7 ms·

Amazon is no different than Wal-Mart. Growing up in a small town, I remember Wal-Mart coming in and decimating numerous small businesses in it's wake. But of

Amazon is no different than Wal-Mart. Growing up in a small town, I remember Wal-Mart coming in and decimating numerous small businesses in it's wake. But of course we shopped there, the prices were cheaper, even if it did close our neighbors business. It wasn't until years later when my uncle's business landed the desirable Wal-Mart account that I understood how they were doing it. It was his best day and worst day of his life (in hindsight), as Wal-Mart nearly shut down his business with it's demands (and once a business lands WM as a customer, they become the dominant customer by their design), so once you as a business owner realize what you've allowed them to do to your business, it's too late. And so many people I know despise Wal-Mart and it's practices, but worship at the altar of Bezos because it's "online".

Lewisham 14y ago
You're discounting the big difference here: online makes moving fast easy. Big box stores win because they are unassailable, Amazon surely is not. If enough authors don't like Amazon's policies, BAM, up pops a new site as a collective of authors selling their e-books direct to the consumer and not through Amazon. Amazon loses. If Amazon starts being a terrible company to its customers, BAM, up pops a new site which is nice to them. Amazon loses. Amazon is not winning because it's buying out the pot, it's winning because it's providing a better service. Publishers lose out because they're the middle-men. They know this. They're too cowardly to directly deal with the customer. If they wanted to, they could have bought out Barnes & Noble and really slugged it out with Amazon, but they won't. They'll let B&N fight the battle for them, and if B&N go bankrupt, well, that's B&N's problem. It's just plain wrong to equate online with offline. Online is a far more competitive and risky market to be in.
- brisance 14y ago
  I respectfully disagree. There is also lock-in from Amazon because most people will have no clue how to remove the DRM on the Kindle titles and move them to another e-reader should they decide to do so. So the parent comment is valid.
  - Tsagadai 14y ago
    Lock-in here only prevents sales on the content side. Yes, you can't shift your whole collection between hardware vendors yet but you also can't buy from several content vendors yet. If someone announced DRM free books they could sell to all of their competitors' devices. Opening up content sales is more important than opening up hardware from a consumer point of view. You can buy a ebook reader from hundreds of vendors but you can only buy books for it from a couple (including the one that sold you the reader).
    - WalterBright 14y ago
      There is no technical reason preventing you from creating your own ebooks & distributing them and having them work on the kindle.
  - WalterBright 14y ago
    You can create & supply ebooks readable on the Kindle without ever going through Amazon.
  - Lewisham 14y ago
    The DRM on the Kindle was largely forced by the publishers, was it not?
- modfodder 14y ago
  Wal-Mart has rarely been a terrible company to it's customers, same with Amazon. But the customer is only part of the ecological equation. You can be great to the customers but destroy the whole ecosystem. This is what happens with companies like Wal-Mart and Amazon. Wal-Mart didn't start out destructive. They become destructive once they were large enough to bend the manufacturing companies to their will. Amazon has and is doing the same. And once again, like Wal-Mart before it, the destruction is only seen in the aftermath. I've shopped at Wal-Mart. It's convenient and cheap, the same reason I still shop at Amazon (convenience trumps morality for me many times, as it does for a lot of people). But what you can end up with are corporations that employ a scorched earth policy and will design their business to make little or no money so they can outlive the competitors. And what happens when they win? Have you ever driven through a small town and seen a vacant Wal-Mart building? I have. They end up destroying the market and then leaving because they know people have no choice but to drive 30-45min to the Super Wal-Mart in the next town. Pure capitalism can easily become parasitic and will kill of the host then move to another. The idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a business, fail, then pivot, pivot, pivot (who even heard of companies pivoting in the 80's). If offline is so easy why isn't hacker news all about opening up a competitor to Wal-Mart? I assume by that comment you probably have never started an offline business. The ideal outcome to all this would be for Amazon to remake publishing into a market where the bulk of the profits go to the author/creator. That would be great to see. But don't think for a second that what Amazon is doing to the publishers, they won't also do to the authors when the time comes. And if there is one (or two) dominant ebook reader(s), that is exactly what will happen. But in your eyes that would be alright because Amazon is making it cheaper for the customer.
  - Lewisham 14y ago
    The idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a business, fail, then pivot, pivot, pivot (who even heard of companies pivoting in the 80's). If offline is so easy why isn't hacker news all about opening up a competitor to Wal-Mart? I assume by that comment you probably have never started an offline business. You read what you wanted to read in that statement, not what I meant. What I meant was: big online companies are vulnerable in a way big offline companies are not. Of course I am not suggesting that Mom and Pop small business is easy. It's not, it's incredibly hard. That's one of the reasons why big offline companies are able to destroy the markets they move in to. It's no mistake that just a week or so ago pg was asking for applications to YC to disrupt Amazon. pg doesn't fund things he doesn't think have a chance of winning.
gwright 14y ago
It seems like all these stories about Wal-Mart's effect on local economies focus almost entirely on the vendors and not at all on the cost/convenience savings that is reaped by the local consumers I'm not denying the effect on local businesses but it seems like the other side of the ledger needs to be considered also.
- modfodder 14y ago
  Absolutely. For the customer's pocketbook, Wal-Mart and Amazon are definitely a win. The problem is the whole ecosystem can lose, even when the customer wins. We often act as the customer is the end all/be all of the transaction and that if the customer is happy, it must be a great company. Of course that ignores the company's employees and everyone else affected by the success or failure of that business. And I'm not proposing a boycott of Wal-Mart or Amazon, but I do believe it's to everyone's benefit to think of the whole ecosystem.

