Do I have a say in this debate if I don't really READ BOOKS at all nowadays? Since Da Vinci code, that is. Interesting but quite mediocre a book, as are most nowadays. I'm 32... Maybe it's my generation?
That's why I want Flash on the iPad for full web browsing (oh boy, I just hijacked the thread... oops)
Boy, I'm sorry but being a Kindle fanboi is really, really gay.
I know, you wouldn't expect me to use such a term, but I can't think of anything else to say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Over on the Amazon.com Kindle forums, the Kindle users are falling at the feet of Bezos, saying how they are going to boycott Macmillan books (as if "Macmillan" was an author) and fantasizing about Bezos and AMZN going into the indie publishing business (as if Amazon got into ANY business that required the kind of care and feeding of thousands of authors for potentially no payback). Worth browsing in your spare time, if only for laughs:
The best part is when the "Amazon Kindle Team" (whoever that is) says:
Uh, yeah, that "monopoly" is called a publishing contract and it sets the terms of the agreement between the publisher and author, including giving the publisher exclusive distribution rights. It works the same for every publishing company that sells books to Amazon. If the "Amazon Kindle Team" hasn't figured out how that works by now, they must not be ready to go into the indie publishing business any time soon.
If nothing else, they certainly have the Kindle faithful lathered up!
Basically what I'm saying is, yes, it may cost a bit more, but it could end better for publishers and authors, which in the end could be better for us.
and once again we see how it's not about the customer, but about making money out of the customer. a digitally distributed book does not have a cover, no printing costs, no distribution with a truck and a person that hands over the book to you, types in the price and gives you change for your money and still it costs the same? that is not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and once again we see how it's not about the customer, but about making money out of the customer. a digitally distributed book does not have a cover, no printing costs, no distribution with a truck and a person that hands over the book to you, types in the price and gives you change for your money and still it costs the same? that is not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, that's the beauty of capitalism, people will read more websites and so on, and less as physical or e-books, and eventually these publishers will learn their lesson... The world is changing rapidly. For better or worse.
In most emerging markets people will be doing a heck of a lot more reading online than with books, especially after leaving school.
Between the costs of producing a book (publisher) and the costs of selling it (amazon) there is negotiating room, and for a mammoth market presence like Amazon, they enjoy Wal-Mart-esque "monopsony" power, which is the buyer's equivalent of a monopoly (which technically refers to one seller). Therefore, the prices in these negotiations probably favored Amazon, because who would ever dare NOT sell to amazon? (see what happened to Rubbermaid when they told Wal-Mart to screw themselves... their sales disappeared overnight).
Apple gives publishers another mainstream outlet, and therefore negotiating power at the table with Amazon. Clearly it was MacMillan that smugly started this skirmish, and they probably had a right to be pissed after getting strongarmed all this time. Besides, with a name like Amazon (and a logo that suggests "A to Z") you are in the diversity business and it damages your brand too much to leave a major player out like this and have customers shopping elsewhere for it.
So even if Jobs "screws the customer" on this one by getting publishers more money, it is ultimately a win for competition, since Amazon's advantage was probably anti-competitive (monopolistic) to some extent.
The longer term question is just like with the music labels: why do we need publishing houses? If they are just vertical integrators of discovering / bankrolling / editing / marketing / inventorying books, why can't the next great american novel just be brought to apple directly? Or amazon for that matter? Or published from one's own website?
Sure, someone has to give Sarah Palin her bazillion dollar advance for her book, and find someone literate to actually ghostwrite it -- just like Britney Spears needs a lot of help in producing an album -- but ultimately the days of the little guy placing his beloved manuscript in a worn, soft leather briefcase. hailing a cab uptown, and taking it into a skyscraper to bring it to the masses are hopefully on the decline.
And we'll be better for it; tell me: does a physics 101 textbook really need to cost $100 and be rewritten every few years, or is that done just to juice the demand? Publishing houses aren't exactly playing clean, either. You get the idea.
