Indies and Kindle Unlimited

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Except those "monopolies" are not true monopolies, but rather exclusive products. So the term "monopoly" has to be applied with sarcasm in both cases. For Kindle ereaders Amazon isn't even the exclusive seller.

I thought the sarcasm was implied with my previous comment, calling KU an Amazon monopoly is just silly.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I thought the sarcasm was implied with my previous comment, calling KU an Amazon monopoly is just silly.

And I thought mine was implied the first time I mentioned it.

We both have to put better smileys.

[haertig]

If you read consistently and read pretty fast, KU sems like a good deal. Since I don't read very fast, and only manage one or two books per month, it's cheaper for me to buy the books outright than subscribe to KU.

I have used a few KU free trials. Sometimes these are $1/month, but that's basically free. I check out the books not with the intent to read them, but to "check them out". I can scan through them quickly, sample a bit here and there, and decide it I want to purchase them outright later. You can read free samples from Amazon's regular website, but I find having the entire book, if only briefly, a much better sample to decide if the book is for me.

So I am using KU as a "sampling service", not a "reading service". The free trials come often enough that I have built up a list of well over a hundred books that I would consider buying outright. Then I can buy from this list at my leisure, without feeling pressured to read faster to get my money's worth out of KU. It would not be to my financial benefit to subscribe to KU at regular price and read at my regular pace. I see a long term subscription to KU as a good deal for fast readers. And short, intermittent bursts of KU (preferably free trials) for slow reader "samplers" like me to create "possible future purchase lists". To Amazon, I must look like a very fast reader, since my sampling usually results in a turnover rate of one book per day. But I'm not reading them that fast, I'm just sampling them that fast. I haven't had any issues with Amazon trying to reign me in at a rate of one book per day, so that must be an acceptable throughput for their algorithms (I'm sure some people DO read this fast!)

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

And I thought mine was implied the first time I mentioned it.

We both have to put better smileys.

Haha yes, I caught yours in your initial post, and was just carrying it on in my reply to cfrizz who seemed to have missed it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Kindle Unlimited is bad. Fuels the Amazon monopoly.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The imaginary one?

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

No, the real one. Amazon has a 100% monopoly on KU.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

LOL, Yup!

But no one is forced to join KU if they don't want to, so it's just BS.

If you are a very heavy reader, you can have endless amounts to read on KU for just a few bucks a month. If I didn't have an endless TBR pile I would join KU.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Which doesn’t change that Amazon has a monopoly over KU.

Of course amazon also has a monopoly on Kindle ereaders. Because you know they make them or in the case of KU run it.

Which doesn't change that that's not exactly true. One doesn't refer to any company's exclusive programs or products as a "monopoly." To do so is a perverse stretch of the definition. Besides, the original poster I replied to wasn't referring to KU as the monopoly. They clearly said that KU fuels Amazon's monopoly. So I doubt very highly that they were suggesting that KU fuels KU's monopoly. Or even that KU fuels Amazon's KU monopoly. That would be silly. So no, they were clearly suggesting that Amazon itself is a monopoly which the KU program helps fuel (not to mention that @FrustratedReader has already made their "Amazon is a monopoly" claim clearly and quite often). Which is, of course, completely imaginary by any recognized definition of monopoly.

I'm often amazed at how MR members can take the simple unambiguous words that are right in front of their eyes and twist them into something silly and unsupportable.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm often amazed at how MR members can take the unambiguous words that are right in front of their eyes and twist them into something silly and unsupportable.

A game of virtual telephone. I see it all the time. In the ongoing Macmillan thread, the eight-week embargo morphed into three months. And even once it was pointed out, the error persisted for a while.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Which doesn't change that that's not exactly true. One doesn't refer to any company's exclusive programs or products as a "monopoly." To do so is a perverse stretch of the definition. Besides, the original poster I replied to wasn't referring to KU as the monopoly. They clearly said that KU fuels Amazon's monopoly. So I doubt very highly that they were suggesting that KU fuels KU's monopoly. Or even that KU fuels Amazon's KU monopoly. That would be silly. So no, they were clearly suggesting that Amazon itself is a monopoly which the KU program helps fuel (not to mention that @FrustratedReader has already made their "Amazon is a monopoly" claim clearly and quite often). Which is, of course, completely imaginary by any recognized definition of monopoly.

I'm often amazed at how MR members can take the simple unambiguous words that are right in front of their eyes and twist them into something silly and unsupportable.

Technically monopoly refers to a specific market, so it's not the wild stretch you think it is. I agree that one shouldn't refer to KU as a monopoly, but monopoly depends on how you define the specific market. Apple was charged with anti-trust a number of years ago when the other party tried to define the market as computers manufactured by Apple. Apple won the case, but it's not exact unprecedented to use the word that way.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Technically monopoly refers to a specific market, so it's not the wild stretch you think it is.

Yes it is. I repeat: KU cannot be called a monopoly, nor can Kindle Fire be called a monopoly, by any stretch of the definition (and be correct).

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I agree that one shouldn't refer to KU as a monopoly,

Should've stopped there. That's basically the point I was making (plus noting the fact that @Frustratedreader wasn't calling KU a monopoly in the first place--as others were twisting their words to suggest).

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Apple won the case, but it's not exact unprecedented to use the word that way.

