Is there something specifically wrong with that sort of leveraging?
Businesses in the online and physical world negotiate all sorts of things selectively for their own benefit. Amazon doesn't give every publisher the same deal just like I'm sure publishers don't give every author the same deal.
There are multiple ways to get books published and multiple ways to sell them.
Amazon is big, and as one of the linked NYT articles says 'controls about a third of the book business', but that is a far cry from the modern-classic example monopoly of Microsoft on the desktop (90% share) in the 90s or perhaps Comcast (Sole option) in some places today.
Amazon and Hachette are doing what big businesses do and authors, who have a direct relationship with Hachette, not Amazon are apparently suffereing.
I'm not seeing how Amazon becomes the villain here.
It's only a problem if you have a market controlling position. The bigger Amazon's market share, the more responsibility they have to behave neutrally as the primary conduit between their suppliers and their customers. If there were a dozen other viable options for buying books online who all had similar market power and thus similar price-setting power, then Amazon could behave as bone-headedly as they wanted to.
Exactly. Look at big box retailers -- Target and Walmart all give preferential treatment to manufacturers willing to sell at a discount or give special benefits to the retailer.
Better shelf placement, positioning near the front of the store, checkout placement ... All assets that retailers can exploit to woo vendors. Amazon is doing the same thing. Their assets are less tangible but offer just the same incentive to cooperate and play by their rules.
If you don't, you get pushed to the back of the store, placement out of eye level, etc.
> I'm not seeing is how Amazon becomes the villain here.
The articles don't go into detail, but from what I've seen of the relationship between Amazon and the publishers, I'm inclined to think that Amazon is probably trying to push for very unreasonable terms. Which is to say, Amazon is used to pretty much dictating whatever terms they want to the publishers, because they are in such a dominant position, and I expect that this is just more of the same.
Why? If I ran a hometown bookstore and was required to carry crap I knew wouldn't sell and that ate up valuable shelf space that would be bad for business. I'm not sure why amazon should be required to do something like this either. They are free to carry / not carry whatever they like, per the contracts they sign etc. There is no "everyone is equal" treatment, nor should there be.
Is there something specifically wrong with that sort of leveraging?
Businesses in the online and physical world negotiate all sorts of things selectively for their own benefit. Amazon doesn't give every publisher the same deal just like I'm sure publishers don't give every author the same deal.
There are multiple ways to get books published and multiple ways to sell them.
Amazon is big, and as one of the linked NYT articles says 'controls about a third of the book business', but that is a far cry from the modern-classic example monopoly of Microsoft on the desktop (90% share) in the 90s or perhaps Comcast (Sole option) in some places today.
Amazon and Hachette are doing what big businesses do and authors, who have a direct relationship with Hachette, not Amazon are apparently suffereing.
I'm not seeing how Amazon becomes the villain here.