Between the costs of producing a book (publisher) and the costs of selling it (amazon) there is negotiating room, and for a mammoth market presence like Amazon, they enjoy Wal-Mart-esque "monopsony" power, which is the buyer's equivalent of a monopoly (which technically refers to one seller). Therefore, the prices in these negotiations probably favored Amazon, because who would ever dare NOT sell to amazon? (see what happened to Rubbermaid when they told Wal-Mart to screw themselves... their sales disappeared overnight).
Apple gives publishers another mainstream outlet, and therefore negotiating power at the table with Amazon. Clearly it was MacMillan that smugly started this skirmish, and they probably had a right to be pissed after getting strongarmed all this time. Besides, with a name like Amazon (and a logo that suggests "A to Z") you are in the diversity business and it damages your brand too much to leave a major player out like this and have customers shopping elsewhere for it.
So even if Jobs "screws the customer" on this one by getting publishers more money, it is ultimately a win for competition, since Amazon's advantage was probably anti-competitive (monopolistic) to some extent.
The longer term question is just like with the music labels: why do we need publishing houses? If they are just vertical integrators of discovering / bankrolling / editing / marketing / inventorying books, why can't the next great american novel just be brought to apple directly? Or amazon for that matter? Or published from one's own website?
Sure, someone has to give Sarah Palin her bazillion dollar advance for her book, and find someone literate to actually ghostwrite it -- just like Britney Spears needs a lot of help in producing an album -- but ultimately the days of the little guy toting his manuscript into a skyscraper to bring it to the masses are hopefully on the decline.
And we'll be better for it; tell me: does a physics 101 textbook really need to cost $100 and be rewritten every few years, or is that done just to juice the demand? Publishing houses aren't exactly playing clean, either. You get the idea.
Apple overnight has become a major digital publisher. This is going to shake things up, starting in the US, and hopefully growing rapidly internationally. I'm not saying Apple is the Saviour, just that at least there is a little bit more nudging to things.
So even if Jobs "screws the customer" on this one by getting publishers more money, it is ultimately a win for competition, since Amazon's advantage was probably anti-competitive (monopolistic) to some extent.
In general, increased competition makes prices go DOWN. In general, increased competition is good for consumers. In general, prices trend towards the marginal cost of production in a competitive environment.
Here, the marginal cost of production is near zero. Here, the prices are going up. Here, the consumer is getting screwed by a duopoly of retailers.
In general, increased competition makes prices go DOWN. In general, increased competition is good for consumers. In general, prices trend towards the marginal cost of production in a competitive environment.
Here, the marginal cost of production is near zero. Here, the prices are going up. Here, the consumer is getting screwed by a duopoly of retailers.
I think you're stating the marginal cost a bit too low. My brother's fiancee was working in Penguin UK (London) for about a year. Yes digitally producing a "copy" of a book is apparently negligible but I heard her describe some of Penguins efforts to digitize their entire catalog while still publishing new books. The thing is, there's also so many digital formats... There's a lot of overhead.
Not that the consumer needs to be punished, I agree, and prices could go lower. But at least there's more competition now.
I think you're stating the marginal cost a bit too low. My brother's fiancee was working in Penguin UK (London) for about a year. Yes digitally producing a "copy" of a book is apparently negligible
Please look up the phrase "marginal cost". The rest of your post does not discuss marginal costs of production, but instead, other types of costs.
If we continue to focus on the fact that the marginal cost of e-book production will effectively be zero, this does support the idea that prices must fall in the long run. By having no marginal cost, and selling a product that is highly price sensitive, it provides lots of incentive for vendors to be very aggressive on pricing.
However, what we don't yet have is anything like a real competitive set of online retailers selling e-books. Buyers wherever possible need to be opting to have a number of book sellers available to them, else they'll end up captured to one retailer that ends up squeezing the market to suit their own ends.
As ever, this means we want open standards, and to reject a one-device, one retailer model wherever possible. The problem, however, is that wherever companies can they will be tempted to limit the crossover opportunities (using DRM and other contrivances) to make substitution difficult.
Apple overnight has become a major digital publisher. This is going to shake things up, starting in the US, and hopefully growing rapidly internationally. I'm not saying Apple is the Saviour, just that at least there is a little bit more nudging to things.
