Amazon's vertical integration/monopoly

[notimp]

Rude with a purpose - if every discussion is forced down to take place within a 150 character bracket - while at the same time repeating every aspect you already established every second day, because reading the pages beforehand is so yesterday (the reddit model of highlighting hearsay over a more in depth answer, because everything gets lost in a constant content stream of small soundbits), there is this constant sensation of treading water.

If I should cater to the proponents of this model, by their demands, I'd have to explain again, that Amazon is the only entity that is able to produce the current eBook format in their ecosystem, that it is the only entity that is allowed to distribute the current format in their ecosystem and it is the only entity, that can know/understand/research the current file format in their ecosystem. That this is a fully realized vertical monopoly - and that this means, that publishers cant produce current (and most likely future iterations) ebooks (for Kindles/the Amazon ecosystem) anymore. That this cant be reversed easily - because, even if you retroactively grant them the rights (which requires a powershift) - how, will they in return distribute a file format which consists of multiple files per book - and oops -

I'm over 150 characters already - so someone can shout for tl;dr again.

This gets old fast.

So I have to argue, why I wont bow to the convention of making everything a soundbite, and the issue being able to be decided over those.

While at the same time having to deflect the character attacks that only need a three word sentence to be set up - and oops, already over 150 characters again, so tl;dr and no one should read the reactions to those...

That the issue is profound, can trigger emotional outbursts and deeply challenges the self-concept of users in here ("Amazon support platform 357, what may we do for you today?") was known from the beginning.

Please dont shut it down, as soon as the personal attacks start rolling in. Its so much easier to shut down a debate than to allow it to take place.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by notimp

So they destroyed what Gutenberg invented (democratization of the production of books), and all was good - because almost no one proclaimed to notice, so sad - the story just couldnt be told in 150 characters or less.

You have a very strange reaction to a private company introducing a proprietary format for their own convenience.

KFX will no more become a standard for ebook formats than Topaz did.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by notimp

So I have to argue, why I wont bow to the convention of making everything a soundbite, and the issue being able to be decided over those.

I have no complaint about good writing and sustained argument.

I have seen neither. Only long repetitive screeds that should have been (& could have been) condensed by the author into two or three pithy paragraphs with no loss of meaning.

[notimp]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You have a very strange reaction to a private company introducing a proprietary format for their own convenience.

KFX will no more become a standard for ebook formats than Topaz did.

That is a distinct possibility - that plays with the concept, that access and ownership as a universal public demand, holds the power to counteract the system Amazon set up. (Spotify will never, become popular, because people still want to own their music, ...)

But you'd also have to voice, what that means.

This community would have to advice its users to stop buying current (also last gen and potentially future) Kindle models - because they already switched autodelivery to the new format (kfx) exclusively, without as much as an opt out (which we know 90% of users dont use).

Or to depend on Amazon not changing the current distribution loophole of still supporting K4PC, and then jumping through several additional hoops just for the purpose of having to remove Amazons DRM entirely - because, we now agree on at least one aspect of it not being sustainable - on a societal level.

This also means, that you are putting all eggs into the "legacy format" basket, because "it's good, what we are still allowed to understand" - which in return means, that any future development on the format, or features is prohibited, because - we now know, that Amazon is bundling those with new format releases to "manage the message". ("New format, sporting those great new features...").

I argue that that is not a real perspective either.

Furthermore, Amazon has total control of everyone of those aspects - how attractive or viable it is at any point in the future - in part, because reversing their formats just became that much harder, while they now can iterate (produce "new formats") that much faster (Amazon is the only one that can produce/understand kfx books, and this is accepted by publishers and authors).

I'm not in the business to advice Amazon on how to maneuver themselves out of this mess (if thats even what they want, because the business case says, that what they did is bolshy), but just sticking to legacy formats isnt the answer.

Right now it might be enough to advice against buying of current Kindles and to look out for what the next format brings, but that - might take a while. Auto delivery of the new format is already underway, and the blog ecosystem is telling its consumers, that they want it, because of the new features Amazon chose to stack on top of it. Also kfx isnt an attempt to bring the pdf formula to eReaders (like Topaz), but literally the next iteration of Amazons main file system (kf8>kf10 (kfx)).

[HarryT]

Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon don't have the right to distribute books in whatever format they wish to do so? The very fact that - as you pointed out yourself earlier in this thread - Amazon do have a large market share of the eBook market would suggest to me that, contrary to your assertions, Amazon's customers are happy to stick with their proprietary format, and that open formats are not high on the average customer's agenda.

Most people don't care about "owning" books; they buy them, read them, and never look at them again.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The word "pirate" is a ridiculous over-dramatization, yes. I agree.

