I read it. I confess I'm largely remembering previous articles that loved highlighting the amount of margin that Audible demands.
For the DRM complaint, I'm mostly sympathetic, but I have a really hard time believing it is not at the insistence of the publishing companies. They literally force library lending to go through similar DRM schemes. And it is largely in their interests to make sure you can't purchase the cheaper Audible version of a book and take it out of their ecosystem.
That last point is ultimately my main gripe here. Audible has incentives for you to buy more from them. Which they largely pursue not by locking your current purchases to them, but by offering better prices and funding better books. To try and "stick it to the man" by bitching about DRM schemes is a hell of a non-sequitur that smacks more of virtue signalling than it does actual concerns.
I find it really hard to deny that platform lock-in is a powerful anti-competitive and anti-consumer force - I think you’re off base in denying its impacts and the merits of addressing it.
I largely agree with this take. But I also largely feel I'm being asked to support, who, exactly?
Note that we aren't pushing for removing the DRM. This is largely about someone wanting you to buy from another place. I can almost believe the DRM angle, but publishing houses have shown they are the far larger driver of that than Audible is. This is why libraries have to have a special license to loan out audio books. They are largely looking to force that in ebooks, even.
As for the last point, that one is not about Audible, so... what are we even discussing here? The article last argument, which is after discussing DRM and monopolies where users are captured into a locked market, is that google and apple has a 30% tax. They don't go into any depth over why a general 30% tax in a third-party market is bad in a duopoly situation, presumably because they don't feel it is necessary.
I've seen complaints on Audible for a few years, at this point? Surprised if this is news to you. Though, I also wouldn't be too shocked if folks skip past audio book news that don't listen to audio books.
What do you mean the point wasn't on Audible, btw? The article is literally about how he is proud he isn't putting his book with Audible because of DRM? This is painted as if it is a choice of Amazon's, but it is hard not to read this as a choice of the Doctorow's. Perhaps you thought I was referencing someone else's last point? I meant that as a reference to my last point in the previous paragraph.
Well, the root article was changed on us. But, yeah, Doctorow and Sanderson both have had pretty high profile critiques of Audible? I don't keep a full index on the official lines, but summary is largely that "DRM bad" and "they give a smaller percentage to authors."
And, at large, I don't care for either of those things. I agree that DRM blows. I also would love it if writers and narrators and SFX crews and everyone got more money. I have grown to not trust a lot of the "big tech company is root of all problems in this old rotting industry" story.
For the DRM complaint, I'm mostly sympathetic, but I have a really hard time believing it is not at the insistence of the publishing companies. They literally force library lending to go through similar DRM schemes. And it is largely in their interests to make sure you can't purchase the cheaper Audible version of a book and take it out of their ecosystem.
That last point is ultimately my main gripe here. Audible has incentives for you to buy more from them. Which they largely pursue not by locking your current purchases to them, but by offering better prices and funding better books. To try and "stick it to the man" by bitching about DRM schemes is a hell of a non-sequitur that smacks more of virtue signalling than it does actual concerns.