Amazon Rising

[MattW]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What you choose to attribute to "pervasive bias" here at MobileRead, could just as easily be attributed to a general public consensus that Amazon really isn't doing anything wrong, no? Not because we're dazzled and confused by the dangling, shiny "we love taking care of our customers" coin, but maybe because they're really not doing anything "wrong" ... or at the least "wrong-er."

Your bias affected your decision to attribute certain things to bias--when those things could just as easily be attributed to "there's really nothing to see here."

Of course, that could be the case. Although I see a difference between MobileRead and other forums/sites/social circles I frequent, hence my observation. I don't know of any conclusive studies other than the high customer satisfaction Amazon enjoys (that nobody doubts anyway), so we're both kind of just stating our observations.

My observation being that Amazon's sins are easily forgiven (or not even seen as sins), because cheap (e)books is all that some people want and care about (Mobileread is also a quite extreme case of a bargain-hunting mentality at work; there's a very broad consensus here that books should be free or dirt-cheap and a lot of folks pride themselves on the fact that they'd never pay more than 5 or 6 bucks for an ebook. I'm not passing judgement, I'm simply observing that viewing that as some sort of "general public consensus" would be misleading, to say the least.)

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Even if one believes that Amazon doesn't NEED defending, that doesn't mean that those who choose to do so on certain topics, aren't doing so in a logical, clinically-detached manner. Certainly not bias-free, but at least not bias-driven.

Again: I never said that every post defending Amazon is bias-driven. But I still strongly believe that the high volume of pro-Amazon posts and the snarky put-downs for almost anyone who disagress are representative of an underlying bias (whose raison d'etre I have already stated twice, so I'll spare you the details).

Let's just agree to disagree.

Matt

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MattW

I maintain that there is a very one-sided view of Amazon here and I strongly believe that this has in part to do with the fact that Amazon is great for its customers and we're reluctant to pass judgement on a company that we buy from. Ergo my "if Amazon is good for me, then Amazon's enemies must be wrong" line of reasoning.

Probably an instance of the Halo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect).

Also it seems to me that the pro-Amazon people are more active and just drown out everybody else. It is like arguing with fanatics and you sometimes stop to do it because it is not worth the time.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MattW

Of course, that could be the case. Although I see a difference between MobileRead and other forums/sites/social circles I frequent, hence my observation. I don't know of any conclusive studies other than the high customer satisfaction Amazon enjoys (that nobody doubts anyway), so we're both kind of just stating our observations.

I see that also. A lot of people I interact with left Goodread when Amazon bought it. And I do not find many people at all that are not critical of Amazon's behaviour.

Also we saw in another thread that a lot of people that write a lot in defence of Amazon is politically motivated (some kind of libertarianism or similar). The goal seems to be to not interfere in choice even if it leads to no more good books being written. Low price seems also always to be more important than good books being produced.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by tompe

Also we saw in another thread that a lot of people that write a lot in defence of Amazon is politically motivated (some kind of libertarianism or similar).

Libertarianism is a good word

[TCSimpson]

Originally Posted by tompe

I The goal seems to be to not interfere in choice even if it leads to no more good books being written. Low price seems also always to be more important than good books being produced.

High price and good books aren't synonymous. Good books and traditional publishing aren't synonymous. Good writers, good editors, good beta readers, and proofreaders are what makes good books.

Let's go to the extreme and say traditional publishing goes belly up (Will never happen, but play along). Those good editors won't lose their ability. There are enough writers out there that if the above scenario happened, there will be jobs for those good editors, proofreaders etc.

You know who would be out on the street? The big execs making millions off the back of the authors, particularly midlisters, while paying them substandard wages. Agents and a few other folks who are not really *necessary* to make a book good.

Good books? They will always be around no matter where this thing ends up.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MattW

Let's just agree to disagree.