Please look up the phrase "marginal cost". The rest of your post does not discuss marginal costs of production, but instead, other types of costs.
I think his point is correct. Those other costs are amortized over the whole run and can eventually be negligible. However, ebook aren't a high enough seller for publishers to realize those costs back. Authors (non-bestselling ones) are only seeing sales in the hundreds, not thousands. If they sell enough then publishers will lower the price.
If ebooks ever REALLY take off then the price can come down. With costs and demand as they are, ebooks are like a "limited edition" of a book. And publishers don't have the funds to put up with those costs on each book just to help increase the market.
For the short term, Amazon is the only real profit maker.
They should just let the publishers decide what they want to charge, let the free market decide what e books should go for, enough with the price fixing already!
Which is exactly what Macmillan wants.
It's the same as the iTunes store. Initially, all songs were $0.99, but later, Apple allowed (after pressure from music publishers) a range of prices. Same thing is happening in the book market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321
Apple should have defended the consumer here and insisted on the lower pricing that amazon.com charges. It costs next to NOTHING to distribute an eBook... $9.99 is MORE THAN ENOUGH to charge for an eBook. It's a real shame that Apple didn't go to bat for consumers this time around, while amazon.com did.
Who determines what's MORE THAN ENOUGH? You? Sorry, I don't trust your judgment. There are textbooks which cost hundreds of dollars and have tens of thousands of hours of author's work in them - but which may not sell in huge quantities. Why is $9.99 the right price? Furthermore, there are books that I don't think are worth more than $5. Shouldn't it be up to the MARKET to set prices?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
If your running a business and your supplier just raised their prices 133%, you surely can deny carrying their products if it doesn't bother making your business worthwhile.
This really irritates me - Macmillan's position is being misquoted all the time.
Amazon wanted all books to be $9.99. Macmillan wanted to be able to set the price depending on what they thought the market would support. Some would be $15, but others would be as low as $5 or 6. Not all prices would go up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake Princess
I have no problem paying a measly $15.00 for an eBook. The arguments make about as much sense and expecting a Picasso for the price of canvas and paint. The value is the content, not the delivery method. I can't wait to get an iPad.
No one seems to complain about spending an equal amount for a movie or other entertainment. Why all the complaining? If the book is too expensive for you then don't buy it---go to the library and borrow it instead.
Exactly. I'd go one step further. I can make a painting that's larger than a Picasso and uses lots more canvas and ink so it's more expensive to produce. I guess all these people think I should charge MORE than a Picasso since mine cost more, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
So you are happy that the prices are higher?
They're not. SOME Prices are higher and some are lower. Why is it that you constantly insist on commenting on things without having even the basic facts right?
And publishing is just what Amazon wishes to do. To get their new terms of only 30% cut going to Amazon, they get a license to publish for the Kindle platform along with other stipulations in their favor. I believe that is also a major sticking point with the traditional publishers.
And I doubt that Amazon will be offering any of the usual help to authors that publishers give. Some artists may not need any guidance and help producing their work, but even big names in every field find great value that type of relationship.
With costs and demand as they are, ebooks are like a "limited edition" of a book. And publishers don't have the funds to put up with those costs on each book just to help increase the market.
Generally, the price of a product trends towards its marginal cost of production, unless I misunderstand some sort of basic of economics 101.
The marginal cost of an eBook approaches zero.
What you describe is not marginal costs, but instead sunk costs: "those costs on each book".
Perhaps you are saying that publishers are subsidizing physical books with eBooks? It is difficult for me to determine.
Exactly. I'd go one step further. I can make a painting that's larger than a Picasso and uses lots more canvas and ink so it's more expensive to produce. I guess all these people think I should charge MORE than a Picasso since mine cost more, right?
Since when do material costs determine market price? I was under the impression that supply and demand set market prices.
Generally, the price of a product trends towards its marginal cost of production, unless I misunderstand some sort of basic of economics 101.
The marginal cost of an eBook approaches zero.
What you describe is not marginal costs, but instead sunk costs: "those costs on each book".
Perhaps you are saying that publishers are subsidizing physical books with eBooks? It is difficult for me to determine.
