Amazon's vertical integration/monopoly

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Just a quick look at the Amazon app store shows 1469 calculator apps. Excuse me 1468 calculator and one caculator.
I am not going to look at Google because I do not feel like counting. I only have 10 fingers and 10 toes.

Android smartphone apps vs. MS desktop apps?
Got a better proof?

Preferably one which involves serious interest on the part of the developers (commercial or open source, either one).
How many of those apps were made in a couple hours with hardly more interest than a Hello World app. I am guessing they are all free.
Go take another look for me, this time count the number of Android apps with "Flashlight" in the title -- whose only job is to, you guessed it, toggle the flashlight on and off.

To bring this thread around back to the topic, just like Internet Exploder and Mozilla Firefox are and were competition, Amazon and Kobo are competition.

You can tell, because they they do the same thing (sell ebooks) but are in a vicious fight over who gets to sell you them.

Well, instead of MS Windows being the focus, IE is equivalent to the Kindle and websites are equivalent to books.
So not much hope for antitrust there on unbundling the embedded reader firmware.

[elborak]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Just a quick look at the Amazon app store shows 1469 calculator apps. Excuse me 1468 calculator and one caculator.

They're small apps, mostly free. And even the commercial ones generate too little revenue to sue over. Web browsers, on the other hand, have advertising deals and partnerships with search engines and other businesses that generate very non-trivial revenue.

Google was challenged in court over their bundled apps. It got thrown out earlier this year.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Android smartphone apps vs. MS desktop apps?
Got a better proof?

Preferably one which involves serious interest on the part of the developers (commercial or open source, either one).
How many of those apps were made in a couple hours with hardly more interest than a Hello World app. I am guessing they are all free.
Go take another look for me, this time count the number of Android apps with "Flashlight" in the title -- whose only job is to, you guessed it, toggle the flashlight on and off.

To bring this thread around back to the topic, just like Internet Exploder and Mozilla Firefox are and were competition, Amazon and Kobo are competition.

You can tell, because they they do the same thing (sell ebooks) but are in a vicious fight over who gets to sell you them.

Well, instead of MS Windows being the focus, IE is equivalent to the Kindle and websites are equivalent to books.
So not much hope for antitrust there on unbundling the embedded reader firmware.

Without looking, I would guess the answer to your couple of hour question would probably be >1400. That is greater than not less than.
Oh good grief, I can't count that high on the android flashlights.

Now the point of anti-trust is monopoly.
Last time I took any terminology classes mono means one.
There are at least 3 browsers.
So no anti-trust.
Oh and Kobo and Amazon do sell some of the same books.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Without looking, I would guess the answer to your couple of hour question would probably be >1400. That is greater than not less than.
Oh good grief, I can't count that high on the android flashlights.

Now the point of anti-trust is monopoly.
Last time I took any terminology classes mono means one.
There are at least 3 browsers.
So no anti-trust.
Oh and Kobo and Amazon do sell some of the same books.

Well, except that the monopoly was Windows the OS, which is exactly why the Amazon <--> Microsoft analogy doesn't work.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, except that the monopoly was Windows the OS, which is exactly why the Amazon <--> Microsoft analogy doesn't work.

If cabbages where . . . .

Maybe I can find a way to make it work, considering how to describe that "boundary"

The clue was:

Originally Posted by HarryT

A dedicated reader is not an "open" device, and it's not sold for the purpose of installing your own applications on any more than, say, a dedicated MP3 player is. You'd be laughed out of court.

The Windows browser issue was different in that a Windows PC does have the express purpose of the user installing their own software on it, but Microsoft were perceived to be putting their competitors at a disadvantage by bundling their own browser with the o/s.

There's no law against selling "closed" devices.

HarryT wasn't trying to give a technical definition, but came very close without getting technical.

So to get technical - - - -

In computer systems, there are two, I'll call them categories, of operating systems -
Multitasking and non-Multitasking -

Non-Multitasking is very clearly a dedicated purpose device.

Of the Multitasking category, there are two major divisions -
Fixed task and Dynamic task -

Fixed task - the multiple tasks are set at build time.
Common examples: WinCE and VxWorks (rtos) (and u-boot and redboot, etc).
Again, very clearly those devices are for a dedicated purpose.

Dynamic task - the multiple tasks are determined at run time.
Common examples: Windows, Linux (Amazon Kindle OS), Android . . . .
Even more specifically, an OS that includes a 'fork' system call.

Of the Dynamic Tasking systems -

A system can be shipped with a limit on the set of available tasks -
This can limit the device **as shipped** to supporting only a dedicated purpose (Example: Amazon Kindle).