You are aware that the usage of the word "pirate" to describe those who copy and distribute literary works without the author's permission goes back well over 400 years? Its first recorded use was in a pamphlet called "The Wonderfull Yeare" published in London in 1603 by Thomas Dekker. These were people who knew full well what the nautical meaning of the word was, and certainly didn't consider it a "ridiculous over-dramatization" to apply it to people who were stealing their work.

[notimp]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon don't have the right to distribute books in whatever format they wish to do so? The very fact that - as you pointed out yourself earlier in this thread - Amazon do have a large market share of the eBook market would suggest to me that, contrary to your assertions, Amazon's customers are happy to stick with their proprietary format, and that open formats are not high on the average customer's agenda.

Most people don't care about "owning" books; they buy them, read them, and never look at them again.

Yes, this is one of the main arguments I have on my side.

And at least in the Spotify model, people are still allowed to know how to produce songs, or an album. On kfx final control of production (layout, final product) was already handed over to the distributer. For some entirely alien reason.

But the argument goes further. Books are not consumables. Not inherently. They also have cultural aspects, that wont be adequately managed by one (or two) monopoly distributer. Books aren't only entertainment, they also are information. Knowledge. History.

If you chose to ignore that entirely to jump after the concept your silicon valley friends were marginally successful with in other forms of media - you have successfully proven that you cant be trusted with maintaining the future of the medium.

(Even regardless of if we can agree on if it is smart to let monopolies exist in the information space - where we certainly have a difference of opinion between the american and european concept of societies.)

Of course - only if we count on eBooks being at least something like Paper Books in essence, and not "something entirely different" - which I am sure Amazons PR department would argue.

But I thought at least as much would be argued for in this community.

Amazon killed books in favour of whatever they want to call their controlled new hybrid.

If you argue, that what Gutenberg did, should be able to be reversed by Amazon, because - yeah, liberalism, then where is the liberalism for us still to be able to produce eBooks (in a current format, established by adoption).

[darryl]

@notimp.

1. Amazon is not the devil, nor a Demon nor even a minor imp!
2. Amazon is not the only Vendor to take the "walled-garden" approach.
3. Amazon's control of your "three pillars" is in relation to the kfx format only, not to the market or even to a large part of the market.
4. "Industrialisation of Distribution Formats", apparently a hot topic in German academia, is nothing new. It is not even a very good descriptive phrase, as it fosters confusion between formats and drm. DRM and not the format is of course the main tool which facilitates lock-in.
5. We do not know what Amazon's intentions are with kfx.
6. In time kfx may be supported by Calibre, Kindleunpack, Alf's tools etc.
7. kfx, other than technical issues, raises only issues that have been extensively debated on Mobileread and elsewhere. It is simply wrong to claim as you have that the issues have not been debated other than in German academia.
8. .kfx is not even the only format used by Amazon.
9. Amazon is not a monopoly.
10. Adobe was only prevented from making mandatory the use of its new drm system because of pressure from its customers. This would have and still could affect all adobe protected epubs.
11. Even if the worst comes to pass, as I said in my earlier post, Amazon is likely to be a much kinder master than the oligarchs whose power is only now being broken.
12. Me and I am sure many others regard the European system which favours the rights of a few publishers under the guise of preserving culture as an abomination. Self-publishing and ebooks, fostered by Amazon, has done more for culture than all of the ridiculous EU protectionism.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by notimp

Yes, this is one of the main arguments I have on my side.

And at least in the Spotify model, people are still allowed to know how to produce songs, or an album. On kfx final control of production (layout, final product) was already handed over to the distributer. For some entirely alien reason.

But the argument goes further. Books are not consumables. Not inherently. They also have cultural aspects, that wont be adequately managed by one (or two) monopoly distributer. Books aren't only entertainment, they also are information. Knowledge. History.

If you chose to ignore that entirely to jump after the concept your silicon valley friends were marginally successful with in other forms of media - you have successfully proven that you cant be trusted with maintaining the future of the medium.

(Even regardless of if we can agree on if it is smart to let monopolies exist in the information space - where we certainly have a difference of opinion between the american and european concept of societies.)

Of course - only if we count on eBooks being at least something like Paper Books in essence, and not "something entirely different" - which I am sure Amazons PR department would argue.

But I thought at least as much would be argued for in this community.

Amazon killed books in favour of whatever they want to call their controlled new hybrid.

If you argue, that what Gutenberg did, should be able to be reversed by Amazon, because - yeah, liberalism, then where is the liberalism for us still to be able to produce eBooks (in a current format, established by adoption).

Are you a member of Authors United? A special snowflake?

Please say hello to Doug Preston for me!