I can do that.
Apologies for being dismissive. It's just that whether or not people intend to do so, many seem to want to attribute "support" for something a corporation does to bias--and a willingness to "overlook" things. While simultaneously holding to the conviction that criticism of said corporation is somehow more immune to that same bias and that those who are critical are seeing the "whole picture" more clearly.

Bias needs to be thrown out of the equation IMO, because either side has an equal propensity for being susceptible or immune to it. Regardless of how lopsided the local "vote" might appear, the bias is always evenly dispersed.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Regardless of how lopsided the local "vote" might appear, the bias is always evenly dispersed.

Forget the discussion at hand and forget Amazon, but that statement is so obviously untrue that I need to object to it. Bias is not always evenly dispersed. There aren't always two valid sides to every story and not every opinion is equally rational.

For reference, I suggest "Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism" by Paul Boghossian. Here's the Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006NTJSE6

Matt

[DiapDealer]

I can live with the fact that my opinion is at odds with your interpretation of Mr. Boghossian's.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I can live with the fact that my opinion is at odds with your interpretation of Mr. Boghossian's.

How is that a fact? At best, taking your "logic," it's your opinion that "[your] opinion is at odds with [my] interpretation of Mr. Boghossian's." (damn pronouns).

Matt

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by barutanseijin

12.50 per hour is not a particularly good wage. It's 26K/yr.

It's pretty good when compared to $8 an hour.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MattW

How is that a fact? At best, taking your "logic," it's your opinion that "[your] opinion is at odds with [my] interpretation of Mr. Boghossian's." (damn pronouns).

Matt

I give! Uncle!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Or we would, if it was as stylish to complain about Costco as it is to complain about Amazon.

Costco is pretty well known as a good employer. But they're the exception, not the rule. It's a bit disingenuous to compare Amazon to them instead of the majority of employers who treat their employees much worse than does Amazon.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tompe

Probably an instance of the Halo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect).

Also it seems to me that the pro-Amazon people are more active and just drown out everybody else. It is like arguing with fanatics and you sometimes stop to do it because it is not worth the time.

On line, the phenomenon is referred to as mobbing, i.e. a group of people who attack anyone who disagrees with the group opinion. I think that it's pretty mild here, though it does exist. I've seen it much, much worse in other boards.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MattW

Again: I never said that every post defending Amazon is bias-driven. But I still strongly believe that the high volume of pro-Amazon posts and the snarky put-downs for almost anyone who disagress are representative of an underlying bias (whose raison d'etre I have already stated twice, so I'll spare you the details).

Honestly I think a lot of the anti-Amazon bias is actually pro-Apple bias in disguise. I remember when Apple first got into the book business a lot of articles were saying things like "Well, it's lights out for Amazon now ..." When that didn't materialize and Apple and the Publishers got their hands caught in the Collusion Cookie Jar, this whining against Amazon became much more prominent.

This is coming from someone who bought a Nook Simple Touch as my first eReader because I wanted to help the "littler" guy. Who still buys from Barnes & Noble when prices are similar even though I don't like B&N's stance on price fixing ... err ... the agency model. I do get tired of the "we can't compete" whining, however.

[ProfCrash]

There is a pretty solid block of Anti Amazon and Anti Apple folks here. No matter what happens, Amazon and Apple are evil and should be taken apart by the government. And we do have our fan boys for all the devices/companies.

It used to be that some of the die hard Sony users were pretty anti Amazon. There were some Nook folks who were anti Amazon. To be honest, the number of die hard loyalists (Amazon, Sony, Nook, Apple) has greatly diminished on the board and the tone of posts have very much improved.

There are disagreements, like this one, but I can only imagine what this would have been like a few years back, it would have been very, very ugly.

For the most part, people are pretty respectful.

There are a good number of people with strongly entrenched opinions who have no problem repeating their opinion. When the two sides find themselves in a topic, repeating the same thing or creating a new topic because there is a new newspaper article that says the same thing as old topics, things can get testy.

(shrugs)

It is still pretty polite.