That is HarryT's point written from a technical basis.

A system can be shipped **without** a 'hard' limit imposed on the set of available tasks
The above two divisions of Dynamic Tasking systems is close to eschwartz point written from a technical basis.

Which brings us to the question of how is that limit set?

The Amazon Kindle is a good example to apply that question to.

In its case, it is set by limiting the end-user's ability to make available additional purpose tasks.

I.E: As long as its not Jail broken, it is a dedicated purpose device. Once it is Jail broken, it is no longer a dedicated purpose device.

We, at this forum, already know about that, we have been providing a "jail break" and add-in applications for years now.

Now the point on how Amazon is implementing that limit -

Up until now - they have implemented that limit in a manner where it is not really a 'hard' limit - with work, it can be overridden.

The hardware of the Kindle does provide the means to implement a 'hard' limit that can not be overridden - even if you 'peel' the SoC and re-wire its silicon.

An example of such a device is the 3G modem/radio that ships installed in the 3G Kindles.
(Which is also a complete, ARM, SoC. )

Amazon ships the Kindles without the 'hard' limit set -
It ships as a dedicated purpose device, but it does not have to remain that way during its lifetime.

The 3G modem/radio ships with the 'hard' limit set -
It ships as a dedicated purpose device and no one is ever going to change it during its lifetime.

Translation:
If the Amazon Kindle shipped with the 'secure boot' feature used, then eschwartz's point would hold, its a case of Apples and Oranges.

Ah, my point, it doesn't ship with 'secure boot' feature used.
Regardless of the limited set of application tasks loaded at shipping time and a company position statement of not supporting after-market additions or modifications . . . .
It is not technically limited to being a 'dedicated purpose device' so it isn't one, it just a general purpose device shipped with a castrated set of applications.

Edit:
There have been some exceptions to the description I offered above -
I am pretty sure there was at least one eBook reader that ran WinCE -
Like the Windows/WinCE technical difference, there is a variation of Linux that does not support 'fork' -
Windows, prior to 2.5 (IIRC) was dynamic multi-task **without** fork (no memory management device available).

[Barty]

Btw is the jail break dead?

[elborak]

It's on indefinite hold. Only Branch Delay (plus any folks he communicates with behind the scenes) knows the current status.

[notimp]

Read through the remainder of reactions today - coming back to the community because of the obvious JB release buzz.

I dont want to prolong the discussion much longer - maybe a little bit - and maybe just give a few more people who are drawn in by the upcoming jailbreak release the chance to get their feet wet and discover that there are some highly problematic issues regarding Amazons .kfx file format, that arent going away anytime soon.

As for the current state of the discussion in here, I see that "compartmentalization" is used to pin down the argument to the current status quo - which is to say, disregard the overall structural issue in favor of the little patched open loopholes, that allow the "old guard" in here to proclaim, that the ecosystem still works perfectly well - without any need to do something about the overarching issue.

The line of arguing goes as follows -

"Why would amazon ever want to be in the public library space - they are a company" >

"Of course they use the -pay per pages read model- in their Amazon unlimited subscription line of business, but what does this have to do with selling books?" >

"Of course they auto deliver all "sold" books in a format no one but the company itself is allowed to produce anymore, but what if no one is actively using those autodelivered -kfx books?"

(This is the "we dont have to position ourselves against the format" - because we'd like to ignore its existence and demand, that the rest of the consumer market does as well (as in - not use it at all, although its the standard for auto delivery. And there is no opt out. Or opt in for that matter.))

"Of course Amazon is producing a "book", that no one but they themselves and the devices their factory lines produce can a understand anymore - and of course its the only format with certain layout benefits, which increase readability" >

"But Amazon isnt owning the rights to those books, especially in the self publishing space, the author is - so the company cant be seen as heavily tightening its grip and trying to become more and more of a content player in the industry - shedding its former role as a distributing entity and a manufacturer of reading devices."

"Of course Amazon is showing highly uncompetitive behavior in other digital goods markets they entered recently (kicking Google and Nvidia devices out of distribution, removing the most popular open source media player from their app store for dubious reasons), but they have never shown signs of not supporting the one legacy file format we need to still be able to read anything from outside the Amazon ecosystem on our Kindles."

"Of course they arent supporting those legacy file formats in terms of ongoing development, current features, or even delivery to the Kindle, without having to introduce a PC and some cables into the equation - but thats all we need to proclaim a valid perspective for the future of Kindle eReading and - "

"Of course we already have compartmentalized that there ought to be "Books" and "Books behind glass" ("its just a container for delivery, we dont have to understand it") - its the future, get with it."