[johnnyb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon don't have the right to distribute books in whatever format they wish to do so? The very fact that - as you pointed out yourself earlier in this thread - Amazon do have a large market share of the eBook market would suggest to me that, contrary to your assertions, Amazon's customers are happy to stick with their proprietary format, and that open formats are not high on the average customer's agenda.

I think the market-share point is partly projection, but consider this sentence:
“Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft doesn't have the right to make users use whatever browser Microsoft has built into Windows. The very fact that Windows has such a broad user base suggests that people are more than happy to use whatever software Microsoft has implemented”.
I admit that this is not a 100% match but close enough to warrant validity.

On another note: I generally find the hysteria surrounding big corporations irritating and that goes for both sides. Why is it that no user on this board can display his frustration (from real or imagined reasons) with big business practices and not be harassed (yes I think this is what is happening) by other users who are generally happy with what Amazon/Apple/Microsoft etc are doing? Is the identification with these super-symbols of the marketplace really that strong or that necessary that criticism like notimps provokes so many clearly personal reactions?
I see that Amazon can be credited with breaking some of the power of the big publishers but I also see why, precisely to gain more control over streams of goods and money. So I find it naive to even attempt portray as some kind of liberator (if any liberation came from Amazon, I am pretty sure that its primary goal was to liberate themselves from the constraints that other parties impose on them, disregarding if these constraints have any validity themselves).

[pdurrant]

@notimp: Please work on your writing skills. I find your posts long-winded and confusing. You should be able to put your points across more concisely.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by johnnyb

I think the market-share point is partly projection, but consider this sentence:
“Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft doesn't have the right to make users use whatever browser Microsoft has built into Windows. The very fact that Windows has such a broad user base suggests that people are more than happy to use whatever software Microsoft has implemented”.
I admit that this is not a 100% match but close enough to warrant validity.

Do you really think that's a valid comparison? Microsoft don't, and never have, made anyone use a particular browser.

On another note: I generally find the hysteria surrounding big corporations irritating and that goes for both sides. Why is it that no user on this board can display his frustration (from real or imagined reasons) with big business practices and not be harassed (yes I think this is what is happening) by other users who are generally happy with what Amazon/Apple/Microsoft etc are doing? Is the identification with these super-symbols of the marketplace really that strong or that necessary that criticism like notimps provokes so many clearly personal reactions?

Personally speaking, I'm more than happy to engage in reasoned debate with anyone, but not incoherent rants, which are what we're getting in this thread.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you really think that's a valid comparison? Microsoft don't, and never have, made anyone use a particular browser.

They did in some versions of Windows - the System Default Browser couldn't be changed, and for some operations would always launch Explorer.

But yes, what they really got in trouble for was bundling, trying to build a browser/media player monopoly on the back of their OS monopoly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

They did in some versions of Windows - the System Default Browser couldn't be changed, and for some operations would always launch Explorer.

OK, I don't recall that personally. Some components of Windows (eg Windows Update) used IE, but I have no recollection of any version of Windows ever not allowing you to change the default browser. I've used non-IE browsers on Windows really ever since the web came about.

But yes, what they really got in trouble for was bundling, trying to build a browser/media player monopoly on the back of their OS monopoly.

Sure. Microsoft could reasonably be defined as a monopoly, given that they have 90%+ of the PC consumer market. Amazon are not, and never have been, in a monopoly position.

[notimp]

May I right a few wrongs here -

I never said Amazon had anything else than a vertical monopoly. Please do not confuse what this stands for with something else and then bring it against me, because In your opinion I have said something I havent.

I have never said in here, that Amazon is "the devil" or "a demon".

I have never said, that kfx is the only format Amazon allows.

And I have taken extensive care to argue for the point I am making not only from a perspective that you could identify as "european" or "german" (pulled that one straight out of a casestudy a few pages back).

Also - I dont understand, why putting german in front of scientist - all of a sudden is supposed to do something to the perception of the argument. Ey, mate.

Also I dont argue, that "something might happen in the future" - Amazon has established every part of their new ecosystem concept in the here and now, while - you guys chose not to have the debate, about what was happening.

So - please, stop making up the things you expect to hear out of my mouth, and please stop trying to attack me on personal grounds. Also please stop suggesting different backgrounds or professions I might have, and people I could great on your behalf - because apperantly I am a very cosmopolitan, german, member of a collection society, preaching against modern notions and the devil.

Curiously I am not.

This is just a short paragraph to establish that I dont want this discussion to be held in that way.

Also - the process Amazon established, is already set up. I think I will have to repeat that a few times, before it gets universally recognized...

edit: We can talk about the difference of DRM and proprietary formats next if you want. How they intertwine - what they prevent, what they allow - I see myself to be affluent on that subject as well.