The Least They Could Do: Amazon Charges 1 Cent To Meet French Free Shipping Ban 309
Last year, we mentioned that the French government was unhappy with Amazon for offering better prices than the French competition, and strongly limited the amount by which retailers can discount books. Last month, the French parliament also passed a law banning free delivery of books. Ars Technica reports that Amazon has responded with a one-penny shipping rate on the orders that would previously have shipped free. Says the article:
This is by no means the first time France has tried to put a damper on major US tech companies dabbling in books or other reading materials. In 2011, the country updated an old law related to printed books that then allowed publishers to impose set e-book pricing on Apple and others. And in 2012, there was the very public dispute between French lawmakers and Google over the country's desire to see French media outlets paid for having their content pop up in search results. At least for now with this most recent situation, an online giant has found a relatively quick and easy way to regain the upperhand.
Not France vs US (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not at all about the French/US competition, the big French sites like fnac.com are subjected to the same rules of course.
You can think one thing or another about the rules, but they are about the big sites killing off the small local shops.
Re:Not France vs US (Score:4, Insightful)
But then, I haven't been book shopping in France.
Re: Not France vs US (Score:1, Insightful)
If Google wants tot do business in France they should obey the laws of France, not frustrate the lawmakers. That is just not professional.
Re: Not France vs US (Score:4, Insightful)
Or move their operation outside of France and ship from there to side step regulation. I'm no advocate of big biz but the law makers in France seem to be too protectionist (see: good regulatory balance).
Trying not to "piss off the law makers" simply caters to their silly protectionist rackets that are doomed to fail business and consumers in the long run.
Re:What's the difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Shipping is optional? I wasn't aware Amazon permitted the option of driving to their warehouse to pick items up.
Re: Not France vs US (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the problem with this line of thinking is omitting the fact this is largely a technology issue.
Progress will continue regardless of regulation. If the prices for books are relatively high, the negative externality of higher rates of book piracy may occur in the long run. Basic supply price vs demand.
Sure, some people might prefer paper copies but the monetary cost of free often overcomes that aspect.
Why the assumption.... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least for now with this most recent situation, an online giant has found a relatively quick and easy way to regain the upperhand.
Why the assumption that it is good for for-profit companies to find loopholes and avoid the will of democratically elected governments. The French government has made a decision that will have repercussions. If this is followed, books will be more expensive in France, but they wont lose the independent small bookstalls in town high streets that so many other countries will have. It may also inhibit the ability of online companies to start in France. But, guess what, the people can decide. They can lobby for it to be an election issue, ask their representatives which way they vote, etc. If they don't like the law they can get it changed.
Why is it assumed to be better for a private company with a board who the French people ave no influence upon circumvent this decision?
Re: Not France vs US (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's how the cookie crumbles with any market. Sure, some good balance of regulation is good but competition is also good for the consumer. And France is probably on the side of over regulation while the US is often under regulated (sans the broken patent system, for example).
Yes, competition is good for the consumer, which is why France wants to protect competition in the marketplace. Monolithic pile-em-high, sell-em-cheap outlets lead to monopolies. Amazon is increasingly dominant in more and more markets, and getting damned-near monopolistic.
The original fears in France weren't only about the loss of small shops, but also about the result loss of variety in the publishing sector (the supermarkets only stock a small selection of the most popular literature, much of which is pulp and/or translations). Amazon certainly doesn't pose a threat to variety of material, but the monopoly is still worrying. What France recognises is that employment makes the monetary system go round. Fewer jobs in your town means less money in your town, means less spending, means fewer shops, means fewer jobs, means...
Re: Not France vs US (Score:1, Insightful)
If france wants to do business with the world, they should obey free market laws. Fuck france.
Re: Not France vs US (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want French money you're not obliged to take it.
If you do want French money then you obey French law.
If you think that Amazon are stupid enough to ignore the 9th largest economy in the world just because of some idiotic pseudo-religous worry about "free markets" I've got a bookshop to sell you.
Things are simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not France vs US (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not at all about the French/US competition, the big French sites like fnac.com are subjected to the same rules of course.