And of course, whenever we speak about legacy formats in the industry - we talk about them as "being bagage", except when it comes to Kindle file formats we still understand, but that Amazon isnt directly distributing anymore - at which point they become "a valid path into the future".

I proclaim, that this community has at least a little bit of an "identity crisis" alongside the "Apple cant do anything wrong" paradigm we know in the industry all to well.

Attempts to argue, that the ecosystem is becoming increasingly problematic are being countered with "it still works for us here" (who are happy to prolong a part of the ecosystem fewer and fewer people will come in contact with) - and thats everything we should be concerned with. Mostly as tech experts.

The overall message that is needed to make this work is not congruent and entirely relies on loopholes in the new paradigm Amazon is creating to foster their concept of the future of eReading.

-

Also - when I proclaim that Amazon is in no way positioned to be an entity that has cultural development or plurality of public opinion in their DNA - thats fine, because Hollywood hasnt either? Also - of course, Amazon isnt a content creator in the eBook space - they just own the current eBook (no one else can create it, no one else should be able to understand it) format in the space - and their ambitions on other sectors (digital content) should be seen entirely separate from...

Oh come on...

[shalym]

Some corrections below..

Originally Posted by notimp

"Why would amazon ever want to be in the public library space - they are a company" >

You know that they *are* in the public library space in the US, right? I'm not sure why they aren't in other countries, but I don't believe that it's because Amazon doesn't want to be.

"Of course they use the -pay per pages read model- in their Amazon unlimited subscription line of business, but what does this have to do with selling books?" >

Ok...so what *does* it have to do with selling books? Are you going to answer the question, or just leave us hanging?

"Of course they auto deliver all "sold" books in a format no one but the company itself is allowed to produce anymore, but what if no one is actively using those autodelivered -kfx books?"

Why do you think that *all* books are being sold in kfx format?

(This is the "we dont have to position ourselves against the format" - because we'd like to ignore its existence and demand, that the rest of the consumer market does as well (as in - not use it at all, although its the standard for auto delivery. And there is no opt out. Or opt in for that matter.))

Huh?? Who is demanding "that the rest of the consumer market" ignore anything??

"Of course Amazon is producing a "book", that no one but they themselves and the devices their factory lines produce can a understand anymore - and of course its the only format with certain layout benefits, which increase readability" >

The part that I have emphasized above: "devices their factory lines produce" is untrue. I just checked the Kindle app on my Motorola phone, and when I download a book that is listed as being one with "enhanced formatting" it has all of the kfx features. In fact, if I remember correctly, the app had the ability to read the enhanced features before the devices did.

"But Amazon isnt owning the rights to those books, especially in the self publishing space, the author is - so the company cant be seen as heavily tightening its grip and trying to become more and more of a content player in the industry - shedding its former role as a distributing entity and a manufacturer of reading devices."

Again, I have to say "huh??" What does this mean??

"Of course Amazon is showing highly uncompetitive behavior in other digital goods markets they entered recently (kicking Google and Nvidia devices out of distribution, removing the most popular open source media player from their app store for dubious reasons), but they have never shown signs of not supporting the one legacy file format we need to still be able to read anything from outside the Amazon ecosystem on our Kindles."

"Of course they arent supporting those legacy file formats in terms of ongoing development, current features, or even delivery to the Kindle, without having to introduce a PC and some cables into the equation - but thats all we need to proclaim a valid perspective for the future of Kindle eReading and - "

When you say "kicking Google and Nvidia devices out of distribution" do you mean streaming media devices? Yeah...I can't find Chromecast or Nvidia Shield on Amazon, but I can find many many other streaming media players, including Roku. I don't understand what you mean when you say "they have never shown signs of not supporting the one legacy file format we need to still be able to read anything from outside the Amazon ecosystem on our Kindles." Do you mean that they still support formats other than kfx? If so, you are totally wrong about "having to introduce...cables". First, as I said above, books are still available to buy *from Amazon directly* that are not in kfx format. Second, I can send books that are bought from other places or downloaded from guttenberg and other similar places (or created by me) to my Kindle with no need of a cable of any kind, by emailing to my Kindle's dedicated email address. I can also use the browser on my Kindle to download books directly to the device.

"Of course we already have compartmentalized that there ought to be "Books" and "Books behind glass" ("its just a container for delivery, we dont have to understand it") - its the future, get with it."

And of course, whenever we speak about legacy formats in the industry - we talk about them as "being bagage", except when it comes to Kindle file formats we still understand, but that Amazon isnt directly distributing anymore - at which point they become "a valid path into the future".

You keep saying that Amazon isn't distributing other formats anymore...and you are still wrong.