Lewisham 14y ago

You're discounting the big difference here: online makes moving fast easy. Big box stores win because they are unassailable, Amazon surely is not. If enough authors don't like Amazon's policies, BAM, up pops a new site as a collective of authors selling their e-books direct to the consumer and not through Amazon. Amazon loses. If Amazon starts being a terrible company to its customers, BAM, up pops a new site which is nice to them. Amazon loses. Amazon is not winning because it's buying out the pot, it's winning because it's providing a better service. Publishers lose out because they're the middle-men. They know this. They're too cowardly to directly deal with the customer. If they wanted to, they could have bought out Barnes & Noble and really slugged it out with Amazon, but they won't. They'll let B&N fight the battle for them, and if B&N go bankrupt, well, that's B&N's problem. It's just plain wrong to equate online with offline. Online is a far more competitive and risky market to be in.

brisance 14y ago
I respectfully disagree. There is also lock-in from Amazon because most people will have no clue how to remove the DRM on the Kindle titles and move them to another e-reader should they decide to do so. So the parent comment is valid.
- Tsagadai 14y ago
  Lock-in here only prevents sales on the content side. Yes, you can't shift your whole collection between hardware vendors yet but you also can't buy from several content vendors yet. If someone announced DRM free books they could sell to all of their competitors' devices. Opening up content sales is more important than opening up hardware from a consumer point of view. You can buy a ebook reader from hundreds of vendors but you can only buy books for it from a couple (including the one that sold you the reader).
  - WalterBright 14y ago
    There is no technical reason preventing you from creating your own ebooks & distributing them and having them work on the kindle.
- WalterBright 14y ago
  You can create & supply ebooks readable on the Kindle without ever going through Amazon.
- Lewisham 14y ago
  The DRM on the Kindle was largely forced by the publishers, was it not?
modfodder 14y ago
Wal-Mart has rarely been a terrible company to it's customers, same with Amazon. But the customer is only part of the ecological equation. You can be great to the customers but destroy the whole ecosystem. This is what happens with companies like Wal-Mart and Amazon. Wal-Mart didn't start out destructive. They become destructive once they were large enough to bend the manufacturing companies to their will. Amazon has and is doing the same. And once again, like Wal-Mart before it, the destruction is only seen in the aftermath. I've shopped at Wal-Mart. It's convenient and cheap, the same reason I still shop at Amazon (convenience trumps morality for me many times, as it does for a lot of people). But what you can end up with are corporations that employ a scorched earth policy and will design their business to make little or no money so they can outlive the competitors. And what happens when they win? Have you ever driven through a small town and seen a vacant Wal-Mart building? I have. They end up destroying the market and then leaving because they know people have no choice but to drive 30-45min to the Super Wal-Mart in the next town. Pure capitalism can easily become parasitic and will kill of the host then move to another. The idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a business, fail, then pivot, pivot, pivot (who even heard of companies pivoting in the 80's). If offline is so easy why isn't hacker news all about opening up a competitor to Wal-Mart? I assume by that comment you probably have never started an offline business. The ideal outcome to all this would be for Amazon to remake publishing into a market where the bulk of the profits go to the author/creator. That would be great to see. But don't think for a second that what Amazon is doing to the publishers, they won't also do to the authors when the time comes. And if there is one (or two) dominant ebook reader(s), that is exactly what will happen. But in your eyes that would be alright because Amazon is making it cheaper for the customer.
- Lewisham 14y ago
  The idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a business, fail, then pivot, pivot, pivot (who even heard of companies pivoting in the 80's). If offline is so easy why isn't hacker news all about opening up a competitor to Wal-Mart? I assume by that comment you probably have never started an offline business. You read what you wanted to read in that statement, not what I meant. What I meant was: big online companies are vulnerable in a way big offline companies are not. Of course I am not suggesting that Mom and Pop small business is easy. It's not, it's incredibly hard. That's one of the reasons why big offline companies are able to destroy the markets they move in to. It's no mistake that just a week or so ago pg was asking for applications to YC to disrupt Amazon. pg doesn't fund things he doesn't think have a chance of winning.

gwright 14y ago

It seems like all these stories about Wal-Mart's effect on local economies focus almost entirely on the vendors and not at all on the cost/convenience savings that is reaped by the local consumers I'm not denying the effect on local businesses but it seems like the other side of the ledger needs to be considered also.

modfodder 14y ago
Absolutely. For the customer's pocketbook, Wal-Mart and Amazon are definitely a win. The problem is the whole ecosystem can lose, even when the customer wins. We often act as the customer is the end all/be all of the transaction and that if the customer is happy, it must be a great company. Of course that ignores the company's employees and everyone else affected by the success or failure of that business. And I'm not proposing a boycott of Wal-Mart or Amazon, but I do believe it's to everyone's benefit to think of the whole ecosystem.