You can think one thing or another about the rules, but they are about the big sites killing off the small local shops.
Yes, the rest of the world had this argument 20yrs ago when Walmart killed off most of them here.
The consensus? Fuck the local shops. What good did they ever do us? Unlike most, I remember those shops. I remember the 70yr old owner busy chatting with his friends out front and not giving a shit if I could find what I needed because he was the only game in town. I remember paying $5 for a bolt. I vividly remember when I bought my first guitar, prior to the internet even existing and believing the store owner that $800 was a fair deal (it wasn't, it was a $200 guitar) and after he signed me up for a loan that would likely be illegal today, he asked "Oh... would you like a case with that?" $200 for the case. I paid over $1000 for the guitar, got signed up for a 30% interest rate and it was a balloon payment (go look up how awful that is) I was basically bankrupt all the way through college because of that guy.
Fuck the local shops. Competition is good. There are still local shops around here, but now they focus on carrying unique hard to find things and customer service. You can't walk in without them jumping up to help you. The products they do carry are things you need "NOW" and can't wait for shipping on. Or things that would be silly to ship. The local shops that weren't total ass-hats survived, the ones that weren't got what they deserved.
French culture protectionism (Score:3, Insightful)
Now as to the price of books, maybe you don't know but french books cost on average less than american ones.
Citation needed.
And considering the US is a much larger market, a free market WHAT does that really tell you ?
It tells me nothing because even if what you claim is true (and you haven't proven that) there is insufficient information to draw conclusions regarding why that might be the case. Could be subsidies, could be exchange rates (the Euro is strong relative to the dollar and a lot of books are published in the US which would make them cheaper in Europe), could be some other structural advantage. No conclusions can be drawn without more information.
The French have a vibrant cultural market.
And yet we see the French constantly having to pass laws to "protect" their culture from the outside. I see McDonalds opening in France but I don't exactly see French bistros dotting the countryside of the US. The French should be justifiably proud of their culture and what it produces but sometimes they forget that sometimes people should decide for themselves what they want their culture to be.
Especially when it comes to books. They love books, they love reading, and they buy a lot of books. Much more on average than americans.
Again, citation needed but their supposed love of books has little to do with whether price supports should be used to subsidize small, inefficient bookstores. If French customers like the experience of browsing in such stores and are willing to pay more for the experience then such stores should have little difficulty surviving because they are not competing on price. But if they ARE competing on price then all this law does is subsidize a business that customers really aren't willing to pay for. Either way price floors are not a good idea.
Imagine a future were only Amazon or Apple can distribute/sell books. It would be a nightmare.
It is also a strawman argument. That is deeply unlikely to ever come to pass. The market will certainly change but change doesn't have to be bad. Right now you have a smallish number of large publishers who control the sale and price of most books. Amazon and others are taking the power and profits from the publishers but as an end consumer I'm simply trading one large oligopoly for another. What we really want is some way for readers to buy directly from authors without any middleman and in theory the internet provides a way to completely circumvent Amazon and publishers altogether when they don't provide extra value.
Re:Price floors are subsidies (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon's bread and butter is the long tail. I'd be willing to bet more than 1/4 of their revenue is used, older and out of print books. You can buy nearly every ISBN in existence on Amazon.
Everything you claim about Small Bookstores serving the long tail better than Amazon is bullshit.
This is a French jobs protection program, nothing more. In the long run I would be willing to bet it harms more jobs than it protects. Just like most of the French jobs programs where everyone in France pays more for everything to protect jobs.
Re: Not France vs US (Score:2, Insightful)
As to Colombians... sure.
If consenting adults want to buy crack and smoke it then why should I try to stop them? Why is that in the interest of society or myself?
You're likely going to say its dangerous or harmful. Well, lots of things are dangerous or harmful. Some sports for example cause damage to the body and there are fatalities in those sports... should we out law them? And what about suicide itself... That is, putting a shotgun in your mouth and pulling the trigger... want to make that illegal?
You obviously can't. And that's the fucking point. You can't stop it. So stop wasting my fucking time.