I proclaim, that this community has at least a little bit of an "identity crisis" alongside the "Apple cant do anything wrong" paradigm we know in the industry all to well.

Attempts to argue, that the ecosystem is becoming increasingly problematic are being countered with "it still works for us here" (who are happy to prolong a part of the ecosystem fewer and fewer people will come in contact with) - and thats everything we should be concerned with. Mostly as tech experts.

Of course people are countering your argument with "it still works"...that's because it *does* still work. Look...this is what it boils down to. Amazon has their own ebook format...just like Apple does, and Kobo does, and Google does. If you download a book directly from Kobo onto your device, you are not going to get an epub. It's the same with Apple and with the Play store. You only get epubs from those stores if you first download to your PC and then transfer via USB.

The overall message that is needed to make this work is not congruent and entirely relies on loopholes in the new paradigm Amazon is creating to foster their concept of the future of eReading.

-

Also - when I proclaim that Amazon is in no way positioned to be an entity that has cultural development or plurality of public opinion in their DNA - thats fine, because Hollywood hasnt either? Also - of course, Amazon isnt a content creator in the eBook space - they just own the current eBook (no one else can create it, no one else should be able to understand it) format in the space - and their ambitions on other sectors (digital content) should be seen entirely separate from...

Oh come on...

As to the rest, I think it's heading even further into strangeness. I truly can not understand what Hollywood has to do with Amazon.

Shari

[knc1]

Originally Posted by notimp

Read through the remainder of reactions today . . . . .

tl; dr

[elborak]

Originally Posted by shalym

Again, I have to say "huh??" What does this mean??

This nicely summarizes my take on pretty much everything notimp has written in this thread.

[HarryT]

Can someone remind me what this has to do with Kindle development?

[knc1]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can someone remind me what this has to do with Kindle development?

Duh...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by notimp

As for the current state of the discussion in here, I see that "compartmentalization" is used to pin down the argument to the current status quo - which is to say, disregard the overall structural issue in favor of the little patched open loopholes, that allow the "old guard" in here to proclaim, that the ecosystem still works perfectly well - without any need to do something about the overarching issue.

Sigh. Once again, there is no overarching issue.

The line of arguing goes as follows -

"Why would amazon ever want to be in the public library space - they are a company" >

This is going back to what I said HERE, right?

So, am I wrong?
Has Amazon started running an online library?

Did the fact that they have a partnership with OverDrive that allows you to read library books (from the libraries that do, in fact, exist), similar to the partnership OverDrive has with Adobe, and which it is hoped they will have with Kobo (now that they are both owned by Rakuten) suddenly become more relevant, or are you just agreeing with my line of reasoning?

If you want to disagree with that statement, then do so -- but simply stating that I said so, does not make us magically know why you might disagree.

"Of course they use the -pay per pages read model- in their Amazon unlimited subscription line of business, but what does this have to do with selling books?" >

As shalym said,

Are you going to tell us, then?

"Of course they auto deliver all "sold" books in a format no one but the company itself is allowed to produce anymore, but what if no one is actively using those autodelivered -kfx books?"

(This is the "we dont have to position ourselves against the format" - because we'd like to ignore its existence and demand, that the rest of the consumer market does as well (as in - not use it at all, although its the standard for auto delivery. And there is no opt out. Or opt in for that matter.))

I am still not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

You have gone to no small effort with this thread to tell us it is a problem, but you still haven't, you know, "explained".

What does it matter, which format Amazon defaults to, out of several easily-available formats?
The fact that most people leave the defaults alone (in all aspects of life) is not a moral problem with the Kindle ecosystem -- although as a sociological trend, you can feel free to worry about it as much as you like somewhere else.
As it is said, "there is nothing new under the sun".

"Of course Amazon is producing a "book", that no one but they themselves and the devices their factory lines produce can a understand anymore - and of course its the only format with certain layout benefits, which increase readability" >

"But Amazon isnt owning the rights to those books, especially in the self publishing space, the author is - so the company cant be seen as heavily tightening its grip and trying to become more and more of a content player in the industry - shedding its former role as a distributing entity and a manufacturer of reading devices."

Your argument would be considerably stronger re. "iron grip" buzzwords, if it weren't trivially easy to get another easily-understood format in about ten seconds.
Or if the original MOBI and AZW3 formats were easily understandable themselves. Once again, it is oh-so-easy to look at the past and say "this reverse-engineered format is open enough for my ideological happiness", and much harder to actually go into the past and say "I have no way of knowing if this will ever be reverse-engineered, it makes me very ideologically unhappy".
Or if it wasn't the same thing Kobo, B&N, Google, Apple, and every other seller of DRMed content did first.