The marginal cost of an eBook approaches zero only when the quantity sold is high enough.
The cost to make an eBook "edition" is separate from the costs for a physical copy. So they aren't trying to subsidize the physical books. If anything, they would have to subsidize the eBooks because they aren't making enough money on them yet for the cost of making an electronic edition.
Comments
That's why I want Flash on the iPad for full web browsing (oh boy, I just hijacked the thread... oops)
Sorry, carry on...
I know, you wouldn't expect me to use such a term, but I can't think of anything else to say...
Over on the Amazon.com Kindle forums, the Kindle users are falling at the feet of Bezos, saying how they are going to boycott Macmillan books (as if "Macmillan" was an author) and fantasizing about Bezos and AMZN going into the indie publishing business (as if Amazon got into ANY business that required the kind of care and feeding of thousands of authors for potentially no payback). Worth browsing in your spare time, if only for laughs:
http://bit.ly/9zehXS
The best part is when the "Amazon Kindle Team" (whoever that is) says:
Uh, yeah, that "monopoly" is called a publishing contract and it sets the terms of the agreement between the publisher and author, including giving the publisher exclusive distribution rights. It works the same for every publishing company that sells books to Amazon. If the "Amazon Kindle Team" hasn't figured out how that works by now, they must not be ready to go into the indie publishing business any time soon.
If nothing else, they certainly have the Kindle faithful lathered up!
Basically what I'm saying is, yes, it may cost a bit more, but it could end better for publishers and authors, which in the end could be better for us.
So you are happy that the prices are higher?
and once again we see how it's not about the customer, but about making money out of the customer. a digitally distributed book does not have a cover, no printing costs, no distribution with a truck and a person that hands over the book to you, types in the price and gives you change for your money and still it costs the same? that is not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, that's the beauty of capitalism, people will read more websites and so on, and less as physical or e-books, and eventually these publishers will learn their lesson... The world is changing rapidly. For better or worse.
In most emerging markets people will be doing a heck of a lot more reading online than with books, especially after leaving school.
Apple gives publishers another mainstream outlet, and therefore negotiating power at the table with Amazon. Clearly it was MacMillan that smugly started this skirmish, and they probably had a right to be pissed after getting strongarmed all this time. Besides, with a name like Amazon (and a logo that suggests "A to Z") you are in the diversity business and it damages your brand too much to leave a major player out like this and have customers shopping elsewhere for it.
So even if Jobs "screws the customer" on this one by getting publishers more money, it is ultimately a win for competition, since Amazon's advantage was probably anti-competitive (monopolistic) to some extent.
The longer term question is just like with the music labels: why do we need publishing houses? If they are just vertical integrators of discovering / bankrolling / editing / marketing / inventorying books, why can't the next great american novel just be brought to apple directly? Or amazon for that matter? Or published from one's own website?
Sure, someone has to give Sarah Palin her bazillion dollar advance for her book, and find someone literate to actually ghostwrite it -- just like Britney Spears needs a lot of help in producing an album -- but ultimately the days of the little guy placing his beloved manuscript in a worn, soft leather briefcase. hailing a cab uptown, and taking it into a skyscraper to bring it to the masses are hopefully on the decline.
And we'll be better for it; tell me: does a physics 101 textbook really need to cost $100 and be rewritten every few years, or is that done just to juice the demand? Publishing houses aren't exactly playing clean, either. You get the idea.
Between the costs of producing a book (publisher) and the costs of selling it (amazon) there is negotiating room, and for a mammoth market presence like Amazon, they enjoy Wal-Mart-esque "monopsony" power, which is the buyer's equivalent of a monopoly (which technically refers to one seller). Therefore, the prices in these negotiations probably favored Amazon, because who would ever dare NOT sell to amazon? (see what happened to Rubbermaid when they told Wal-Mart to screw themselves... their sales disappeared overnight).
Apple gives publishers another mainstream outlet, and therefore negotiating power at the table with Amazon. Clearly it was MacMillan that smugly started this skirmish, and they probably had a right to be pissed after getting strongarmed all this time. Besides, with a name like Amazon (and a logo that suggests "A to Z") you are in the diversity business and it damages your brand too much to leave a major player out like this and have customers shopping elsewhere for it.
