Har. Nice article and a well-made argument. However I suspect that the big 6 are going to accept a world without DRM the same way as the MPAA and RIAA before them: kicking, screaming and fighting until the last breath to prevent anyone from staunching the massive gaping wounds they've inflicted on themselves.
In an ideal world, a world where media companies do what's best for themselves and their customers, I think publishers would act as you've predicted, for the reasons you've said. But instead I'd wager they'll standardise on some other format, or maybe a few (incompatible, of course) formats, announce some token partnerships with uninspiring hardware manufacturers, and generally mill about without any kind of strategy.
Meanwhile Amazon starts quietly disintermediating its way through the publishers themselves with its self-publishing programme. It starts to look pretty compelling, especially with mushrooming ebook sales. A few medium-big authors make the jump and start crowing about their awesome royalty rates. Publishers freak the hell out. The standard ebook price drops to $5. Repeat until everyone else is out of business.
Frankly, I think the only hope is an indie renaissance a la Bandcamp and the recent wave of DRM-free comedy. A compelling online publishing startup that knows how to appropriately wield its "we're not Amazon" cred could get some serious traction. Most authors I know are pretty savvy, and extremely wary of an Amazon monopsony. Unfortunately, they have to go where the money is, and the available options seem to be dwindling.
So, in your doomsday scenario, I get books for $5 and authors make more money? I'll take it.
The crux of Stross's argument for why we should fear Amazon's low prices is that it's "predatory pricing"--that Amazon was selling e-books below cost so they could jack up the prices later after they had their monopoly (or, equivalently, lower payments to authors after they were a monopsonist).
But apparently Stross didn't read the DOJ complaint, because it turns out Amazon's e-bookstore was consistently profitable! 9.99 bestsellers were just the equivalent of cheap milk at grocery stores--loss leaders.
The DRM prediction in the article is pretty good, but both you and Stross misunderstand why Amazon is winning. It's not because they're cheating--it's because they're more efficient and so can make money at lower price points.
Oh, I don't think Amazon is cheating. The whole point of disintermediation is to be more efficient and drive down prices. I'm certain prices will be lower under King Bezos, and perhaps payments to authors will stay high (though that's far less certain).
It's important to consider that Amazon has always behaved quite consistently. Even when it had 90% of the ebook market, it was the one pushing to keep prices down. In its other markets (cloud services, physical books, other goods), evidence suggests that it tries to cut prices as much as possible. I'd go so far as to say it's part of Amazon's culture. I don't think they know how to have a big fat margin on something. It'd make them itchy, like their very own fat middleman waiting to be crushed.
So my issue isn't that Amazon is waiting patiently to pump up their prices once they have enough market share. It's more that having no competition is dangerous in itself. Google and Valve, for example, are two companies that I like immensely, and I think they do a great job in their respective markets. Yet Google can arbitrarily cut off access to my email, and Valve can do the same with my games. Both have been known to use these powers when it makes sense to them. I'd change providers, but everyone else, frankly, sucks.
I want there to be robust competition in e-readers, but the Kindle is too good. I want there to be robust competition for e-bookstores but Amazon always has the best prices. There's a kind of bittersweet ambivalence in knowing that the industry leader is there because they're a clever company doing it right, but still wishing that someone else was there to challenge them. Nobody's right always, or forever.
Google and Valve, for example, are two companies that I like immensely, and I think they do a great job in their respective markets. Yet Google can arbitrarily cut off access to my email, and Valve can do the same with my games.
Especially in terms of cloud email, isn't that going to be true of any service provider you choose? That has nothing to do with monopolies, it's just the nature of the beast. People you buy services from can stop providing those services.
Absolutely. Anyone you do business with can do anything not forbidden by the law. But competition is a great reason to avoid doing things that make your customers unhappy.
If there was another cloud email provider that was as good as Gmail, but additionally had a reputation for never disabling accounts, I would switch to them. Gmail would lose my business, and I wouldn't have to worry about my account disappearing if some bayesnet decides I'm a bad guy.
