Oh, this is just what we need to read when the Amazon-owned Mobipocket site is down. Here’s what Steve Yegge, a former employee at Amazon, reportedly says about Jeff Bezos:
“Now Jeff is a brilliant, brilliant man and he did an amazing job of branding” Amazon “as ‘books,’ and then one day a couple of years later, he told us in an all hands—and this wasn’t secret, but it’s important for us to know—he said, ‘We can’t ride on books and music and video forever.’ Why? Because they’re all digitizable. Who buys a CD in China right now? They have to move into hard lines. They have to move into clothes and auctions and all this other stuff. They have to move into services. They have to, right? Because in the fullness of time—and Bezos is quite the visionary—he thinks no one is going to buy books anymore. And if your brand is tied to something that’s dying then the brand is no good anymore.”
I’d appreciate a little more context for this LISNews item, but I can’t access the source material right now. This-here server breakdown stuff is getting on my nerves. I’d like to think that Bezos is referring strictly to the paper variety of book; probably, in fact. But it still would be good to hear more. Does the CD comment suggest that the Chinese piracy make even E unprofitable? Context, please!
Meta issue: What does this say about the bookstore model vs. the library model? I see the reported Bezos statement as one more reason for a well-stocked national digital library system carefully integrated with local schools and libraries. We need both public and private sources of books. Corporations have a duty to maximize profit for shareholders, while schools and libraries have or should have a permanent commitment to the cause of literacy. Same thoughts apply to Google. Its priorities, as already shown by some impediments to the use of its public domain library, are not necessarily those of society at large.
You make it sound as if we should be a tad disappointed. Amazon and Google are not after the societies interests, but after shareholder value – they are companies, after all. As such, they have to deliver growth and profit. Both companies can be considered to be on the side of light. But whenever there is a decision to be made between sheer benevolence and economic success, they will necessarily have to choose the latter or face dire consequences. At the moment, Google is scattering the place with lots and lots of amazing and free gizmos. And yet, they will have to justify this to their shareholders with the creation of opportunities for further income. One day, somebody is going to have to pay up.
There are many things to be said about the book market – but probably not that it is an area of hot growth. Ebooks are going to grow, but they will probably do so by cannibalizing the Pbook market, with an overall shrinkage on consumer spending as a driving force behind Ebooks. The number of books being sold via Amazon has grown for a while, but they have done so primarily at the cost of smaller bookstores. Amazon’s initial business model was very successful by optimizing the cost per sale – now they are going to reduce the margins of the publishers to realize further growth. Eventually, Amazon’s book business will stagnate. Even if it stagnates at a nice level: who is going to buy stagnant stock? So Jeff Bezos is right with considering to move on. Even if it would turn out not be in the best interest of the society at large. Such are the perils of capitalism
Joscha: News flash! One can be a capitalist and still value certain “socialist” institutions (humor alert) such as good public library systems–digital and physical. I absolutely agree with your analysis. While the Amazons and Googles serve a purpose–for maximum freedom expression and maximum choice, we need the private sector–they will be no substitute for well-stocked national digital library systems. In other words, we’re on the same page about the need not to regard Googlzon as the all-encompassing solution. We need a mixed approach. Thanks for your comments. David
"Addressing his first point, assuming the DOJ case has merit, and the publishers colluded to raise prices, that means THEY BROKE THE LAW.
And now we're ..."
Oh, this is just what we need to read when the Amazon-owned Mobipocket site is down. Here’s what Steve Yegge, a former employee at Amazon, reportedly says about Jeff Bezos:
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
You make it sound as if we should be a tad disappointed. Amazon and Google are not after the societies interests, but after shareholder value – they are companies, after all. As such, they have to deliver growth and profit. Both companies can be considered to be on the side of light. But whenever there is a decision to be made between sheer benevolence and economic success, they will necessarily have to choose the latter or face dire consequences. At the moment, Google is scattering the place with lots and lots of amazing and free gizmos. And yet, they will have to justify this to their shareholders with the creation of opportunities for further income. One day, somebody is going to have to pay up.
There are many things to be said about the book market – but probably not that it is an area of hot growth. Ebooks are going to grow, but they will probably do so by cannibalizing the Pbook market, with an overall shrinkage on consumer spending as a driving force behind Ebooks. The number of books being sold via Amazon has grown for a while, but they have done so primarily at the cost of smaller bookstores. Amazon’s initial business model was very successful by optimizing the cost per sale – now they are going to reduce the margins of the publishers to realize further growth. Eventually, Amazon’s book business will stagnate. Even if it stagnates at a nice level: who is going to buy stagnant stock? So Jeff Bezos is right with considering to move on. Even if it would turn out not be in the best interest of the society at large. Such are the perils of capitalism
Joscha: News flash! One can be a capitalist and still value certain “socialist” institutions (humor alert) such as good public library systems–digital and physical. I absolutely agree with your analysis. While the Amazons and Googles serve a purpose–for maximum freedom expression and maximum choice, we need the private sector–they will be no substitute for well-stocked national digital library systems. In other words, we’re on the same page about the need not to regard Googlzon as the all-encompassing solution. We need a mixed approach. Thanks for your comments. David