So even if Jobs "screws the customer" on this one by getting publishers more money, it is ultimately a win for competition, since Amazon's advantage was probably anti-competitive (monopolistic) to some extent.
The longer term question is just like with the music labels: why do we need publishing houses? If they are just vertical integrators of discovering / bankrolling / editing / marketing / inventorying books, why can't the next great american novel just be brought to apple directly? Or amazon for that matter? Or published from one's own website?
Sure, someone has to give Sarah Palin her bazillion dollar advance for her book, and find someone literate to actually ghostwrite it -- just like Britney Spears needs a lot of help in producing an album -- but ultimately the days of the little guy toting his manuscript into a skyscraper to bring it to the masses are hopefully on the decline.
And we'll be better for it; tell me: does a physics 101 textbook really need to cost $100 and be rewritten every few years, or is that done just to juice the demand? Publishing houses aren't exactly playing clean, either. You get the idea.
So even if Jobs "screws the customer" on this one by getting publishers more money, it is ultimately a win for competition, since Amazon's advantage was probably anti-competitive (monopolistic) to some extent.
In general, increased competition makes prices go DOWN. In general, increased competition is good for consumers. In general, prices trend towards the marginal cost of production in a competitive environment.
Here, the marginal cost of production is near zero. Here, the prices are going up. Here, the consumer is getting screwed by a duopoly of retailers.
In general, increased competition makes prices go DOWN. In general, increased competition is good for consumers. In general, prices trend towards the marginal cost of production in a competitive environment.
Here, the marginal cost of production is near zero. Here, the prices are going up. Here, the consumer is getting screwed by a duopoly of retailers.
I think you're stating the marginal cost a bit too low. My brother's fiancee was working in Penguin UK (London) for about a year. Yes digitally producing a "copy" of a book is apparently negligible but I heard her describe some of Penguins efforts to digitize their entire catalog while still publishing new books. The thing is, there's also so many digital formats... There's a lot of overhead.
Not that the consumer needs to be punished, I agree, and prices could go lower. But at least there's more competition now.
I think you're stating the marginal cost a bit too low. My brother's fiancee was working in Penguin UK (London) for about a year. Yes digitally producing a "copy" of a book is apparently negligible
Please look up the phrase "marginal cost". The rest of your post does not discuss marginal costs of production, but instead, other types of costs.
If we continue to focus on the fact that the marginal cost of e-book production will effectively be zero, this does support the idea that prices must fall in the long run. By having no marginal cost, and selling a product that is highly price sensitive, it provides lots of incentive for vendors to be very aggressive on pricing.
However, what we don't yet have is anything like a real competitive set of online retailers selling e-books. Buyers wherever possible need to be opting to have a number of book sellers available to them, else they'll end up captured to one retailer that ends up squeezing the market to suit their own ends.
As ever, this means we want open standards, and to reject a one-device, one retailer model wherever possible. The problem, however, is that wherever companies can they will be tempted to limit the crossover opportunities (using DRM and other contrivances) to make substitution difficult.
Apple overnight has become a major digital publisher. This is going to shake things up, starting in the US, and hopefully growing rapidly internationally. I'm not saying Apple is the Saviour, just that at least there is a little bit more nudging to things.
Apple has become a major digital distributor.
Publishing is a whole other animal.
Please look up the phrase "marginal cost". The rest of your post does not discuss marginal costs of production, but instead, other types of costs.
I think his point is correct. Those other costs are amortized over the whole run and can eventually be negligible. However, ebook aren't a high enough seller for publishers to realize those costs back. Authors (non-bestselling ones) are only seeing sales in the hundreds, not thousands. If they sell enough then publishers will lower the price.
If ebooks ever REALLY take off then the price can come down. With costs and demand as they are, ebooks are like a "limited edition" of a book. And publishers don't have the funds to put up with those costs on each book just to help increase the market.
For the short term, Amazon is the only real profit maker.