Okay, but email is a highly competitive business. Competition doesn't mean you don't make customers unhappy, it just means you're judicious about how/when you do it. Any time you have to balance customer needs with abuse mitigation and legal compliance, you're going to have to do some things that make some customers unhappy in the name of being able to provide the wider service.
"Google can arbitrarily cut off access to my email,"
- Use iMap and host your domain through Gmail. That way, if Google acts improperly, you (A) have all your mail locally in your iMap folders (also useful when flying), and (B) you can point your MX records at an alternate destination and pick up your mail there.
So my issue isn't that Amazon is waiting patiently to pump up their prices once they have enough market share. It's more that having no competition is dangerous in itself.
(Sorry for second response to same message.)
It seems like your beef shouldn't be with Amazon. It should be with the rest of the industry for failing to compete. Otherwise it's like complaining that Apple is dominating the smartphone industry by delivering better products -- that's what they're supposed to do.
"However I suspect that the big 6 are going to accept a world without DRM the same way as the MPAA and RIAA before them: kicking, screaming and fighting until the last breath to prevent anyone from staunching the massive gaping wounds they've inflicted on themselves."
This is completely true. As someone has worked in the ebook sector for close to 10 years, the publishers (with a few notable exceptions) continue to dig a deeper hole for themselves. The three main problems in the ebook sector are:
- DRM, Territoriality, The Agency Model introduced in 2010
The problems of DRM have already been covered in detail.
Regarding territoriality, we have ridiculous set of restrictions about who we, as a retailer, can sell an ebook to. A large publishing house will have separate entities setup in the US, Candada, the UK and Australia. Each one of these produces the same ebook that can be sold in a restricted set of countries at different prices. This causes all kinds of complications. Take for example a US citizen who in the army who is trying to purchase an ebook in Afghanistan. Do we rely on their IP address or credit card when determining whether they're allowed the book? The is a litany of other examples where territoriality complicates things helping no one, not even the people imposing it.
By 2010 Amazon had cut prices on ebooks to a level where they were losing money on each sale. Their strategy was fairly clear, build a large user base locked into their platform, bankrupt the competition then strong-arm the publishers to get a larger cut of the profits. The publishers freaked out and imposed a new model in the US where all ebook retailers were considered agents and couldn't discount their books; fixed prices across all retailers.
This move means that the publishers have complicated their own business model to the extent where they can't handle it. Taxes down to the city level must be applied to any ebook sales made with the US. The publishers are struggling to ensure all their distributors are complying with fixed prices and Amazon is monitoring this situation closely. How come retailer X is not complying with your fixed pricing but we have to? The publishers are fearing lawsuits with good reason.
I don't know what the answer is. Our only options as an indie retailer is to pursue a mobile based reading experience on either android, wp7 or through the browser (DRM problems come into play here). Everyone has been pushed off IOS since August last year when Apple imposed a 30% commission on any purchases made through an app. This 30% is exactly the same percentage that retailers receive as an agent.
In an ideal world, a world where media companies do what's best for themselves and their customers, I think publishers would act as you've predicted, for the reasons you've said. But instead I'd wager they'll standardise on some other format, or maybe a few (incompatible, of course) formats, announce some token partnerships with uninspiring hardware manufacturers, and generally mill about without any kind of strategy.
Meanwhile Amazon starts quietly disintermediating its way through the publishers themselves with its self-publishing programme. It starts to look pretty compelling, especially with mushrooming ebook sales. A few medium-big authors make the jump and start crowing about their awesome royalty rates. Publishers freak the hell out. The standard ebook price drops to $5. Repeat until everyone else is out of business.
Frankly, I think the only hope is an indie renaissance a la Bandcamp and the recent wave of DRM-free comedy. A compelling online publishing startup that knows how to appropriately wield its "we're not Amazon" cred could get some serious traction. Most authors I know are pretty savvy, and extremely wary of an Amazon monopsony. Unfortunately, they have to go where the money is, and the available options seem to be dwindling.