Innovations That Did NOT Make Things Better.

[codystarbuck]

Amazon is a bookstore. Among other things.

So, bad for competition, in the sense of being a huge success, yes.

Amazon is so not a bookstore. It used artificial price structures to undercut competition, then began altering that as the competition fell away. It also has attempted to use monopoly power to strongarm content providers. A bookstore is an environment of personal service. Booksellers interact with their customers to not only help them locate specific titles; but, to open up whole new worlds for them. Booksellers turn people onto new writers and stories, new works on a particular subject. They create enthusiasm and a sense of community, in a live environment. Amazon is little more than a wholesaler, acting like a retailer. Their goal is to remove competition, failing to recognize that competition is what makes the industry stronger. The loss of Borders hurt the publishing world majorly. They lost a key client. If Barnes & Noble and Books-a-million disappear, Amazon then can act with impunity. They've already tried to dictate pricing to publishers and place demands on controlling content that they don't even generate. That's not good for consumers. Competition allows for monopoly efforts to be blocked. There aren't enough independents in a position to challenge Amazon on anything.

Amazon is bad for consumers, in the long term; but, too many people have been conditioned by Wall Street and Madison Avenue to only see things in the short term. That cheap price goes away when the alternatives to Amazon do.

[Joker]

Bingo.

The cheap price only exists to hurt the competition. Bezos will lose money if it takes business away from the competition. Once the competition is gone, well, that's already started. Amazon have to start making money some day, because they've operated at a loss for their entire history to get where they are now.

Amazon also treat its employees like kleenex, or worse. There's nothing good about that company.

[MyriVerse]

Saw someone in our hotel parking lot this morning with one of those "donut" spare tires on their car. This has to be one of the most useless things ever. "Hey, got a flat? Well, with our invention, you get to change your tire TWICE!"

Well, the purpose of that was to save space. And the vast majority of people don't end up changing their tire twice. They put the donut on, then make haste to the mechanic, who handles the rest. And it's something you shoulda oughta do anyway.

And most headlights have been halogens for decades. They've always been a vast improvement of what came before. Now, these new Xenon and LEDs are what truly blind other people. I don't think anyone really needs 3000 lumens or more on the street.

[Spike-X]

Speaking of which selfies are also a pox, spamming the internet with pictures of yourself that have no purpose other then to prove your own vanity. Also dammed be the man/woman who created the selfie stick!

Society has a hundred ways of making women feel shit about themselves. Don't crap on them some more when they do something to fight against that.

[GreenLanternRanger]

Society has a hundred ways of making women feel shit about themselves. Don't crap on them some more when they do something to fight against that.

Who is crapping on women? Men take selfies too. I don't care about a persons gender or age. Selfies and Selfie Sticks are ridiculous. People pointlessly taking pictures of themselves and spamming their equaly ridiculous social media pages with them. It all just utter vain ridiculousness. Not to mention who knows what kind of creeps are looking at the pictures you post of yourself online.



But then again i've never been a big fan of getting my picture taken nor at looking at photos of people. So hey whatever, to each their own.




Getting back on topic. I do agree Amazon is unfair competition against brick and mortar stores. But at the same time I am guilty of using it. So I can't bring myself to hate it.

[codystarbuck]

Bingo.

The cheap price only exists to hurt the competition. Bezos will lose money if it takes business away from the competition. Once the competition is gone, well, that's already started. Amazon have to start making money some day, because they've operated at a loss for their entire history to get where they are now.

Amazon also treat its employees like kleenex, or worse. There's nothing good about that company.

And the main reason he has been able to get away with it is that when he took the company public, during the dot.com boom, Wall Street and other suckers fell all over themselves to back truckload after truckload of money to their doorstep, despite not running a profitable business. So Amazon has billions to burn through, while booksellers have to compete with a fraction of the money. Amazon was also able to get away without collecting sales tax, until states started waking up to that revenue, while brick-and-mortar stores had to pay their share.