They should just let the publishers decide what they want to charge, let the free market decide what e books should go for, enough with the price fixing already!
Which is exactly what Macmillan wants.
It's the same as the iTunes store. Initially, all songs were $0.99, but later, Apple allowed (after pressure from music publishers) a range of prices. Same thing is happening in the book market.
Apple should have defended the consumer here and insisted on the lower pricing that amazon.com charges. It costs next to NOTHING to distribute an eBook... $9.99 is MORE THAN ENOUGH to charge for an eBook. It's a real shame that Apple didn't go to bat for consumers this time around, while amazon.com did.
Who determines what's MORE THAN ENOUGH? You? Sorry, I don't trust your judgment. There are textbooks which cost hundreds of dollars and have tens of thousands of hours of author's work in them - but which may not sell in huge quantities. Why is $9.99 the right price? Furthermore, there are books that I don't think are worth more than $5. Shouldn't it be up to the MARKET to set prices?
If your running a business and your supplier just raised their prices 133%, you surely can deny carrying their products if it doesn't bother making your business worthwhile.
This really irritates me - Macmillan's position is being misquoted all the time.
Amazon wanted all books to be $9.99. Macmillan wanted to be able to set the price depending on what they thought the market would support. Some would be $15, but others would be as low as $5 or 6. Not all prices would go up.
I have no problem paying a measly $15.00 for an eBook. The arguments make about as much sense and expecting a Picasso for the price of canvas and paint. The value is the content, not the delivery method. I can't wait to get an iPad.
No one seems to complain about spending an equal amount for a movie or other entertainment. Why all the complaining? If the book is too expensive for you then don't buy it---go to the library and borrow it instead.
Exactly. I'd go one step further. I can make a painting that's larger than a Picasso and uses lots more canvas and ink so it's more expensive to produce. I guess all these people think I should charge MORE than a Picasso since mine cost more, right?
So you are happy that the prices are higher?
They're not. SOME Prices are higher and some are lower. Why is it that you constantly insist on commenting on things without having even the basic facts right?
Apple has become a major digital distributor.
Publishing is a whole other animal.
And publishing is just what Amazon wishes to do. To get their new terms of only 30% cut going to Amazon, they get a license to publish for the Kindle platform along with other stipulations in their favor. I believe that is also a major sticking point with the traditional publishers.
And I doubt that Amazon will be offering any of the usual help to authors that publishers give. Some artists may not need any guidance and help producing their work, but even big names in every field find great value that type of relationship.
With costs and demand as they are, ebooks are like a "limited edition" of a book. And publishers don't have the funds to put up with those costs on each book just to help increase the market.
Generally, the price of a product trends towards its marginal cost of production, unless I misunderstand some sort of basic of economics 101.
The marginal cost of an eBook approaches zero.
What you describe is not marginal costs, but instead sunk costs: "those costs on each book".
Perhaps you are saying that publishers are subsidizing physical books with eBooks? It is difficult for me to determine.
Exactly. I'd go one step further. I can make a painting that's larger than a Picasso and uses lots more canvas and ink so it's more expensive to produce. I guess all these people think I should charge MORE than a Picasso since mine cost more, right?
Since when do material costs determine market price? I was under the impression that supply and demand set market prices.
Generally, the price of a product trends towards its marginal cost of production, unless I misunderstand some sort of basic of economics 101.
The marginal cost of an eBook approaches zero.
What you describe is not marginal costs, but instead sunk costs: "those costs on each book".
Perhaps you are saying that publishers are subsidizing physical books with eBooks? It is difficult for me to determine.
The marginal cost of an eBook approaches zero only when the quantity sold is high enough.
The cost to make an eBook "edition" is separate from the costs for a physical copy. So they aren't trying to subsidize the physical books. If anything, they would have to subsidize the eBooks because they aren't making enough money on them yet for the cost of making an electronic edition.
The marginal cost of an eBook approaches zero only when the quantity sold is high enough.
Please look up the phrase "marginal cost", so that we might discuss the same concept, instead of two different things.
The cost to make an eBook "edition" is separate from the costs for a physical copy.
Agree. But that is not what is meant by the term marginal cost.