It may not be unprecedented, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it was a wild stretch of the definition (or whether it was a silly stretch). People often litigate based on wild stretches of fairly clear definitions. Doesn't change the fact that it was a stretch (especially when they lose).

[leebase]

Monopoly is used and abused as a term. But for eBooks, Amazon has a huge market share....so large that one cannot avoid doing business with them. So large, they can dictate terms. They aren't a monopoly. But they are large enough and everyone else small in comparison, that there are justified "free market competition" concerns about their behavior.

Contrast that to McMillan vs the Libraries. Libraries as a whole are not a big enough group to single handedly dictate terms to McMillan. McMillan is not single handedly large enough to dictate terms to libraries.

If Amazon refused to sell McMillan ebooks....that would all but destroy McMillan's ebook market.

Kindle Unlimited - at this point - I am not at all afraid that it's hurting competition. Nobody but Amazon's indie publishers are putting their books into the program. If you read a LOT of Indie books each month, it might even be a good deal.

I can't keep up with the Indie books I buy for $1 for a box set and such to benefit from KU.

Now if Amazon were able to put any body's books into KU themselves....say Amazon would pay the royalties due when someone read the book....all for $10 a month....THAT would definitely have free market competition concerns. The same concerns when Amazon sold all new ebooks from the NYT Bestseller's list for $9.99 to entice people to pay $400 for the original kindle.

I still think people will rue the day they sided with Amazon over Apple. eBooks NEEDED a viable alternative so that there would be viable competition in the eBook platform market.

I'd like to see what we have with streaming movies and tv in the ebook industry.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by leebase

Monopoly is used and abused as a term.

True.

Originally Posted by leebase

But for eBooks, Amazon has a huge market share....

Also true.

Originally Posted by leebase

so large that one cannot avoid doing business with them.

That, unfortunately, is fantasy.

Originally Posted by leebase

So large, they can dictate terms.

Size and leverage have never been illegal. Publishers enjoyed being able to dictate terms to authors and agents for decades because of their leverage, and because of their control of the market.

Originally Posted by leebase

They aren't a monopoly.

Correct. The end.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The imaginary one?

To be fair I believe this was where the joking for Duckie and I has its source. Not that we, or at least I, thought you were serious about Amazon having a monopoly.

Of course the joke which we all have made has now been dissected and discussed to oblivion.

[leebase]

Counter point - that none of the Big 5 felt they could cut off Amazon over the $9.99 ebook price point should be sufficient evidence of Amazon's “monopoly-like” power. Did they collude...well, they were convicted. WHY did they collude? Amazon's monopoly-ish power in the ebook market.

Never tested...the publishers didn’t sue Amazon. Amazon's practices weren’t allowed to be considered in the case. But...Amazon's destructive efforts would have been set in stone if left to the long slow process of courts.

Consider how Samsung copied Apple and eventually lost and had to pay huge fine. But by then Samsung had all they wanted and the huge fine was nothing compared to the business opportunity.

[DiapDealer]

I'm fine with your (and others) speculative ramblings. I just take issue with those who tend to pretend that their opinions are objective fact.

Non-subjective statements like "Amazon is bad," (or Google, or Facebook) or "Kindle Unlimited is bad," or "Amazon is a monopoly," or "Amazon is hurting X" are pointless. They're nothing but hyperbole and opinion trying to being passed off as fact. There is no "side of the angels" to take regarding any of this this. They're all (Amazon, Apple, Publishers, Google, McDonalds, the plumber, the baker, the candlestick maker) "bad" and yet they all provide something "good." Stop looking for morality where there's none to be had.

[Quoth]

The EU would beg to differ.
They are not all the same.
Amazon has 90% of the eBook market.
Google & Facebook have 82% of Internet Advertising with their business built on collecting private usage and information without permission.

McDonalds isn't remotely in the same league.

The average plumber isn't in McDonalds league.

We don't want to promote the lies of these largely unregulated, enormous US Corporations that cheat on taxes, lie to Congress and the EU and consumers and have profits larger than many countries.

There are sides. There are objective proven facts. Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google are under investigation. There have been fines already. McDonalds, the plumber, the baker, the candlestick maker are not.

[Quoth]

"Consider how Samsung copied Apple and eventually lost and had to pay huge fine"
Because the USPTO is broken and Apple is USA.
Samsung didn't in reality copy Apple. The Apple Design Patents (= UK Registered Designs) should never ever been approved. Rounded corners, smart phones, touch, tile interface icons all pre-date the iPhone. Most Apple styles (the white minimalist stuff by Ives) is actually a rip off of stuff Rams designed for Braun. Samsung didn't lose on any technological grounds, because Apple iPhone 1 used a Samsung CPU (ARM licenced) and everything apart from the case and iOS was bought in. Even the GUI on iOS was bought (Fingerworks). It was much later that Apple bought an ARM licensed CPU design house.
A foreign company can't win against a USA company and USPTO approvals. The USPTO doesn't even consider prior art properly. They get more income from approvals than rejections. Their attitude is why waste money on due diligence? The USA system is to challenge in court.

USA doesn't take care of consumers. They are only concerned about a level playing field between big USA corporations, who spend millions lobbying. Facebook, Google and Apple all opposed the new Californian data privacy laws.