[LeonB]

> Audible's network effects can only be dislodged by people not listing their books on Audible at all; so this shouldn't have much of an effect.

This isn’t quite right and misses most of what’s going on.

Since a book that’s exclusive to A can’t appear on B - B can never get any network effects and thus can’t compete with A.

And if B did begin to get any network effects - through an innovative technique ( Eg when book depository made ground by offering free shipping) — A would take notice and simply buy B before it was a big enough threat.

Hence again - individuals and normal market forces can’t displace an established monopolist.

And the moat is huge.

[gwd]

> Since a book that’s exclusive to A can’t appear on B - B can never get any network effects and thus can’t compete with A.

Indeed, and it should probably be illegal for a company with a monopoly to buy exclusivity as Amazon is doing. But even if the Justice Department took interest and Audible switched to (say) 35% across the board, that wouldn't by itself be enough to dislodge Audible's network effects.

That's why I described a plan of attack which wouldn't involve the Justice Department: Rather than starting B and asking publishers to list on both A and B, start B and ask publishers to list only on B (or at least, not on A). That would jump-start the network effects on B.

It would require publishers to accept lower profits for a few years while B was getting established and A lost brand; but if the pricing really rises to the level of abusive (as opposed to just less than they think is fair), publishers should be willing to do that.

> And if B did begin to get any network effects - through an innovative technique ( Eg when book depository made ground by offering free shipping) — A would take notice and simply buy B before it was a big enough threat.

Well yes, which is why such acquisitions should be prevented.

[LeonB]

Ok I think we’re agreement on some fundamentals here about market manipulation and monopolies etc.

Regarding your idea of a scheme to sneak up on and out-fox the market leader… by simply enacting a secret conspiracy amongst a quorum of suppliers:

I do love and admire the idea, I think it’s good stuff and could for example be an interesting movie.

(Actually- one with a similar plot was filmed in my home town when I was a child- some minor prospectors set up an arbitrage situation that turned a monopolistic evil gem dealer against himself… great stuff, and the mayor of my home town got a cameo in one scene).

Bit in reality - outside of fiction - as an actual serious method for unseating a monopoly, I don’t think the shot is even on the board. I don’t know enough laws to see which ones it would break, but I expect there are dozens. But without pondering legalities, fundamentally I see it failing because the conspiracy, among competing suppliers, is effectively a non-iterated prisoners dilemma. It’s better for any semi popular author/publisher to rat on the conspirators and secure a higher exclusive deal from A, than to be online with the B group.

But the first problem is that to fulfill the claim that the existence of such a remote possibility demonstrates that there is “not much of moat” is where I think it really falls down. If you have a technique for achieving a coup like this without getting out the wallet, then please by all means prove me wrong and simply step forward and achieve this scheme. Schemes that have the predicate “If only and not until everyone agrees to do “X” then it would benefit us all” - is generally not sufficient all by itself to bring about the agreement. It takes capital and lots of it.