[dancj]

But then again i've never been a big fan of getting my picture taken nor at looking at photos of people. So hey whatever, to each their own.

Yeah. Selfies don't bother me, but if I go on holiday and I see something pretty I take a photo of it. I don't understand why most people seem to stick themselves and/or members of their family in front of it for the photo.

[Panfoot]

DRM, the majority of the time it's a bigger pain for the people who actually paid for the product rather than the people pirating it.

[dancj]

DRM, the majority of the time it's a bigger pain for the people who actually paid for the product rather than the people pirating it.

Good call - and I completely agree. If you want it and a prepared to break the law then just about anything is available for free via bittorrent, but many people trying to be legal have their experience ruined by DRM

[Carabas]

Amazon is so not a bookstore. It used artificial price structures to undercut competition, then began altering that as the competition fell away. It also has attempted to use monopoly power to strongarm content providers. A bookstore is an environment of personal service. Booksellers interact with their customers to not only help them locate specific titles; but, to open up whole new worlds for them. Booksellers turn people onto new writers and stories, new works on a particular subject. They create enthusiasm and a sense of community, in a live environment. Amazon is little more than a wholesaler, acting like a retailer. Their goal is to remove competition, failing to recognize that competition is what makes the industry stronger. The loss of Borders hurt the publishing world majorly. They lost a key client. If Barnes & Noble and Books-a-million disappear, Amazon then can act with impunity. They've already tried to dictate pricing to publishers and place demands on controlling content that they don't even generate. That's not good for consumers. Competition allows for monopoly efforts to be blocked. There aren't enough independents in a position to challenge Amazon on anything.

Amazon is bad for consumers, in the long term; but, too many people have been conditioned by Wall Street and Madison Avenue to only see things in the short term. That cheap price goes away when the alternatives to Amazon do.

See, I don't care one whit about Amazon being cheaper.

I care about Amazon actually having the books/games/whatever I wish to buy, and delivering them at my doorstep. I'd pay extra for that.

[Sharkerbob]

[Selfie defense picture.]

Just a nitpick, I would think the ongoing agony of physical existence would be a reminder of how "actually real" we are. Photos can always been erased or edited.

And the main reason he has been able to get away with it is that when he took the company public, during the dot.com boom, Wall Street and other suckers fell all over themselves to back truckload after truckload of money to their doorstep, despite not running a profitable business. So Amazon has billions to burn through, while booksellers have to compete with a fraction of the money. Amazon was also able to get away without collecting sales tax, until states started waking up to that revenue, while brick-and-mortar stores had to pay their share.

Arguably one major reason Barnes & Noble remains in business now is they jumped on the online and e-book markets almost immediately after Amazon did, thus securing a lifeline there. Walden took too long to get that started, hence Walden/Borders fell behind and couldn't keep up, even as they tried to shift into a more multi-media store.

Yeah. Selfies don't bother me, but if I go on holiday and I see something pretty I take a photo of it. I don't understand why most people seem to stick themselves and/or members of their family in front of it for the photo.

To prove they were there, so they can brag to their friends about it, of course.

DRM, the majority of the time it's a bigger pain for the people who actually paid for the product rather than the people pirating it.

Lots of anti-piracy really ends up being less-than-stellar. On the one hand, something needs to be done, but on the other, there's always going to be this endless cycle of escalation that makes the effort a losing battle.

[codystarbuck]

Just a nitpick, I would think the ongoing agony of physical existence would be a reminder of how "actually real" we are. Photos can always been erased or edited.




Arguably one major reason Barnes & Noble remains in business now is they jumped on the online and e-book markets almost immediately after Amazon did, thus securing a lifeline there. Walden took too long to get that started, hence Walden/Borders fell behind and couldn't keep up, even as they tried to shift into a more multi-media store.




To prove they were there, so they can brag to their friends about it, of course.