• Kobo KEPUB
• Apple iBooks (not DeDRMed because of lack of marketshare ==> lack of interest). Cannot even be downloaded on a non-Apple device, and good luck getting anything out of the default iOS download.
• Google Play Books obfuscated who-knows-what-the-hell-that-thing-is
• B&N partitioned userstore has no access whatsoever to the store-bought files unless you root the device
• Amazon MOBI, AZW3, (both wide-open targets), and on certain devices, sometimes KFX

Unfortunately, it would still be a weak argument, because that is still the definition of a distributing entity.

"Of course Amazon is showing highly uncompetitive behavior in other digital goods markets they entered recently (kicking Google and Nvidia devices out of distribution, removing the most popular open source media player from their app store for dubious reasons), but they have never shown signs of not supporting the one legacy file format we need to still be able to read anything from outside the Amazon ecosystem on our Kindles."

Ad hominem

> /dev/null

"Of course they arent supporting those legacy file formats in terms of ongoing development, current features,

Please define the term "legacy format".
Cue facial expression of acute embarrassment (yes, on your part).

or even delivery to the Kindle, without having to introduce a PC and some cables into the equation - but thats all we need to proclaim a valid perspective for the future of Kindle eReading and - "

"Of course we already have compartmentalized that there ought to be "Books" and "Books behind glass" ("its just a container for delivery, we dont have to understand it") - its the future, get with it."

Again, that is different from every other vendor on the planet, how????

By definition, if you care about re-using the file, you need a computer anyway. I fail to see why that is a burden.

And of course, whenever we speak about legacy formats in the industry - we talk about them as "being bagage", except when it comes to Kindle file formats we still understand, but that Amazon isnt directly distributing anymore - at which point they become "a valid path into the future".

I think I said this before, but it is worth repeating.

Over-engineered new things are stupid.
AZW3 is an excellent format. As is EPUB2.

They are both being replaced. Both by formats which add a lot of features few people want.
I would be perfectly happy if neither of them existed, because as far as I am concerned, the so-called "legacy" formats need no further development or features, because they are freaking perfect already.

Change for the sake of change is an idiot's endeavor.

I proclaim, that this community has at least a little bit of an "identity crisis" alongside the "Apple cant do anything wrong" paradigm we know in the industry all to well.

They can both do a lot of things wrong.
In the case of Apple, they have done few things right, except fool a lot of people into erroneously thinking their operating system is aesthetically pleasing. And making a lot of money, of course. (The two are related).

Amazon isn't quite that evil yet.

Attempts to argue, that the ecosystem is becoming increasingly problematic are being countered with "it still works for us here" (who are happy to prolong a part of the ecosystem fewer and fewer people will come in contact with) - and thats everything we should be concerned with. Mostly as tech experts.

The overall message that is needed to make this work is not congruent and entirely relies on loopholes in the new paradigm Amazon is creating to foster their concept of the future of eReading.

No loopholes, just ignoring the PR message that "all your old things are belong to us"

Also - when I proclaim that Amazon is in no way positioned to be an entity that has cultural development or plurality of public opinion in their DNA - thats fine, because Hollywood hasnt either? Also - of course, Amazon isnt a content creator in the eBook space - they just own the current eBook (no one else can create it, no one else should be able to understand it) format in the space - and their ambitions on other sectors (digital content) should be seen entirely separate from...

Oh come on...

Yes... you "proclaim". Thank you for acknowledging that you don't actually try to "argue" or "explain".

But moving on...

I notice you seem to have forgotten to write the end of your sentences. Because they are missing. Also, I am having difficulty trying to work out what you are saying, because some of the sentence fragments don't even include words that I have so far associated with this thread.

Please clarify those sentences.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can someone remind me what this has to do with Kindle development?

I previously noted the following:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And I am really confused about what this has to do with the hardware E-Ink devices as a vehicle of vertical integration/monopoly.

...

I said before, if you want to discuss the suitability and usefulness of KFX as a modern ebook format, go discuss it in the Kindle Formats forum please.
So I'll say now, if you want to discuss the politics of indie publishing and Amazon's subscription services, go discuss it in the General Discussions forum. We (MobileRead) have already discussed the topic there in depth -- and in the News forum -- but I am sure people will be willing to discuss it further.

I think it is pretty unfair of you to come to the Kindle Developer's Corner, set up a conversation, based on your first post which started this and which I split into its own thread:

and then end up discussing Amazon in ways that really have nothing to do with our subforum at all.
We don't *do* Kindle Unlimited, sales metrics, indiepub politics, or anything of that extended ilk here.

For the record, I am still confused.