and respect should to be sold/bought? Is it not enough that you already have more books available (that DO meet your exacting criteria) than you can possibly read in your lifetime? Are you running out?

Amazon didn't introduce the "crap I don't want to read" concept. There's been "crap I don't want to read" published for centuries.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Now there is your strawman. Sure, dogs can be very nice animals, but the domesticating and breeding from wolf to dog is rather cruel.

Nope not a straw man, it was addressing the point.

[alicepattinson]

Amazon? it needs a lot of work to do in messing with them.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

We really need to stop using phrases like "drive to commoditize books" as if it's a new concept invented by Amazon--or even relevant/accurate for that matter. Books are commodities. Have been for a long time. So are the authors who write them. Have been for even longer. The problem publishers (and some authors) have is that Amazon is threatening the stranglehold that they have historically held on those commodities. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have no doubt that there are people who work for publishers who care deeply about literature. Just as I have no doubt that there are people who work for Amazon who care about the plight of the working man. But publishing companies care no more about the "integrity of literature" than Amazon cares about the common man.

They are corporate entities at odds for control of how money gets made by the sale/promotion of commodities. Period.

I disagree. Books are not a commodity. I buy books from specific authors that I like, not generic books from generic authors.
======================================
DEFINITION of 'Commodity'

1. A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade.

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Commodity'

1. The basic idea is that there is little differentiation between a commodity coming from one producer and the same commodity from another producer - a barrel of oil is basically the same product, regardless of the producer. Compare this to, say, electronics, where the quality and features of a given product will be completely different depending on the producer. Some traditional examples of commodities include grains, gold, beef, oil and natural gas. More recently, the definition has expanded to include financial products such as foreign currencies and indexes. Technological advances have also led to new types of commodities being exchanged in the marketplace: for example, cell phone minutes and bandwidth.
======================================

Books are not of uniform grade. That's why some authors are best sellers and other authors have trouble getting family members to buy their books.

[murg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

And why is it that when you use the search term "ebola" at www.amazon.com/books, you find loads of panic-mongering Kindle Direct Publishing instant titles, with the major publishers sticking to sober older titles?

And yet Tom Clancy has two books out where the bad guys release Ebola in America.

And in case you weren't aware, Tom made enough from his major publisher to buy a baseball team (or a chunk thereof).

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Nope not a straw man, it was addressing the point.

Yes exactly a strawman. The failed attempt at humor from you. Trying to make ridiculous mentioning Hitler by how much he loved his perfect german dogs. He loved them so much that in the end he euthanized them by poisoning? Just like he was so kind to human beings by euthanizing them. Please, give me a break.

The only good thing about Hitler that comes to my mind is that he did not reproduce.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Are you asking me why they sell poetry? If so, I have no idea. I'd guess it's because they've found readers who want to buy poetry, no?

No. It is because the founding editors liked poetry, and then hired successors who also liked it:

http://www.pw.org/content/agents_edi...nathan_galassi

They couldn't continue to do this unless, most years, Farrar, Straus and Giroux made money for the parent Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. But if your somewhat cynical last paragraph in #77* was completely accurate, I don't think they would be publishing much poetry.

By the way, I don't like poetry. My point isn't that we need Amazon-unlike publishers for poetry per-se, but that the publishers are needed for almost every genre except, maybe, novels.

Are they in a battle with Amazon over something?

Periodically, at contract renewals, yes. Amazon did remove their buy buttons (because Farrar, Straus and Giroux is under MacMillan) for a while in 2010. The bigger issue is whether the likes of Farrar, Straus and Giroux will lower themselves to the Amazon level where all that matters is money, power, and market share. You seem to think they are there already. From where I read, they are not.

Are you under the impression that only books you desire and respect should to be sold/bought?

Of course not.

Is it not enough that you already have more books available (that DO meet your exacting criteria) than you can possibly read in your lifetime?

To me, my criteria aren't exacting. Spelling and punctuation errors don't bother me. I do want to see new good books published because, over time, new topics I would like to read about arise.

I again suggest searching www.amazon.com/books for "ebola." Do you really believe that the difference seen there between nonfiction released by the care-only-about-money-power-market-share publisher, and what is released by the big five, is only noticeable by someone with exacting criteria? If so, we disagree. I plead guilty to wanting to be able to read books on medical topics written by actual experts and heavily edited by a professional team.

Amazon didn't introduce the "crap I don't want to read" concept. There's been "crap I don't want to read" published for centuries.

Agreed. But Amazon is -- not purposely, but as a side-effect of gaining market domination -- trying to push competing publishers down to that level.

_________________________________________
* "They are corporate entities at odds for control of how money gets made by the sale/promotion of commodities. Period."

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I plead guilty to wanting to be able to read books on medical topics written by actual experts and heavily edited by a professional team.

Since Amazon is in no way preventing you from doing so (witnessed by the existence of other sources for the material you DO crave [thanks for the "link-tual" evidence by the way]--not to mention how quickly/easily you were able to "spot the loonies" that turned up with an Amazon search), I have to suspect that you are being a tad disingenuous with that statement.

Of course, I guess it's technically possible that you truly believe Amazon's continued success will bring about the utter demise of competently written/presented books on various medical topics. But then, though we disagree, you don't strike me as someone who has completely lost his senses.

The only reason this needs to continue being an Us vs Them situation is because the traditional powers in publishing continue to paint it as such. They're perfectly capable of change that will allow their basic way of life (as well as Amazon's success) to continue. They just have to stop clinging blindly to some of their historical "control." Control that they're going to lose more of before all is said and done.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

We really need to stop using phrases like "drive to commoditize books" as if it's a new concept invented by Amazon--or even relevant/accurate for that matter. Books are commodities. Have been for a long time. So are the authors who write them. Have been for even longer. The problem publishers (and some authors) have is that Amazon is threatening the stranglehold that they have historically held on those commodities. Nothing more, nothing less.

You realize you are effectively telling them to shut up, right?
If they didn't have the "commoditization of books" and "guardianship of literature" 100 year old whines they would nothing to say.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

You realize you are effectively telling them to shut up, right?
If they didn't have the "commoditization of books" and "guardianship of literature" 100 year old whines they would nothing to say.

That's pretty much what people are reduced to saying when the facts aren't on their side and they don't want to admit it. Well, that and mocking the other side because you don't have a counter argument to use. My rule of thumb is that when one side resorts to mockery, they probably don't have the facts on their side.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's pretty much what people are reduced to saying when the facts aren't on their side and they don't want to admit it. Well, that and mocking the other side because you don't have a counter argument to use. My rule of thumb is that when one side resorts to mockery, they probably don't have the facts on their side.

Do you mean "mockery" like this?

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Even Hitler wasn't always wrong. He was well known to be very fond of dogs.

Shari

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My rule of thumb is that when one side resorts to mockery, they probably don't have the facts on their side.

I've got a similar rule: when one side runs out of "facts" to support their opinions, they often resort to spouting quasi-platitudinous phrases and pointing out others' deviations from fictional rules (that their debate team coach convinced them were actually relevant) as a distraction.