Hot Topics | |
---|---|
The story is they deleted between 12 and 15 books. No reason was given. I suspect that they were probably offensive, no one even downloaded them or they were fake japanese history. It was only a few books tho. Then when the publisher complained that they were taken down Amazon decided to say fuck you and took down all their e-books (over 1,000)
Takechanpoo wrote:The story is they deleted between 12 and 15 books. No reason was given. I suspect that they were probably offensive, no one even downloaded them or they were fake japanese history. It was only a few books tho. Then when the publisher complained that they were taken down Amazon decided to say fuck you and took down all their e-books (over 1,000)
quite the opposite
amozon promised part of publishers to pay fees in proportion to the downloads but the customers downloaded those about 10 books of kodansha than initially envisioned and then fucking amazon unilaterally deleted them. and kodansha got angry.
this kind of arrogant things happen when only one company has a predominant power in market.
and looks like wuchinchonchan believes worthy-to-read books is equal to sold-well books. its chinchonly interesting
Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg
Amazon Faces Publishing Dispute in Japan Over Book Subscriptions
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-04/amazon-faces-publishing-dispute-in-japan-over-book-subscriptions
The web retailer pulled more than 1,000 titles from Kodansha Ltd. over the weekend amid negotiations with Japan’s largest publisher over their contract and the books included in the service.Kobunsha Co. said 550 items were cut. As many as 180 publications from Shogakukan Inc. are no longer being offered; the company said Amazon had sought to reduce the fees it shares.
Amazon sought to renegotiate its contracts with Kodansha, Kobunsha and Shogakukan in September, and amid discussions decided to remove their titles from Kindle Unlimited.
A representative for Shogakukan said that it was protesting Amazon’s moves because they “don’t properly consider readers and create anxiety for authors.”
複数の出版関係者によりますと、アマゾンと一部の出版社との間では、多く読まれた作品には一定の期間、通常よりも利用料を多く払う契約になっていたということです。
Takechanpoo wrote:inside chinchon brains, promises exist to be broken.複数の出版関係者によりますと、アマゾンと一部の出版社との間では、多く読まれた作品には一定の期間、通常よりも利用料を多く払う契約になっていたということです。
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2016100 ... 31000.html
wuchan wrote:matsuki may be on to something. Amazon is really good with data and metrics. It seems like they realized that certain higher priced books were being download more frequently and made the cut to protect their bottom line. There is a line in that article where the publisher is whining about contracts but knowing how Amazon works there was most definitely a clause that allows them to remove items that don't meet certain profit margins. Japanese companies have been known to try to force employees to buy their products to artificially inflate sales (cough toshiba, cough). The fact they pulled the books mid negotiation possibly shows that the Japanese side wasn't willing to play ball, dug in and said "but this is Japan!!!!".
Another example of how J-inc just doesn't get it when it comes to proper open market business? Looks that way to me.
GargoyleTS wrote:https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/10/04/1441207/amazons-kindle-unlimited-is-a-victim-of-its-success-in-japan
Where I read about it. Actual article is on WSJ behind a paywall. Gist is Amazon did indeed fuck up. Amazon hit their budget for royalty payments and wanted to renegotiate the contract after only the first month had passed.
The fuckup really is Amazon offered to pay a full royalty if only 10% of a title was read. That seems awfully low for a culture that reads a lot.
legion wrote:Threadjack
Has to be dead tree, all this digital shit is too crap for me
Grumpy Gramps wrote:Sometimes, it's also the service companies who make life complicated for the shop-owners with ominous "rules"
Example: Arkbark.net
Source...
An NPO will likely have to put up with shit like being bullied and subjugated by the likes of PayPal, but a shop-owner might just show them the stinky finger, and rightly so.
FG Lurker wrote:Grumpy Gramps wrote:Sometimes, it's also the service companies who make life complicated for the shop-owners with ominous "rules"
Example: Arkbark.net
Source...
An NPO will likely have to put up with shit like being bullied and subjugated by the likes of PayPal, but a shop-owner might just show them the stinky finger, and rightly so.
That's actually not PayPal's fault, it's a Japanese regulation issue. Japanese regulations do not allow PayPal to process person-to-person "gift" transactions or to process donations. They also limit sellers to a maximum of $10,000 per item sold.
inflames wrote:FG Lurker wrote:That's actually not PayPal's fault, it's a Japanese regulation issue. Japanese regulations do not allow PayPal to process person-to-person "gift" transactions or to process donations. They also limit sellers to a maximum of $10,000 per item sold.
