[Info-vax] OT: yet more Amazon stuff...

[John Wallace]

On Dec 31, 3:33 pm, seasoned_geek <rol... at logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:44 am, Doug Phillips <dphil... at netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [* is guilty of]  Is that what you meant? Or are you referring to a
> > book entitled "criminal fraud."
>
> > Before you state something as fact, do a little research. You're an
> > author, act like one. Look up the legal meaning of "criminal fraud."
> > Don't guess and don't assume. So far you have demonstrated a total
> > disregard for the facts, but it's hard to tell whether that's from
> > ignorance or pure malice. Either way, it's not becoming.
>
> You should take your own advice.
>
> http://www.ask.com/wiki/Price_gouging
>
> "it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with
> a competitive free market, or to windfall profits"
>
>
>
> > If you look at Amazon's site you'll see that your book is shown as
> > "Available from these sellers" and is not being sold directly by
> > Amazon. But fact-checking does take a little effort.
>
> And the slightest bit of fact checking by Amazon would have those
> listings removed for charging well above list for an in-print in-stock
> book, but, they make more money participating in a gouge than stopping
> it.
>
> > Your assumption is unfounded and contrary to the statements I made.
> > But you, too, may believe what you want. You may not, however,
> > question my integrity based purely upon your blind assumptions. If I
> > question yours it is based upon what you have written, not on
> > assumptions.
>
> I made no assumptions.  Had you actually been "in" the book business
> you would have stated such.  Had you actually been "in" the book
> business you wouldn't have challenged anything.
>
>
>
> > > Please don't jump into one of my threads and sing the praises of
> > > Amazon.
>
> > If you take even a quick glance at the beginning of this thread you'll
> > find it is not yours.
>
> When you jump in my face, despite all of the other conversations going
> on around us, you are jumping in "my thread".  "My thread" may not bee
> the "root usenet thread" but most "threads" in comp.os.vms tend to
> have 4-7 conversations going on in them.  Most of us only read the
> messages pertaining to the conversation we are "in".
>
>
>
> > It isn't your thread. An author who makes false claims of ownership
> > and shows disregard for fact-checking in even his casual writing won't
> > be taken very seriously.
>
> See above.
>
> > > You haven't been in the book business for 20+ years.
>
> > You don't know what business I've been in for 20+ years so you are
> > making a statement without having even a passing knowledge of the
> > subject. I would have worded that: "I've been in the book business for
> > 20+ years. Have you?" But, I'm not an author.
>
> Once again.
> I made no assumptions.  Had you actually been "in" the book business
> you would have stated such.  Had you actually been "in" the book
> business you wouldn't have challenged anything.
>
> Just like an OpenVMS developer can tell how much experience another
> developer has by the "way they talk" so can people who have been in
> other industries, including the book business.
>
>
>
> > Through the years I've had more than a passing acquaintance with the
> > book industry, from publishers and printers to published authors, both
> > personally and professionally. I've learned that statements of fact
> > need a citation and writings of fiction or personal opinion need a
> > disclaimer. You should know that.
>
> Acquaintances aren't "in" the business same as "leaners" aren't in the
> race car.
>
> Please do some actual research.
>
> Academic journals require copious citations.  Industry White Papers do
> not.  Writings of Fiction, if bound, need only a BSIC fiction
> classification or the word Fiction somewhere on a cover.  Personal
> opinions, when placed in on-line forums such as UseNet Newsgroups,
> Blogs, and Commentary Web sites which are classified as "vehicles of
> personal expression" need no such disclaimer.  While people "may" find
> valuable information on both UseNet and Wikipedia, neither is a
> redundantly fact checked source.  When writing articles for
> Techopedia.com, if one uses Wikipedia, one is required to find 3
> (three) redundantly fact checked resources to confirm any information
> pulled from there.  Ironically it is roughly the same requirement as
> for information pulled from UseNet and blogs.
>
>
>
> > sound to me like slander unless you provide supporting evidence. 'The
> > minimum you need to know to spread FUD' might be a good title for your
> > next book.
>
> Amazon's accounting and business practices have been questioned far
> and wide in the investing world.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/SEC-inquiring-into-Amazons-accounting-practices/...http://accounting.smartpros.com/x25810.xmlhttp://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/1363741/Amazon+Settle...http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/02/US_Postal_investigation_of_A...http://www.mcall.com/news/local/amazon/http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/10/ftc_investigation_...
>
> Well, you do the rest of the research.  Much of it requires
> subscriptions to paid investing information sites, but, their practice
> of reporting only complete company results without breaking out
> business units is rife with potential for abuse and is constantly
> questioned by money managers.
>
> The other thing continually called into question, both by those "in"
> the business, and those of the investing world is just how often Indie
> authors aren't paid.  Once Amazon sucks them into one of their POD
> imprints, there are no external checks or balances.  Amazon processes
> all orders and manufactures all supply.  If Amazon chooses to pay them
> for every other print book and every third ebook, there is no way of
> knowing, short of the FTC seizing all of their computer systems in a
> lightning raid and doing months of investigation.  If Amazon chooses
> not to pay U.S. authors for sales in say, the U.K. it would exploit
> someone like you who, by your own admission, shops for the cheapest
> price.  The price difference very well "could" be the amount the
> author was supposed to get.  Their practice of rolling everything up
> into one combined company filing for the SEC makes it impossible to
> ferret out such information to either confirm or disprove it.
>
> Happy New Years.

I took the trouble of following a few links. For those who haven't yet
done so, here is my interpretation of what I found.

The CNET link is an article from 2000. It did not relate to an inquiry
into Amazon's product sales practices, it related to an inquiry which
was basically into Amazon's practices in accounting for "sweetheart
deals" with other big players such as Toys'R'Us, and the accounting
methods used to present them in the Amazon books. I don't know if
calling them Enron-style is exactly fair, but nor am I 100% convinced
that the way Amazon represented them was exactly fair either. Whether
or not they were sufficiently misrepresented as to be illegal is a
different question.

The SmartPros article (again from 2000) relates to the same subject.

I also looked (briefly) at the Seattle Times article, as it wasn't
over ten years old. It appears to relate to misdescribed product sold
through a variety of well known outlets, Amazon being just one of
them.

Three articles, no real earth-shattering content. At that point, I
lost interest, which is a shame, as there certainly used to be plenty
of cause for concern re the big picture wrt Amazon's accounting
transparency - there appeared to be serious concern that venture
capital was being burnt to subsidise sale prices while they were in
startup phase (a classic tactic when trying to build a monopoly, e.g.
Murdoch). But I think they're past that stage now.

If Amazon's accounting really *was* substantially dodgy, I'd have
hoped for more evidence than I found in the three links I followed.
For example, when the Dell/Intel dodgy accounting dealings (basically,
Intel funded Dell for not buying AMD product) finally emerged, it did
make headlines in the relevant places. Start from
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-131.htm for example (dateline
2010).

As an occasional Amazon customer of several years, all I can say is
"it's worked for me, so far". Before Christmas I wanted to buy a
particular LCD TV and I had hoped to buy it from a highly recommended
bricks and mortar vendor, with a branch in the city centre near to me.
Contacting the store was near impossible, and I waited the best part
of three weeks before they could even tell me when they would have one
available. Unfortunately for them, I'd lost interest by that time (a
forecast big car repair bill didn't help). I eventually ordered the TV
from Amazon (car repair bill being slightly less than expected) and it
arrived the following morning (a Saturday) as advertised. It's hard
for even the best bricks and mortar retailer to compete with that. I
intended to buy a cheap satellite TV receiver this weekend, from
another bricks and mortar shop. The computer said they had two. The
shop said they had one, the display model, and they wouldn't sell it
to me. I'll probably give Maplin a 2nd chance on this occasion, as I'm
in no big rush and the practicalities of being around to take delivery
from a courier work in Maplin's favour this time - but that won't
always be the case.

I remain none the wiser as to how all this relates to Amazon's
business practices as they affect the small author (though I do
clearly see where there are potential holes in the print-on-demand
accounting, but presumably the problem is sufficiently small that the
SEC don't care and the Authors' Union... oh wait, there probably isn't
one).

As another reply (nearly) said earlier, there's quite a contrast
between what we read here, and what we read in the books.

Happy New Year everyone.