Lots of anti-piracy really ends up being less-than-stellar. On the one hand, something needs to be done, but on the other, there's always going to be this endless cycle of escalation that makes the effort a losing battle.

I worked for Barnes & Noble for 20 years. It survived less because of having an online presence and diving into the ebook and reader market (though it helped significantly) than in running a good solid company, keeping their debt low and focusing on running a great retailing business. The retail side was carrying Nook, before they spun it off. It was that fact that ultimately led to a change of leadership, getting back to concentrating on the retail end of things and looking at compatible products that could be sold in the store. Even at the height of in-house Nook expenditure, B&N wasn't using deficit financing. That is what killed Borders. They made a string of short-sighted decisions over the years; but, the one that compounded all of the rest and killed them was deficit financing. The only reason they survived as long as they did was that their chief creditor was also their biggest shareholder. It was in his best interests and balance sheet to keep them alive, hoping he could unload the debt (which gave him a big tax write off); until it just became unsustainable and he couldn't secure other financing.

B&N always looked to their core business when it came to entering these other areas. How would it integrate with stores and deliver the same experience? How do I satisfy those who love print books with an e-reader. How do I deliver that same reading experience and catalog of material? How can I build these other divisions using the resources we have in the stores and the relationships they developed? Those were other key areas. B&N always operated with an eye on the future; though they thought things through before they jumped on innovations. That was the advantage Amazon had, assigned from predatory pricing structures, which were fueled by dot.com-frenzied investors. They were able to position themselves as innovators, even if their product was that innovative. Nook had them beat in a lot of key areas; but, they had the brand name recognition.

[dancj]

Lots of anti-piracy really ends up being less-than-stellar. On the one hand, something needs to be done, but on the other, there's always going to be this endless cycle of escalation that makes the effort a losing battle.

The most effective methods to combat piracy seem to be much more positive than any DRM:
- Make the product legally available on the same date around the world
- Make the price fair
- Remove DRM (which discourages some people from buying)

[Spike-X]

The most effective methods to combat piracy seem to be much more positive than any DRM:
- Make the product legally available on the same date around the world
- Make the price fair
- Remove DRM (which discourages some people from buying)

Companies do seem to be getting the message with this, finally. It shouldn't be harder to legally purchase and use the product/content than it is to steal it.

[Sharkerbob]

I worked for Barnes & Noble for 20 years. It survived less because of having an online presence and diving into the ebook and reader market (though it helped significantly) than in running a good solid company, keeping their debt low and focusing on running a great retailing business. The retail side was carrying Nook, before they spun it off. It was that fact that ultimately led to a change of leadership, getting back to concentrating on the retail end of things and looking at compatible products that could be sold in the store. Even at the height of in-house Nook expenditure, B&N wasn't using deficit financing. That is what killed Borders. They made a string of short-sighted decisions over the years; but, the one that compounded all of the rest and killed them was deficit financing. The only reason they survived as long as they did was that their chief creditor was also their biggest shareholder. It was in his best interests and balance sheet to keep them alive, hoping he could unload the debt (which gave him a big tax write off); until it just became unsustainable and he couldn't secure other financing.

B&N always looked to their core business when it came to entering these other areas. How would it integrate with stores and deliver the same experience? How do I satisfy those who love print books with an e-reader. How do I deliver that same reading experience and catalog of material? How can I build these other divisions using the resources we have in the stores and the relationships they developed? Those were other key areas. B&N always operated with an eye on the future; though they thought things through before they jumped on innovations. That was the advantage Amazon had, assigned from predatory pricing structures, which were fueled by dot.com-frenzied investors. They were able to position themselves as innovators, even if their product was that innovative. Nook had them beat in a lot of key areas; but, they had the brand name recognition.

Very interesting. Good to get a view from the inside, as it were.

Speaking of further bad innovations: deficit financing/debt economy!

It seems good in the short term, but in the long term, it eventually screws everybody, except maybe those who profit directly from the debt.