The paypal issue is that they can't do it with the license they have issued. Not sure on the exact details, but Paypal simply has the Japan office of their Singapore subsidiary registered here.
wagyl wrote:legion wrote:Threadjack
Has to be dead tree, all this digital shit is too crap for me
Publisher info https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AC%91 ... 5.E5.A0.B1
Leads you to http://www.chuko.co.jp/search.php?name4 ... 8=&x=0&y=0
Not really that much more effort than finding a clip on youtube....
Amazon’s Japanese headquarters in Tokyo have been raided by the country’s fair trade watchdog on suspicion of violation of antitrust regulations.
The Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) said on Thursday that Amazon Japan was being investigated after allegations that the company improperly asked suppliers to shoulder part of the costs of discounting their products on the retail site. Amazon Japan said Thursday that it was “fully cooperating” with JFTC, but declined to comment on the details of the allegations.
Local media the Asahi Shimbun daily reported that the firm may have demanded suppliers pay a “collaboration fee”, measured as a percentage of the selling price of the product. The Kyodo news agency, citing unnamed sources, said the fees were to cover discounting.
Public broadcaster NHK reported that Amazon told suppliers it would stop working with them if they did not pay the fees.
The JFTC declined to comment.
Amazon Japan has faced regulatory scrutiny before. In a recent antitrust probe, which involved raids on Amazon’s Tokyo offices in 2016, the JFTC found the firm had required suppliers sell items on Amazon Japan at the same or lower price as any listings they may have on on other platforms.
Japan’s antitrust law prohibits a firm from abusing a superior bargaining position to illicitly make a business partner accept unprofitable trade conditions.
The JFTC ended its probe in June after Amazon Japan agreed to drop the practice.
Amazon has been operating in Japan since 1998, with its Amazon.co.jp store front opening in 2000, making it one of the first of the US retail firm’s international expansions. Amazon Japan follows the model established by the firm’s US site, including its Marketplace where third parties can list and sell goods through Amazon’s storefront.
The firm has offices in the Japanese capital and in Osaka, as well as 13 fulfilment centres and five Prime Now warehouses for its same-day delivery services. The company last year reportedly agreed to pay up to 40% more to domestic delivery service firm Yamato, which said its workforce was struggling to keep up with rising demand for package delivery.
Link
Local media the Asahi Shimbun daily reported that the firm may have demanded suppliers pay a “collaboration fee”, measured as a percentage of the selling price of the product. The Kyodo news agency, citing unnamed sources, said the fees were to cover discounting.
Public broadcaster NHK reported that Amazon told suppliers it would stop working with them if they did not pay the fees.
Japan’s antitrust law prohibits a firm from abusing a superior bargaining position to illicitly make a business partner accept unprofitable trade conditions.
matsuki wrote:
Sounds like the usual cartel-style price fixers just have their panties in a twist....
wuchan wrote:matsuki wrote:
Sounds like the usual cartel-style price fixers just have their panties in a twist....
Pretty much this. If Amazon were a Japanese company this wouldn't be an issue.
At the end of the day you can always just not sell on Amazon?Russell wrote:wuchan wrote:matsuki wrote:
Sounds like the usual cartel-style price fixers just have their panties in a twist....
Pretty much this. If Amazon were a Japanese company this wouldn't be an issue.
You could be right.
That said, I do not like Amazon's predatory policies, and most of the time Amazon is not the cheapest anyway. I usually find better deals at Rakuten, or directly at the shop's web page, like Monotaro, Yodobashi, etc.
matsuki wrote:At the end of the day you can always just not sell on Amazon?Russell wrote:wuchan wrote:matsuki wrote:
Sounds like the usual cartel-style price fixers just have their panties in a twist....
Pretty much this. If Amazon were a Japanese company this wouldn't be an issue.
You could be right.
That said, I do not like Amazon's predatory policies, and most of the time Amazon is not the cheapest anyway. I usually find better deals at Rakuten, or directly at the shop's web page, like Monotaro, Yodobashi, etc.
Russell wrote:matsuki wrote:At the end of the day you can always just not sell on Amazon?Russell wrote:wuchan wrote:matsuki wrote:
Sounds like the usual cartel-style price fixers just have their panties in a twist....
Pretty much this. If Amazon were a Japanese company this wouldn't be an issue.
You could be right.
That said, I do not like Amazon's predatory policies, and most of the time Amazon is not the cheapest anyway. I usually find better deals at Rakuten, or directly at the shop's web page, like Monotaro, Yodobashi, etc.
I don't sell anything on Amazon, but I get your point.
That said, they don't behave like gentlemen. I read about some suppliers selling some product well on Amazon, only for Amazon to make an own version of the product at a discounted price after they analyzed the sales of that supplier. It does not sound right, because they abuse their position as janitor of the sales site.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests